RULE 10

Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

Section 2. Amendments as a matter of right. A party may amend his pleading once as
a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a
reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served. (2a)

Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. Except as provided in the next preceding

section, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave
may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay.
Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this section shall be made upon motion
filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard. (3a)

Rule 14 (Sections 6, 7, 11 & 20)

RULE 14
Summons
Section 6. Service in person on defendant. Whenever practicable, the summons shall
be served by handling a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to
receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. (7a)

Section 7. Substituted service. If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be
served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be
effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at
defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge
thereof. (8a)

Section 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. When the defendant is a
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a
juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general
manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. (13a)

Section 20. Voluntary appearance. The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action
shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other
grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be
deemed a voluntary appearance. (23a)

2. Rules 15 to 24
3. Cases:
a) Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-Gran et al,
G. R. No. 197380 Oct.8, 2014
Concentrate on the topic of failure to cause an action
Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are distinct grounds to dismiss
a particularaction. The former refers to the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading,
while the latter to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action. Dismissal for failure
to state a cause of action may be raised at the earliest stages of the proceedings through
a motion to dismiss under Rule16 of the Rules of Court, while dismissal for lack of cause of
action may be raised any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis
of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff.26 In Macaslang v.
Zamora,27 the Court, citing the commentary of Justice Florenz D. Regalado, explained:
Justice Regalado, a recognized commentator on remedial law, has explained the
distinction:
x x x What is contemplated, therefore, is a failure to statea cause of action which is
provided in Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16. This is a matter of insufficiency of the pleading. Sec. 5 of
Rule 10, which was also included as the last mode for raising the issue to the court, refers
to the situation where the evidence does not provea cause of action. This is, therefore, a
matter of insufficiency of evidence. Failure to state a cause of action is different from
failure to prove a cause of action. The remedy in the first is to move for dismissal of the
pleading, whilethe remedy in the second is to demur to the evidence, hence reference to
Sec. 5 of Rule 10 has been eliminated in this section. The procedure would consequently
be to require the pleading to state a cause of action, by timely objection to its deficiency;
or, at the trial, to file a demurrer to evidence, if such motion is warranted.28

In the case at bar, both the RTC and the CA were one in dismissing petitioners Amended
Complaint, but varied on the grounds thereof that is, the RTC held that there was failure
tostate a cause of action while the CA ruled that there was insufficiency of factual basis.

At once, it is apparent that the CA based its dismissal on an incorrect ground. From the
preceding discussion, it is clear that "insufficiency of factual basis" is not a ground for a
motion to dismiss. Rather, it is a ground which becomes available only after the questions
of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented
by the plaintiff. The procedural recourse to raise such ground is a demurrer to evidence
taken only after the plaintiffs presentation of evidence. This parameter is clear under Rule
33 of the Rules of Court: RULE 33

b) FELS Energy Inc. v. Province of Batangas

G. R. No. 168557 Feb 16, 2007
Substantial Identities of Parties
Fels Energy, Inc. v. The Province of Batangas and the Office of the Provincial Assessor of
Batangas, G.R. No. 168557, 16 February 2007
FACTS
NPC entered into a lease contract with Polar Energy, Inc. (POLAR) over diesel engine power
barges moored at Balayan Bay in Calaca, Batangas. The contract contained a provision
that POLAR may be or become subject to real estate taxes and assessments, rates and
other charges in respect of the power barges.Subsequently, POLAR assigned its rights
under the Agreement to Fels Energy, Inc. (FELS). Later, FELS received an assessment of
real property taxes on the power barges from Provincial Assessor, that the owner or person
having legal interest may appeal the matter within 60 days from receipt to the Board of
Assessment Appeals of the province. FELS referred the matter to NPC, which sought
reconsideration of the Provincial Assessors decision to assess real property taxes on the
power barges. However, the motion was denied and the Provincial Assessor advised NPC
to pay the assessment. After sixty (60) days from receipt of assessment from, the NPC
filed a petition with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA) for the setting aside of
the assessment and the declaration of the barges as non-taxable items; it also prayed that
should LBAA find the barges to be taxable, the Provincial Assessor be directed to make the
necessary corrections.

This is in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata which has the following elements:
(1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment must be on the merits; and (4) there
must be between the first and the second actions, identity of parties, subject matter and
causes of action. The application of the doctrine of res judicata does not require absolute
identity of parties but merely substantial identity of parties. There is substantial identity of
parties when there is community of interest or privity of interest between a party in the
first and a party in the second case even if the first case did not implead the latter.

c) Alma Jose v. Javellana

G. R, No. 158239 Jan 25, 2012
Denial of a Motion for Consideration
PRISCILLA ALMA JOSE vs. RAMON C. JAVELLANA, ET AL.G.R. No. 158239January 25, 2012
Facts:
Margarita Marquez Alma Jose (Margarita) sold for consideration of P160,000.00
torespondent Ramon Javellana by deed of conditional sale two parcels of land with areas
of3,675 and 20,936 square meters located in Barangay Mallis, Guiguinto, Bulacan. They
agreedthat Javellana would pay P80,000.00 upon the execution of the deed and the
balance ofP80,000.00 upon the registration of the parcels of land under the Torrens
System (theregistration being undertaken by Margarita within a reasonable period of
time); and that shouldMargarita become incapacitated, her son and attorney-in-fact,
Juvenal M. Alma Jose(Juvenal), and her daughter, petitioner Priscilla M. Alma Jose, would
receive the payment ofthe balance and proceed with the application for registration.After
Margarita died and with Juvenal having predeceased Margarita withoutissue, the vendors
undertaking fell on the shoulders of Priscilla, being Margaritas solesurviving heir.
However, Priscilla did not comply with the undertaking to cause the registrationof the
properties under the Torrens System, and, instead, began to improve the properties
bydumping filling materials therein with the intention of converting the parcels of land into
aresidential or industrial subdivision. Faced with Priscillas refusal to comply,
Javellanacommenced an action for specific performance, injunction, and damages against
her in theRegional Trial Court in Malolos, Bulacan (RTC). Javellana prayed for the issuance
of atemporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction to restrain Priscilla from
dumpingfilling materials in the parcels of land; and that Priscilla be ordered to institute
registrationproceedings and then to execute a final deed of sale in his favor. Priscilla filed a
motion todismiss, stating that the complaint was already barred by prescription; and that
the complaintdid not state a cause of action.The RTC initially denied Priscillas motion to
dismiss. However, upon her motionfor reconsideration, the RTC reversed itself and granted
the motion to dismiss.Javellana moved for reconsideration. The RTC denied the motion
forreconsideration for lack of any reason to disturb its order. Accordingly, Javellana filed a
noticeof appeal. Priscilla countered that the RTC order was not appealable; that the appeal
was notperfected on time; and that Javellana was guilty of forum shopping. It appears that
pending theappeal, Javellana also filed a petition for certiorari in the CA to assail the June
24, 1999 andJune 21, 2000 orders dismissing his complaint. The CA dismissed the petition
for certiorari.As to the notice on appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision
andremanded the records to the RTC "for further proceedings in accordance with law." The
CAdenied the motion for reconsideration filed by Priscilla.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTCs decision denying of the motion for reconsideration of theorder of
dismissal a final order and appealable;
Held:
Yes.First of all, the denial of Javellanas motion for reconsideration left nothing more tobe
done by the RTC because it confirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 79-M-97. It wasclearly
a final order, not an interlocutory one. The distinction between a final order and
aninterlocutory order is well known. The first disposes of the subject matter in its entirety
orterminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing more to be done except
toenforce by execution what the court has determined, but the latter does not
completelydispose of the case but leaves something else to be decided upon. An
interlocutory orderdeals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be
held and the judgmentrendered. The test to ascertain whether or not an order or a
judgment is interlocutory or finalis: does the order or judgment leave something to be
done in the trial court with respect to themerits of the case? If it does, the order or
judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.And, secondly, whether an order is final or
interlocutory determines whetherappeal is the correct remedy or not. A final order is
appealable, to accord with the final judgment rule enunciated in Section 1, Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court to the effect that "appeal

4. Read Administrative Matter No. 03-1-09-SC July 13, 2004

5. Memorize : Rule 16 (Section 1)
Motion to Dismiss
Section 1. Grounds. Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint
or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following
grounds:

(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause;
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of
limitations;
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid,
waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
(i) That the claim on which the action is founded is enforceable under the provisions
of the statute of frauds; and
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with. (1a)

Rule 17 (Sections 1, 2, & 3)

Dismissal of Actions
Section 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. A complaint may be dismissed by the
plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a
motion for summary judgment. Upon such notice being filed, the court shall issue an order
confirming the dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without
prejudice, except that a notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a
plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the
same claim. (1a)
Section 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. Except as provided in the preceding
section, a complaint shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon approval of
the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim
has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiffs motion for
dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. The dismissal shall be without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action
unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion he manifests his preference to
have his counterclaim resolved in the same action. Unless otherwise specified in the order,
a dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice. A class suit shall not be
dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court. (2a)
Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff
fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or
to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules
or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant
or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have
the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. (3a)

Discussions to start on the topic of Responsive Pleadings