Civil Procedure | Atty.

Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020

From Classroom and Online Discussions
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues
another for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
RULE 1 – General Provisions
A civil action may either be ordinary or special.
Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil
actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed
Section 1. for a special civil action.
Title of the Rules. — These Rules shall be known and cited (b) A criminal action is one by which the State
as the Rules of Court. prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law.
The topic would be focused more on the execution of the A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
ordinary civil actions. establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.

Section 2. The most important provision in the Rule I according to Atty.

because this rule prescribe the procedures with regards to
In What Courts Applicable. — These Rules shall apply in all
ordinary actions or all actions, civil, criminal, and special
the courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme
proceedings. It states that the Rules of Court are not only
Court.
applicable to Civil Actions but likewise to criminal actions and
special proceedings.
It is the Supreme Court which promulgated the Rules of Court
pursuant to its rule-making power, then it is likewise within
TN: In paragraph b, a criminal action is defined as one by
its power to except the applications of some of the provisions
which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission
in the Rules of Court such as Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
punishable by law. Civil action, on the other hand, is defined
as one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
Example: protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
Rule 70
Rule about unlawful detainer and forcible entry. Take note Classification of Civil Actions
that Rule 70 does not apply to any and of courts, the same (Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court)
are only applied to first level courts. In other words, it does
not apply to the RTC even the CA, because by provision
thereof, the same are only applicable to the first level courts. (1) Ordinary civil actions
(2) Special Civil Actions
Example:
Revised Summary Procedure Example: Action for collection of some of money whereby
Only applicable on the first level courts. Cognizable by the there are two contending parties. One, seeks to enforce his
first level courts and not by the Regional Trial Court. rights against another person, the defendant.

So, indeed there are provisions in the Rules of Court which Q: But what are the actions referred to as special civil
are not applicable to all courts, but rather applicable to some actions?
particular courts. A: These are actions enumerated under Rule 62 - 71 of your
Rules of Court. Rule 62 - deals with interpleader, the one we
discussed in passing regarding the bank there was an account
TN: That in Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court there are cases in
in which (garap) to prosper, that was an interpleader.
which the Rules of Court would be wanting in application,
except that the provisions of the Rules of Court would apply
in a rather suppletory character. Rule 63 - petition for declaratory relief. The one that was
pivotal in many decisions, for example, the case of Sabitsana
an action to quiet the title, but according to the Supreme
So, Section 4 should be read in conjunction with the Sec. 2
Court, it was an action for declaratory relief and is cognizable
with respect to some situations in which the Rules of Court
by the RTC.
would be wanting in application.

Rule 64 - deals with the review proceeding about the decision

Section 3. or orders issued by the COMELEC and Commission on Audit.
Cases Governed. — These Rules shall govern the procedure
to be observed in actions, civil or criminal, and special Rule 65 - talks about petition for certiorari, prohibition, and
proceedings. mandamus.

Rule 66 - is the Calida remedy, the quo warranto.

1 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions

Other classifications
Rule 67 - about expropriation proceedings, eminent domain. Nature of the civil action
(1) ordinary civil action
Rule 68 - foreclosure of a mortgage (2) special civil action

Rule 69 - talks about partition As regards to Object, cause or foundation

(1) real action
Rule 70 - forcible entry and unlawful detainer (2) personal action
(3) combination of both or mixed
Rule 71 - about contempt
Real Actions - actions mentioned under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129
These are civil actions as enumerated the rules. as amended by RA 7691and Sec. 19(2) of the same rule which
comprises about title to, possession, of real property or any
But I’d like to emphasize as provided for under Sec. 3 Rule I interest therein.
of the Rules of Court, both their actions are to be governed
by the rules on ordinary civil actions. But with the caveat with Personal actions - not falling within the purview of such
the proviso that where specific rules are prescribed for a definition of what real actions are or founded rather on a
particular civil action, then that civil actions shall be governed contract, expressed or implied, or it may involve recovery of
mainly by such specific rules. But if such specific rules personal property, movables, or even actions founded on
prescribed for special civil action somehow are insufficient or quasi-delict. So, if you want to file a case of collection of
silent then in that situation, we may apply the rules governing money that is based on contract of loan then that is within
ordinary actions. So both ordinary and special civil actions are the purview of personal actions.
governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions except where
there are specific rules that are prescribed for a particular But with regards real actions, I need you to remember the
civil action. seemingly conflicting rulings in the case of Concha, Sebe on
one hand vis a vis the ruling in the case of Sabitsana. SC stated
in the case of Concha and Sebe, that even when action is
Amberti vs. CA
characterized as an action for quieting of title but at the same
195 SCRA 659
time the same enforced for recovery of or acquisition of real
The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was barred property then that is considered to be a real action. Such that
questioning the ruling of an inferior court and the jurisdiction on that case would have to be determined on the
respondent judge was given a chance to file its comment assessed value of property, such that when the assessed
or opposition for the petition for certiorari but the value of property does not exceed P20,000 or P50,000 in the
petitioner withdrew its petition. It was granted, but the case of Metro Manila then the action is cognizable by the first
petitioners had a change of heart such that he refiled the level courts, beyond such jurisdictional value, the jurisdiction
petition for certiorari. would be in the RTC. So there is a real action even if there is
incorporate therein for quieting of title. But in the case of
Sabitsana, as we can recall, the SC has a different ruling, it
Issue: WON petition for certiorari could be after the same
said that an action for quieting of title partakes in the nature
had already been withdrawn and after such withdrawal
of an action for declaratory relief hence incapable of
has been approved by the higher court.
pecuniary estimation, not therefore a real action per se or it
is rather a personal action, hence, jurisdiction is vested with
If you will examine Rule 65 for the petition for certiorari, the RTC regardless of the assessed value of the real property.
there is nothing in there which provides for that situation
where there is withdrawal for a petition for certiorari. SC
Mixed action - a combination of real actions and personal
had a hard time resolving the case because of the
actions like actions for recovery of property with prayer for
insufficiency of such part so the SC considering that there
damages or probably action for unlawful detainer with
is nothing under rule 65 which governs such situation
payment of rentals. So, in both cases, an action involving
reverted to the rules governing ordinary civil action and
action of real property and personal action.
found a provision which we could say could be applied by
analogy and that is the provision under Rule 50 in which it
provides that where there is a notice of appeal and the Q: Why is it important to differentiate real action from
same is withdrawn and approved then the decision personal action?
impugned will be considered as final and executory. So (1) to determine which would have jurisdiction over the case.
applying the provision of the Rule 50, the SC ruled that
given the withdrawal of the petition for certiorari and the
Example:
approval of such withdrawal then petitioner could not
anymore refile the case. If in the case of Sabitsana, if the SC agreed that the action is
a real action then if the value of the property does not exceed

2 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
P20,000, the court of jurisdiction would be the MTC, but since that is considered as a real action. Based on my personal
according to the court, it not a personal action per se rather observation though I am not 100% accurate that where the
it is incapable of pecuniary estimation, it is a personal action. acquisition or the recovery of real property proceeds from
Hence, has jurisdiction is with the RTC. and is dependent on enforcement or rescission of a pre-
existing contract, then, in all likelihood, the action is
(2) pivotal in determining the venue of the action considered as one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation
and the same is not to be characterized as a real action per
se. Well that is just my personal observation.
Example:
Gravador obtained a loan of money from me in the amount
TN: Also that in the case of Barrido, the SC an action for
of P50,000 and a mortgage was instituted of his parcel of land
foreclosure a mortgage and action for partition is a real
in Bohol. Assuming that Gravador is a resident on Cebu City, action. But in the same case of Barrido vs. Ronato, it was ruled
on the other hand I am a resident of Leyte. Gravador somehow that for the annulment of foreclosure sale is now
instituted a petition while I am the defendant in a foreclosure considered to be a personal action. So, if we go back to the
of mortgage. Gravador said that it is a real action. Supposed previous situation where I foreclose the property of
that the value of the property is P50,000. Gravador, that action is a real action. But if after the
foreclosure sale, Gravador wants to annul that foreclosure
Q: Which court would have jurisdiction over that action for sale, then, that action is a personal action.
foreclosure of mortgage?
A: It is RTC, but which RTC? Is it RTC in Cebu where Gravador These cases illustrate the importance of determining
resides, or RTC in Leyte where I reside, or RTC in Bohol where whether the action is a real or a personal action, otherwise,
the property is located? It is in Bohol. matsugi inyong kaso.

TN, we determined the action to be a real action and such, As regards to Objects of the Civil Action
venue is governed by Sec. 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court,
(1) Action in personam
providing that venue of real actions would be the court of the
place where the property subject of the complaint is located. (2) Action in rem
Otherwise, if the action is determined to be a personal action, (3) Actions quasi in rem
then, the venue would be the appropriate court in the place
of residence of the plaintiff or the residence of the defendant,
at the election or option of the plaintiff. If we say that the Grey Alba vs. Dela Cruz
foreclosure is a real action, then the venue would be Bohol, Distinguished action in personam and action in rem
if personal action, venue would be at the option of the
plaintiff, either to file the action in Leyte or in Cebu where Action in personam - if the technical object of the suit is to
Gravador resides. establish a claim against some particular person, with a
judgment which generally, in theory at least, binds his
So, when you handle a case somebody and an action involves body, or to bar some individual claim or objection, so that
a parcel of land, determine first if that action i a real action or only certain persons are entitled to be heard in defense,
personal action. Then you will determine which court has the action is in personam.
jurisdiction over the action, then, determine which is the
venue. Action in rem - If, on the other hand, the object is to bar
indifferently all who might be minded to make an
TN: also the conflicting ruling in Russel vs. Vestil, Spouses objection of any sort against the right sought to be
Saraza on the other hand, the case also of De Leon, and then established, and if anyone in the world has a right to be
the other case of Ruiz. Take note again that in the cases of heard on the strength of alleging facts which, if true, show
Saraza, Russel, then Genesis, and De Leon, SC said that even an inconsistent interest, the proceeding is in rem.
where the action involved the action for recovery of property
but the action is one for specific performance and/of
rescission of contracts or documents, hence, that action is Ching vs. CA
incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence, not a real action SC gave a simplified definition of what an action in
per se, more or less, it is considered to be a personal action. personam is and what an action in rem is.

But in the case of Ruiz, the SC said, however, that even if the Action in personam - Where action is directed against
action is one for specific performance considering that the specific persons and seek personal judgments.
ultimate objective thereof is a recovery of a parcel of land
then that is a real action. The lawyers somehow could not
Action in rem - directed against the thing or property or
agree whether the action is a real action or incapable of
status of a person and seek judgments with respect
pecuniary estimation. You may want to recall somehow in the
thereto as against the whole world.
case of Russel that the test is to identify the objective of the
parties, if that is for recovery of a real property then it is one
3 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Simply put that when the case is an action in personam, that the fact that a real actions sometimes may be a personal or
is only binding as against the parties as well as their an action in personam.
respective successors in interest. While action in rem, that is
an action practically binding against the whole world and not Example:
necessarily binding on the parties as involved.
A case of publiciana against Gravador, seeking to recover
from me, ownership, possession, of real property. What kind
Example: of action is that? Real or personal? Real action because it
In personam - niutang si Gravador, panggasolina sa iyang big involves recovery of an parcel of land, it involves possession,
bike, wa kabayad, file kog kaso against Gravador, that binding interest over a parcel of land. But, is that an action in rem or
is only binding against Gravador or his successors in interest an action in personam? It is an action in personam, because
and not with regards to Torregosa because he is not a party any judgment therein would only bind Gravador and his
to the case, he is alien to the action. successors in interest. The judgment therein would not
necessarily bind Randi or Atty. Largo, because they are not
Action in rem - Gravador would file an action seeking to parties to the case. So, that is an example where an action is
declare his marriage with Maria Ozawa a file of nullity under in reality a real action but at the same time an action in
Article 36 grounded on the case of Chi ming tsoi, si Gravador personam.
is not performing, is now guilty of possessing not a deadly
weapon, but a dead weapon. The main parties of the action But there are also actions which are actions in rem. For
are Gravador and Ozawa, but the effect of the decision example, you have a property, a parcel of land, then, you
therein would be binding against the whole world, because applied for registration, of course that is a real action. But is
that means that he can practically marry a person. So he is that an action in personam? The action is rather an action in
now single, alienable and disposable, because that incapable rem because once your action is granted then that is a notice
of performing may be selective, you cannot perform with to the whole world that your property covered now by an
your partner, but who knows you can perform with another OCT is yours and yours to the exclusion of others.
person.
Nindot lagi ni i-apil sa exam nato, samot kalibog.
Action quasi in rem - It is an action against a specific person,
but the objective of which is to subject his property to a Personal action as I said should not be equated with an action
burden obligation or a lien thereby burdening it out. The in personam, because there are personal actions which are
action is directed against a particular person, but the primary also considered as actions in rem.
purpose of which is to subject his property to a burden or
obligation.
Example:
Nullification of marriage filed by Gravador. It is a personal
Example:
action, of course because it does not involve a property but
Action for foreclosure of real mortgage. In that action, I the effect of which is binding against the whole world, hence,
implead Gravador as the defendant therein, but my objective can also be characterized as an action in rem.
really is to run after his property. Action also where there is
an attachment that is directed against a specific person, but
basically the plaintiff is running after the property of the There are also personal actions which partakes the nature of
defendant. an action in personam, katong collect suits. Personal because
it does not involve real property but the effect is only against
the parties to the action.
Q: What is the importance of determining whether the action
is action in personam or quasi in rem?
So, when we say whether the action is a real action or
A: To determine the jurisdiction of the court over the person
personal action, we ought to determine the kind of action on
of the defendant over the subject matter therein. As a
the basis of the foundation or the property involved. But
general rule, if an action is one in personam it requires
when we determine whether the action is an action in
generally, personal summons upon the defendant and upon
personam or in rem, we will determine it on the basis of, on
under exceptional circumstances, substituted service. But
the parties point on the binding effect of the judgment. If the
where the action is characterized as one as in rem or quasi in
judgment, merely binds the parties, there is a previous
rem then for as long as the court acquires jurisdiction over
interest in them, then that is an action in personam. If the
the res or the subject involved in the controversy, then that
action practically binds the whole world, then, that is
may sometimes substitute jurisdiction over the person of the
undoubtedly an action in rem.
defendant. So, this is about jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.
The classification would differ on which parties point we
would be looking at. Foundation gani, real or personal.
But it should be emphasized that real actions should not be
Binding effect gani then you can determine the action as an
equated with actions in rem. Similarly, personal actions
in personam or in rem.
should not also be equated with actions in personam. That
real actions is different with actions in rem is accentuated by

4 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
As regards to Place or institution Example of Special Proceeding: A proceeding for an adoption
(1) local action of a minor child.
(2) transitory
When we speak of an ordinary action, it is an action where
Local action - An action which can only be filed in a particular the primary purpose of which is to enforce or protect a right
place. or for the prevention or redress of a wrong. Whereas, when
we speak of special proceedings, the primary purpose of
which is to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact like
TN: that real actions are considered to be local actions the status of the child. In that context, we can differentiate
because you have to file the action where the property of the ordinary civil action and special proceedings on the basis of
subject matter is located. their purpose or purposes.

Transitory action- Example: Personal action because it can be Special, although there may be a respondent therein but that
filed either at the residence of the plaintiff at the residence respondent is almost always impleaded as a nominal
of the defendant at the option or election of the plaintiff. defendant. Like a proceeding for attachment, in the petition
Such that if the defendant transfers residence then the venue you will (inaudible) the Philippine Statistics Authority, the
also would vary. Office of the Regional Civil Registrar as respondents in the
action but they are not actually a substantial parties, in that
Distinction between ordinary civil action vs special civil action they are mainly impleaded therein as a nominal respondents.

Ordinary, commenced by filing of the appropriate complaint.

Ordinary Civil Special Civil Special, commenced by filing of a pleading denominated as
Action Action petition.
Definition It is an action The primary
where the primary purpose of Ordinary, appeal is filed within 15 days
purpose of which which is to Special, period to appeal is 30 days.
is to enforce or establish a
protect a right or status, a right, or
Is that clear? Pasagdii nalang na, ang crucial gud ani kay ang
for the prevention a particular fact.
Personam, in rem, real actions, personal actions.
or redress of a
wrong.

Collection of sum A proceeding for Section 4.

Example
of money, or that an adoption of a In What Cases Not Applicable. — These Rules shall not
action that is minor child. apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral,
outside of the naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases
special civil action. not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a
suppletory character and whenever practicable and
Parties There are two There may be a convenient.
parties. respondent
therein but that
As regards to Section 4, we already discussed that in tandem
respondent is
with Section 2 where it is provided therein that the Rules of
almost always
Court would be wanting in application with regards to
impleaded as a
election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization,
nominal
among others. Although, Rules of Court may be applied by
defendant.
analogy for (garap) manner, whenever practicable and
Commencement Commenced by Commenced by convenient. Hence, we already discussed this in the past, that
filing of the filing of a even it is the SC which would act as the judge involving
appropriate pleading contests involving the President, Vice-President, the
complaint. denominated as disposition of any such case would be governed by a different
petition. set of Rules, not necessarily under the provisions of the Rules
of Court.
Period of Appeal Appeal is filed Period to appeal
within 15 days is 30 days
Section 5.
Commencement of Action. — A civil action is commenced
Ordinary civil action – Example: collection of sum of money,
by the filing of the original complaint in court. If an
or that action that is outside of the special civil action.
additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the
Although both are governed by same rules except where
action is commenced with regard to him on the date of the
there are specific rules.
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the

5 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the
Section 6.
court.
Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally construed in
order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy
When you speak of the commencement of action, it does not and inexpensive disposition of every action and
only refer to the actual filing of the complaint, in that, among proceeding.
other things it only requires the payment of the prescribed
filing fee. Failing on that rather, your action is not deemed
filed on the day that you filed the complaint at the court, In this context you may want to recall the case of Neypes,
unless and until you pay the appropriate filing fee. katong 15 day period and of course the famous case of Alonzo
vs. Villamor then the case of Regulus, katong perceived effect
in the notarization in the verification portion of the
In the context, you may want to recall the case of complaint, then the case of Sumbilla, kato bang B.P. 22 pildi,
Manchester, ruling of which is modified by the case if Sun ni file MR, is governed by the rules of summary procedure
Insurance, further modified by the case if Tacay, then this while MR is prohibited then he went to the RTC certiorari,
case of Lacson, a lawyer wanting to collect his Attorney’s fees, from certiorari he went to CA on petition for review, it should
then the case of Filipinas Shell where the SC said that there have been ordinary appeal only. So twice in the row, the
is no such thing as file and now pay later. lawyer of Sumbilla committed a gross procedural plunder or
plunders, but somehow the SC relaxed the rules.
Then, we have the case of Suson, the case is filed in Leyte, it
was dismissed for wrong venue, it was refiled in Cebu City and So, there was a liberal application of the rules on the name of
SC said okay na ako na imong filing fee, you need to file a new. substantial justice. But I said before, it should only be the
But the ruling in Gonzaga was quite different, because it was exception. General rule is still that we should abide by the
an intra-corporate case, it was filed in a regular court when it rules of court, do not rely that there are decisions where the
should have been in a special court. SC said that well SC would somehow relax the rules, because the suspension
considering that it was filed in the same station, then the SC of the rules or the suspension of the applicability thereof
said, you just have to credit what has been paid for the would only be had in the most exceptional circumstances of
execution of the action. situation. There is no guarantee that the same would be
granted by the SC.
Then, the case of De Leon, where SC said that basis for the
computation of the docket fee would be the nature of the
action, if that is one that is incapable of pecuniary estimation
then, only around P400 because but now it was around RULE 2 – Cause of Action
P1000. Whereas if there is a real (?)(inaudible), then the
docket fee would be computed on the basis of the assessed
value of the property. So, these cases must be read in Section 1.
conjunction of Section 5 of Rule I.
Ordinary civil actions, basis of. — Every ordinary civil action
must be based on a cause of action.
But I’d like to emphasize also that Section 5 provides in
essence that where an additional defendant is impleaded in
Section 2.
the action, the action as regards the newly impleaded
defendant is deemed commenced on the day of the filing of Cause of action, defined. — A cause of action is the act or
the later pleading regardless or irrespective of whether the omission by which a party violates a right of another.
motion on its submission is denied by the court. This is
important specially if the action is about to prescribe. Let’s discuss about cause of action. As you can recall in you
Political Law, when you discussed political review, you
Example: learned that before the courts can exercise its judicial review
I filed a case against Gravador and I filed it exactly on the day power, there has to be first the concurrence of 4
that it is about to prescribe, last day period. Subsequently, or requirements. One of which is the existence of actual case or
somehow next week, I’d be filing a supplemental pleading
controversy. In an ordinary civil action, when you file a case,
perhaps admin complaint seeking to implead as additional
it is also required that such case much be based on a cause of
defendant in the action, Randi. If that is the case or the action
is due to expire today then Randi could now on his part put action. This is the rule provided under the provision of Sec. 1,
up the defense of prescription. Gravador cannot put up the Rule 2 providing that “every ordinary civil action must be
defense, but insofar as Randi is concerned that action is based on a case of action”. So, you cannot go to court and ask
commenced insofar as in the day of the filing of a subsequent for legal advisory opinion and you cannot likewise go to court
or later pleading. and present a hypothetical case because there has to be an
actual case or controversy and there has to be a legal claim
or conflict of interest.

6 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Q: What is a cause of action? Another example according to Gravador is kini kunong beauty
It is an act or omission by which a person violates the right of pageants. Beauty pageant ang title nya ikaw nga dili physically
another. This is the provision under Sec. 2, Rule 2. It is an act gifted mag-apil apil sad ka. Okay lang brains na pero dili man
which denotes of something positive as contrary to omission na battle of the brains. If you got eliminated, well there is
by which nothing is done. If you, for example, trespass the probably damage but there is no injury. After all if you got
property of another then that is a positive act that gives rise eliminated, that will not result nga mosamot ka kabati sa
to a cause of action. nawng. Exagg na nga example but that best illustrates
damage but no injury at all. That is why I am for the
proposition that the 4th element must be added.
Q: But what is your example of an omission which gives rise
to a cause of action?
Non-payment of obligation, if there is a loan obligation and Example 1:
the debtor does not pay then there is inaction on his part A perfect example where there is conflux of all the 4 elements
which is a non-compliance of his contractual undertaking is when Gravador obtains a loan from me, and the obligation
then that is an omission that gives rise to cause of action. already matured but Gravador despite my verbal and written
Here, he does not do anything but in the process, he already demands, he did not pay. On this situation there is already
violates the rights of another. cause of action because as a creditor, I have the right to be
A good example of that is the case of Gravador. He files a case paid. As the debtor, Gravador has the obligation to pay what
for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Chi Ming Tsoi. he owes me. And by not paying his debt, he thereby violates
He was not performing and he could no longer perform then my right and of course, it will result to my pecuniary damage.
that is an omission which gives rise to a cause of action. In this instance, there is concurrence of all elements of cause
of action. And where on these elements is ostensibly missing,
then you cannot claim that you already have a cause of
Cause of action, therefore, may arise from the doing of an act action.
or not doing anything which somehow amounts to the
violation of the rights of another person. If that is the
definition of cause of action, then it now leads us to the Example 2:
elements of cause of action Gravador obtained a loan but the obligation has not yet
matured. Well, I have the right to be paid and Gravador has
the obligation to pay. But is there a violation of my right when
Element of Cause of Action the obligation has not yet matured? The answer is no. That is
1. There should be a legal right pertaining to the plaintiff; why even if I already have a right and Gravador already has
2. There is a correlative obligation on the part of the the obligation, it does not give rise to a cause of action yet
defendant; because are two elements missing- the 3rd and 4th elements.
3. A violation of the plaintiff’s right by the defendant; and
4. There should be damage suffered by the plaintiff.
Lack of Cause of Action v. Failure to State Cause of
The 4th element was added by most authors. It was added
Action
because there is a notion as damage without injury or Failure to State Cause of Lack of Cause of Action
damnum absque injuria. When there is damage although Action
without injury then according to the authors, and I concur Proceeds from the Refers to the insufficiency
with the observation, that there is a violation of one’s right insufficiency of the of the factual basis for the
allegations in the complaint action
but there is no cause of action. Because after all, it falls under
or pleading
the principle of damnum absque injuria.
A ground to file a motion to May bring about the
dismiss, where warranted, dismissal of the complaint
Q: What is your example of damage but there is no injury at which is to be invoked only after the plaintiff shall
all? before defendant files his have presented his
answer evidence
Police Power. If there is a road closed by the state in exercise
of its police power then the neighboring establishments
cannot complain that somehow their profit was diminished. Situation:
Here, there is a damages but it does not amount to any injury There is a loan obligation where Gravador owes me
because the state is simply exercising its inherent power that something and he did not pay and his obligation was already
is police power. due. Same with Ex. 1, all the elements of cause of action are
there. And then I hired Dean Torregosa as a lawyer to file a

7 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
complaint against Gravador. But by sheer inadvertence, in Example:
drafting the complaint, Torregosa somehow failed to
Let’s go back to the example where Torregosa improperly
mention that the obligation has already matured. He stated
drafted the complaint failing to state therein that the
therein that Gravador is the debtor and I am the creditor. He
obligation has already matured. When that happens,
also stated that there was a loan of money but he failed to Gravador, being the defendant in the action, may file a
state therein that the obligation has already matured. Motion to Dismiss even before filing his answer. Hence,
even before trial, he can seek the dismissal of the
complaint on the ground that there is a failure to state a
Q: How do you characterize that situation? Does that
cause of action. Once the court finds credence to that
present lack of cause of action? submission, the case will be dismissed even without the
It is only failure to state cause of action. Because in truth and defendant filing his answer and even without the plaintiff
in fact, all the elements of cause of action are there, only that presenting his evidence. But where all the elements of
there was a mistake or imperfection in drafting the cause of action are stated in the complaint but when in
truth and in fact, the obligation has truly and fully been
complaint. There was imperfection and insufficiency of
paid, the dismissal of the case will not be pursuant to a
allegations in the complaint. Motion to Dismiss in that the plaintiff will still present
evidence but if in the course of the trial and in the course
Example 3: of the cross-examination, I was forced to admit that
indeed obligation has been paid, then that gives rise to the
But if, for example, Gravador obtained a loan of money from filing of Demurrer to Evidence. Once the plaintiff files his
me and he already paid the obligation. But years after the evidence in court but the defendant thinks the evidence
maturity of the obligation, I demanded payment from him could not warrant furtherance of the case, then the case
hoping he did not keep the receipt. But in the course of the would be dismissed. So, if the ground therefore is failure
trial and examination, I was forced to admit, upon being to state cause of action then that is a ground for filing a
Motion to Dismiss. If that MTD is granted, then the case is
confronted, that indeed the obligation has already been paid.
dismissed even without the defendant filing his answer to
And so the action was dismissed. the complaint. But it can be remedied actually as by re-
filing the case. All you have to do if you are the plaintiff is
Q: How do you characterize this situation? to refile the case and correct your mistake. But lack of
cause of action is not a ground for filing a MTD in that it is
A: It is lack of cause of action because some elements are only a ground in filing a Demurrer to Evidence. And under
wanting. I no longer have any right whatsoever to demand the rules, DTE may only be filed after the plaintiff shall
payment from Gravador because in truth and fact, the have presented and rested his case. But if there is
obligation has already been extinguished. Diba in your dismissal because of lack of cause of action, this may give
ObliCon, payment extinguishes obligation. In this situation, rise to res judicata. Meaning to say, the case may no longer
there is clearly lack of cause of action. It is stated that failure re-filed.
to state cause of action proceeds from the insufficiency of the *Atty. nichika about sa ubang lawyers nga mofile ug MTD nya
allegations in the complaint or pleading whereas lack of cause ang ground kay lack of cause of action which is inaccurate
action refers to the insufficiency or factual basis for the daw. He also admitted nga guilty sila ana. Ila ihide nga
action. instead lack of cause of action ang ground but in the
complaint they will put failure to state cause of action para
malipat ang judge basin daw wala nagtuun. Who knows daw
When you say there is failure to state cause of action, it is
the other lawyer does not object kay he does not know how
possible that all the elements are there only that there was a
to differentiate the 2. Sometimes daw it pays to play ignorant.
mistake or imperfection or error in drafting the pleading. But
But in the MTD daw do not put lack of cause of action but
when you say there is lack of cause of action, meaning one or
failure to state cause of action although imo arguments tend
a few of the 4 elements of a cause of action are wanting.
to prove lack cause of action. Legal advocacy daw na.

Another difference between the 2 is that failure to state a

Cause of Action v. Right of Action
cause of action is a ground for the dismissal of the case by
filing a Motion to Dismiss whereas lack of cause of action is Again, cause of action is the act or omission by which a person
not a ground for Motion to Dismiss although it may be a violates the rights of another and it refers to the delict or
ground for the dismissal of the case but any of such dismissal wrong. Right of action is simply the right to bring an action. It
would only happen if plaintiff shall have already presented his therefore refers to the right of the plaintiff to bring an action
evidence. in the appropriate court and prosecute the same until final
judgment. Cause of action, therefore, may give rise to right
of action. Otherwise stated, right of action proceeds from
cause of action.

8 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Elements of Right of Action And what does Art 151 of the Family Code say in you Persons
1. There is cause of action; and and Family Relations? It says, “No suit between members of
2. There should be compliance or performance of all the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from
the conditions precedent to the filing of the action. the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward
a compromise have been made, but that the same have
As mentioned, when we speak of right of action, it proceeds failed”. If you hastily file a case against your brother or sister,
from cause of action. Because if you do not have any cause of thinking that you already have a cause of action, there’s a
action then it follows that you not have the right of action. good chance that the case will be dismissed because you did
But even when you already have a cause action, that does not not perform all the conditions prior to the filing of the action
necessarily follow that you have right of cause of action. This as required under Art. 151 of the Family Code.
is because right of action presupposes the performance of all
the conditions prior to the institution of the appropriate The case illustrative of this is the case of Philippine American
action. General Insurance Co v. Sweetlines.

Phil. American General Insurance Co. v. Sweetlines

Example 4: 212 SCRA 194
Assume that Gravador and I both reside in Cebu City. I FACTS: This involves shipped cargoes from Manila to
have a parcel of land and it was leased by Gravador for a Davao but the goods were damaged. Based on the
period of 1 year embodied in a written contract. When the damaged cargoes, the consignee filed a case against the
period expired, Gravador despite demands, held on to the carrier. Actually, in the bill of lading, there is a stipulation
property. I already sent him a formal demand letter to that if the consignee wants to file a case arising from the
vacate the property but Gravador could not be persuaded contract of carriage against the carrier, the consignee
that is why I filed an action for unlawful detainer. must first send a notice of loss to then carrier and then if
the carrier will not honor it, then that is the time the
Q: In this situation, do I have a right against Gravador? This is
consignee can file a case before the court. Here, the
the 1st element of a cause of action. plaintiff went to the court. Here, the plaintiff went to the
A: Yes. court without filing a notice of loss to the carrier.

Q: Does Gravador have an obligation? This is the 2nd element. ISSUE: Whether or not there is a right of action.

A: Yes.
HELD: There is NO right of action because the consignee
did not comply with the conditions precedent. The right of
Q: Was my right violated? 3rd element action does not arise until the performance of all
A: Yes. conditions precedent to the action. Performance or
fulfillment of all conditions precedent upon which a right
of action depends must be sufficiently alleged, considering
Q: Is there damage? 4th element that the burden of proof to show that a party has a right
A: Yes. of action is upon the person initiating the suit. More
particularly, where the contract of shipment contains a
reasonable requirement of giving notice of loss of or injury
All elements of a cause of action are present. Undoubtedly, I to the goods, the giving of such notice is a condition
already have a cause of action. You take note that after precedent to the action for loss or injury or the right to
sending a demand letter to Gravador and within 1 year, I enforce the carrier’s liability.
instituted an action for unlawful detainer.
Here, there was already cause of action because damage has
already done to the goods. What was ruling of the SC? SC said
Q: Is there something wrong with what I did? I already have
that there was no right of action because the consignee did
a cause of action but do I really have a right of action?
not comply with the conditions. Therefore, the right of action
The answer is NO. Let’s go back to the situation, did I not
does not arise unless there is performance of all the
mention to you that we both reside in Cebu City? Is there no
conditions precedent to the filing of the action.
requirement about prior referral to the appropriate Lupong
Tagapagpamayapa? Did I do that? NO. Take note that I
already have a cause of action yet I did not perform all the Again, cause of action refers to the wrong or delict done on
conditions precedent in filing the action. So, I already have a the plaintiff whereas right of action proceeding as it does
cause of action but I do not have a right of action. from cause of action refers to the right to institute the action.
Cause of action is rooted from substantive law like your Sales,
Persons and Family Relations, ObliCon while right to action is

9 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
governed by Remedial law. And for another, right of action role of the receiver daw. So the receiver should have instituted
may be taken away by the running if the Statute of the foreclosure proceeding without waiting for 15 years.
Limitations, by estoppel or even by laches and other
circumstances which do not at all affect the running of the
cause of action. A good example of this is when the action has Section 3
already prescribed. One suit for a single cause of action. — A party may not
institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.

Distinctions Between A Cause of Action and A Right of Action

TN: If you already have a cause of action and even if you
Cause of Action Right of Action
Cause of action is the delict Right of action refers to the already have a right of action and even if you’re already
or wrong committed by the right of the plaintiff to justified in filing the case, you still need to comply with the
defendant institute the action rule that a single suit should only cover one cause of action.
Cause of action is created Right of action is regulated Otherwise stated, a single cause of action may only give rise
by substantive law by procedural law to a single suit. That is the provision under Sec. 3, Rule 2 to
The running of statute of Right of action may be the end that a party may not institute more than one suit for
limitations, by estoppel or taken away by the running
a single cause of action. If you have a single cause of action
other circumstances do not of statute of limitations, by
affect at all the cause of estoppel or other then you are only permitted to bring or file one suit or
action circumstances complaint. You cannot therefore split you cause of action.

Example 5: Example 6:
Let’s go back to Example 4 where Gravador does not vacate
This time around ako na ang nakautang ni Gravador. I
obtained a loan of money from Gravador which is the my property. After referring the case to the Lupong
principal obligation but there is that ancillary contract and Tagapagpamayapa, which by the way failed, they issued a
that is the real estate mortgage. Then I did not pay my Certificate to File Action and so I filed an unlawful detainer
obligation. So all the elements of a cause of action are case. But in the said case, I only prayed that Gravador vacate
already there. But Gravador somehow, for one reason or the property he is occupying. Two months thereafter, I
another, did not file the action immediately. He waited for instituted a separate case against Gravador arising from the
15 years before instituting an action for foreclosure of real
same transaction but this time around I prayed for payment
estate mortgage.
of unpaid rentals for his continued occupancy and also
payment for damages and attorney’s fees. How many causes
Q: Does he already have a cause of action against me?
of action do I have against Gravador? Only one because there
Yes. was but one violation. But here, I split my cause of action. This
is NOT allowed.
Q: But does he have a right of action?
No. Well, there was but it was taken away by the running of Splitting a Single Cause of Action
the Statute of Limitations. As you rule, if you file an action
based on a written contract, it has to be done within the Section 4.
period of 10 years. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. — If two or
more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of
action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in
*Atty. G nichika nga it happened to one of their clients daw. any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the
Lawyer daw siya so he knows the law. The said lawyer-client others.
obtained a loan of money from one of the banks here in the
City. He then went to the US without paying the loan. But the Q: What is the consequence of splitting a single cause of
bank instituted a foreclosure proceeding only after 15 years action?
reasoning that the bank was placed under receivership. Atty.
Dismissal of one of the complaints and this is provided for
G, as the counsel, argued that while there was cause of action
under Sec. 4, Rule 2 providing that when two or more suits
but the right of action had long prescribed. But they weren’t
are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the
sustained by the RTC judge daw so they went directly to the
filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is
SC and the SC sustained their submission. Their contention
available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. Let’s go
also daw was that if there was a receiver appointed for the
back to Example 6. When the 2 cases are still pending in court
corporation then all the more that the receiver should collect
and if at all Gravador would want to move for the dismissal of
every asset owing to the corporation bank. This is the primary
the case under Sec. 4, Rule 2, then he will invoke this principle

10 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
on litis pendentia. Meaning to say, he can plead that the 2nd I have 2 remedies. First, institute a simple collection of sum
action be dismissed on the ground of the existence of the first of money. Second, foreclosure of the REM. Here, I only have
case which was founded on the same cause of action. Again, a single cause of action. There was one infraction of the
this is done by invoking Sec. 4 and also litis pendentia which contract which is the non-payment of obligation. If I pursued
is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16, Sec. 1, par. e, but it’s the remedy of collection of sum of money, I can no longer
under Sec. 5, Rule 6 under the Amended Rules. But if there is foreclose the REM. By doing otherwise, I am already splitting
already a judgment in the previous case, that is- before he my cause of action. And under Secs. 3 and 4, I cannot split my
instituted the 2nd case, the ground for dismissal is no longer single cause of action. This is a good example where a person
litis pendentia but res judicata because there is already a has 2 remedies but he cannot avail of both because by doing
judgement. Litis pendentia is the ground for dismissal if the 2 so, he is already splitting his cause of action.
cases which are founded on the same cause of action are still
pending in court. FYI, under the new rules, there is no such The case illustrative of this is the case of Danao v. CA.
thing as motion to dismiss anymore, you plead such ground
as either litis pendentia or res judicata in your answer by way Danao v. CA
of affirmative defense. But the fact remains that these 2 are 154 SCRA 446
ground for dismissal of an action. FACTS: The Danao spouses borrowed money from the
bank, mortgaged their property and then they failed to
pay. The bank filed a civil action to collect the loan. After
Q: How do we determine the singleness of a cause of action? filing a civil action to collect the loan, the bank instituted
Is it to be determined by the number of remedies available to an action to foreclose the mortgage.
the parties? Or it is to be determined by the delict or wrong
committed by the defendant? HELD: Anent real properties in particular, the Court has
We determine the singleness of the cause of action by laid down the rule that a mortgage creditor may institute
determining how many delict or wrong have been committed against the mortgage debtor either a personal action for
by the defendant. debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. In other
words, he may pursue either of the two remedies, but not
both. Evidently, the prior recourse of the creditor bank in
The case illustrative of this is David v. De la Cruz. filing a civil action against the Danao spouses and
subsequently resorting to the complaint of the foreclosure
David v. De la Cruz proceedings, are not only a demonstration of the
L-11656, April 18, 1958. prohibited splitting up of a cause of action but also of the
The singleness of the cause of action is determined by the resulting vexation and oppression to the debtor.
singleness of the delict or wrong committed by the
defendant and not by the number of remedies that the law The case of Danao best illustrates that when you only have a
grants to the injured party. Meaning, a single delict may
single cause of action then you cannot split the same by
give rise to two or more possible remedies, but it does not
availing the remedies that the law may grant. But I will vary
mean to say that the injured party can avail of all of those
remedies simultaneously or one after the other. the situation. What if, in the case of Danao, the first case that
the bank filed is foreclosure of real estate mortgage but then
after the property was sold at a public auction, the proceeds
In you Oblicon, it was discussed that when there is a breach
of the sale fell short to pay off the obligation.
of contract, you have 2 remedies: 1. Specific performance
with damages, and 2. Rescission of the contract with
damages. Can you pursue these remedies at the same time? Q: Can the bank still collect the deficiency from the
No, they only be pursued in the alternative. But the fact obligation? If yes, isn’t that splitting of cause of action?
remains that 2 remedies arising from a single act of The answer is yes. Although Danao case is very clear that you
contractual violation. In this case, is there a single cause of cannot avail of the both the remedies at the same time, this
action? Yes, there is only a single cause of action because case is an exception. Sec. 6, Rule 68 provides for deficiency
there is one but violation of the contract this is regardless if judgment. If after the foreclosure sale, the proceeds is not
the plaintiff has 2 or more remedies. enough to pay off the entire obligation, then even by a mere
motion the unpaid creditor may still apply for deficiency
Example 7: judgment. This is allowed by way of exception.

Gravador obtained a loan of money from me which was

secured by a collateral constituted over a parcel of land. In Take note of the case of Marilag v. Martines which is the
other words, there was a real estate mortgage. If there will exception of the case of Danao.
be non-payment of the obligation, what remedies do I have?

11 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Example 9:
Marilag v. Martines
HELD: In loan contracts secured by a real estate mortgage, *same facts as example 8
the rule is that the creditor-mortgagee has a single cause But there were different dates for the delivery of the
of action against the debtor-mortgagor- that is, to recover goods.
the debt through the filing of a personal action for
1. Sugarcane - Jan.
collection of sum of money or the institution of a real
1, 2020
action to foreclose on the mortgage security. There
2. White Sugar - Jan.
remedies are alternative, not cumulative or successive,
1, 2020
and each remedy is complete by itself. Thus, if the
3. Brown Sugar - Jan.
creditor-mortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate
1, 2020
mortgage, he waives the action for the collection of the
4. Molasses -
unpaid debt, except only for the recovery of whatever
Feb. 20, 2020
deficiency may remain in the outstanding obligation of the
5. Muscovado -
debtor-mortgagor.
Feb. 20, 2020
If by Jan. 1, 2020, Gravador failed to deliver to me the
Rules on Splitting the Cause of Action: sugarcane, white sugar and brown sugar, the question is…

RULE #1 (General Rule)

Q: Can I file a case against Gravador for the non-delivery of
(Quioque v. Bautista, L-13159, Feb. 28, 1962)
these things? And assuming I can file a case for non-delivery
A contract embraces only one cause of action because it
on Jan. 1, 2020, can I also file another case if by Feb. 20,
may be violated only once, even if it contains several
stipulations. 2020, if there is also non-delivery?
This situation is now governed by Rule #2. Going back to the
Example 8: situation, by Jan. 1, 2020, when there is non-delivery, I can
already file a case against Gravador. And again on Feb. 20,
Gravador is a biker and assume that in 1 of his trips he 2020, Gravador failed to deliver the molasses and
passed by a street in Guinhulngan, Negros and there he muscovado, I can also file a separate complaint against
got this idea to venture into the business of supplying Gravador. Although all the 5 items are ordered under one
products of sugarcane like white sugar, brown sugar,
contract. But here, there is performance of obligations at
molasses and muscovado sugar. I ordered sugarcane from
Gravador kay akong ipakaon ni Randy- sweets namo after different dates.
lunch. The list of order is:
1. Sugarcane - Feb. 28, 2020 Example 9:
2. White Sugar - Feb. 28, 2020
More so, if the example is a contract of loan. Under one
3. Brown Sugar- Feb. 28, 2020
4. Molasses - Feb. 28, 2020 contract of loan, there are different stipulations:
5. Muscovado - Feb. 28, 2020 1. 1 million
- to be paid in 1 installment on Jan. 1, 2020
Then, we entered into a contract. So the order is - covered by 1st cheque
embodied one, single contract. In the contract, I stipulated
the 5 items and these items were to be delivered on Feb. 2. 250k
28, 2020. Come Feb. 28, 2020, for one reason or another, - to be paid in 1 installment on March 1, 2020
Gravador failed to make the purported delivery. - covered by 2nd cheque
3. 300k
Q: How many causes of action do I have against Gravador? - to be paid in 1 installment on August 1, 2020
Should I file a separate action for the non-delivery of - covered by 3rd cheque
sugarcane, separate action for white sugar, for brown sugar,
4. 200k
for molasses and one for muscovado?
- to be paid in 1 installment on December 1, 2020
There is only one cause of action pursuant to Rule #1.
- covered by 4th cheque

Rule #2 (Exception to the General Rule) If by Jan. 1, Gravador deposited the first check corresponding
(Larena v. Villanueva, 53 Phil. 923) the 1M and the check bounced, I am already permitted to file
A contract which provides for several stipulations to be an action based on the 1st installment notwithstanding. And
performed at different times gives rise to as many causes if on March 1, the same thing happens, I can file a separate
of action as there are violations. complaint by reason of the non-payment of the 2nd cheque
notwithstanding the fact that these installments are covered

12 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
under the same and one contract. And if the 3 rd cheque Here, there are 4 loan transactions. Take note, Rules #1, #2
would bounce, then I can also file a separate complaint and and #3 may only apply if there is only one forceable contract.
the same also with the 4th cheque, I can also file a separate But here there are 4 separate contracts. So, each contract
complaint. Basically, I can file 4 separate complaints because partakes 1 cause of action. So I file a complaint sometime in
of violation of different stipulations which are to be Feb. 2021, and considering that these cheques represent 4
performed on different dates. The pivotal consideration is the separate contracts then I can file 4 separate complaints
fact that these obligations were to be performed at different against Gravador. We will not apply Rules #1, #2 and #3
times. because they pertain to 1 contract.

Ato na sang icomplicate ang situation. Let’s go back to Rule

Rule #3 (Exception to the exception)
#2. This time around 1 loan transaction.
(Larena v. Villanueva, 53 Phil. 923)
All obligations which have matured at the time of the suit
must be integrated as one cause of action in one Example 12:
complaint, and those not so included would be barred.
There is 1 loan transaction.
1. 1M - payable in 4 installments:
Example 10:
a. 250K- covered by the 1st cheque
But what if the situation different? By Jan. 1, the first b. 250K- covered by the 2nd cheque
installment bounced but since Gravador is my friend, I did not c. 250K- covered by the 3rd cheque
file a case. Come March 1, the second cheque likewise d. 250K- covered by the 4th cheque
bounced, but with Gravador, pleading mercy and On Jan. 1, 2020, the 1st check for the 1st installment was
deposited in the bank but it bounced for insufficiency of
compassion, I also did not file a case. The third failed likewise.
funds. As we have discussed, applying Rule #2, in Jan. 1 or
Pero nihangyu nasad si Gravador ingon siya naa siyay thereabout, I can already file a case against Gravador. I do
dawatunon basin makabayad na siya, so I did not file a case not have to wait for the 2nd cheque to bounce otherwise
against him. But come Dec. 1 and the cheque also bounced, I these 2 cases for the 2 cheques will be covered under 1
said, “I had enough of you, Mr. Gravador. Enough is enough. complaint if we apply Rule #3. If I already file a case for the
A little much is by much too much.” So it was only months 1st cheque, of course, I cannot yet file for the 3 remaining
cheques because they are yet to mature.
later, in Feb. 1, 2020, that I finally decided to file a complaint
against Gravador.
Q: But what if in the contract of loan, there is what we call as
the “Acceleration Clause” to the end that if there is one
Q: How many complaints can I file against Gravador?
default in 1 installment payment, the same will make the
When this happens, we will be governed by Rule #3. Thus, entire loan contract due and demandable and so, payable at
where I deferred my move against Gravador, in that I still
once?
have waited until the 4th check bounced, then the rule on
The answer is I am already permitted to file a complaint
Merisi applies. Murag niingon ang SC nga, “Nagdugay-dugay
including the 3 cheques that have yet to mature. This is
man ka, so usaha nalang na. Merisa ka because you could
governed by Rule #4.
have harassed Gravador as by filing several complaints.” This
is the purpose of prohibition against splitting cause of action-
to prevent harassment to the defendant by the plaintiff. Also Rule #4 (Exception to Rule #2)
of course, to unclog the dockets of the courts.
(Blossom & Co. v Manila Gas Corp., 55 Phil 226)
However, when the failure to comply with one of the
Now, we will vary the situation. Here, the checks were issued several stipulations as a continuing contract constitutes a
by way of installment payments for one obligation. What if total breach, a single cause of action for damages, actual
there are 4 loan contracts? as well as prospective, arises from such breach.

Example 11:
So, when there an Acceleration Clause, then there should
Same facts with Example 9 but there are 4 loan contracts. The
only be 1 complaint and in that complaint include already the
1st cheque is for the 1st loan, the 2nd cheque for the 2nd loan,
3 remaining cheques although the same are yet to fall due.
the 3rd cheque for the 3rd loan and the 4th cheque for the 4th
The same Rule applies when the 1 cheque bounced and I filed
loan.
a complaint in Feb. 2020 and Gravador interposed the
defense that the signature found in the loan contract and the
Q: If I decide to file a complaint in Feb. 2021, how many cheque was not his. When that happens am I already allowed
complaints can I file? If all the four loans fell due? to file a case against Gravador for the remaining cheques?

13 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
The answer is yes because of again, the failure to comply with (c) Where the causes of action are between the same
one stipulation in the contract constitutes a total breach and parties but pertain to different venues or
he already repudiates the entire loan transaction then I jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of
should already be permitted to file one complaint which
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and
includes, in this case, the 3 cheques. Because what’s the
the venue lies therein; and
reason for waiting for the remaining cheques to fall due when (d) Where the claims in all the causes action are
he already repudiated the entire loan contract? So this is also principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
covered by Rule #4. You apply Rule #4 if there is an amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
Acceleration Clause and the defendant repudiates the entire
contract. I’d like to underscore the fact that under Sec. 5, Rule 2, the
option is given to the aggrieved party. Meaning, in the
Q by student: What happens, Atty., if there are 2 contracts of example, even if I waited for the 4th loan which was also not
loan but there is only 1 cheque? For example, in a bank I have paid by Gravador, the court cannot dictate that I be filing only
a home loan and a car loan and the I issued 1 cheque for both one complaint. In other words, it is my discretion as the
but then it bounced. How many causes of action does then creditor or the aggrieved party. That is why Sec. 5 uses the
bank have against me? permissive word “may”.

A: You have 2 causes of action because there are 2 separate

contracts. Then single cheque is just an evidence of the TN further that Sec. 5 mentions also of alternative causes of
transactions. But you join these 2 causes of action under 1 action or otherwise.
complaint. This covered under Sec. 2, 3 and 4 of Rule 2 but
more on Rule 5 of the Rules of Court. Kinds of Joinder of Causes of Action:
1. Alternative Joinder of Causes of Action; and
Q by student: Under Rule #2, you file many complaints as 2. Cumulative Joinder of Causes of Action.
there are causes of action. In Rule#3 since you waited and did
not immediate file a complaint, then you only have 1 cause An ALTERNATIVE JOINDER exists when your cause of action
of action. Which is better, Atty.? is either one or other. You are seeking relief from both but
A: Depending on what is your objective. If your objective is to either one.
harass then Rule #2. If you are the lawyer, one case then that
is one acceptance fee. If you are a Carolinian lawyer… hahaha. Alternative is when it is enough that one cause of action will
be granted in your favor. You are not asking that both your
Let’s go back to the variation I made with Rule #2 where there causes of action will be granted in your favor. On the other
are 4 cheques corresponding to 4 different loans. *Refer to hand, in alternative causes of action, you demand that all the
Example 11. There are 4 separate causes of actions. causes of action joined must be awarded by the court in your
favor.

Q: Can I join these 4 separate causes of action?

Q: What is a good example of an alternative cause of action?
Yes, under Sec. 5, Rule 2 which provides for joinder of causes
of action. In this situation, while I can file 4 different Example 13:
complaints against Gravador, I can also file a single complaint Nag-Angkas driver si Gravador and Randy and I availed his
demanding that he pay me the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th loan services in going to USC. But on our way, we figured an
obligations. accident. There was a collision between Gravador’s
motorcycle and a taxi. We didn’t know whose fault was it kay
nakatulog mi. So here, we can a case against the taxi driver
Joinder of Causes of Action and Gravador. My cause of action against Gravador is culpa
Section 5. contractual and my cause of action against the taxi driver is
culpa acquiliana. Basically, I have 2 causes of action but I
Joinder of causes of action. - A party may in one pleading
joined them. This is an alternative joinder because I do not
assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of
action as he may have against an opposing party, subject who between the 2 will be adjudged liable by the court.
to the following conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply There is another classic example offered by most authors.
with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules;

14 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Example 14: happened on the other night? And then accident involving
This is about transport of goods through common carriers. myself happened early this evening, may we join our
For example, Cathay goods. It will then be loaded in a public complaints? Remember, if the accident involving me and
vessel. Here, the handling of the cargoes will be undertaken Randy happened in one occasion, there is permissible joined
by another company which is engaged in a of parties. But here, we cannot join our causes of action since
stevedoring/arrastre services. But when the goods arrived in joined of parties requires common question of fact and law.
the port of destination, and you being the consignee, went to In then situation, Randy’s accident has different factual
get the goods. But you discovered that the goods were setting with mine. The situation does not meet the
damaged. But the shipping company said that they have requirements on joinder of causes of action because joined
cannot be faulted but the arrastre services. You called the of causes of action likewise require that we observe the rules
arrastre services but they said the same thing, that it wasn’t on joinder of parties.
their fault. So you do not know who is at fault. Therefore, you
join your causes of action against the arrastre services Another condition.
company and the shipping company. There is now alternative
joinder of causes of action where it is enough that one of the Section 5(b)
causes of action will be granted to you by the court. You do The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions
not care actually who will be adjudged liable by the court for governed by special rules;
as long as you will be paid, that is your only concern.
You cannot join ordinary and special civil actions otherwise
maconfuse ang judge what to comply, it is the Rules on
Corollary to Section 5, when we speak of joinder of causes of
Summary Procedure or the regular Rule on Procedure. So you
action, are the provisions under Sec. 13 of Rule 3 and Sec. 2
cannot join the action for unlawful detainer which is
of Rule 8.
governed by then Rules on Summary Procedure and an
SECTION 13, Rule 3.
ordinary recovery of title and ownership because this is
Alternative defendants. - Where the plaintiff is uncertain
governed by regular Rules on Procedure. You cannot also join
against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may
actions governed by special rules.
join any or all of them as defendants in the alternative,
although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent
with a right of relief against the other. The case in point is Union Glass and Container Corp. v. SEC.

Union Glass and Container Corp. v. SEC

SECTION 2, Rule 8.
126 SCRA 31
Alternative causes of action or defenses. - A party may set
FACTS: A stockholder of a corporation who is also the
forth two or more statements of a claim or defense
creditor of the corporation decided to file one complaint
alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of action against the corporation asserting several causes of action,
or defense or in separate causes of action or defenses. When among them is his rights as a stockholder under the
two or more statements are made in the alternative and one Corporation Code and also his rights as a creditor under
of them if made independently would be sufficient, the the Civil Code.
pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one
or more of the alternative statements. HELD: The joinder is improper. In the first place, one is
governed by a quasi-judicial body (SEC). So how can the
RTC try a case when the cause of action is pertaining to the
TN however, that when there is joinder of causes of action,
SEC and it is governed by the special rules of the SEC? So
which is set forth under Section 5 of Rule 2, there are you cannot join that.
conditions to follow. {N.B. intra-corporate disputes are now cognizable by
special commercial courts.}
Section 5(a)
The party joining the causes of action shall comply with
the rule on joinder of parties; Is this ruling still hold true today when there is already
transfer of jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes from
SEC to RTC? The answer is yes because not all RTCs can hear
Example 15:
intra-corporate disputes only those as designated as special
*Refer to facts in Example 13. Randy and I can join our cases
commercial courts. Then, if there is an action brought for
of action as long as there is common question of fact and law.
collection of sum of money, it should be filed with regular
Since the accident happened on one occasion, then there is
courts, be it MTC or RTC. Whereas intra-corporate disputes
commonality as to the facts and law involved. But what of the
remain cognizable by the RTC which was designated as a
accident of Randy while riding the motorcycle of Gravador
special commercial court. So the ruling of Union Glass is still
15 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
applicable today because you still cannot join an intra- then the venue of the action lies with the RTC and RTC has
corporate dispute and an ordinary civil action. jurisdiction over the case involving the Guadalupe property.

Situation #2:
Section 5(c)
Where the causes of action are between the same parties Supposed that the other property of Gravador is situated
but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder in Mandaue City with an assessed value of 200k. I, again
may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of usurped his properties. One in Banawa, with an assessed
the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said value of 30k and he did not file a case within the one year
court and the venue lies therein; and period so what he can possibly file a case against me is
accion publiciana cognizable by MTCC of Cebu. Then, I
likewise usurped the property situated in Mandaue City
TN: For this provision to apply, it is important, among others, with an assessed value of 200k, he did not file against me
that the cause of action must involve the same parties but within one year period so, he can of course file a case
the venue of the action sought to be joined pertains to against me for accion publiciana but this time cognizable
different jurisdictions, pertain to different courts, and by RTC of Manadaue.
likewise the venue also differ. (1) Banawa – 30k – Accion Publiciana – MTCC of
Cebu
So here, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC subject to the (2) Manadue City – 200k – Accion Publiciana – RTC of
condition that the action falls within the jurisdiction and the Mandaue
venue lies within.
Q: Can the causes of action be joined?
YES. What is important is that the joinder of cause of action
Situation #1:
shall be had with the RTC and what is likewise important is
So, a good example of that assume that Gravador has two that RTC has jurisdiction over the case and the venue lies
properties one in Banawa with the value of 30k and one in therein. So, there is a possible joinder of causes of action.
Guadalupe with an assessed value of 200k. Say, I usurped Again, that is but permissible. Meaning to say, Gravador is not
the Banawa property of Grava and then he did nothing mandated to join these causes of action in one complaint. He
within one year from my unlawful intrusion such that if at may choose to file separate cases. One for the property in
all what he can file against me is no longer a case for Banawa and the other in Mandaue.
forcible entry but rather accion publiciana and this case is
cognizable by the MTCC of Cebu.
Situation #3:

Then, in a separate occasion, I likewise usurped his We will vary the situation. Gravador has two properties:
property in Guadalupe with the assessed value of 200k, he one in Banawa Cebu City and the other one is in Mandaue
did not also file a case within the one year period so, what City. Each one of them has an assessed value of 200k. In
he could file against me is another accion publiciana. But two separate occasions, I usurped his property. The one in
this time around, the case is cognizable by the RTC. Banawa – he did not file a case against me within a one
TN: I usurped his property in two separate occasions. year period such that what he can file against me is accion
publiciana and the case is cognizable by RTC of Cebu, given
(1) Banawa – 30k – Accion Publiciana – MTCC
the assessed value thereof. In a separate occasion, I
(2) Guadalupe – 200k – Accion Publiciana – RTC
likewise usurped his property situated in Mandaue city
with an assessed value of 200k, so he can file a case against
Q: Can the two actions be joined? me for accion publiciana because he did not file a case
We check the elements under paragraph c. against me within the one year period to file forcible entry.
1. Same Parties – that is a given But this time around, the case is cognizable by the RTC of
2. Venue – Cebu City Mandaue.
3. Cases pertain to different jurisdiction – one is (1) Banawa – 20k – Accion Publiciana – RTC of Cebu
cognizable by the MTC and one is cognizable by the (2) Manadue City – 200k – Accion Publiciana – RTC of
RTC. Mandaue
So, may there be a possible joinder of cause of action?
Q: Will there be a joinder of cause of action?
A: YES. This situation falls four square within the provision of
Sec 5(c). Here, the joinder of cause of action shall be with the YES.
RTC. In other words, Gravador may file a civil complaint for
these causes of action not just for the Guadalupe property Q: At which court?
but also for his cause of action for the Banawa property. The joinder of cause of action may be had in the RTC of Cebu
Because what is important is that the parties are the same, or at his selection RTC of Mandaue. What is important is that
the joinder of cause of action is with the RTC. So he has the

16 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
election civil complaint either at the RTC of Cebu or RTC of TN, therefore: paragraph c will only be applicable in situations
Mandaue city because it complies with the requirements where one of the cases is cognizable by the RTC *naay ni
under paragraph c of section 5. cough* pertaining to alternative(?) jurisdiction. So,
paragraph c, rather, deals with a particular special situation.
Situation #4: So, if a situation does not fall under paragraph c, then it may
be governed by first paragraph of section 5. What is
Gravador has two properties one in Banawa one is important is that the parties are the same, so you can
Mandaue. The one in Banawa with an assessed value of basically join the two causes of action.
80k. The other one has an assessed value of 20k. In two
separate occasions, I intruded in his properties without his
Q: At which court shall we join the two causes of action? MTC
consent but he did not file a case against me within the
one year period so what he can file against me is accion or RTC?
publiciana. Of course, publiciana will be cognizable by Joinder of cause of action is likewise subject to what is known
MTCC of Cebu and the other one is MTCC of Mandaue. So, as totality rule. But take a look at the rule as applied in joinder
he has two possible cases both for accion pbuliciana both of causes of action. Where the claims in all the causes of
pertaining to MTCCs but different jurisdictions. One in actions are principally for recovery of money. So therefore,
Cebu city and one in Mandaue city. you cannot apply the totality rule. Such joinder of cause of
(1) Banawa – 80k – Accion Publiciana – MTC of Cebu action, therefore, is still with the MTC. You cannot apply the
(2) Manadue City – 20k – Accion Publiciana – MTC of totality rule because as worded here, your totality rule may
Mandaue only apply if the cause of action is principally for recovery of
sum of money. So, it would be an error for use to add up the
Q: May the cause of action be joined? assessed value of the property for us to say that the
While indeed the venues of the two actions differ but you jurisdiction of the cases if they may be joined in one
take note but for a possible joinder of causes of action under complaint will be with the RTC. So, the joinder of the causes
paragraph c, it contemplates of a situation where one of the of action shall be had with the lower court and that is the
cases is cognizable by the RTC. And here, in the given MTCC.
situation, both cases are cognizable by MTC. So, it will not
therefore satisfy one of the requirements for joinder of Situation #6:
causes of action under paragraph c. So, we cannot join causes
of action. One property is situated in Banawa and the value of which
is say 20k. I intruded the property, I usurped the property
of Gravador situated in Banawa with the assessed value of
Situation #5:
[20k], he did not file a case for ejectment within one
Suppose that this other property is not situated in period, so he filed a case of accion publiciana. And the
Mandaue city, but in Guadalupe. So, the case is accion action was cognizable by MTCC of Cebu. But in another
publiciana because he did not file a case within one year occasion, RCT (Randi C. Torregosa) likewise usurped the
period. So case is cognizable by MTC still of Cebu city. property of Gravador the one in [Guadalupe] with an
assessed value of 100k. Gravador did not file a case within
(1) Banawa – 80k – Accion Publiciana – MTC of Cebu
the one year period, but he can file a case of accion
(2) Guadalupe – 30k – Accion Publiciana – MTC of
publiciana against RTC. And the action this time around by
Cebu
RTC of Cebu.
(1) Banawa – 20k – by Galeon – Accion Publiciana –
Q: May the two causes of action be joined? MTCC of Cebu
Earlier (Situation #4), you said the actions cannot be joined (2) Guadalupe – 100k – by RCT – Accion Publiciana –
because for paragraph c to apply, it is imperative that one of RTC of Cebu
the cases is supposedly cognizable by an RTC. That is why that
is the answer in that situation. So, I varied the situation. In Q: May the two causes of action be joined?
that, the second property is situated in still Cebu city. So, may A: It is possible that joinder of causes of action may involve
the two be joined? YES. Legal basis? Here, the actions are more than two personalities. It may involve different parties
both cognizable by MTC but the venue is both Cebu city. You for as long as you comply with the requirements of the
can’t apply paragraph c because it applies when parties are joinder of parties.
the same but the venues of the actions to be joined belong
TN: When we speak of joinder of parties, it requires among
to different jurisdictions. And it mentions also of an RTC. But
others that there should be a common question of facts or
what is the legal basis? The joinder of the cause of action is
common question of law.
not based on paragraph c but rather the general rule – A party
may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as
many causes of action as he may have against an opposing Here, in as much as the intrusion happened in two separate
party, subject to the following conditions . . . occasion and the same involved two different parties. So, you
cannot really say that the two actions involve a common

17 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
question of fact or that they involve common question of law. Q by student: When you say, atty, it falls within the
You do not know with respect to the intrusion done by jurisdiction of RTC, does that mean it falls within the regional
Torregosa. You cannot, therefore, join the two causes of jurisdiction?
action. because parties under Rule 3, Section 6 requires that A: Jurisdiction in the context of paragraph c means pertains
there should be common question of fact or law. Common to another court. RTC or MTC as the case may be.
question of facts is very wanting in this case.

Q by student: Joinder of cause of action may still happen if

Situation #7: the other case would be filed in Manila?
I intruded into the property of Gravador situated in A: It’s possible.
Banawa with assed value of 200k and he did not file a case
against me within one year period but he can still file a *Q by student was inaudible*
case for accion publiciana. Cognizable by RTC of Cebu. I
A: But subject to the rule of joinder of parties and common
likewise usurped his property situated in Brgy. Guadalupe
questions of fact and law.
with an assessed value of 30k. But this time around,
Gravador said “enough is enough”. This time, I can’t
forgive you. Gravador filed a case for forcible entry. And Again, paragraph d of Section 5 requires that the – if joinder
that action is cognizable by MTCC of Cebu. Same parties. of cause of action involve sum of money then jurisdiction
Of course, if you look at paragraph c. Same parties. Venue shall be determined on the basis of the so-called totality of
well same. But pertaining to different jurisdiction. claims.
TN: There are two different causes of action. One is focible
entry and one is accion publiciana. Involving the same
parties pertaining to different jurisdictions. Situation:
(1) Banawa – 200k – Accion Publiciana – RTC of Cebu Torregosa and I hired the services of Gravador as angkas
(2) Guadalupe – 30k – Forcible Entry – MTCC of Cebu driver. And then, we figured in a vehicular accident
resulting to serious injuries on the part of Torregosa such
Q: May the two causes of action be joined? that Torregosa intends to claim the amount of 300k from
A: NO. But the reason is not because of paragraph c but Gravador for damages. I likewise suffered injury but slight
because of paragraph b – you cannot join where one is physical injuries. So, I claimed an amount of 10k. If you
apply paragraph d. You compute the totality of claims.
governed by ordinary civil actions and one is governed by
That would be 310k.
special civil actions. Forcible entry case is governed by the
rules of summary procedure while the other one is governed
by ordinary rules pertaining to civil action. It is for this reason TN: If Torregosa decides to separately file his case, then that
that we cannot join these two causes of action not by reason case will be cognizable by MTC. If I likewise decide to press
of paragraph c but by reason of paragraph b. claim against Gravador where the amount demanded is 10k,
that is cognizable under MTC. But should we, Torregosa and
I, decide to join our causes of action then that is therefore
I hope that you can still remember when it comes to the
cognizable by the RTC. Because of the Totality rule.
qualifications when it comes to applying the provision under
paragraph c regarding a possible joinder of cause of action
pertaining to different jurisdictions or venue. This is now an TN: We may join our causes of action in one complaint
innovative action because in the past, under the old rules, because in this situation there is a common question of fact
joinder of cause of action cannot be had if one case pertains and common question of law. Because we sustained injuries
belongs to another *inaudible*, but now, it can. in the same vehicular accident.

TN: Joinder of cause of action under section 5 is subject to Q: But if Torregosa figured in an accident in the morning and
the provision that: I figured an accident still with Gravador in the evening. Can it
be joined?
Section 5 (d) A: No. Because under Section 6 Rule 3 for such joinder of
Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally parties there should be common questions of fact and law.
for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall Which of course is not in this case.
be the test of jurisdiction.

TN: When you speak of a possible joinder of cause of action,

This is also in consonance with Section 33, paragraph 1 of BP
you should be guided by the four conditions which may be
129 as amended.
applied in the alternative:
(a) Subject to the rule of joinder of parties

18 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
(b) You cannot join ordinary civil action with a special Q: How? Gision ang complaint?
civil action much less when the case is governed by Section 6 mentions about the severance of cause of action.
separate rules So, if the case is filed with the RTC then of course the
(c) Joinder of cause of action where one case is misjoined cause of action is the one for forcible entry because
cognizable by another court another jurisdiction and the case is filed with the RTC. So how?
the venue of which also belong to another A: the court normally will direct the plaintiff to amend the
jurisdiction. What is important is that there should complaint. So, its not like search warrant, where you just
be sameness of parties ignore the invalid portion. But the rule here is, when you say
(d) The application of the totality rule. severance, the court will direct the plaintiff to somehow
amend the complaint. Mean ing to say, the case that is
Situation: cognizable by the RTC will not b dismissed. S, the plaintiff will
just file another case.
Let go back to the situation where, for example, I intruded
the property of Gravador in Banawa but he did not file a
case against me so he can file a case for accion publiciana. Q: What if the plaintiff somehow will insist to have the two
The action is cognizable by the RTC of Cebu. But if causes of action joined? Somehow does not obey the order
presently, I usurped his property situated in Guadalupe of the court.
City with an assessed value of 10k. but within one year
A: Dismissal of the case. Legal Basis: Rule 17, Sec 3 which
period, he intends to file a case for forcible entry then the
provides the possible dismissal of the case if the party does
case will be cognizable by MTC of Cebu. We said the two
cannot be joined for the reason that the other case is not comply with the order of the court. So, non-compliance
governed by the rules on summary procedure. with the order of the court would give rise to the dismissal of
the case
(1) Banawa – Accion Publiciana – RTC of Cebu
(2) Guadalupe – Forcible Entry – MTC of Cebu For reference: Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. —
If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the
Q: But what if Gravador committed a mistake of joining the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the
two causes of action in the RTC of Cebu. What will be the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable
result? length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of
the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of
Diba we mentioned na where the cause of action is somehow
the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without
divided to two or more cause of action or cases or if we spilt
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
cause of action, the result of which is the dismissal of the
counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This
other case. Either on the ground of litis pendentia or res
dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the
judicata. Question now is will it be the same when there is
merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
erroneous or there is a misjoined causes of action?
A: Under Section 6, the Court motu proprio or upon motion
of the other party may order the severance of the misjoined So, it is possible that where there is a misjoinder of causes of
causes of action. So, it will not bring about the dismissal of action that the case will be dismissed if the court already
the case. ordered the plaintiff and the plaintiff does not comply. That
will be dismissed.

Section 6 TN: The dismissal may only be had if the order of the court is
Misjoinder of causes of action. — Misjoinder of causes of lawful. If the order of the court is not lawful then there is no
action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A basis for having the court dismissed.
misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on
the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with
separately.
RULE 3 – Parties to Civil Actions
TN: What the court will do is simply direct the party to
somehow exclude the action and try the actions separately.
Section 1
So, it will be separated from the case. And of course, that Who May Be Parties; Plaintiff and Defendant. — Only
severance of cause of action may be upon motion of the natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law
adverse party or it can be ordered by the court motu proprio, may be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may
on its own accord. refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-
claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff. The
term "defendant" may refer to the original defending
party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-
defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant.

19 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Q: What is a natural person? various spelling, I couldn’t find it)* which you have fully
A: In your persons and family relations—individuals, human discussed in your political law.
beings
When we speak of juridical persons, the term involve
Q: Is a person born through artificial insemination a natural corporations organized for private enterprises that is the
person? same also in quasi-public corporations, even the state and its
A: Yes political subdivision. In fact, in your Poli I you come across in
sec 22 of LGC that even LGUs may sue and be sued.

Q: What are juridical persons

Article XVI, Article 44, 1987 Constitution
Student: corporations, partnerships…
The following are juridical persons:
(1) The State and its political subdivisions;
Q: How about those government instrumentalities covered
by charters of their own? Can they sue? Be sued? (2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for
public interest or purpose, created by law; their
It depends on the provisions of the charter. If the charter says personality begins as soon as they have been
they have the capacity to sue and be sued, then they can be constituted according to law;
sued without need of asking the consent of the state. But
where the charter is silent on that, then you need to look into (3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for
the primary functions they are performing. If their primary private interest or purpose to which the law grants
functions are governmental in character, then it requires the a juridical personality, separate and distinct from
consent of the state. But just the same, they fall under the that of each shareholder, partner or member. (35a)
purview of the so-called juridical persons. acd

Article 45. Juridical persons mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2 of

Juridical Persons the preceding article are governed by the laws creating
1. Corporation, partnerships and associations for or recognizing them.
private interests or purposes to which the law grants
juridical personality, distinct and separate from each
shareholder, partner or members; Local Government Code Section 22.
2. Other corporations, institutions and entities for Corporate Powers. — (a) Every local government unit, as
public interest or purpose, created by law; a corporation, shall have the following powers: (2) To sue
3. The State and its political subdivisions. and be sued.

Corporations, partnerships or associations for private So juridical persons under section 1 rule 3, should not be
interest or purpose, those incorporated under the limited to those organized for private or commercial
corporation code of the Ph and other corporations, corporations. But what is notable here is that the provision
institutions, and entitles for public interest or purpose mentions also of entites authorized by law which may
created by law. Examples of which are SSS, GSIS, PAGCOR has become parties in a civil action, to be sure, these entites are
a charter of its own, BGCP—in the charters of these the juridical persons because we already enumerated the
enumeration they have the capacity to sue and be sued by a entites to be considered as juridical persons.
party to an action. And likewise, political subdivisions may
also fall under the purview of juridical persons. I think this is Q: What are the examples of when the law mentions of
what we call in the discussion in political law 1—The State “entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.”
may not be sued without its consent. But if the state gives its
consent to be sued either expressly or impliedly, then it can (as per Riano and Atty Galeon discussion)
be sued.
Entities authorized by law to be parties
Express consent may take the form of a general law such, (a) Under Sec. 21 of the Corporation Code of the
allowing the case to be sued. A good example would be the Philippines, a corporation by estoppel is precluded
case of Merrit v. Government of the Philippine Island—after from denying its existence and the members thereof
an accident, a law was enacted allowing this Merrit to sue, so can be sued and be held liable as general partners.
that is a good example of a special law, allowing a particular Example:
person to sue Gravador, Galeon forms a corporation and all other
associates in the law office would represent themselves as a
EXP: even if there be no law but the state, for example, takes corporation. They call themselves as the LGBT corporation.
away private property supposedly for public purpose, But we are. Not really a corporation. In fact we did not
without payment of just compensation, then the state may register ourselves as such with the SEC. Somebody who
already be sued even without waiving its consent from transacted business with us and then filed a case against us.
congress. That is the ruling in the ruling of *Amicable v.
Cuenca, In Fernando v. Testigo, (I tried searching this in

20 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Q: May that corporation be sued even if it was not registered Example:
with the SEC? Tuslob Buwa store is not a corporation and not a partnership
Yes It is supposedly owned by Torregosa. In the complaint of that
store, instead filing the case in his name, he filed a complaint
Q: What if we represent ourselves as a partnership, each one for and in the name of tuslob buwa store. The case is against
of us has his/her own client? its customer for nonpayment of what has been consumed
and in the complaint.
If we represent ourselves as a partnership to the public, then
we may be sued as such because if the other party believes
that we are a partnership when in truth and in fact we are Q: Is the Complaint Proper?
not, they can sue us as a partnership. This is what they call as Torregosa did not comply with the Sec 4 of Rule 8 that the
a partnership by estoppel. capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a
party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the
With regards this and partnership by estoppel, there is this legal existence of an organized association of persons that is
provision under section 15 of rule 3 allowing them to be sued made a party, must be averred in the complaint or pleading
but with the condition that when they file their answer to the as the case may be.
complaint, they need to divulge the identities of those
supposedly forming such corporation by estoppel Example:
If you are the defendant in the action, if you are the customer
Rule 3 Section 15. who did not pay your bill, and the plaintiff of the complaint is
Entity Without Juridical Personality as Defendant. — tuslob buwa store, when in truth and in fact, the sole
When two or more persons not organized as an entity proprietor of that is Torregosa.
with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they
may be sued under the name by which they are Q: What will you file? Would we just file a manifestation that
generally or commonly known. it is not prosecuted in compliance of sec 4 of rule 8 and sec 1
of rule 3? Will that be enough? If you are the defendant, what
In the answer of such defendant, the names and will you file?
addresses of the persons composing said entity must all You file a motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff has
be revealed. no legal capacity to sue which is the ground for dismissal of
the action which is found under section 12 (3) of the
amended rule 8.
Example:
If Gravador, Torregosa, Galeon, together with their associates
would conduct a business under the assumed name LGBT Rule 8, Section 12.
Corp. when they are not a corporation. Once we are sued, in Affirmative defenses. — (a) A defendant shall raise his or her
our answer, we must divulge ourselves, the persons affirmative defenses in his or her answer, which shall be
supposedly forming the corporation by estoppel. That is the limited to the reasons set forth under Section 5(b), Rule 6, and
mandatory demand. the following grounds:
(3) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue
Rule 8, Section 4.
Capacity. — Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue If the plaintiff therefore, does not have the capacity to sue
or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued because it is not a natural person, a juridical person nor is it
in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an an entity authorized by law to be a party disputant in an
organized association of persons that is made a party, action, then your remedy as a defendant is to file a motion to
must be averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff does not have the legal
the legal existence of any party or the capacity, of any capacity to sue.
party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity,
shall do so by specific denial, which shall include such Situation:
supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the But what if, the customer is the one who filed a case against
pleader's knowledge. tuslob buwa store because pag kaon nako didto, di man buwa
ang sulod, naa man cockroach. Ni ana sila, pasensya sir
If you are suing as a corporation, it is not enough that you nahutdan man ug ilaga. The title of the complaint is RMG v.
state the name of the corporation, in fact, you must state Tuslob Buwa Store owned by Torregosa. If it’s the other way
therein that you are, say a domestic corporation organized around, meaning to say, that the plaintiff in the action is the
and existing by virtue of the Philippine law. Because if you customer (RMG) and in advertence, the name of the
only state in ypur complaint that you are a corporation and Defendant is just the name of the store (Tuslob Buwa Store)
that you are named as such, your complaint therefore is If you are Torregosa, the sole proprietor of the store.
vulnerable to dismissal for non-compliance with the
provisions of section 4 of Rule 8. Q: What motion will you file? Will you move for the dismissal
of the action? On what Ground?
21 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
A: Again, the requirement is that you need to allege the Labor Organizations may be regarded as entities although not
capacity to sue and be sued and the requirement that only corporations in themselves.
natural person, a juridical person nor is it an entity authorized
by law to be a party disputant. You will file a motion to dismiss (e) The Roman Catholic Church may be a party and as
on the ground that the pleading asserting the claim does not to its properties, the archbishop or diocese, to which
state the cause of action or there is a failure to state a cause they belong, may be a party (Barlin v. Ramirez, 7 Phil.
of action pursuant to sec 12 par 4 of Rule 8 of amended rules. 41; Versoza v. Fernandez, 49 Phil. 627, 633-634).
It was in the case of Alonso v. Villamor where it was
Rule 8 Section 12. mentioned that in previous decision that the Roman Catholic
Affirmative defenses. — (a) A defendant shall raise his or her Apostolic Church v. Municipality of Placer that substantiates
affirmative defenses in his or her answer, which shall be the prososition that the Roman Catholic Church may be
limited to the reasons set forth under Section 5(b), Rule 6, and pleaded in an action although it is not a corporation by itself.
the following grounds: It is not registered in SEC to acquire a different in legal
(4) That the pleading asserting the claim states no personality to file a case or suit in an action.
cause of action
(f) A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend
If plaintiff does not have the legal capacity to sue, the ground suits by or against it provided· that the suits must:
for the dismissal is that the plaintiff does not have the legal (i) occur within three years after its dissolution,
capacity to sue and
(ii) the suits are in connection with the settlement
and closure of its affairs
If the defendant is the one who does not the capacity to sue,
then the ground for dismissal is failure to state a cause of (Sec: 122, Corporation Code of the Philippines).
action or that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause
of action Basically, these are entities which, although they are not
clearly a corporation, they may be a party to an action be as
(b) A contract of partnership having a capital of three a plaintiff or a defendant.
thousand pesos or more but which fails to comply
with the registration requirements is, nevertheless, TN: Rule 1 Section 3 provides in part that the term plaintiff
liable as a partnership to third persons (Art. 1772 in may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, cross-
relation to Art. 1768 of the Civil Code of the claimant or the third claimant as the case may be.
Philippines).
Section 1
Who May Be Parties; Plaintiff and Defendant. — Only natural
(c) The estate of a deceased person is a juridical entity
or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be
that has a personality of its own. (Nazareno v. Court
parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may refer to the
of Appeals, 343 SCRA 637, 653, citing Limjoco v.
claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or
Intestate E1tate of Fragante, 80 Rhil. 776). Since it
the third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff. The term "defendant"
has a personality of its own, it may be a party to an
may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a
action.
counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)
In fact, as we will discuss later on, if somebody dies and *he
— party defendant.
will pass on his estate to his administrator and a suit filed
against it.(?)* A summons may be directed against the estate
of the person through his administrator or executor of his will Plaintiff
if a will has been executed by him. An estate of a person is Example: Take note that sec 1 provides that plaintiff also
not a corporation in itself, yet per jurisprudence, it may be refers to the counter-claimant, also refers to cross-claimant
sued. or third-party claimant. When does this happen?

(d) A legitimate labor organization may sue arid be sued Counter-claimant

in its registered name (Art. 242[e], Labor Code of the
Example:
Philippines).
Like ALO, which is a legitimate labor organization, so it can be Otaner Corporation (owned by Galeon) v Randi Torregosa
sued and can sue in its own name. and it is in your labor code,
in a labor case you could not file a case unless they are the
employer or employee as the case may be. Galeon filed a case against Randi and he filed his answer
and pleaded his permissive counter-claim. Let’s say for for
example, he ate at the Tuslob Buwa store but there was a
An Exception would be when the one who filed the case cockroach on the food so Galeon filed a case agisnt Randi
supposedly for the plaintiff who is a member of the for damages. But then Randi also pleaded his answer in the
association is a labor organization. principality claim “okay, in the alternative, assuming I am
indeed liable but previously you also owed me something.

22 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
We have a contract of loan. You demand from me the TN: the definition of real party in interest (RPI) is closely
payment of 10,000 but you owe me 50,000 so as I see associated with locus standi however there is a certain
things, you still owe me 40,000.” That is a permissive difference between these two terms.
counter-claim.
To become a RPI, it is not enough that he is a natural or
Insofar as that permissive counterclaim is concerned, juridical person or an entity authorized by law or by the rules
Randi becomes the Plaintiff therein, he is the counter- to institute a case, it is important, among other things, that
claimant and insofar as the permissive counterclaim is he stands to be benefitted or injured by the judgement in a
concerned, Galeon is the defendant. suit or a party entitled to the avails of the suit. Even if you are
a natural person but if you have no business whatsoever in
bringing an action and when you file a case, the case will be
As for the main case, Galoen is the Plaintiff, Randi is the
dismissed.
defendant. In the permissive counter claim, it is the other
way around.
Because you could be a natural person, hence you satisfy the
requirements of Sec 1 Rule 3 but you do not comply with the
Cross-Claimant
requirement under section 2 where you stand to be
Example: benefitted or injured by the judgement in a suit or a party
Happens if there are 2 or more defendants impleaded in entitled to the avails of the suit.
the action. Let’s say for example, Otaner Co. filed a case
against Randi Torregosa and Waldi Gravador for sum of Example:
money but then in his answer, Waldi filed a cross claim Case for declaration for nullity of marriage under Article 36.
against Torregosa saying “akong utang nga gigamit man Q: You tell me who can file an action? Pwede ba ang ninong
diha si randi, so it is Randi who is ultimately liable” Insofar sa kasal or mama sa bride.
as that cross-claim is concerned, Gravador is the party
A: Article 36, is not based on minority. The answer is a
plaintiff therein and Torregosa is the defendant.
resounding no. So in the case of Gravador v. Ozawa, then the
it is either Ozawa or Gravador who could file the case because
It is possible therefore that a defendant may become a of course, they are not only natural persons but they are also
claimant in an action either as a counter-claimant or a cross- parties to be benefitted or injured by the judgement.
claimant.
TN: I’d like to emphasize that it is not enough that you are a
Third-Party Plaintiff natural person but that you should illustrate in your pleading
Example: that you stand to be benefitted or injured by the judgement
in a suit or a party entitled to the avails of the suit so that the
Otaner Corporation filed a case against Waldi Gravador, action may prosper.
Randi Torregosa but then one of them filed a third party
complaint saying “ang nakadawat sa kwarta, wala nila but
Atty. Guji” so Gravador filed a 3rd paty complaint. In that TN: Ordinarily, in a breach of contract, only the contracting
context, Gravador also becomes a party-plaintiff insofar as parties to. A contract may file a case.
that thrird party complaint is concerned and Guji is the
defendant therein. Example 1:
Situation where Gravador would ride his motorcycle at night
Bottomline is that when we speak of plaintiff, it does not only as angkas driver and he is the registered owner of his big bike
refer to the original plaintiff or main claimant in the action and an accident happened. If Galeon filed a case for culpa
but in actuality, the term plaintiff may also refer to the contractual, then he must be filing against gravador
defendant insofar as their counterclaim, cross-claimsor third
party claims is concerned. Even the rem defendant may also Common Carriers—If a person is injured by reason of the
refer to the original plaintiff insofar as the permissive operation thereof, then he may bring an action for Culpa
counterclaim of the defendant is concerned. Contractual.

Section 2 Example 2:
Parties in Interest. — A real party in interest is the Gravador is a taxi driver, the owner of the taxi is not Gravador
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the himself, but Torregosa. So taxi is owned by Torregosa (RCT),
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the the Driver is Waldi, injured passenger of the taxi is Galeon
avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law (RMG). If Galeon’s cause of action is Culpa Contractual
or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or (Article 1759).
defended in the name of the real party in interest.

23 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Q: Who should be made the defendant in the case where the it should not be dismissed simply because their son is
foundation of the cause of action is Culpa Contractual? Is it withdrawing the case.
Torregosa or Gravador?
A: The Owner of Taxi = RCT; Driver of Taxi=Gravador. So the HELD:
contract therefore is between Torregosa and Galeon. So
The parents are not the real party in interest. They were
where Galeon files a case based on Culpa Contractual. Then
not the passengers. The real parties in a contract of
he should only be impleading Torregosa, the registered
carriage are the parties to the contract itself. In the
owner of the taxi because in a contract, the one who could
absence of any contract of carriage between the
file thereon in a case of breach should only be the contracting
transportation company and the parents of the injure
parties therein.
party, the parents are not real parties in interest in an
action for breach of contract.
EXP 1: where even a stranger to a contract may be impleaded
in an action either as a party defendant or party plaintiff
A student was riding in a bus owned by Baliwag Transit and it
therein. When is that possible?
met an accident, so an action is filed where the parents of the
A: if a contract contains a stipulation pour autrui (a stipulation injured party actually involved because he is a student, his
expressly conferring benefits to a third person), such person, parents were co-plaintiffs against Baliwag Transit. The
in whose benefit the stipulation was conferred by the parties, parents joined as party plaintiff for the action because they
may demand the fulfillment of the contract, and even sue wanted the bus to pay the medical expenses for the injured
under such contract, provided he accepted and passenger. It was argued that while he was standing up
communicated his acceptance of the beneficial stipulation somehow. The driver drove the bus in a reckless manner and
prior to its revocation (Art. 1311, Civil Code of the Philippines) the student was thrown out of the bus. In the answer, the bus
driver said, the passenger was out of his mind, he jump off.
Example: He tried to prevent the student from jumping out. But then
In a taxi, there is a 3rd party liability insurance. You take note he jumped off the bus, therefore he only had himself to
the privity of the contract, the parties thereto in a contract of blame. Parents averred that they paid for the hospital bills.
carriage is the taxi cab and the passenger. The insurance
company, in reality is a stranger to such contract bt inasmuch TN: Nature of the action was culpa contractual. The bus
as there is a 3rd party liability insurance covering the taxicab operator was being sued under the ground of Culpa
of Torregosa, then in the action I may implead not only Contractual. But without the knowledge of the parents, the
Torregosa but also the insurance company. student accepted a sum lesser than what was demanded in
the complaint and entered into a compromise agreement
EXP 2: Although they rule in a breach of contract, only the with the bus company. On the basis of which, bus company
contracting parties may become parties therein. But when moved for dismissal of action and approved by the court
there is such a thing as stipulation pour autrui, then even a
non-party to the contract may be impleaded in the action Parents naturally objected claiming that they are also party
either as the defendant or the party plaintiff therein. plaintiffs of the case, and sought for reimbursement on
expenses for injured party
In fact, there is a principle that even if you are the one to
cause another person to breach his contractual undertaking, The Court ruled that the parents are not the real party in
then you can also be impleaded as a defendant in the action interest, they were not passengers. The real parties in a
by the aggrieved party. Again, the aggrieved party may bring contract of carriage are the parties to the contract itself, so
an action against the contracting party but also against the in the absence of contract of carriage between the
person who somehow convinced the other contracting party transportation company and the parents, then they cannot
to violate his contractual stipulation. therefore bring an action for culpa contractual. Considerably
as they are not real parties in interest. Therefore, the lower
court was not in error in approving the compromise
Baliwag Transit v. Court of Appeals agreement before the injured passenger and bus company
169 SCRA 649
FACTS: TN: ruling would have been different if this student is still a
A student who was riding in one of the Baliwag buses met minor because a minor ought to be represented in the action
an accident. So, an action was filed where the parents and by his parents, guardians or person who will be exercising
the injured boy were the co-plaintiffs against Baliwag parental authority over the person. Boy was already of age in
Transit. While the case was going on, the student entered the case.
into amicable settlement with the bus company. Based on
the settlement, Baliwag moved to dismiss the case. The Q by Student: Atty, what would happen if the student died?
parents objected, because they are also plaintiffs. They
Can file a case under Culpa Contractual against the operator.
posited that they didn’t know about the settlement. They
But may also file a case against the driver and bus operator
said that they were the ones who spent money, therefore
on the ground of culpa aquiliana (art 2176) based on his
vicarious liability in 2180. (atty seemed really tired, his words
24 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
were jumbled up I’m not sure if this is what he really wanted only determine if the person is a real party in interest and that
to convey). You can also file a criminal case—culpa criminal only requires the fulfillment of the requirement of Rule 3
and there is such a thing as subsidiary liability in the evnt that Section 2. It boils down to the substance of the case, who is
the driver cannot pay the judgement award, then you can run to be benefitted or injured thereby. But locus standi as used
after the employer or the owner of the taxi. As a lawyer, one in Constitutional cases is nothing but. A procedural
must see who to sue. Galeon’s advise, there must be a technicality. Such that in some cases, the SC would relax the
splitting of causes of action. Separate the criminal from the rule on locus standi or legal standing and sustain the party of
independent civil action. That is allowed under Art. 2176 the case even if the one filing the same does not stand to be
benefitted or injured by the judgement of the case.
Example:
I rented an apartment unit owned by Gravador so we have a If that is an ordinary civil action and if the one to bring the
contract of lease. Gravador is the lessor and Galeon the action is not a real party in interest then the court cannot
lessee. But then one fine morning, Torregosa intruded and therefore relax section 2. The court must therefore dismiss
lived in his apartment unit from Gravador. Torregosa the case because it is not prosecuted by the real party in
intruded against Galeon’s will. If there is an action for forcible interest
entry, can Galeon file a case? Or should it be Gravador, the
owner of the property. In constitutional law cases, even if the one who filed the
petition is not the real party in interest, there is a good
A: Real party in interest is a person who stands to be chance that the Supreme Court or even an ordinary court,
benefitted or injured by the judgement of a suit. Therefore, may relax the rule on Locus Standi.
Galeon may institute the case for forcible entry because the
issue in an ejection case is only possession, hence, the lessee
has the legal capacity and may be the person to be IBP v. Zamora
considered as a real party in interest to file a case for forcible Facts:
entry. The President of the Philippines, Joseph Ejercito Estrada,
in a verbal directive, ordered the PNP and the Marines to
conduct joint visibility patrols for the purpose of crime
Philippine Trust Company v. Court of Appeals prevention and suppression. In compliance with the
320 SCRA 719 presidential mandate, the PNP Chief, through Police Chief
HELD: Superintendent Edgar B. Aglipay, formulated Letter of
Should a lawful possessor be disturbed in his possession, it Instruction 02/2000 (the "LOI") which detailed the manner
is the possessor, not necessarily the owner of the by which the joint visibility patrols, called Task Force
property, who can bring the action to recover the Tulungan, would be conducted.
possession. The argument that the complaint states no
cause of action because the suit was filed by a mere The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (the "IBP") filed the
possessor and not by the owner is not correct. instant petition to annul LOI 02/2000 and to declare the
deployment of the Philippine Marines null and void and
In an action for forcible entry, the possessor/lessee is the unconstitutional, arguing that the deployment of marines
real party in interest as plaintiff and not the owner/lessor. in Metro Manila is violative of the Constitution because no
The issue in an action for forcible entry is mere possession. emergency situation obtains in Metro Manila as would
But in action to recover damages for inquiry caused by the justify, even only remotely, the deployment of soldiers for
deforciant on the property, the owner/lessor is the real law enforcement work.
party in interest as plaintiff.
Ruling:
Should a lawful possessor be disturbed in his possession, it is IBP is not a real party in interest because as an
the possessor, not necessarily the owner of the property, organization, IBP does not stand to be benefitted or
who can bring the action to recover the possession. The injured by the judgement but this is not an ordinary civil
argument that the complaint states no cause of action action. It is rather an action imbued with political interest
because the suit was filed by a mere possessor and not by the so the SC did not apply the stringent requirement on Rule
owner is not correct. The action for forcible entry, the lessee 3 Sec 2 but the rule on who may be considered to have
is the real party in interest as plaintiff and not necessarily the locus standi during the action so the SC relaxed thereon its
owner thereof. application.

But as regards claims for damages on the cost of property— TN: In ordinary civil law cases, NOT political law cases, if the
it now boils down to the issue of ownership, then the party one filing the action is not a real party in interest, then the
to file the case shall be the owner thereof. case must be dismissed. There is no such thing as relaxation
on the rule on legal standing which is applicable in political
law cases.
In Political Law, Locus Standi is associated with real party in
interest. These two terms are not similar. In a civil action, you
25 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
In Philippine Trust Company v. CA, we determined that even If the one filing the case is the person who is NOT the real
an ordinary lessee may bring an action for forcible entry, party in interest. Then apply the ____, to the end that if the
unlawful detainer and even an ejectment case. But what if suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in
the property parcel of land is co-owned by 2 persons—A and interest then a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground
B, and C intruded on their property. Only B intends to file an that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. So, there
ejectment case against C. is therefore a failure to state the cause of action.

Q: Is that allowed? B is a real party in interest but must A be In that context we need to differentiate. Lack of Capacity to
joined in the suit also as A is also a real party in interest? sue violates requirement in Sec 1 Rule 3 that is insofar as the
A: in property, a co-owner may bring an action for ejectment plaintiff is concerned but when we say failure to state a cause
as it redounds to the benefit of the co-ownership. of action it is also a ground for dismissal then, probably the
violation thereof is the provision of Sec 2 Rule 3 that the
person of the defendant is not the real party in interest or
Section 2 requires that a real party in interest stands to be the plaintiff is not a real party in interest.
benefitted or injured by the judgement of the suit. So what
would be the result if the one filing the case is a natural
person, juridical person or an entity authorized by law to file If the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real
a case, meaning to say he has the legal capacity to sue but is party in interest, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the
not actually the real party in interest. ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

A: Legal capacity to sue is defined by Sec 1 TN: you should differentiate Sec 1 and Sec 2. It is not enough
that you comply with sec 1, that you have the capacity to sue,
what is more important is that you should be a real party in
Assume that a person has the legal capacity, he is a Filipino interest.
but upon bringing the action, he is not a real party in interest.
Let’s say for example, the one filing for a case on the recovery
of ownership is a mere tenant of the land. Waldi owns an Section 3
agricultural land tenanted by Galeon. Torregosa also claims
Representatives as Parties. — Where the action is allowed
ownership over the subject parcel of land. Such that Galeon
to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or
filed a case for recovery of ownership or possibly quieting of
someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary
title which is about ownership NOT for forcible entry,
shall be included in the title of the case and shall be
unlawful detainer—so, cant apply ruling on Phil. Trust.
deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative
Galeon, being a Fil, of legal age, married—has the legal
may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an
capacity to bring the action in application of sec 1 rule 3.
executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or
Q: But he is he a real party in interest when the issue now is these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the
NOT possession but ownership? benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued
A: No, when that happens Torregosa may file a motion to without joining the principal except when the contract
dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. involves things belonging to the principal.

Rule 8 Section 12 (1st sentence of Section 3 Rule 3)

Affirmative defenses. — (a) A defendant shall raise his Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by
or her affirmative defenses in his or her answer, which a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity,
shall be limited to the reasons set forth under Section the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and
5(b), Rule 6, and the following grounds: shall be deemed to be the real party in interest…
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no
cause of action; TN: in Section 2 Rule 3 somehow it is very strict that only the
real party in interest must be the defendant or plaintiff in the
action. But that stringent requirement is somehow modified
Aguila v. Court of Appeals
by the provision of section 3 Rule 3 to the end that another
319 SCRA 246 person may bring an action for and on behalf of another
HELD: person. That is when that person represents either the
Any decision rendered against a person who is not a real plaintiff or the defendant. But the requirement is for the
party-in-interest in the case cannot be executed. Hence, a beneficiary (real plaintiff or defendant) to be made as the real
complaint filed against such person should be dismissed party in interest, the his/her name should be included in the
for failure to state a cause of action. title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in
interest.
That is if the defendant is not the real party in interest.
Torregosa filed a case on ownership against a Galeon, a Section 2 is quite clear when it states that only those who
tenant. Decision therein cannot be executed. stand to be benefitted or injured by the judgement may bring
an action as a plaintiff or defend the action as a defendant.

26 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
But that requirement under section 2 is somehow modified attorney. An agent’s authority to file suit cannot be
and the same is realized in section 3 where another person inferred from his authority to collect or receive payments;
who may not be a real party in interest may bring or defend the grant of special powers cannot be presumed from the
the action in a representative capacity. The requirement is grant of general powers.
that the principal (the real party in interest) in the action
must be included in the title of that case and shall be deemed
TN: Galeon is allowed to bring an action but he must bring
as the real party in interest.
the action, not in his own personal name but in the name of
Walde.
Example:
Galeon has the SPA of Gravador, who owns an apartment Fact remains and as required by Sec 3 that the name of the
building. In the SPA, Gravador made Galeon as his agent beneficiary must be included in the title of the case and be
giving him authority to collect rentals to somehow make deemed to be the real party in interest.
repairs on the building with authority to hire a lawyer and
demand payment of unpaid rentals, even send demand
letters and file a case. Take note that the SPA given by A recently handled case by Atty. Galeon:
Gravador is more or less broad and encompassing, where I’m The party in the complaint, there is that vague allegation that
not only allowed to collect rentals but he also allowed Galeon the action was supposedly instituted for the benefit of the
to make repairs on the building and even hire the services of corporation but something is amiss because in the title of the
a lawyer and send demand letter and even file a case. Such action, the name of the plaintiff is not the corporation itself
that I filed a case against Torregosa, an occupant of the but it is the name of the President of the corporation. In the
apartment unit for nonpayment of rentals but in the action, verification portion of the complaint, the one cited by the
Galeon stands as a plaintiff therein. president there is nothing in there which mentions that she
filed the case supposedly in legal representation of the
corporation. What surprised us is that the previous lawyer
Q: May Galeon bring an action in legal representation of
also did not point that out in the court. What Atty. Did was
Gravador? Can he act for and in his behalf where Galeon has
that they pointed it out during the course of the cross-
a SPA authorizing him to hire the assistance of a lawyer and
examination. Of course, perting tarantaha sa lawyer sa pikas.
even file an action?
Probably wala siya kabantay. Because when we asked
A: He is not a real party in interest if we apply section 2. But questions, pointing to the fact that in the title of the
under Section 3, a person who may not be a real party in complaint, the corporation is not named as a party plaintiff
interest may become or may bring an action or defend an therein. The lawyer already knew that there is something
action on behalf or for the benefit of another person. So as wrong or that the complaint did not comply with Section 3.
regards Galeon’s capacity, then he may bring an action. But When we asked the question dealing with the verification
the trouble is that he must bring the action NOT in his own portion that there was no statement therein that the
name but in the name of the principal. president of the corporation was bringing the action
supposedly and on behalf of and for the benefit of the
If at all, he brings an action against Torregosa, He must bring corporation, the other lawyer wanted to object because he
it in the name of Walde but if he wants to be famous, then he wouldn’t want his witness to answer. The other continued on
may put this in the title: “Walde represented by Galeon v. saying that “the best evidence, your honor, is the complaint”
Torreogosa” but then it was our lawyer who eventually said “I just want an
affirmation, your honor, a confirmation that the application
of the best evidence rule would only apply if what is
There is no way that Galeon may bring an action in his own
introduced as evidence is a mere photocopy and here, what
name because Section 3 is very clear when it says that the
is being presented in evidence is the complaint itself, the
beneficiary (the real party in interest) must be included in the
original thereof as appearing in the records.” The court
title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in
understood what our point was such that the lawyers for the
interest (the beneficiary)
parties were required by the court to confer with the judge
in chambers and the parties were told to settle it because
This is the ruling in the case of V-Gent, Inc v. Morning Star otherwise they were to start from the very beginning. The
Travel and Tours. requirement is very clear, the beneficiary shall be included in
the title of the case.
V-Gent, Inc. v. Morning Star Travel and Tours
GR no 186305 [July 22, 2015]
The case of (?) is no different from the old case of Anoga v
HELD: Warner Barns. There was an SPA that was executed in favor
The power to collect and receive payments on behalf of of a person and the agent instituted an action supposedly on
the principal is an ordinary act of administration covered behalf of the principal but somehow in the complaint, the
by the general powers of an agent. On the other hand, the name of the principal was stated or was not included in the
filing of suits is an act of strict dominion. Under Article title of the case. The SC said that it cannot be done because
1878(15) of the Civil Code, a duly appointed agent has no the law is very clear that one had to name the beneficiary in
power to exercise any act of strict dominion on behalf of the title of the complaint
the principal unless authorized by a special power of

27 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
(2nd Sentence of Sec 3 Rule 3)
A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a The compulsory legal heirs of Yaptinchay, of course in the
guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized property of their father, but then this property was claimed
by law or these Rules… by another corporation. To bring an action whereby in the
case the title is the legal heirs of Yaptinchay v. Corporation.
TN: Sec 3 of Rule 3 allows the case to be instituted by the But then the Corporation filed a motion to dismiss on the
trustor or trustee, the guardian. Especially when the real ground that the legal heirs should have instituted first a
party in interest is a minor. special proceedings so as to establish that indeed, they are
the legal or compulsory heirs of the decedent Yaptinchay.
1. If the real party in interest is a minor, then he should And on that ground, the trial court dismissed the action and
be represented in the action by his parents or the
so the legal heors of Yaptinchay went to the SC but the SC
guardian. sustain the ruling of the trial court. The SC ruled that the trial
2. If the defendant or the plaintiff in an action is court could not make a declaration of heirship in a civil action
already deceased and a suit pertains to his estate. for the reason that such declaration can only be made in a
Then in the action, his exector or administrator must special proceeding.
be named as a defendant therein

Example: You may recall in our previous discussion, we defined a civil

action as an action by which a person sues another person
Galeon owed Walde money. Waldi had a collectible from
for protection, enforcement of a right or redress of a wrong.
Galeon then Galeon left behind an estate and the executor of While a special proceeding is one by which one seeks to
that estate is Torregosa. The action must be instituted establish a right, status or a particular fact. So, the nature or
through: “Walde v. Estate of Galeon represented by purpose of a special proceeding is different from that of an
Torregosa” ordinary civil action.

TN: the estate must be named as a defendant in an action

TN: in our previous discussion Rule 2 Sec 5, we already
because the real party in interest now is the estate although discussed that there is no such thing as a possible joinder of
the case will be prosecuted through the executor or the cause of action between a civil action governed by ordinary
administrator of the same.
rules and one that are covered by special rules. That is why
here, in the case of Yatinchay, the SC said that one could not
Section 3 allows a person to file a case although he is not the join the 2 causes of action. The trial court therefore, could
real part in interest provided that he is bringing the action or not make a declaration in a defensive action that the plaintiff
defending the suit in a representative capacity either as a are the legal heirs of Yaptinchay.
trustee of an express trust, guardian, executor or
administrator but the requirement is that the beneficiary (the So in this case, the SC required that there be a special
real party in interest) must be named in the case. proceedings first such that the legal heirs of Yaptinchay will
be declared in that special proceedings as his legal
compulsory heirs and that when somebody will be named as
Yaptinchay v. Hon. Del Rosario
the executor of the estate of Yaptinchay; then only then
GR No 124320 [March 2, 1999] could the action be filed against the corporation and the
HELD: action must be brought for and in the name of the estate of
“The trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in Yaptinchay represented by the administrator.
the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can
only be made in a special proceeding. Under Section 3, This is somehow in line with the provision of Section 3. But
Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, a civil action is what is clear in the case of Yaptinchay is that there should be
defined as “one by which a party sues another for the a separate proceeding for the declaration of heirship. It
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or cannot be adjudicated in the same case because there is a
redress of a wrong” while a special proceeding is “a misjoinder of cause of action. One is governed by ordinary
remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, rules while the other is governed by a special rule.
or a particular fact.” It is then decisively clear that the
declaration of heirship can be made only in a special
proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking TN: BUT SOMEHOW THE RULING IN YAPTINCHAY IS
the establishment of a status or right. CONTRARY TO THE RULING OF MENDOZA. If you are
representing the Defendant ang nikiha kay ang legal heirs,
then cite Yaptinchay but if you are the counsel for the
We therefore hold that the respondent court did the right plaintiff, then cite Mendoza.
thing in dismissing the Second Amended Complaint, which
stated no cause of action. In Travel Wide Associated Sales
(Phils), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, it was ruled that “. . . if the
suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party
in interest, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground
that the complaint states no cause of action.”

28 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions

Mendoza vda. De Bonnevie v. Cecilia vda. De Pardo

Provision is more or less an implementation of the provision
59 PHIL 486
under 1883
HELD:
Civil Code Article 1883.
Unless there is a pending special proceeding for the
If an agent acts in his own name, the principal has no
settlement of the estate of the deceased person, the legal
right of action against the persons with whom the agent
heirs may commence an ordinary action arising out of a
has contracted; neither have such persons against the
right belonging to the ancestor, without the necessity of a
principal.
provision and separate judicial declaration of their status
as such, and without the necessity of appointing an
executor or administrator. In such case the agent is the one directly bound in favor
of the person with whom he has contracted, as if the
transaction were his own, except when the contract
So in the case of Mendoza, if there is no pending special
involves things belonging to the principal.
proceedings for the declaration of heirship. Then the legal
heirs may already file a case but if there is already a pending
case, then they must wait for the ruling thereon and they The provisions of this article shall be understood to be
must wait that somebody will be appointed as the without prejudice to the actions between the principal
administrator or executor of the estate of the deceased. and agent

Q: Which case is controlling? Yaptinchay or Mendoza? This happens when an agent act in his own name and for the
This is another gray area in actual practice. Atty suggests to benefit of an undisclosed principal, therefore he may sue or
invoke whichever case is favorable to cause of your client. be sued without joining the principal except when the
Yaptinchay is more recent that Mendoza. As to which ruling contract involves things that should only pertain to the
is correct, that is not clear. If this might come out in the bar, principal.
might as well cite the two cases.
Even a person who is not a real party in interest may bring an
There is also wisdom in the case of Mendoza. Would you action in a rather representative capacity or a defend a suit
wait? What if the action almost prescribes? The action for in a rather representative capacity, but the name of the
special proceedings may take some time. principal must be included in the title of the case. But this
only happens in a situation wherein the name of the principal
is disclosed to the other party.
The case of Yaptinchay also has wisdom in it because what if
those claiming as legal heirs are not actually who they claim
to be. Example:
Galeon is a caretaker in the apartment of Gravador pursuant
to the SPA being executed in Galeon’s favor. Therefore, the
Actually, that can be remedied because if you want to apply
tenant, Torregosa knows for one that Galeon is the
the ruling in Mendoza, in the course of the proceedings, you
administrator or the agent of Gravador.
require the plaintiff to show evidence to show that they are
indeed the legal heirs or successors in interest of the
deceased person. But then the case of Yaptinchay was But this is qualified by the last sentence of Section 3 such that
decided on 1999 while Mendoza was an old case (wa kayo ko of the principal is not disclosed and it is as if the agent is
kasabot sa tumong ni atty) acting in his own name, then the principal therefore may not
bring an action against the person with whom the agent has
contracted in like manner that the person with whom that
It is very clear in Yaptinchay. That the declaration of heirship
agent has contracted cannot also bring an action against the
can only be made through a special proceeding and one could
principal.
not join the causes of action. So the complaint was dismissed
on the ground that they have failed to state a cause of action.
Because there is no showing that they are the real party in Example:
interest and there is no showing that they are the declared or Gravador has money and he invested it with Torregosa. Then,
recognized legal heirs of this person and we have already without Galeon knowing such transaction between the two,
discussed that if the person is not a real party in interest, then Galeon obtained a loan from Torregosa believing that the
the action may be dismissed on the ground that there is a latter owned the sum of money, so if such is the situation
failure to state a cause of action. where Galeon does not pay his obligation, then Waldi is
authorized to just bring the action because in the first place,
(3rd Sentence in Rule 3 Sec 3) he did not disclose to Galeon that the money belonged to
someone else. Therefore, Gravador can file a case for
An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an
collection of sum of money. There is no need to implead
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the
Torregosa and Torregosa cannot directly file the case against
principal except when the contract involves things belonging
Galeon because in the first place, the latter did not know
to the principal.
beforehand that the money did not belong to Gravador.

29 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions

Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Tañon Strait

It would be different if Galeon was informed beforehand that v. Reyes, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department
the money is not that of Gravador but was owned by of Energy
Torregosa.

Case filed seeking to prohibit the oil drilling along Tañon

The Exception is when the contract involves things belonging Starit, therefore a group of lawyers from Cebu claimed to
to the principal. be filing in the behalf of the protected mammals,
tortoise, porpoise…
Example:
Walde commissioned Randi to dispose of and sell his unused Issue: Do the tortoises, mammals, porpoise have the legal
laptop. Randi offered the same to Galeon for sale and he capacity to sue.
accepted the offer and paid the purchase price. However,
Randi refused to deliver the laptop. Can Galeon file a case for
Ruling: the mammals, tortoise, porpoise, by themselves
specific performance against Randi only when the property
could not become parties of the action. Because under sec
involved is owned by Walde? Cause of action now is specific
1 rule 3, only natural, juridical persons and entities
performance. The mandate that the laptop be delivered to
authorized by law may bring an action or may become
Galeon.
parties to a civil action and of course, they are not natural
persons, all the more are they NOT juridical persons.
Q: Can Galeon bring the action only against Torregosa However, the action or petition was sustained, not
because in the first place, he did not know that the lapop is because the mammals have the legal capacity to sue but
owned by Waldi and that Galeon did not know beforehand of because the other petitioners, the environmental lawyers,
such ownership? also filed the case not only in legal representation as
A: No. the provision clearly provided for the exception when friends guardians of the mammals but also on their own
it stated “except when the contract involves things belonging behalf and for their own benefit.
to the principal”
The SC said that the petition shall be allowed, not because
However, if the cause of action involves breach of contract the mammals have the legal capacity to sue but because
and there is a prayer for rescission and refund of purchase of Sec. 5, Rule 2, Part II, Rules of Procedure for
price with claims of damages, then the action would prosper Environmental Cases. The lawyers overstretched their
even if the same is instituted only against Torregosa, because favor. They could not likewise invoke Sec 3 Rule 3 as no
in the first place, such action does not involve the property of one appointed them as guardians of the mammals
Waldi.
Again, the petition was sustained because the other
TN: This last sentence would only apply in situations where parties who are the petitioners therein had the legal
the agent does not disclose the name of the principal or that standing to bring the action.
the person transacting business with the agent does not
know that the agent is merely acting as such or that he has a 2. A suit questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis
principal. for the declaration of martial law or suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Citizens’ suit 1987 Constitution, Sec 18, Article VII
1. In Environmental Cases – A citizen suit may be filed The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
by any Filipino citizen in representation of others, proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
including minors or generations yet unborn, to factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
enforce rights or obligations under environmental suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
laws (Sec. 5, Rule 2, Part II, Rules of Procedure for thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon
Environmental Cases) within thirty days from its filing…
To be sure, you can recall the case of Oposa v. Factoran
with respect to the revocation of the timber license Rule on legal standing may be relaxed and that any citizen
concessions. A suit was filed even in behalf of the may bring an action questioning the factual basis for the
generation yet to unborn. Therefore, there is no locus declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of
standi yet to speak. Yet the SC permitted due to the the writ of habeas corpus.
provision allowing the citizen’s suit.

Section 4
Spouses as parties. — Husband and wife shall sue or be
sued jointly, except as provided by law.

30 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Example:
Section 5
The wife of Gravador would lend money to her kumare, and
Minor or incompetent persons. — A minor or a person
she does not pay. The wife of Gravador must include
alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued with the
Gravador as co-plaintiff if she wants to file a case because it
assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has
is a requirement.
none, a guardian ad litem.

Q: What if Gravador had no knowledge, must he still be

Discussed previously when we discussed Section 3, Rule 3 to
impleaded? What if it is the other way around and it is
the end that a parent may bring or defend actions for their
Gravador’s wife who obtained the loan from the kumare?
children. Though if the child being sued without a parent or
Does the Kumare have to include Gravador/ Baby G in the
guardian, it will be given by the court aka a “guardian ad
loan transaction?
litem.” (Usually the DSWD for children in conflict with the
It depends! If the loan that was obtained was with his consent law)
(all the more he can be sued) OR even without his knowledge
because of . . . Article 94, paragraph 3 (absolute community)
& Article 121, paragraph 3 (conjugal partnership) of the In this, section 5 must be read in conjunction with section 3
Family Code (an action defended in the name of party in interest by the
guardian or parent)
“Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse
without the consent of the other to the extent that
the family may have been benefited”
Section 6
Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in whom or
So, if the loan transaction redounds to the benefit of the against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out
family, there is a need to implead Gravador in the action BUT of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged
Gravador can put up the defence of having no knowledge of to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative,
the transaction. (Atty explains his previous case where the may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as
husband did not know of the loan and the judge accepted the plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint,
defense – may now go after the paraphernal property of the where any question of law or fact common to all such
wife) plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action;
but the court may make such orders as may be just to
If you are the plaintiff, you may be asked to amend the prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed
complaint; otherwise the court may file a motion to dismiss or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in
BUT based on experience, if the husband is not impleaded, which he may have no interest.
the court does not immediately dismiss the case.
Caveat: Except when the law provides that the spouse need It has been discussed in part during Section 5, Rule 2
not be impleaded pertaining to joinder of causes of action OR cumulative
joinder of cause of action. In section 6 it is the permissive
Art. 111, Family Code joinder of parties. In fact, it is also mentioned in section 5;
rule 2 that a joinder of a cause of action must comply with
A spouse of age may mortgage, alienate encumber or
the rule of joinder of parties when there are other parties
otherwise, dispose of his or her exclusive property without the
involved in the action.
consent of the other spouse and appear alone in court to
litigate with regard to the same
What is required is that
This pertains to litigation involving only the exclusive (1) The parties who seek to be joined in the action have a right
property of the spouse. It finds relevance mainly in the to relief in relation to the transaction or series of transactions
community regime of complete separation of property OR if and
there is still capital/ paraphernal property of a spouse. (2) That there is a common question of law or fact.
Another case where only one spouse may initiate the action
is when a spouse wants to adopt an illegitimate child of the Example:
other spouse If Randi and I are injured together while riding Baby G’s
motorcycle, we may decide to testify in one complaint as co-
Example: plaintiffs in the action. We both have separate causes of
A wife is previously married and widowed ➔ remarries ➔ action BUT we may choose to join together.TN: It is not
husband wants to adopt the children of the widow ➔ only compulsory (obviously) and there may be 2 separate cases. So
the father will stand as petitioner in the petition for adoption the law may not force us to join together as one complaint.
(no need for the mother to be made a co-petitioner because
she holds parental authority) BUT is we had separate accidents (Randi in the morning and
I in the afternoon) there cannot be a joinder as co-plaintiffs
because one of the requirements is the common question of

31 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
fact. Due to the different times, there is no common question necessarily be prejudiced by a judgement which does
of fact. complete justice to the parties in court.

Example: Example:
Ceres bus meets an accident and many passengers are If A, B, C, D stand as co-owners to a single parcel of land
injured; they may file a single complaint as co-plaintiffs.
WITHOUT a partition, thus none of them can claim a specific
part of the land. When an action is intended to be filed
Q: Why does the law allow us to choose?
against E for claiming to be an owner of the same property, it
To unclog the dockets of the court, for the convenience of the is required that the 4 of them should participate and stand as
parties, to expedite proceedings and for economical
co-plaintiffs for the action.
presentation of evidence (probably if the accident happened
with them together, they may call each other as witnesses)
If it is the other way around with E owning the lot, and A, B,
Where there is joinder of parties, there is also a joinder of C, D intruding and claim to be the owners, then E must
causes of action. Going back to the situation of Randi and I, implead all of them in the action. Without the inclusion of all
our supposedly separate causes of action will now be joined of them or the omission of any one of them it would render
together. BUT where there is a joinder in causes of action, it
the decision void because each one of them are an
does not necessarily follow that there is a joinder of parties.
indispensable party and are inextricably intertwined making
it absolutely necessary. Courts cannot proceed without their
Example:
presence.
I obtained 4 loans from Baby G with promissory notes.
Gravador may file separate cases BUT he may also file one
complaint and pray that I be made liable for the four separate
De Castro v. CA
transactions. In this context, they are the SAME parties (no
joinder of parties) BUT there is a joinder of causes of action. 384 SCRA 607
The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory and
courts cannot proceed without their presence
Section 7
Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. — Parties in
interest without whom no final determination can be had Florente, Jr. v. Florante, Sr.
of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or GR 174909
defendants Any decision rendered by a court without first obtaining
the required jurisdiction over indispensable parties is null
Joinder under this section is mandatory/ compulsory. This and void for want of jurisdiction, not only as to the absent
may only happen when these parties who are to be joined are parties but even as to those present.
indispensable parties. He may be considered an
indispensable party if his interests in the subject matter of the
If E impleads A, B, C but omits D, then even if the court
action and the relief prayed for therein are basically the same
and are intrinsically intertwined with that of the other renders a decision therein, it is invalid not only to D but to A,
persons. B, C as well.

That is why it must be joint, because there cannot be any final Where an action is filed and it appears that there is an
determination of the action. His participation in the case is indispensable party and a person claiming to be a co-owner
mandatory because without his inclusion therein, the court is omitted, then the adverse party may file a motion to
cannot decide because it would be acting WITHOUT
dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.
jurisdiction.

Even if there is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause

Benedicto-Muñoz v. Cacho-Oivares of action, the court is not duty bound to dismiss the case
GR 179121 [Nov. 9, 2015] outright, in fact the court may direct the amendment for the
HELD: inclusion of the indispensable party. If this order is not
An indispensableparty is one whose interest in the subject obeyed, that is the time that the court will dismiss the case
matter of the suit and the relief sought are so inextricably for violating a lawful court order which is a ground for a
intertwined with the other parties that his legal presence
dismissal of a case.
as a party to the proceeding is absolutely necessary. On
the contrary, a party is not indispensableto the suit if his Ex. Action for partition or annulment of partition, all those
interest in the controversy or subject matter is distinct and who claim to be heirs of the decedent must participate in the
divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not proceeding.

32 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
case is possible. However, Mrs. Cerezo’s liability as an
Q: Is there legal basis of the court to allow the inclusion of a employer in an action for a quasi-delict is not only solidary;
it is also primary and direct. Foronda is not an independent
party?
party to the final resolution of Tuazon’s action for
Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. — Neither damages against Mrs. Cerezo. The responsibility of two or
misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the Where there is a solidary obligation on the part of debtors,
court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any as in this case, each debtor is liable for the entire
obligation. Hence, each debtor is liable to pay for the
stage the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim
entire obligation in full.
against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded
with separately.
TN: At most, the driver can only be considered a necessary
party, but not an indispensable party.
Even when there is a motion to dismiss, the court may direct
the plaintiff to amend the complaint, though if it is not
followed it may be dismissed under Rule 3, Section 17. Section 8
Necessary party. — A necessary party is one who is not
In the context of section 4, between spouses, the court will indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if
give them a chance to amend the action. complete relief is to be accorded as to those already
parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of
While mentioning indispensable parties, there is the example the claim subject of the action.
of a collision involving a bus or taxi cab. Suppose I figure in a
vehicular collision with a taxi cab and I file a case of culpa
In saying a party is indispensable, there is no way the case can
aquiliana against the driver and the operator. The court does
be decided without his participation. Though when a party is
not serve the driver summons, but the operator is duly given
merely a necessary party, their inclusion is directory in which
summons. Can the court proceed with the trial of the case
it is desirable but not absolutely necessary because even
and rendered judgement therein even if the driver was not
without that person, the case can be decided. If you want ALL
served summons when it is possible to? Is the driver an
issues of the case to be decided, it is desirable to include the
indispensable party where the court cannot proceed?
party in the action.

In the case of Culpa Aquiliana that I filed, I impleaded both

In this context, you can differentiate it. If it is indispensable,
driver and the operator, pursuant to 2176 (driver) and 2180
the case cannot proceed. If he is necessary, it may proceed
(operator), joining them as co-defendants. The court did not
because it is merely directory and not compulsory.
obtain jurisdiction over the driver because he was not served
with summons. Can the court proceed with the case and
render judgement? YES. Example:
RCT and RNG receive a loan from BBG to the tune of P100,
000.00. P50, 000.00 was given to them each and a promissory
This is answered in the case of Cerezo
note was issued stating that they are solidarily liable. BBG
Hermana R. Cerezo, Petitioner, v. David Tuazon, files a case against RCT and does not implead RNG.
Respondent Q: Can he collect?
GR 141538 [Mar. 23, 2004]
YES. The action may proceed with collection of the complete
FACTS:
P100, 000.00 without RNG being included due to being
A tricycle collided with a bus. The tricycle driver filed a case
merely a necessary party due to the obligation being solidary.
for damages based on quasi-delict against the owner of
the bus and the driver. The driver was not served with
summons, and it is on this basis that the bus owner Q: What if it is joint? We are but joint obligors, only
questioned validity of the court’s decision. According to compelled to pay P50, 000.00 each? Can he file a case only
the bus owner, the driver is an indispensable party to the against RCT?
case
YES, but he can only collect P50, 000.00 but it may still
proceed without RNG being impleaded in the case.
HELD:
Contrary to Mrs. Cerezo’s assertion, Foronda is not an
indispensable party to the case. An indispensable party is The moral of the story: BBG can file a case either way and
one whose interest is affected by the court’s action in the RNG is merely a necessary party. BUT for BBG to collect the
litigation, and without whom no final resolution of the

33 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
entire obligation of P100, 000.00, he has to include RNG in 2. A final decree can be had in a case even without a
the action for complete relief. necessary party because his interests are separable
from the interest litigated in the case
Example:
BBG gave a P5M loan to RTC for the elections, with the Section 9.
stipulation that RNG be a surety. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. —
Q: If BBG files a case against only RCT will it proceed? Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a
necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his
YES, because RNG is merely a surety and it would only be a
name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should
necessary party but not actually indispensable, AND even the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it
more so if RNG was a guarantor. may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
Q: BUT, what if BBG files an action against the surety only? Is
it possible? The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion,
without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the
YES, and there is no need for RCT to be included because the claim against such party.
liability of the surety is solidary. BBG may file without joining
RCT.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the
court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment
Q: What if BBG files an action against RNG as a guarantor? rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of
such necessary party.
NO (Ruling of Palmares)

TN: If the court does not find the reason that the party is not
Estrella Palmares v. CA and M.B. Lending Corporations impleaded unmeritorious, the court may direct for an
GR 126490 [March 31, 1998] amendment to include the necessary party. Though, even
HELD: when there is an order to include an OMITTED NECESSARY
A surety is an insurer of the debt, whereas a guarantor is PARTY and it is not followed (even without reason), it will NOT
an insurer of the solvency of the debt. A surety ship is an bring about the dismissal of the case. The court may proceed
undertaking that the debt shall be paid; a guaranty, an and the complaint will be deemed to have waived his claim
undertaking that the debtor shall pay. Stated differently, a against such omitted party.
surety promises to pay a principal’s debt if the [principal
will not pay, while a guarantor agrees that the creditor,
after proceeding against the principal, may proceed Reminder: if you refuse to amend in the complaint the
against the guarantor if the principal is unable to pay. A inclusion of an indispensable party, the case may be
surety binds himself to perform if the principal does not, dismissed.
without regard to his ability to do so. A guarantor, on the
other hand, does not contract that the principal will pay,
but simply that he is able to do so. In other words, a surety Example:
undertakes directly for the payment and is so responsible If BBG files a case against RCT, he may amend the complaint
at one if the principal debtor makes default, while a
to include RNG as guarantor so as to be able to go after RNG
guarantor contracts to pay if, by the use of due diligence,
the debt cannot be made out of the principal debtor. if it turns out that RTC is insolvent. If BBG does not amend the
complaint, the case will not be dismissed. BBG will just have
to go after RNG in the future if RCT is insolvent.
TN: A guarantor’s liability is not direct but merely secondary
and the creditor may only run after them if the principal is
unable to pay. The principal must be impleaded because he Section 10
is therefore an indispensable party.
Unwilling co-plaintiff. — If the consent of any party who
should be joined as plaintiff cannot be obtained, he may be
Distinctions between an indispensable party and a necessary made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated
party in the complaint.
1. An indispensable party MUST be joined under any
and all conditions while a necessary party should be TN: This should be read in conjunction with section 7 of rule
joined WHENEVER possible 3 on the compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. It
provides for a remedy where an indispensable party does not
want to participate in the litigation.

34 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
suspected 405, so I filed a case as a fishing expedition. Is it
Example: allowed or permissible?
Suppose that A, B, C, D own a property and it is not NO (RP v. Sandiganbayan)
partitioned. E intrudes on the property. A, B, C, D decides to
file a case, but D does not want to participate. It cannot
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
proceed because an indispensable party is not included. If D
does not participate or file an SPA, then he can be impleaded 173 SCRA 72
as an unwilling co-plaintiff and be made a defendant. HELD: Section 11 of Rule 3 does not comprehend
whimsical and irrational dropping or adding of parties in a
complaint. What it really contemplates is erroneous or
mistaken non-joinder and misjoinder of parties. No one is
Section 11
free to join anybody in a complaint in court only to drop
Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. — Neither him unceremoniously later at the pleasure of the plaintiff.
misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for The rule pre-supposes that the original inclusion had been
dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by made in the honest conviction that us was proper, and the
order of the court on motion of any party or on its own subsequent dropping is requested because it turned out
initiative at any stage the action and on such terms as are that such inclusion was a mistake.
just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed
and proceeded with separately.
Therefore, it is not allowed and I may be sanctioned by the
court.
We discussed this in passing that misjoinder or non-joinder of
parties is not a ground to dismiss a case, all that needs to be
done is include or drop a party. It is important that there Class Suit
should be a common question of fact or law OR that there is
a relief from the same action or series of actions. Section 12
Class suit. — When the subject matter of the controversy
is one of common or general interest to many persons so
Example: numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a
Joining RCT and RNG’s case against BBG when on accident number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently
happened in the morning and the other in the evening. This numerous and representative as to fully protect the
interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit
is a misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The court or
of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene
party may order for the severance of the misjoinder cause of to protect his individual interest. (12a)
action.
Continuation: If the RCT’s claim is P500, 000.00 and RNG’s A class suit may happen if the subject matter is one of
claim is only P20, 000.00, the RTC may order for the common or general interest to many persons so numerous
amendment of the complaint to remove RNG due to his claim that I would be impracticable to join all parties and that a
being under the jurisdiction of the first level court. number of them find them to representative enough to all
concerned.
Q: When can you say there is misjoinder or non-joinder of
parties? It therefore has these 4 concurring and essential elements.
It is under Section 7, Rule 3 for the compulsory joinder of Requisites for a class suit
indispensable parties. If the omitted party is not included,
1. The subject matter of the controversy must be of
there is non-joinder. If the court order for the removal of a
common or general interest to many persons
misjoined party and it is not obeyed, the case may be
2. The persons are so numerous that is impractical to
dismissed.
join all as parties
3. The parties actually before the court are sufficiently
Q: What if the order is for inclusion? numerous and representative as to fully protect the
IT DEPENDS on whether or not it involves the omission of interest of all concerned
either a necessary or indispensable. 4. The representative sue or defend for the benefit of
all (even those not included in the action)
Q: Does that mean we can file cases indiscriminately like a
fishing expedition? Example: I found white paint on my car Firstly, it requires commonality and to be so numerous that
when I arrived in San Carlos with a lansang on my tire. I is impractical to join all as parties, an example of this is Oposa

35 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
v. Factura. Oposa filed a case for the benefit of his children HELD:
and the generation yet to come. There’s no class suit. The survivors have no interest in the
TN: not all children and parents were joined in the petition of death of other passengers. The interest in this case is
Oposa, but it was signed for the benefit of ALL the Filipinos to individual. What would have been proper is permissive
joinder of parties because of common question of fact or
prevent the timber licences. There is clearly a common
law, but not class suit.
interest for all Filipinos but it would be impractical for all of
them to be made petitioners.
TN: There is no class suit because although they have a claim
to damages, they have claims to different amounts.
Another example is of the case where the lawyers filed a case Therefore, there is no commonality of interests due to the
for the protection of the marine mammals for the future varying amounts.
generations.

Sulo ng Bayan v. Araneta, Inc.

Juana Complex I Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Fil- 72 SCRA 347
Estate Land, Inc.
FACTS:
GR 152272 [March 5, 2012]
This concerns the big property of the Araneta’s in Queszon
FACTS: City. It has been the subject matter of litigation for the past
The land developer and its affiliates excavated broke and 3 or 4 decades. It is a big track of land in Quezon City
deliberately ruined and closed the public road (Lapas occupied by so many people who want to acquire it. They
Road) that led to the SLEX, thereby preventing the are questioning the title of the Araneta’s. Sulo ng Bayan is
commuters and motorists from using the same Residents the association of squatters. Since the properties of the
of the various subdivisions filed a case suit. Araneta are very big, they subdivided it. Then a case was
filed by Sulo ng Bayan Association against Araneta to annul
HELD: the title of the latter.
It is a class suit, In this case, the suit is clearly one that
benefits all commuters and motorists who use La Paz ISSUE No. 1: Whether or not the action was filed in the
Road. The subject matter of the instant case, i.e, the name of the real party in interest.
closure and excavation of the La Paz Road, is initially
shown to be of common or general interest to many HELD:
persons. The records reveal that numerous individuals
Sulo ng Bayan is not the real party in interest. It violates
have filed manifestations with the lower court, conveying
Section 2, Rule 3 requiring the action must be prosecuted
their intention to join private respondents in the suit and
and defended in the name of the real party in interest. The
claiming that they are similarly situated with private
members occupying the land are the plaintiffs. The
respondent for they were also prejudiced by the acts of
association is not the one occupying the lot. So, the first
petitioners in closing and excavating the La Paz Road.
question is who should be the plaintiff? It should be the
Moreover, the individuals sought to be represented by
members/ squatters
private respondents in the suit are so numerous that it is
impractical to join them all as parties and be named
individually as plaintiffs in the complaint. These individuals ISSUE No. 2: Whether or not the action was properly
claim to be residents of various barangays in Biñan, Laguna pleaded as a class suit
and other barangays in San Pedro, Laguna
HELD: NO. This is the more important reason why the
TN: It is a class suit because the primary relief sought is not action will not qualify as a class suit. In a class suit, the
damages BUT the permanent injunction/prevent further subject matter is of common interest to all. But here, each
lot occupant is only interested on/ claiming the portion
destruction of the road which is an interest common to all
that he/she is occupying. He/ She has no claim or interest
who use the road. Therefore, there is commonality. on the portions occupied by his neighbors.

Bulig-Bulig Kita Kamaganak Association, et al v. Sulpicio TN: insofar as portion A, that is the only portion the squatter
Lines has interest in and not in the portion of their neighbour.
GR 84750 [May 19, 1989]
FACTS: In my reading of the cases, it has led me to conclude that
Doña Paz caught fire while in transit and sank, causing the where the action is not a pecuniary action, it may be a class
death of its passengers. A class suit in behalf of everyone suit because of common interest.
who drowned, including those who were not identified.

36 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
In a representative suit, there are different causes of
Example: action pertaining to different persons. In the present case,
there are multiple rights or causes of action pertaining
With that in mind, with what happened in Naga where the separately to several, distinct employees who are
homes were destroyed and they claimed damages members of the respondent Union (for back wages, 13th
Q: Can I be considered a class suit? month pay, etc.)Therefore, the applicable rule is that
provided in Rule 3 on the right to sue and be sued in its
NO, due of the different claims and amounts.
registered name. This authorizes a union to file a
representative suit for the benefit of its members in the
Q: What if there is a common interest but only 4 persons? interest of avoiding an otherwise cumbersome procedure
of joining all union members in the complaint, even if they
Your remedy is to apply section 6, for permissive joinder of
number by the hundreds. For convenience, the Labour
parties. (Not so numerous) Code allows a union to file a representative suit.

In the case of Oposa it is a class suit, but those who signed Derivative Suit
the petition had also signed it in a representative capacity,
A derivative suit is an action brought by a minority
representing those who are not parties in the action (The
stockholder on behalf of the corporation to enforce
Filipino people)
corporate rights against the corporation’s directors, officers
or other insiders.
Q: How do we distinguish a class suit and a representative
suit?
TN: In the affairs of a corporation would be decided by the
One is the number of people involved AND . . .
policy body (Board of Directors, Board of Trustees). If they
embezzle the company, a minority stockholder may file an
Distinction between a class suit and a representative suit action against the members of the board for the advantage
• A class suit is representative only insofar as the of the corporation which is personal, distinct and separate
person who institutes it represents the entire class from the incorporators and stockholders.
of persons who have the same interest or who
suffered the same injury. But the person instituting
Section 13
the class suit are not suing merely as
representatives, in they themselves are real parties Alternative defendants. — Where the plaintiff is uncertain
against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he
in interest.
may join any or all of them as defendants in the alternative,
• In representative suits, the beneficiary is the real although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent
party in interest, not the representative with a right of relief against the other.

An example of this is Liana’s Supermarket… (Discussed already in alternative joinder of actions)

Liana’s Supermarket v. NLRC

257 SCRA 186 Section 14
FACTS: Unknown identity or name of defendant. — Whenever the
A labour union filed a case against the employer on behalf identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he may be
of hundreds of employees. Is this a representative suit or sued as the unknown owner heir devisee, or by such other
a class suit? designation as the case may require, when his identity or
true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended
HELD: accordingly.
What makes the situation a proper case for a class suit is
the circumstances that there is only one right or cause of Example:
action pertaining or belonging in common to many
I’m walking around IT Park and I was bumped by a Black
persons, not separately or severally to distinct individuals.
The object of the suit is to obtain relief for or against Fortuner (XXX666) and I filed a case. The case would be RNG
numerous persons as a group or as an integral entity, and v. Unknown Registered owner of Black Toyota Fortuner
not as separate, distinct individuals whose rights or license plate #XXX666. In the course of the proceedings, if the
liabilities are separate from and independent of those identity is found, then the complaint can be amended with
affecting the others. the defendant’s name. Similar to criminal cases of “John
Doe”/ “Jane Doe”

37 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Section 7, Rule 110 has severed their ties with the corporation. Thus, they must
Name of the accused — The complaint or information must be personally served a summon.
state the name and surname of the accused or any
appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known. If Section 6, Rule 36
his name cannot be ascertained, he must be described under Judgment against entity without juridical personality. —
a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is When judgment is rendered against two or more persons sued
unknown. If the true name of the accused is thereafter as an entity without juridical personality, the judgment shall
disclosed by him or appears in some other manner to the set out their individual or proper names, if known.
court, such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or
information and record.
The court will say “judgement has been rendered holding
RCT, RNG, BBG and associates liable for the payment of the
Section 15 claims of the plaintiff” (NOT OPAW)
Entity without juridical personality as defendant. — When
two or more persons not organized as an entity with
Actions Which Survives and Actions Which Do Not
juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be
sued under the name by which they are generally or Survive
commonly known.
Section 16
Death of party; duty of counsel. — Whenever a party to a
In the answer of such defendant, the name and addresses of pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby
the persons composing said entity must all be revealed. extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform
the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal
TN: Discussed in passing on who can become plaintiff in an representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to
action (Sec 1, Rule 3) comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary
action.
Example:
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted
Corporation by Estoppel: RCT, RNG and BBG are associates of
for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an
OPAW (Office for Public Assistance) which is not registered in
executor or administrator and the court may appoint a
SEC; it can be sued by a business that does business with guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
them. It can be So&So v. OPAW Corporation, but we must put The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or
our names and addresses and that we aren’t a registered representatives to appear and be substituted within a
corporation in SEC. period of thirty (30) days from notice.
Q: How can the court serve summons?
Usually in corporations, summons must be served to the If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the
deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear
president or the secretary
within the specified period, the court may order the
opposing party, within a specified time to procure the
Q: In a corporation in estoppel is it enough to serve it to the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate
president and secretary who are bogus officers? The answer of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for
and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in
can be found in…
procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing
Section 8, Rule 14 party, may be recovered as costs. (16a, 17a)
Service upon entity without juridical personality. — When
persons associated in an entity without juridical personality I’d like to emphasize that Section 16 of Rule 3 governs what
are sued under the name by which they are generally or is known as actions which survives and impliedly it also
commonly known, service may be effected upon all the governs actions which does not survive.
defendants by serving upon any one of them, or upon the
person in charge of the office or place of business maintained Basically, when we speak of an action which survives, it is an
in such name. But such service shall not bind individually any action which somehow is not abated or terminated even in
person whose connection with the entity has, upon due the death of a party or parties to the case. Whereas, speaking
notice, been severed before the action was filed. of an action which does not survive, it is an action in which is
abated or terminated or extinguished upon the death of the
TN: So, if the summons have been served to any one of them, party or parties of a civil action.
it does not necessarily bind any person who before the case

38 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
So, for one Sec 16, Rule 3 provides among others that
“whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is Emphasis should also be made on the fact that where there
not thereby extinguished”. So, it mentions of actions that is substitution of party due to the death of the party-
which survive then it becomes the duty of his counsel to disputant, there is no need to serve summonses to the legal
inform the court within 30 days of the death of the party representative or the legal heirs of the deceased.
about the fact of death of such party and to give the name
and address of his legal representative or representatives.
TN: Where there is an executor or administrator of the estate
of the deceased, then it is the executor or administrator who
I’d like to emphasize that first, this provision pertains to will be substituted. But where there is no executor or
actions which survives. administrator, then it is the legal heir/s who would be
substituted in the pending action.
Example:
A good example of an action that survives is an action for Where it is the legal heir/s of the deceased, there is no more
collection of sum of money founded on a contract of loan. So, need under the rules, for the appointment of an executor or
where the defendant in an action dies, then it now becomes administrator of the estate of the deceased. But where there
the duty of his counsel to inform the court of such death and is a minor legal heir, then the court will have to appoint a
likewise give the court the name and address of the legal guardian ad litem for the minor heir.
representative. I’m referring to the executor or administrator
of the estate of the decease. Or in the absence, the lawyer This situation is to be differentiated from the case of
has to give to the court the name or address of the legal heir Yaptinchay. What happened there is that the SC in essence
or legal parents of the deceased. frowned(?) upon the filing of a case by the supposed legal
hers of Yaptinchay without them having instituted first
Ordinarily, when the client dies, the lawyer-client relationship special proceedings in which they may be declared as the
is terminated because after all, lawyer-client relationship is legal heirs of the deceased person. You may take note here
founded on confidence. It is something that is personal. But, that the death of the person concerned happened already
even with the termination of such lawyer-client relationship, before the institution of the action. But here, under Sec. 16,
the lawyer is still obligated under the rules to inform the court the situation involved is that there is already a pending action
of the death of the client and to give the court the name of but during the pendency of the action or before the finality
his legal representative – the executor of his will or the of the judgement thereof or even before the judgement
administrator of his estate where there is one – or in his thereof may be executed by the sheriff, a party of the case or
absence, the lawyer will have to give the name of and the parties therein died. So, Section 16 would be wanting in
addresses of the legal heirs of the deceases – referring to the application or that the ruling in the case of Yaptinchay is of
spouse or compulsory legal heirs. course inapplicable to Section 16 of Rule 3.

Now, this duty of the lawyer must be complied with. TN: There is an order of preference here. Such that, where
Otherwise, the lawyer may be facing administrative sanction there is an executor or an administrator of the estate of the
or *inaudible* act coming from the court – like imposing a deceased, then it is the executor or administrator who is
fine or be cited in contempt. given the preference for the substitution of the deceased. But
where there is no executor or administrator, then it is now
The purpose of giving notice to the court is for purposes of the legal heir/s of the decease who would be substituted for
facilitating the substitution of parties. Because under the the deceased in appending action.
rule, if the court therefore is notified of the fact of death of
the party involved in the case and as soon as the court is given The case of Lawas v. CA is instructive of this.
the name of the legal representative of that person , the
name and address of the executor or administrator – or Lawas v. Court of Appeals
where there is non the heirs, the court will now notify this 146 SCRA 173
legal representative or legal heir, as the case may be, and HELD:
direct them to appear in court and be substituted for the The priority of substitution would be the executor or
deceased. administrator not the heirs. The heirs would only be
allowed to be substituted if there is an (1) unreasonable
delay in the appointment of administrator or executor, or
I’d like to emphasize that the substitution of the legal heir or (2) when the heirs resort to extrajudicial partition. But
representative of the deceased may be directed by the court outside of those two reasons, the law always gives priority
without need to direct the amendment of the pleading. The to the administrator or executor.
court does not have to direct the plaintiff to amend the
complaint or possibly the defendant to amend the answer.

39 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
So, again there is an order. Furthermore, “. . . judgement in an ejectment case may be
(1) Executor or administrator of the estate of the enforced not only against defendants therein but also
deceased against the members of their family, their relatives, or
(2) If no (1), then the legal heir or heirs of the deceased. privies who derived their right of possession from the
defendants” (Ariem v. De Los Angeles, 49 SCRA 343).
Under the circumstances of this case, the same rule should
Q: What if there is no formal substitution? For example, one apply to the successors-in-interest if the decision should
of the party-disputants of the case died and for one reason go against the original plaintiff.
or another there has been no formal substitution of that
person.
So, that being the case, according to the SC, there is no
The answer is in the case of Vda. De Salazar v. CA reason why that principle could not also be applied to the
Vda. De Salazar v. Court of Appeals plaintiff because after all, an action for ejectment is a real
action. So, the decision therein binds not only the party-
250 SCRA 303 [Nov. 23, 1995]
disputants but would also bind their families, relatives,
FACTS:
privies. . .
This is an ejectment case. The defendant died while the
case is going on. There ought to be substitution. But there
was no substitution in the case for ten years, until it was So, I’d like to emphasize that section 16, rule 3 governs the
decided. The court was not informed of the death of the so-called actions which survive and in like manner that it also
defendant. Until finally, there was a decision. governs actions which do not survive. In actions which
survive, there is substitution of parties. Meaning the party
ISSUE: who died would have to eb substituted by executor or
When there is failure to effectuate the formal substitution administrator or legal heir/s.
of heirs before the rendition of judgement, is the
judgement jurisdictionally defective? Q: What if the lawyer failed to somehow inform the court of
the death of the party or even if he notified the court but the
HELD: administrator or heir as the case may be, does not appear, or
NO. The judgement is valid where the heirs themselves does not obey the directive of the court? What is going to
appeared before the trial court and participated in the happen?
proceedings. In this case, they presented in defense of the The answer is also in Sec 16: “If no legal representative is
decease defendant. It is undeniably evident that the heirs named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so
themselves sought their day in court and exercised their named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the
right to due process. court may order the opposing party, within a specified time to
procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for
So, a formal substitution therefore, according to the SC, could the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately
be dispensed with because there is no denial of due process appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges
on the part of the defendant/s because the legal heirs after in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing
all, actually participated in the proceedings of the case. party, may be recovered as costs”
TN: there is some kind of a penalty here. So, meaning to say
Another case in point is Florendo v. Coloma the costs of procuring the appointment would have to be
charged as against the estate of those who died but whose
Florendo v. Coloma legal heirs or executor or administrator failed to appear
129 SCRA 304 notwithstanding the order of the court.
FACTS:
This is an ejectment case. An adverse decision was Action which does not Survive
rendered against the plaintiff. During the pendency of the
An action which does not survive is an action which is abated
appeal, the plaintiff died but there was no substitution of
party; hence, plaintiff continued to be the appellant upon the death of a party. The case cannot go on once a party
therein. The appeal was dismissed. Later, plaintiff’s heirs dies.
assailed the decision of the Court of Appeals as null and
void. A good example of an action which does not survive is an
action for annulment of marriage or probably action for legal
ISSUE: separation or action for declaration of declaration of nullity
Whether or not the court has been deprived of its of marriage or even action for support.
jurisdiction?

HELD:

40 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Situation: Action which Survives
Where Walde filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his An action which survives is an action which is NOT abated
marriage with Maria Ozawa founded on Art 36. Assume in upon the death of a party. The case can go EVEN if a party
that action, Maria Ozawa somehow died. In other words, dies.
death on the part of the defendant. So, when that happens,
there is no more need to continue with the action because Good examples of action which survives:
that action is supposedly one which does not survive. There
1. An action for damages specially one from quasi-
is no more need. Because after all, the marriage is terminated
delict
with the death of the wife – Maria Ozawa.
2. Personal action for recovery of possession like
ejectment or unlawful detainer.
TN: there are only a few cases really which may be considered 3. Accion publiciana
as actions which do not survive. 4. Recovery of sum of money based on contract of loan
among others
Q: What if the action is one for recognition of an illegitimate
child? These kinds of actions would thrive(?) notwithstanding the
TN that Art. 175 of the Family Code, it is provided therein, in death of the parties.
essence, that an illegitimate child may bring action for
recognition by the putative parent in the same manner and Q: What would happen to these actions which survive?
using the same evidence in an action of recognition of
First lets distinct contractual money claims and non-
legitimate child. But there is a provision under the same
contractual money claims and actions that are non-money
article that where the action filed by an illegitimate child is
claims but somehow survive.
based on secondary evidence, then such action must be
brought only during the lifetime of the putative parent.
Contractual Money Claims vis-à-vis Non-
Situation: Contractual Money Claims
Suppose an illegitimate child filed an action against a putative
A good example of Contractual Money claims is one that is
illegitimate father and that action is filed in the lifetime of the
founded on a contract of loan. A good example of a non-
father but during the pendency thereof the father somehow
contractual money claim that not uprooted or founded on
died.
contract like an action for damages based on quasi-delict.
Q: Will the action survive?
TN that Article 135 of the family code is very clear that any Rules Anent Contractual Money Claims Which Survive
action for recognition based on secondary evidence may only 1. If it is the plaintiff who dies, the case will continue.
be brought during the lifetime of the putative parent but in The legal representative(s) or the legal heirs will
the given problem the parent died during the pendency. substitute. So, there is substitution.
2. If it is the defendant who dies, we need to
This is answered in the case of Mendoza v. CA. determine the date of his death, as different rules
apply. (2 (A-C))
Mendoza v. Court of Appeals
201 SCRA 675 [1991]
2(A)
HELD:
If the defendant died before entry of final judgement, you
The death of the putative father during the pendency of
the action for compulsory recognition is not a bar to the apply Section 20, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
action commenced during his lifetime by one who
pretended to be his natural son. It may survive against the The case shall not be dismissed but shall be allowed to
executor, administrator or any other legal representative continue until entry of final judgement. And any favorable
of the testate or intestate estate. judgement obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced
in the manner especially provided in these Rules for
So, in other words, an action for recognition of an illegitimate prosecuting claims against the estate of a decease person,
child is considered to be an action which survives. So, it and that is Section 5, Rule 86.
survives even if the party-disputant dies. So, the case of
Mendoza should be factored in. We are talking here of a contractual money claim or a money
claim which is founded on a contract which survives even
with the death of the defendant. Again, if it is the defendant
who died, and the death occurred before entry of final
judgement, we apply Section 20.

41 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Basically, the case shall not be dismissed, in that, the case defendant dies before entry of final judgement will eb
shall be allowed to continue until entry of final judgement. continued. Meaning to say, it shall not be dismissed.
However, any favorable judgement, if rendered therein, in
favor of the plaintiff, will have to be enforced following the Q: Against whom shall the case be prosecuted?
procedure of Section 5 of Rule 86.
It is in this context that Section 20 must be read in
conjunction with Section 16. In other words, any such action
Section 20. will not be dismissed, in that, it shall be allowed to continue
and in that proceeding, there will be a substitution of the
Action and contractual money claims. — When the action
is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or party for and in behalf of the defendant that dies. In other
implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final words, the executor or administrator of the estate of the
judgment in the court in which the action was pending at defendant or when there is none, the legal heirs.
the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall
instead be allowed to continue until entry of final TN: Even if there is already a substitution on the part of the
judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff defendant and even if judgement is already rendered therein
therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided
in favor of the plaintiff, any such decision, however, could not
in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of
be enforced in that very same proceeding.
a deceased person. (21a)

Section 20 makes reference to the provision of Section 5 of Example:

Rule 86. But, speaking of Section 20, it should be emphasized Action for collection of sum of money based on a contract of
that this provision will apply if the action, for one, is for loan but during the pendency of the case and the defendant
recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied. therein dies and even if there is substitution by executor of
A good example of a money claim arising from contract is an the estate and judgement is eventually rendered by the court
action for collection of sum of money based on a contract of in favor of the plaintiff. The judgement, however, cannot be
loan. enforced in that same action for collection of sum of money.
If at all, any such judgement favorable to the plaintiff, may be
enforced by applying the procedure outlined in Section 5 of
TN: That Section 20 mentions of an action for recovery of
Rule 86.
money arising from contract, express or implied.

Section 5, Rules 86
The term “implied”, as used here, signifies that an action for
recovery of money arising from contract may be due to Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed,
provision of law or probably instituted an action which is barred; exceptions. — All claims for money against the
characterized as arising from a quasi-contract. A good decent, arising from contract, express or implied, whether the
example of this is an action or recovery of sum of money same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral
based on the principle of solutio indebiti, which is a form of a expenses and expense for the last sickness of the decedent,
quasi-contract. But an action for recovery of sum of money and judgment for money against the decent, must be filed
arising from delict or quasi-delict is not within the purview of within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they are
Section 20 of Rule 3 because it is only for an action for barred forever, except that they may be set forth as
recovery of money arising from contract express or implied. counterclaims in any action that the executor or
administrator may bring against the claimants. Where an
executor or administrator commences an action, or
TN: Section 20 would find application if the defendant of the prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in
action dies before the entry of final judgement. his lifetime, the debtor may set forth by answer the claims he
has against the decedent, instead of presenting them
What is meant here is that the defendant dies during the independently to the court as herein provided, and mutual
pendency of the case or before judgement or even if there is claims may be set off against each other in such action; and if
judgement that has not yet attained finality as when there is final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the
an appeal taken. The rule is that, in that situation, the case amount so determined shall be considered the true balance
will not be dismissed or be allowed to continue until the against the estate, as though the claim had been presented
completion thereof. directly before the court in the administration proceedings.
Claims not yet due, or contingent, may be approved at their
present value.
Section 20 is put in place because under the old rules, even if
the action is for money claim that is rooted on a contract,
once the party-defendant dies therein, then the action shall In other words, any such judgement must be presented
be dismissed. The rule, as it is now, is that an action for before the probate court where there is pending action for
recovery of money arising from contract where the the settlement of the estate of the defendant.

42 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Ordinarily, under Section 2 of Rule 86, the probate court at court where there is a pending action for the settlement of
which the settlement of the estate is filed, will issue an order the estate of the decedent.
commanding the creditors or those that have money claims
against the estate of the decedent to file their claims within Q: What if the defendant dies after finality of the decision in
that court within the period of 6-12 months reckoned from the case of collection for sum of money based on a contract
the date of publication of that order of the court. of loan and after the sheriff had already enforced the
decision therein by garnishing the properties belonging to
Q: What if during the publication of the order of the probate the judgement debtor?
court, somehow, with the notice of the creditors of the In that situation, you have to apply the third rule:
decedent who files the claims with that court, the civil action 2(C)
for collection of sum of money is still pending in another
If the defendant dies after levy or execution but before the
court? Does that mean, therefore that the judgement-
auction sale – that is, the property was already levied by the
creditor, cannot anymore file its claim against the estate of
sheriff – we apply Section 7(c) of Rule 39.
the decedent, especially if the judgement was only rendered
after the expiration of the period given by the probate court?
My advice to you is to already file your claim before the Section 7, Rule 39
probate court or at least notify the probate court of the Execution in case of death of party. — In case of the death of
pending action in another court. After all, Section 5 of Rule a party, execution may issue or be enforced in the following
86 mentions about claims that are not yet due or are still manner:
contended. That is clear from the last sentence od Section 5 xxx
Rule 86 which provides: “Claims not yet due, or contingent, (c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, after
may be approved at their present value.” execution is actually levied upon any of his property, the same
may be sold for the satisfaction of the judgment obligation,
Q: What is the rule if the defendant in such action dies after and the officer making the sale shall account to the
the finality of the judgement therein but before the corresponding executor or administrator for any surplus in his
execution of the judgement? hands. (7a)
2(B)
If the defendant dies after the entry of the final judgement TN: That where the defendant in an action for collection of
but before execution (after the judgement became final and sum of money based on a contract of loan died after his
executory but before there could be a levy or execution) you properties were already levied in execution by the sheriff,
cannot move to execute. then the judgement may be enforced in that very same
proceeding.
Again, you apply Section 5 of Rule 86. File your claim against
the estate of the decease defendant. In other words, the sale of the properties in a public auction
will proceed, in that, there is no more need to go to the
probate court and present the judgement in the collection
Meaning to say, the judgement will be presented to the
suit. In other words, where the defendant dies where his
probate court and the judgement will be proceeded against
properties were already levied in execution by the sheriff,
as an ordinary money claim.
there is no more need for substitution. Meaning to say, the
decision can be enforced in the very same proceeding in the
Example: case of action for collection of sum of money.
There is an action for collection of sum of money from a
contract of loan. Then, the trial court rendered a decision in Only that, where there is a surplus or excess or the proceeds
the case favorable to the plaintiff and the defendant does not of the sale is more than enough to pay off the judgement
file an appeal, so it attained finality. But then, the defendant award in favor of the plaintiff, then the sheriff/clerk (? Not
died after the decision attained finality but before the sure choppy na jud kayo) therefore would have to turnover
decision could be enforced by the sheriff. to the executor or administrator of the estate of decedent
the excess of such proceeds of the sale.
Q: Will the execution of the judgement proceed or continue?
The answer is in the NEGATIVE. In other words, the decision Rules Anent Non-Contractual Money Claims Which Survive
may be enforced by now applying Section 5 of Rule 86. So, If a party dies in an action which survives but is a non-
you cannot enforce that decision in that very same contractual money claim, obviously, there is substitution of
proceeding that is for collection of sum of money. What you parties.
have to do is to present that judgement before the probate

43 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
A good example of non-contractual money claims which TN: The action in the example above is not one for money
survive is an action for damages based on quasi-delict. So, the claim, but an action for recovery of ownership and
rule is that, in an action which is an action for money claim possession.
that is not based on a contract, if a party dies therein, there
is still a substitution of party. So, pursuant to Section 16, Rule Section 1, Rule 87
3, it is going to be the executor or administrator of the party
Actions which may and which may not be brought against
who will be substituted for the deceased or where there is
executor or administrator. — No action upon a claim for the
none, it is the legal heir/s. Definitely, there is still a
recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be
substitution of party.
commenced against the executor or administrator; but to
recover real or personal property, or an interest therein, from
Recall in Criminal Procedure, under Section 4 of Rule 111, in the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover
an independent action for damages based on quasi-delict, damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal,
such action will proceed or may be proceeded as against the may be commenced against him.
administrator of the estate or the legal representative or legal
heirs of the accused where the accused dies during the
Section 1, Rule 87 will support this notion that an action for
pendency of the criminal case. In other words, the death of
recovery of real or personally property will survive even with
the accused in a criminal case will not extinguish his civil
the death of a party because the action will be proceeded
liability especially in actions characterized as independent
against the executor or administrator of his estate. So, it is in
civil actions. In that, civil actions may still be filed against the
that context that the decision may be enforced without need
executor or administrator or the legal heirs, as the case may
of presenting that judgement before the probate court
be.
because the executor or the administrator is already
impleaded in the main action.
Rules Anent Non-Money Claims Which Survive
If a party dies in an action which survives but is a non-money
claim, there is still substitution of parties. And any adverse Section 17
decision therein can be enforced in that very same Death or separation of a party who is a public officer. —
proceeding. When a public officer is a party in an action in his official
capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise
ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and
Example: maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty (30)
An action for recovery of property or ownership (accion days after the successor takes office or such time as may
publiciana) and the party dies during the pendency thereof. be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the
Take note that the action filed is not a money claim, the rule court by any party that there is a substantial need for
is that there is substitution of parties. continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts
or continues or threatens to adopt or continue to adopt or
continue the action of his predecessor. Before a
But the difference here lies in the fact that where a party dies substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected,
in an action which survives but is not a money claim, like unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given
recovery of ownership or possession, the decision that may reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded
be rendered therein can be enforced in that very same an opportunity to be heard. (18a)
proceeding. Meaning to say, there is no more need to go to
the probate court. I’d like to emphasize that Section 17 of Rule 3 would only be
applicable if in the first place, the action is filed against a
Example: public officer and in that action, that public officer is being
I file a case against Peter for recovery of ownership and sued in his official capacity. And during the pendency of such
possession of a parcel of land. Then, in the course of the case, the case that is filed against him in his official capacity,
proceedings, Peter, the defendant, died such that his that public officer dies or resigns from office or removed
executor substituted as the defendant. A decision was therefrom.
rendered by the court in my favor. Then, that decision may
be enforced in that very same case. In that, I don’t have to Where the action is brought against a public officer but that
present that judgement in the probate court where there is a action is filed against him in his personal capacity, not in his
pending action for the settlement of the estate of the official capacity, the effect of his untimely demise or
decedent. resignation, then Section 17 would be wanting in application.
Rather, what applies is probably Section 16 of Rule 3.
If you look at Rule 86, that only applies to situations where
the action or where the judgement partakes in the nature of
a money claim.
44 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Situation:
Section 18.
Cebu City Mayor declared a state of calamity and then he
Incompetency or incapacity. — If a party becomes
directed the suspension of classes March 28, 2020 to April 14, incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with
2020. Suppose that you are opposed to the idea of notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against
suspending the classes, because you wanted to see your the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his
professors. Such that, you filed a case against Mayor Labella, legal guardian or guardian ad litem. (19a)
in his official capacity, questioning the validity of this
directive. But, let us assume that during the pendency of that
Section 18 is more or less similar to Section 3 of Rule 3 dealing
case that you filed against Mayor Labella in his official
with representative suit which provides among others that a
capacity, somehow, Mayor Labella got infected with this
person who is incompetent or incapacitated may be
dreadful Covid virus resulting in his untimely demise. So,
represented in the action by his guardian or guardian ad
following the rule of the section, there will be substitution, in
litem, as the case may be.
that, Mayor Labella is substituted by the Vice Mayor, Mayor
Rama.
The difference lies in the fact that under Section 3 of Rule 3,
it may involve a situation where a person becomes
Q: What will be the status of the case that you filed against
incapacitated or incompetent, even before the filing of the
Mayor Labella in his official capacity?
action. Such that, the filing of the action will have to be done
We have to apply Section 17 of Rule 3. by his guardian. But under Section 18, this contemplates of a
situation where the person becomes incompetent or
1st Situation: incapacitated after the filing of the case and during the
If the successor, Mayor Rama, disapproves the directive pendency thereof. So, upon motion with notice, the court
issued by Mayor Labella, or he discontinued the same, the may allow the action to be continued by or against such
action would have to be dismissed. There is no need to incompetent or incapacitated person but this time around he
continue with the action because the successor, Mayor will be assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem.
Rama, somehow discontinued the directive of Mayor Labella. Meaning to say, where he has no guardian, the court will
appoint for that incapacitated or person who becomes
incompetent during the pendency of the action.
2nd Situation:
If Mayor Rama would continue in the implementation of the
directive of Mayor Labella. Then, Mayor Rama would be Section 19
substituted in the action and the proceeding will continue. Transfer of interest. — In case of any transfer of interest,
the action may be continued by or against the original
In that situation, the court will first notify Mayor Rama of the party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to
whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the
purported action for the substitution of party. He will be
action or joined with the original party. (20)
notified that he is substituted for Mayor Labella. And the
Court will give him a period of time within which to somehow
comment on the purported or the pending motion for TN: Basically, the court has 3 options:
substitution on the part of Mayor Labella. SO, Mayor Rama 1. Allow the transferee to be substituted for the
will be given an opportunity to be heard whether or not he is original party
adopting the policy or directive issued by Mayor Labella or 2. Just join the transferee in the action together with
whether or not he wants to discontinue the same. If he wants the original party
to discontinue, then there is no more need to continue with 3. Continue with the action without need of joining the
the action. transferee in the action

If Mayor Rama will continue or still implement the directive Situation:

issued by Mayor Labella, then in that situation, Mayor Rama Suppose I have a parcel of land. Then, a case is filed against
will be substituted for Mayor Labella. me by Walde for recover of property because Walde claims
that parcel of land as his own. During the pendency of the
TN: Section 17 will only be applicable where the action is case, and not withstanding that there is a notice of lis
brought against the public office in his official capacity and pendens annotated on the TCT registered in my name
the defendant dies in the pendency thereof or resigns or covering the property, I sold the property to Randi and Randi
removed. Otherwise, if brought against his personal capacity, bought the property with knowledge of the existence of the
Section 16 will apply. present action. So, in that situation, Randi will be bound by
the judgement therein.

45 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Here, the court may direct that the transferee, Randi, be Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority
joined as a co-defendant in the action filed by Walde against at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court.
me OR the court may direct that Randi be substituted as the If the court should determine after hearing that the party
defendant in the action that was filed by Walde against me declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient
OR the court will not anymore direct that the transferee be income or property, the proper docket and other lawful
joined as the defendant in the action or substituted as fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If
payment is not made within the time fixed by the court,
defendant. Anyway, the action will continue and Randi will be
execution shall issue or the payment thereof, without
bound by the judgement therein.
prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.
(22a)
Because if there is a transfer of interest during the pendency
of the case and the transferee had knowledge of the Section 21 deals with a situation where one of the party
pendency of the action. Then, and in that situation, the litigants of a case is said to be an indigent. Recall in
transferee is deemed joined already in the action by Constitutional Law 2 on the provisions in the Bill of Rights,
operation of law at that very moment where there is already particularly Section 11 thereof.
a transfer of interest in its favor done by the original party in
the action.
Section 11, Article III, 1987 Constitution
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
In other words, whether the transferee, Randi, be joined as
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person
defendant in the action or whether or not he is substituted
by reason of poverty.
for the original defendant in the action or the case proceeded
without him being joined in the action, IN ANY SUCH CASE,
Randi is bound by the judgement because he is a transferee That explains why in criminal cases or in the pendency of a
of property involved in litigation and *inaudible* is done criminal case, if the accused is without counsel, then it is
during the pendency of the action. incumbent upon the court to appoint a counsel de officio for
him. And where, for example, a person is arrested and he is
under custodial investigation and he cannot afford to hire the
Where the transfer is done in favor of say, Randi. But Randi
services of counsel, then it is the duty of the police officers to
does not know of the pendency of the action because there
appoint a counsel de officio for him. But, that’s in criminal
is no notice of lis pendens. In that situation, Randi may not be
cases.
bound by the judgement because he can put up the defense
that he is a purchaser of value and in good faith of the
property involved in the action. But that is only applicable in In civil cases, the mechanism to put the provision of Section
situations where no notice of lis pendens have been 11, Article 3 of the 1987 constitution in place is Section 21
annotated on the title of the property and when Randi which allows a person to litigate as an indigent party. Such
bought the property, the owner thereof is possession of the that, under Section 21 of Rule 3, if a party is declared to be
property. But, as a rule, when the transferee has knowledge indigent, upon proper application, then, the court will allow
of the pendency of the action. Then, regardless if he is not him to prosecute his claims or defend the action and he is
impleaded in the action by way of additional(?) defendant or exempted from payment of docket fees, other lawful fees,
substitution as a defendant, he is still bound by the and the court may also direct that he be furnished with the
judgement therein. Transcript of Stenographic Notes without him having to pay
therefor.

Section 21
Emphasis should be made on the fact that even where the
Indigent party. — A party may be authorized to litigate his party to prosecute or defend a civil case as an indigent party,
action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon if for example, a judgement is rendered in that case and the
an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the
judgement is favorable to him, and he is the plaintiff, you take
party is one who has no money or property sufficient and
note that under Section 21 of Rule 3, the amount of unpaid
available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself
and his family. docket fees and other lawful fees for which he was previously
exempted from paying, shall be considered as a lien on the
judgement that was rendered in his favor. So, its like file now,
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of
pay later. But this only applies in the situation where a party
docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of
is allowed to litigate as an indigent party.
stenographic notes which the court may order to be
furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful
fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be What is important is that under Section 21, the opposing
a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to party may however question the order of the court allowing
the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides. the adverse party to litigate the action as an indigent party.
So, if the court, for example, allows the plaintiff to prosecute
46 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
his claim as an indigent party and the court allows him to file Relief. So, in an action for declaratory relief, where there is a
his case even without paying first the lawful docket fees, the question pertaining to the validity of a law or treaty, among
defendant in that action has the right to question such others, then there is also a need to notify the SolGen about it
declaration of the plaintiff as an indigent party. If the on the position(?) that the SolGen is the lawyer for the state.
objection of the defendant is found to be meritorious by the
court, for example, the court later on finds that the plaintiff
misrepresented in his respect to his capacity or financial
capability. Then, the court will direct the plaintiff to now pay RULE 4 – Venue of Actions
the unpaid docket fees and lawful fees. If there is a refusal on
his part to pay for the unpaid docket fee or lawful fee, as the Venue – refers to the place where the case has to be filed and
case may be, or where there is no payment therefor, then, tried
there will be an execution. And this is without prejudice to
whatever sanctions that may be imposed on him by the court.
Just like jurisdiction, it is equally important to determine the
So, probably nangilad ang plaintiff, the court, for one, may venue of the action.
cite that person in contempt. Also, normally, the application
is in the form of a sworn declaration, then, this is without
Example:
prejudice to the filing of the case of perjury against that party.
I have a property in Mandaue City while you are a resident of
Cebu City and without your knowledge and consent another
Section 22 person forcibly entered your property such that you wanted
to file a case for forcible entry. As per our discussion, any such
Notice to the Solicitor General. — In any action involving
action for forcible entry is cognizable by the first level court
the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive order,
which is the MTCC but should you file such case of forcible
presidential decree, rules or regulations, the court, in its
entry before the MTCC of Cebu City where you reside while
discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor
the property is located in Mandaue City then the case
General who may be heard in person or a representative
therefore is dismissible.
duly designated by him. (23a)

In as much as you filed the case in the MTCC of Cebu City

Situation: when you should have filed the case in the MTCC of Mandaue
Suppose my wife filed a case for issuance of a temporary City, then the action may be dismissed. It is not enough that
protection order or a permanent protection order before a you know which court has jurisdiction over a particular case,
family court alleging therein that I laid hands on her. In my it is also important to know where to file the action which is
answer, I disputed the allegation and I said that it is not true the venue of such purported action.
that I maltreated my wife or in the contrary, it was the other
way around, it was my wife who maltreated me because I was
Section 1
a member of UHAW party list. Union of Husbands Afraid of
Wives. Not only that, in my answer to the complaint, I Venue of real actions – Actions affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
questioned therein the validity of RA 9262 on the ground that
commenced and tried in the proper court which has
it is violative of the equal protection clause.
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
In that situation, and pursuant to Section 22, the court may
in its discretion, notify the Solicitor General of the pendency Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced
of that action where the party or any party therein questions and tried in the Municipal Trial Court of the municipality or
the validity or constitutionality of a law, then, the SolGen may city wherein the real property involved, or a portion
be allowed to be heard in person or his representative. thereof, is situated.
Ordinarily, in actions like this, the SolGen may authorize the
fiscal to make a representation for him. TN: It makes a fine distinction between a real action for
ejectment, be it a case for forcible entry or unlawful detainer
TN: The requirement in section 22 that the SolGen may be on one hand vis-à-vis real actions like Accion Publiciana and
required by the court to appear is premised on the fact that Accion Reindividicatoria.
the SolGen is supposedly the lawyer of the state. Such that,
when in an action, any of the party disputants therein raised Actions for unlawful detainer and forcible entry would have
a question on the validity of a law, among others, then there to be governed by the provision under 2nd paragraph of
is a need now to notify the SolGen and require the Section Rule 4 whereas real actions other than FE or UD
appearance of the SolGen to defend the validity of the would have to be governed by the first paragraph of Rule 4.
regulation or law that is enacted by the state. Which is also
the requirement under Rule 63 on Petition for Declaratory Under 1st Par of Sec 1 Rule 4, it used the term of “proper
court” when it comes to real actions other than cases of FE
47 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
and UD. In view of our former discussion on the Amendment Q: At which RTC will you file the action?
of BP 129 by RA 7691, the 1st level courts now have In as much as Catmon Cebu has no RTC, you have to file the
jurisdiction over real actions where the assessed value of the case at the RTC of Danao since it has also territorial
property does not exceed 20K or 50K respectively. jurisdiction of Catmon. This is pursuant to 1st par of Sec 1 Rule
4. Hence, based on Sec 1 Rule 4, it is clear that actions for FE
That explains why first paragraph of Sec 1 Rule 4, dealing with and or UD shall be commenced and tried in the MTC of the
venue pertaining to real actions other than cases of FE and place wherein the real property involved or the portion
UD uses the term “proper court”. This proper court may thereof is located.
either be the first level court or RTC depending on the
assessed value of the property involved pursuant to Sec 33 Q: But what if the property involved is located in the
(3) of BP 129 as amended taken in conjunction with Sec 19 boundary of Danao City and Carmen Cebu? Carmen does not
(2) of BP 129 as amended. It used the term proper court have an MTC of its own. Where will you file the action?
because real actions involving title to or possession of real In the MTCC in Danao City because Carmen Cebu is within the
property among others, other than FE or UD may now be territorial jurisdiction of the MTCC in Danao.
tried by the first level court or the second level court
depending on the assessed value.
Q: What if the property involved is situated in a Sogod Cebu?
The municipality after Catmon Cebu where Sogod Cebu has
But as for real action of ejectment, be it a case for FE and UD, no MTC of its own.
2nd par of Sec 1 of rule 4 is very clear that such case shall be
File it in the MTC of Catmon because the MTC of Catmon has
filed in the MTC of the municipality or city in which the real
territorial jurisdiction over the Sogod Cebu. So, in that
property is located. So, it makes express reference to MTC
context somehow you modify the provision under Section 1
and when we speak of MTC as used in the context of Sec 1 of
of Rule 4.
Rule 4, it likewise involves the Metropolitan Trial Court in
Manila, the MTCC, MCTC in clustered municipalities pursuant
to Sec 2 of Rule 5 of ROC which we shall be discussing later If the property involved is situated in the boundary of two
on. The term MTC may also include the other first level places and these two places have their respective courts like
courts. MTC or MTCC as the case maybe, you file the action in either
the MTCs or MTCCs involved.
Example:
Place of residence - Cebu City Q: Catmon Cebu has an MTC of its own. Let us assume for
purposes of discussion that Sogod Cebu has also an MTC of
Location of property - Catmon, Cebu
its own. But the property is situated right in the boundary of
Assessed value - 100 k Catmon and Sugod Cebu. If you want to file a case for
Without your knowledge and acquiescence, someone ejectment, where will you file the case?
entered your property. You want to file a case for FE. Catmon A: Either in the MTC of Catmon or Sogod Cebu. It is provided
Cebu has MTC but no RTC. But it is within the territorial for under the 2nd par of Sec 1 Rule 4. But do not file the case
jurisdiction of the RTC of Danao City and Danao City has its on the two courts simultaneously because you will be forum
own MTCC. shopping.

Q: If you want to file a case for ejectment, which court has

jurisdiction? Section 2
First Level Court – MTC, MCTC, MTCC as the case maybe Venue of personal actions – All other actions may be
pursuant to Sec 33 (2) BP 129 as amended juxtaposed with commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
Sec 19 (2) BP 129 as amended. principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any
of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
resident defendant where he may be found, at the election
Q: At which MTC will you file the action? In the MTC of
of the plaintiff.
Catmon or MTCC of Danao City?
2nd par of Sec 1 Rule 4 provides the answer that any such
action must be filed in the MTC of Catmon because that is the Real Action v. Personal Action
MTC of the municipality which the real property involved is Real action
situated. - actions involving title to, possession of, real property or
any interest therein pursuant to Sec 33(3) in Sec 19 (2)
Q: Suppose you failed to file the action of FE within the 1-year of BP 129
period from the unlawful intrusion. You can still file a case of
Accion Publiciana. Which court has jurisdiction? Remember the case of Spouses Concha and Heirs of Sebe
Case is cognizable by the RTC given the assessed value of where the court ruled that actions for quieting of title
100k pursuant to Sec 33 (3) in conjunction with Sec 19 (2) of involving real property may well be characterized as real
BP 129 as amended. actions such that jurisdiction over the same may be with the
RTC or MTC depending on the assessed value of the property.

48 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
In the case of Sps Sabitsana, SC ruled that an action for It would appear therefore that where there are three
quieting of title is incapable of pecuniary estimation such that plaintiffs residing at different places as against three
it may be cognizable by the RTC regardless of the assessed defendants who are residents in different places, then the
value thereof. I think you can still recall my personal action maybe filed in either of the 6 available venues, at the
observation where that case has its underpinnings where it election of the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff in that case may file
would appear that the lawyer involved abused his legal it in the proper court where any of the plaintiffs reside or
knowledge at the expense of his client. There is conflict of where any of the defendants reside. That is the import of
interest in that case. That is a real action. Section 2 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.

Good examples of real actions are accion publiciana, accion The term “principal plaintiffs” or “principal defendants” is
reindivicatoria, forcible entry, unlawful detainer cases, used because there are situations where there are persons
actions for partition and foreclosure of REM as ruled in case who are impleaded in a case in their nominal capacity.
of Barrido v. Nonato.
Example:
Personal Action I have a property and I mortgaged my property in favor of
On the other hand, personal actions are those actions Gravador and then as I failed in my obligation in favor of
founded on primitive contract or actions for quasi delict and Gravador, my property was foreclosed which was performed
good examples of which are actions for collection of sum of by the sheriff of the court. If I file a case against Gravador and
money based on a loan, actions for damages, actions for the sheriff, the sheriff is impleaded in a nominal capacity. The
recovery of personal property or movable properties and principal defendant is Gravador and sheriff is a nominal
actions involving rescission or enforcement of contract. defendant.

It is on that score that you may want to recall the case of So, in terms of venue, I only have to factor in my residence or
Spouses Saraza, Russel v. Vestil, the case of Genesis, and the that of Gravador not that of the sheriff because he is not a
case of De Leon in which the Supreme Court held that actions principal party.
for enforcement or specific performance and or rescission of
contract are considered as actions incapable of pecuniary Q: Section 2 Rule 4 mentions of “Residence” but what kind of
estimation hence they are considered personal actions. residence is that?
Whereas in the other case of Ruiz, SC said that actions for
It refers to legal residence referring to the domicile of the
rescission of contract or specific performance involving
person or the actual physical residence of the person.
acquisition of or recovery of real property is considered to be
a real action. Legal Residence = Domicile (There is intention of Returning
Animus Revertendi shown in the case of Ong v. COMELEC)
What is important to remember is the dicta in Russel v. Vestil
where our SC said that in order to determine whether the Ong was most of the time residing in Binondo Manila but he
action is a real action or personal action then we need to ran for Congress representing Northern Samar so his
inquire on the primary objective of the action. Such that if the qualification was questioned in terms of the residency
primary objective thereof is recovery or acquisition of real requirement. But SC said that it is enough that he has the
property then it may be considered as a real action. Perhaps intention of returning to his place of Origin which is Samar.
you can still recall my personal observation on the cases we
have just enumerated – when the acquisition or recovery of Unlike Election Law, the term residence for purposes of
real property is dependent on the enforcement or rescission determining the venue refers only to the actual residence of
of a pre-existing contract or deed except real estate the person. It should not be equated with domicile because
mortgage almost always the action is characterized to be one it is enough that the person is residing in a particular place.
incapable of pecuniary estimation hence a personal action.
So, for example I want to file a case against Gravador who is
When we speak of personal actions, it is considered as a resident of Cebu and for the mean time he is in Manila then
transitory actions in that venue thereof would depend on the I can file the case against him in Manila, because Manila is his
residence of the plaintiff or defendant at the election of the actual residence although his domicile remains in Cebu City.
plaintiff. But there is one case which is an exception to the above rule:

Following the provision of Section 2 Rule 4, the venue thereof

would be the proper court of the place where the plaintiff or Corre v. Corre
any of the principal plaintiffs reside or where the defendant 100 Phil 221
or any of the principal defendants reside, or in the case of a Facts:
non-resident defendant, the proper court of the place where
An American who resides in San Francisco came to the
he may be found, but all of these will depend at the election
Philippines and rented an apartment in Manila to sue his
of the plaintiff.
wife who is a Filipina. The wife is from Mindanao. The
American husband filed the case in Manila, claiming to be
49 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
a resident therein because he rented an apartment there. Q: Can you file a case against a person when he is not a
At a glance, it would appear that the husband’s posturing resident of the Philippines?
is correct. Definitely you can because for purposes in determining the
venue for the action, he is the person referred to therein in
Held: Section 2 being the non-resident defendant who can be
found in the Philippines.
SC, however, ruled that husband is not a resident of
Manila. His residence is in San Francisco – that is his
domicile. In effect, SC wanted the American husband to So, if he is temporarily in Dumaguete City, then you can file
file the case in the residence of the wife rather than the the case where you reside or in Dumaguete City where your
wife having to go to Manila. friend is staying in the meantime, or where he may be found,
at your election.
TN: Here SC equated residence with domicile. But we can
understand the ruling because in this case the SC is being That is the import of that provision referring to the non-
patriotic. The SC is being protective of a Filipino citizen as resident defendant where he may be found.
against a case filed by a foreign national. This case is one of
its kind. Situation 2:
Before you can file the action, your friend had already
Q: What if the one involved in the litigation is a juridical departed for Wuhan China.
person like a corporation. So what is the residence of the
corporation?
Q: Can you still file a case?
A: The residence of the corporation for purposes of filing an
GR: You cannot anymore file a case because the court cannot
action is the place where the main office or head office is
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. An
actually located and that place is normally required to be
action for sum of money is a personal action and it generally
indicated in its Articles of Incorporation.
requires personal service of summons on the person of the
defendant.
Clavecilla Radio System v. Antillon
19 SCRA 39 XPN:
Held: You convert the action from a purely personal action to an
action that is quasi in rem. And you can do that by attaching
Any person, whether natural or juridical, can only have one
his property in the Philippines, if there is any.
residence. Therefore, a corporation cannot be allowed to
file personal actions in a place other than its principal place
of business unless such a place is also the residence of a Recall that there are instances where jurisdiction over the res
co-plaintiff or defendant. may take the place of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant such that in the given problem, if you apply for
attachment and the attachment is granted by the court, then
Let us go back to the provision in Section 2:
the court already acquired jurisdiction over the res. So even
“All other actions may be commenced and tried where the if it did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant, it may still proceed to hear the case. After all it
defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in has jurisdiction over the res and the res is situated in the
the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be Philippines.
found, at the election of the plaintiff.”

Q: What is the legal basis of this?

It mentions about non-resident defendant which refers to a
A: Section 3 Rule 4
person who is not actually residing in the Philippines but may
be found in the Philippines.
Section 3
Situation 1: Venue of actions against nonresidents. – If any of the
You have a Filipino friend who is a resident of Wuhan China defendants does not reside and is not found in the
then he came to the Philippines for a short visit but in view of Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of
the lockdown brought about by the Covid 19 virus he was not the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in
able to leave for Wuhan China and he was constrained to stay the Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in
in the Philippines. the court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where
the property or any portion thereof is situated or found.
Assumed further that in view of the lockdown, he ran out of
cash such that he borrowed money from you. In the contract Q: What is the difference between Section 3 and Section 2
of loan, a period was stipulated but your friend who is a when Section 2 likewise mentions about nonresident
resident of Wuhan China failed to pay the amount upon due defendants?
date. So you want to file case.
50 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
The nonresident defendants referred in Section 2 are those
Section 4
who may be found in the Philippines wile the one that is
referred to in Section 3 are the nonresident defendants who When Rule not applicable. – This Rule shall not apply:
cannot be found in the Philippines. (a) In those cases where a specific rule or law
provides otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing
So, even if the defendant does not reside in the Philippines or
before the filing of the action on the exclusive
cannot be found in the Philippines, an action may still be filed
venue thereof.
against him if among others such actions affects the personal
status of the plaintiff, or such action involves the property of
the said defendant which is located in the Philippines. One such provision of law which provides for a different
venue of action is Article 360 of the RPC dealing with libel.
Under Art 360 of RPC, an action for damages arising from libel
Take note that such action may be filed in the place where may be filed in the appropriate court of the place where the
the plaintiff resides or where the property or any portion publication is first printed or published or in the place of the
thereof is situated. residence of the plaintiff or victim if he is a private citizen.

Example:
If he is a private citizen. But if he is a public officer then the
Case for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Walde venue of the action will be the proper court of the place
based on Art 36, on the doctrine of ChiMing Tsoi against his
where the publication is fist printer or published. Or where
wife Maria Ozawa who cannot be found in the Philippines
the public officer holds his office in Manila then the action
long before the institution of nullity of marriage.
will be filed in Manila. Or if he is holding office outside Manila
then the action will be filed in the place where he holds office.
Q: Will such action prosper when Maria Ozawa is not a
resident of the Philippines and cannot be found in the
Philippines? TN: Under Art. 360 of the RPC where the victim in the libel
A: YES. The venue of the action is where the plaintiff or Walde case is a public officer, he cannot therefore file a case at his
resides because that action definitely affects the status of the place of residence, in that he files the case either at the place
marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant. And the res is where the article is first published or in Manila if he holds
the marriage and the res here is situated in the Philippines. office in Manila or, if he holds office outside Manila, at the
place where he holds office at the time of the publication of
Another action which may prosper even if it is instituted the article.
against a nonresident who cannot be found in the Philippines
is when the action involves the property of the said Example:
defendant located in the Philippines.
I am a public office and is a resident of Cebu City but my office
is in Manila and there is a scurrilous article published in
Where you couple your complaint with a prayer for Panaraque City. Although if we apply Rule 2, Sec.4 it would
attachment of the property of the defendant in the
appear that I can file a case in Cebu City being my place of
Philippines you thereby convert the action from a purely
residence. But if we apply Art. 360 of the RPC then there is no
personal action to an action quasi in rem so that action will
way I can file a case for damages in cebu city, if at all applying
definitely prosper and the venue thereof will be the place
where you reside or where the property or any person Art. 360, the action that I may file against the offender would
thereof is situated. have to be filed in the place where the article is first printed
or in Manila where I actually hold office. Art. 360 therefore is
a good example of a law which provides for a different venue
Case will prosper despite defendant being a nonresident and
for an action.
cannot be found in the Philippines if:
1. It involves the personal status of the plaintiff
2. Action in rem (binding against the whole world) Another example of the exception is when the SC pursuant to
3. Action quasi in rem (Collection of sum of money its power under Sec. 5 (4), Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution,
with prayer for attachment) would order the transfer of the venue of the case. A good
4. Real Action (Action for recovery of real property) example of this is the case involving the Board Member of
Bohol. Where the case was transferred from Talibon, Bohol
But if it is a real action, you file the action in the place where to Lapu-lapu city. Well of course, the civil action in that case
the property is located pursuant to Section 1 Rule 4. was instituted with the criminal case. Given the transfer of
Under Section 4 of Rule 4 there are situations where the rules the criminal case from Talibon to Lapu-lapu City it necessarily
governing the venue of actions under Section 1-3 will be caries with it also that the venue f the civil action has been
wanting in application. transferred likewise from Talibon to Lapu-lapu city.

51 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Another example where the rule on venue will not have to In trustees, in the RTC where the property is located (Sec.1,
follow the rules prescribed in sections 1,2 and 3 of Rule 4, is Rule 98)
when the is a case for quo warranto. That is filed by the
SolGen and he files the same with the RTC. Because under In adoption of a minor in the RTC where the petitioner resides
sec. 7 of Rule 66 – any such action for quo warranto that may (Sec. 1, Rule 99)
be filed in the RTC by the SolGen will have to be filed in the
appropriate RTC in Manila.
Summing it all up, while sections 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 4
prescribe the venue of real actions, personal actions as the
Likewise, pursuant to Sec. 2 of Rule 8, where the action is for case may be, again these rules admit of exemptions. One of
continuing writ of mandamus, then it has to be filed in the which are those cases which where specific rule or law
RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the provides otherwise such as special proceedings.
actionable neglect of omission occurred.

Another exception on the rule of venue is where the parties

Situation: have validly agreed in writing before filing the action of the
Let’s us go back to that case in Naga; kadtong landslide. exclusivity of the venue for such purported action. In other
Assuming that an action for continuing mandamus is filed by words, under section 4, par. B, Rule 4 – parties may stipulate
the environmental lawyers from Cebu city and the action is in writing providing for a different venue or a venue of the
directed against the Sec. of the DENR who is actually holding action which is a place other than that where the parties
office in Manila. actually reside. But that stipulation should be in writing and
it must be existing long before the filing of the action and
Q: Where would you file the action? more than that as provided for by Sec. 4 of Rule 4 that such
If you are among the petitioners, can you file it in Cebu City stipulation on other venue of the purported action must
or in Manila where the main office of DENR is located. provide for the exclusivity thereof.
Pursuant to sec. 2, Rule 8 of Rules of Procedure for
Environmental cases, any such case for continuing writ of A case illustrative of the requirement is the case of Polytrade
mandamus must be filed in the RTC which has jurisdiction of Coprporation v. Blanco.
the territory where the actionable neglect or omission
occurred. So, even if the petitioners are residents of Cebu City Polytrade Coprporation v. Blanco
or even if the defendant for the purported action is based in GR L-27033 [Oct. 31, 1969]
Manila, the case has to be filed in the RTC of Naga which has Facts:
jurisdiction over the territory which has actionable neglect or Plaintiff Polytrade Co. filed a case to recover the purchase
omission occurred. price of rawhide against defendant Blanco in CFI of
Bulacan. Plaintiff has its principal office located in Makati,
JP Rizal, while defendant Blanco resides in Maycauayan,
In fact, in special proceedings. The rules governing special Bulacan. Prior to the case filed by the plaintiff, both parties
proceedings prescribe different venues for such special made a written stipulation in the contract that – “that the
proceedings. Such that for example the action is a petition of parties agree to sue and be sued in the Court of Manila”.
correction of entries in the Civil Registry, any such action has Blanco moved to dismiss the case on the ground of
to be filed in the RTC where the corespoding civil registry is improper venue because, as per contract, the parties
located. agreed in writing that the stipulation abovementioned
must be followed. According to him, he can only be sued
in the courts of Manila.
Or if the action is for the settlement of the estate of a
deceased person. Such action will be filed in the RTC of the
place the where person resides at the time of his death and Held:
that is pursuant to Sec. 1 of Rule 73. An accurate reading, however, of the stipulation, “the
parties agree to sue and be sued in the Courts of Manila,”
reveals that it does not preclude the filing of suits in the
Or in escheats proceedings the action has to filed in the residence of plaintiff or defendant. The plain meaning is
appropriate RTC where the deceased last resided pursuant to that the parties merely consented to be sued in Manila.
Sec. 1, Rule 91. Qualifying or restrictive words which would indicate that
Manila, and Manila alone is the venue of the action are
totally absent therefrom. We cannot read into that clause
In guardianship over the person or the estate of a minor or
that plaintiff and defendant bound themselves to file suits
an incompetent it has to be filed in the RTC where such minor
with respect to the last two transactions in question only
could be found (Sec. 1, Rule 92) or exclusively in Manila. For, that agreement did not
change or transfer venue. It simply is permissive. The
parties solely agreed to add the courts of Manila as

52 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
tribunals to which they may resort. They did not waive the Held:
right to pursue remedy in the courts specifically Pasay City is exclusive venue. It is true that in Polytrade v.
mentioned in Sec. 2(b) of Rule 4. Blanco, a stipulation that “the parties agree to sue and be
sued in the City of Manila” was held to merely provide an
So, in the case of Polytrade the SC observed that the additional forum in the absence of any qualifying or
stipulation of venue to the end that the parties agrred to be restrictive words. But here, by laying in Pasay City the
venue for all suits, the parties made in plain that in no
sue and be sued in the court of Manila is not restrictive. It
other place may the bring suit against each other for
does not provide that any such action should only be filed in
breach of contract or damages or any other cause
Manila to the exclusion of the other courts. In other words, between them and persons claiming under each of them.
the stipulation on venue is not restrictive so the SC said it is In other words, the intentions of the parties is to make
merely permissive. And in as much therefore as such Pasay City the exclusive venue.
stipulation on venue is merely permissive and is not
restrictive, then the SC said that the parties therefor are still
TN: Where even if the stipulation on venue in the case of
bound by the provisions under Sec. 2, Rule 4, governing
Gesmundo does not mention about exclusivity expressly but
personal actions. Such that the parties therefore or the
it can be inferred that the chosen venue is the exclusive
plaintiff in the action may file the case either in the place of
venue because in the stipulation it mention of venue for all
the residence of the plaintiff or the place of the residence of
suits. So, the SC made an inference that Pasay City is chosen
the defendant (at the election of the plaintiff), and there is an
by the parties as the exclusive venue of any action involving
added venue which is the court in Manila pursuant to the
them.
stipulation contained in the contract involved in the case of
Polytrade.
The general rule is that the stipulation on venue must be
restrictive, otherwise it is merely considered as permissive or
Because again if you look at sec. 4(b) – it is provided that such
merely provides for an additional venue as what was shown
stipulation in venue must be in writing and that it must be
in the case of Polytrade.
there already before the filing of the action, and more than
that, such stipulation must pertain to an exclusive venue; it
should be restrictive. Otherwise, it will be construed as Another case which may be considered as an exception to the
merely permissive or (that any such stipulation that does not doctrine enunciated in Polytrade is the case of Sweetline vs.
prescribe the exclusivity of this other chosen venue is Teves.
considered to be merely permissive) merely providing for an
Sweetline vs. Teves
additional venue of the purported action.
83 SCRA 361
Facts:
So, that is the general rule as this provided for in the case of
This case involved Sweetlines, a shipping company with
Polytrade v. Blanco.
main office in Cebu. There was a group of passengers who
rode on the Sweet Lines for Cebu city. During the trip, the
Q: But what if there is a stipulation contained in the contract y were given a crude treatment by the officers of the
governing the venue of action but then we cannot easily vessel. They were forced to hide at the carho section to
determine whether such stipulation on venue pertains to an avoid inspection of officers of the Philippines Coastguard.
exclusive venue or that we cannot easily decipher whether They were exposed to the scorching heat of the sun and
such stipulation on venue is restrictive? the dust coming from the shop’s cargo of corn grits. When
they came back in CDO, the filed a suit fo damges against
In that stipulation we should be guided by the case of Sweet Lines. They filed a case in the former CFI, now RTC,
Gesmundo v. JRB Realty Corp. of CDO City because the plaintiffs are residents of CDO
City. Sweet Lines filed a motion to dismiss questioning the
Gesmundo v. JRB Realty Corp.
venue of the action because in the ticket issued by Sweet
234 SCRA 153. Lines, there is a stipulation, at the back thereof, to the end
Facts: that - “in case of a civil action arising from the contract of
This involves a lease contract which contained a carriage, the venue of the action shall be the City of Cebu
stipulation on venue. As stipulated in the contract – ONLY and in no other place.” So there is a restrictive word.
“venue for all suits, whether for breach hereof or damages
or any cause between the LESSOR and the LESSEE, and As expected, Sweet Lines, invoking the case of Polytrade,
persons claiming under each, being the courts of moved to dismiss the case citing such case. Judge Teves
appropriate jurisdiction in Pasay City.” denied the motion to dismiss the case despite the
stipulation. According to him, it is unfair. According to the
Issue: Is this intention of the parties to make Pasay City an Judge, if he would dismiss the case based on this
exclusive venue? stipulation, the aggrieved parties would be discouraged
and inconvenienced in going to Cebu. It would be very

53 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
expensive for them to go to Cebu and litigate their case. restrictive stipulation on venue. Arqeuro went to the SC
But, if the case will go on in CDO, the parties will not be citing the case of Sweet Lines.
inconvenienced, including Sweet Lines because it has a
branch office, its manage, and even its own lawyer there. Held:
Arquero cannot find any saving comfort under Sweet Lines
Issue: Whether or not Cagayan de Oro is the proper case. According to the SC, Arqeuro is a lawyer. He
venue? Or that the same should be dismissed for being presumably knew the law and the rules. Moreover, the
filed on the wrong venue. stipulation is in the front of the telegraphic form. He could
easily read it, and he even signed under the same. As a
Held: lawyer, according to the SC, he should know what he was
Yes. According to the SC, Judge Teves was correct in signing.
dismissing the case.
What is even notable was that Arqeuro, a lawyer, even signed
First of all, the stipulation is placed at the back of the ticker that telegraphic form where there is an express stipulation on
and is written in the fine prints. These people never even venue which stipulation is restrictive. So as a lawyer,
bothered to read this. Therefore, the passengers did not according to the SC, he should know what he was therefore
have a hand, or say, in preparing that stipulation. So the signing. So, in effect gi blame pa sa SC si Arqeuro; he was a
contract is a contract of adhesion. lawyer, he ought to know the law, so why did he sign the form
containing a restrictive stipulation on venue.
Second, again for the sake of equity, it is not fair that these
poor people will be compelled to go to Cebu to file a case But actually, in the case of Sweet Lines vs Teves, one of the
there. They will be discouraged. It is very expensive to go
petitioners was also a lawyer. A certain Atty. Tando(?). Well
back and forth to Cebu. Whereas, Sweet Lines has the
you may take note that in the case of Sweet Lines the SC did
resources, the means, the lawyers here in Cagayan to
not apply the restrictive stipulation on venue, but here in the
litigate. Therefore, it would be inequitable to compel them
to litigate in Cebu or to apply the stipulation there. case Arquero the SC applied the restrictive stipulation on
venue.

That’s why I said, the case of Sweet Line v. Teves may be

considered as an exception to the rule in the case of Q: But why?
Polytrade. Because while the stipulation on venue in the case • Well for one, in the case of Arquero, he signed the
of Sweet Lines is restrictive, but SC refused to apply the same telegram form. And in the case of Sweet Lines, of
because it would result to injustice committed to the course when you buy a ticket you don’t sign the
petitioners whoa are residents of CDO. same.
• In the case of Sweet Lines the stipulation on venue
But the ruling in the case of Sweet Lines vs. Teves was not was printed at the back portion of the ticket such
applied in the case of Arquero v. Flojo that the SC ruled that of course nobody would
bother to read what was stipulated at the back.
Arquero v. Flojo More so since it was written in fine print. And here
Facts: in the case of Aqeuero, the stipulation of venue was
Arquero is a lawyer and the municipal mayor of the printed on the front page on the telegram form.
municipality of Sta. Teresita, Cagayan Valley. He sent a • And for another (this is pivotal according to Atty.), in
telegram through the RCPI branch in Cagayan, and it was the case of Sweet Lines the petitioners there were
addressed to a Congressman in Manila. In that telegram treated a shabby treatment or that they were even
Arquero requested for a meeting with the Congressman, treated harshly by Sweet Lines. Because imanigna
thereby setting the date for the purported visit, as he, toa sila sa bodega gipa tago para di ma kit-an sa mga
Arquero wanted to ask for a favor. When he went to the coast guards. So the cause of that situations we can
office of the congressman a few days thereafter, the differentiate the case of Sweet Lines from the case
Congressman got mad because in the telegram it was of Arquero.
made to appear tha the charges or fees thereof shall be
charged to the Congressman. Arquero was stunned
because he paid for the telegram. He was embarrassed. Q: But what if two parties entered into a transaction and this
So, he filed a case for damages against RCPI in Cagayan. transaction involves two or more written contracts. Then in
But in the RCPI telegraph form, there is a stipulation to the the separate documents there are contrasting stipulation
end that – “venue of any action shall be the court of pertaining to venue of actions? Meaning to say that parties
Quezon City alone and in no other court.” So the venue is entered into a transaction and this transaction is evidence by
restrictive. RCPI moved to dismiss the case for improper two documents but for one reason *inaudible* these two
venue. The trial court dismissed the case because of the documents contain different stipulations when it comes to
venue of any possible action.

54 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Well to resolve that question we should be guided by the case Provision of a contract are to be given a reasonable and
of Rigor v. Consolidated Orix Leasing Finance Corporation. practical interpretation so as to be efficacious. Titles given
to sections of a contract may be resorted to interpreting
Rigor v. Consolidated Orix Leasing Finance Corporation its scope. An interpretation that gives effect to the
GR 136423 contract as a whole should be adopted.’
Facts:
Petitioners obtained a loan from private respondent By and large, it was therefore NOT an error or grave abuse
Consolidated Orix Leasing and Finance Corporation. To of discretion when the controversial Motion to Dismiss
secure payment of the load, petitioners executed in favor was denied by the respondent court. Indeed, venue is
of private respondent a deed of chattel mortgage over two properly laid in the case at bar under the provisions of the
dump trucks. Petitioners failed to pay several installments Chattel Mortgage in issue.
despite demand from private respondent, so the private
respondent sought to foreclose the chattel mortgage by
So, here there were two documents providing different
filinf a complaint for Replevin with Damages against
venue for actions. One is the promissory note which provides
petitioners before the RTC of Dagupan City. Petitioners
moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of the venue of the action should only be commenced only in
improper venue based on a provision in the promissory Makati City, whereas in the other instrument, the deed of
note which states that, “all legal actions arising out of this chattel mortgage, it was stipulated therein that the action
note or in connection with the chattel subject hereof shall may also be commenced in the proper court within the
only be brought in or submitted to the proper court in province of Rizal or in any other court in the city of province
Makati City, Philippines.” where the holder/mortgagee has a branch office. Here the
finance corporation has branch in Dagupan City. It is for that
Private respondents opposed the motion to dismiss and reason that the action was filed in Dagupan City. So obviously
argued that venue was properly lain in Dagupan City there were some contrary stipulations on venue as contained
where it has a branch office based on a provision in the in the promissory note and in the chattel mortgage.
deed of chattel mortgage which states that, “in case of
litigation arising out of trasacntion that gave rise to this
In other words, the SC said that the filing of the action in
contract, complete jurisdiction is given the proper court of
Dagupan City is considered as having been done properly. In
the city of Makati or any proper court within the province
of Rizal, or any court in the city, or province where the other words, here the SC construed the two contracts as
holder/mortgagee has a branch office, waiving for this partaking of one and single instrument. So, we should be
purpose any proper venue.” guided in the ruling of the case in Rigor.

Held: I need to clarify that the determination of the venue of the

In this case, both the Promissory Note and the Chattel action is as important as determining which court would have
Mortgage should be treated as a singular contract with jurisdiction over a particular case. Because even if you
one complementing the other. Appropriately, Art. 1374 determine that the action is under the jurisdiction of a
provides: “The various stipulations of a contract shall be particular court but I you filed an action in the improper
interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that venue then the action may be dismissed just the same.
sense which may result from all of the taken jointly.”
And in giving meaning to the contract, an interpretation of
But it has to be emphasized that venue and jurisdiction are
all its provisions must be adopted as will give effect to all.
The stipulations of the contract shall be interpreted two different concepts; that they are not synonymous.
together attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which
may result from all of them taken jointly [Layug vs. IAC, 167 Jurisdiction vs. Venue
SCRA 627 (1998)]. Tolentino, in his Civil Code of the
Philippines, Vil 4, 1995 Reprint, pp. 563-564 said: Jurisdiction Venue
Refers to the authority of the Refers only to the place
court to hear the case where the action is
‘xxx The whole contract must be interpreted or read
brought or tried
together in order to arrive at its true meaning. Certain
stipulations cannot be segregated and then made to Jurisdiction over the subject Venue is waivable and can
control; neither do particular words or phrases necessarily matter cannot be waived be subject of agreement
determine the character of a contract. The legal effect of Jurisdiction is fixed by law Venue may be conferred
the contract is not to be determined alone by any and cannot be conferred by by the act or agreement of
particular provision disconnected from all others, but in the parties the parties
the ruling intention of the parties as gathered from all the The court may dismiss an Court cannot dismiss motu
language they have used; and from their action motu proprio in case proprio
contemporaneous subsequent acts. of LACK of JURISDICTION
over the subject matter

55 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Jurisdiction over the subject But not Venue, since acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules
matter may be raised at any venue is highly waivable on venue had been devised. The trial court cannot pre-
stage of the proceedings empt the defendant’s prerogative to object to the
since it is conferred by law improper laying of the venue by motu prioprio dismissing
It is governed by Venue is governed by the case.
SUBSTANTIVE LAW – procedural law – Rule 4 of
Judiciary Law, BP 129, as the RoC Indeed, it was grossly erroneous gor the trial court to have
amended taken a procedural short-cut by dismissing motu proprio
Refers to the relation of the Refers to the relation the complaint on the ground of imporoer venue without
parties to the court between parties first allowing the procedure outines in the RoC to take its
Jurisdiction limits the court’s Venue limits the plaintiff’s proper course. Although we are for the speedy and
authorities rights expeditious resolution of cases, justice and fairness take
primary importance. The ends of justice require that
VENUE in criminal cases is JURISDICTIONAL and is not,
respondent trial court faithfully adhere to the rules of
therefore, waivable, but not in civil cases as the same is
procedure to afford not only the defendant but the
subject to stipulation and is highly waivable.
plaintiff as well, the right to be heard on his cause.

TN: That in criminal cases venue is jurisdictional hence venue

In the case of Dacoycoy vs IAC, SC made it clear that the trial
in criminal cases cannot be waived but in civil cases venue is
court cannot motu proprio or on its own accord dismiss the
not jurisdictional such that the same may be subject to
case on the ground of improper venue unless there is an
stipulation entered into by the parties or that venue is subject
objection filed by the defendant as raised in his motion to
to waiver or omission where there is failure to object to the
dismiss or answer, as the case may be. So again the court
filing of the case in the wrong venue.
cannot motu propiro or on its own accord dismiss the case on
improper venue where there is no objection coming from the
The venue of civil cases is highly waivable is best illustrated in defendant as raised in his motion to dismiss or answer, as the
this case of BPI Family Savings Banks v. Sps. Benedicto case may be.
Yujuico.

BPI Family Savings Banks v. Sps. Benedicto Yujuico But the ruling in the case of Dacoycoy vs IAC to the end that
as a rule the court cannot motu proprio on the ground of
GR 175796
improper venue unless there is an objection with respect
Held:
thereto admits of some exceptions. These are the exceptions:
We underscore that in civil proceedings, venue is
procedural, not jurisdictional, and may not be waived by
the defendant if not seasonably raise either in a motion to Exceptional Circumstances wherein the case may be
dismiss or in the answer. Sec. 1, Rule 9 of the RoC thus dismissed motu proprio for improper venue
expressly stipulates that defenses and objections not 1. Actions covered by the Rules on Summary
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are Procedure (Sec. 4, Summary Procedure; Sec. 9 A.M.
deemed waived. As it relates to the place of trial, indeed, No. 08-8-7-SC)
venue is meant to provide convenience to the parties, 2. Small Claims cases (Sec. 11, Rules of Procedure of
rather than restrict their access to the courts. In other Small Claims cases)
words, unless the defendant seasonably objects, any 3. Actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer
action may be tried by a court despite its being improper (Sec. 5, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court)
venue.

So, the case of BPI v. Sps. Benedicto accentuates the fat that
indeed in civil cases venue is highly waivable unlike in criminal RULE 5 – Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts
cases where venue is jurisdictional.

Another case worthy of consideration is the case of Jesus Section 1

Dacoycoy vs. IAC. Uniform procedure – The procedure in the Municipal Trial
Courts Shall be the same in the RTC, except:
Jesus Dacoycoy vs. IAC a. where a particular provision expressly or impliedly
GR 74854 applies only to either of said courts; or
Held: b. in civil cases governed by the Rules on Summary
Procedure
Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue
in a motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to
have been improperly laid, as for all practical intents and Under the Rules of Court, it clearly provided that the
purposes, the venue, though technically wrong, may be procedures starting from Rule 6 are procedure outlined for

56 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
the RTC. However, by virtue of the provision under Sec. 1 Rule
RULE 6 – Kinds of Pleadings
5 of RoC, such procedures as outline for the RTC equally apply
to the 1st Level courts or the Municipal trial courts unless
where a particular provision expressly or impliedly applies
Section 1
only to either of said courts.
Pleadings defined. – Pleadings are the written statements
of the respective claims and defenses of the parties
So, generally the procedures outline for RTC would also be submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.
applicable to the 1st level courts except when it is apparent
from the provision that the same applies only to a particular If you have a complaint, you cannot just go to court and
court. Let’s say for example Rule 40 of the RoC – governs verbally narrate to the judge your cause/s of action. If you are
appeal of cases from MTC to RTC. So clearly the procedures the defendant, you cannot also verbally appeal and raise your
outline in Rule 40 would only apply with MTC. And Rule 70 defenses to the judge as if you are making a confession. Your
also would only be applicable to the same since it is about complaint or defenses has to be in writing.
ejectment cases.
“In writing” means that your written statements must also
And then pursuant to par. b of Sec. 1, Rule 5 – cases governed follow the prescribed/standard form (e.g. Efficient Paper
by the Rules of Summary Procedure, of course would only be Rule). It must not be through a letter or a text message.
applicable to the 1st level courts and the same therefore are
not applicable in the RTCs. Because cases falling under the Section 2
purview of Summary Procedure are cognizable by the 1st level
Pleadings allowed. – The claims of a party are asserted in
courts. That explains why Rules on Summary Procedure
a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-
would only be applicable in the 1st level courts or that the party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention.
same will not apply in the RTC.

The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the

Section 2 pleading asserting a claim
against him or her.
Meaning of terms – The term “Municipal Trial Courts” as
used in the Rules shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and An answer may be responded to by a reply only if the
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. defending party attaches an actionable document to the
answer. (2a)
Municipal Trial Courts are there in Metropolitan Manila area,
whereas every city has its Municipal Trial court in city, then The filing of a rejoinder is now allowed by the 2019 Amended
we have the Municipal Trial court in the municipalities, and Rules. This type of pleading was not allowed in the old Rules
the municipal circuit trial courts in clustered municipalities. of Court and the 1997 Amendments. Under Section 10 of
Rule 6, there is such thing as a rejoinder if an actionable
document is attached. Anyway, this will be taken up later on.
Like in Sogod, Sogod is clustered with Catmon. So that’s why Suffice it to state, the defendant is now allowed to file a
I said earlier that Sogod, Cebu is within the territorial rejoinder which is not the case in the old and 1997 rules
jurisdiction of MCTC which is placed in Catmon, Cebu.
Sec. 10, Rule 6 of the 2019 Amendments to the Rules Of Civil
And, of course, as stated here in sec. 2 of Rule 5, the term Procedure
municipal trial court, if ever, the same is used in the rules Section 10
then that term includes also the other 1st level courts. That Reply. x x x In the event of an actionable document attached
explains the earlier discussion on venue pertaining to forcible to the reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is
entry cases which provides that forcible entry or unlawful based solely on an actionable document
detainer cases will have to be filed in the Municipal Trial Court
in the Municipality or City where the property or any portion
Under the old rules, there is such a thing as reply. Under the
thereof involved is located, the term Municipal Trial Court new rules, there is also such thing but the only difference is
may also refer to MTC in cities or Municipal Circuit Trial that:
Courts because of the expanded meaning thereof as provided
1997 Rules of Court, as 2019 Amendments to the
by Sec. 2, Rule 5. amended 1997 Rules
The plaintiff basically can A reply may only be filed if
file his reply if there are there is an actionable
new matters alleged in the document attached to the
defendant’s answer. answer. The plaintiff cannot

57 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
file a reply if there is no 3. Reply;
actionable document 4. Pleading in Intervention;
attached to the answer. 5. Petition for Relief from Judgment; and
6. Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus or Prohibition
against Interlocutory Orders.
Example:
Waldy filed a complaint for the collection of unpaid loan
In Small Claims cases- money claims the amount of which
against me. I, as the defendant, filed an answer to the
does not exceed 300K for places outside Manila
complaint wherein I admit obtaining a loan from him. I also
alleged that I already paid the same, and I attached to my The following pleadings are not allowed:
answer a copy of the acknowledgment receipt of such 1. Petition for Relief from Judgment;
payment signed by Waldy. 2. Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus or Prohibition
against Interlocutory Orders;
3. Reply;
That receipt constitutes as an actionable document in so far
4. Third- or Fourth-party complaint, as the case may
as Waldy is concerned.
be; and
5. Intervention.
Under the 2019 Amended Rules, if Waldy would want to
dispute the receipt, he must file a reply probably denying Cases for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo or Writ of Habeas
signing such receipt. Data
The following pleadings are not allowed:
He can also say that he issued such by way of 1. Counterclaim;
accommodation. He can allege that I requested him to issue 2. Cross-claim;
an accommodation receipt so I can make it appear to my wife 3. Third party complaint;
that I repaid the amount even if the same has not been paid. 4. Reply; and
If this the tenor of his Reply, he would likewise attach thereto 5. Intervention.
a copy of this letter coming from my end requesting that he
issue to me an accommodation receipt even if I have not paid
Environmental Cases
my obligation to him. If I want to dispute that letter reply
probably saying that the signature is not mine then I need to The following pleadings are allowed:
file a rejoinder. 1. Complaint;
2. Answer;
3. Compulsory counterclaims;
That is the salient provision under amended rules that there
4. Cross-claims;
is now such thing as a rejoinder. Again, the same may only be
5. In citizen suit - Petition for Promotion for
filed if it is an actionable document that is attended(?) to the
Intervention.
reply. Another major amendment also is that the reply may
only be filed if there is an actionable document that is
attended to the answer. Unlike in the past wherein the The following pleadings are not allowed:
plaintiff basically has the option whether or not to file a reply. 1. Reply;
2. Rejoinder;
3. Third party complaint.
TN: Not all pleadings under sec 2, rule 6 are allowed in special
kinds of cases.
Complaint
Section 2 of Rule 6 enumerates the pleadings allowed to be Section 3
filed in an ordinary civil action. BUT it should be emphasized
Complaint. – The complaint is the pleading alleging the
that the pleadings enumerated therein, although allowed in
plaintiff’s or claiming party’s cause or causes of action. The
ordinary civil actions, are not necessarily allowed in special
names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must
kinds of cases.
be stated in the complaint.

In Ejectment cases and cases covered by the Rules of

The complaint contains the written averments outlining the
Summary Procedure
plaintiff’s cause or causes of action.
The following pleadings are allowed to be filed therein:
1. Complaint;
Example:
2. Answer;
3. Compulsory Counterclaim pleaded in the Answer; Gravador wants to file a case for collection of a loan against
and answers thereto, if any. me. The complaint would start, other than the title, with the
statement to the end that plaintiff, by counsel, and to this
honorable court respectfully states:
Conversely, the following pleadings are not allowed:
1. Permissive Counterclaim;
2. Third Party Complaint;
58 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
1. That the plaintiff is a Filipino citizen and a resident
of Espina Village at which he may be served with the
orders and processes of this court; Section 4
2. That defendant Renato Galeon is a Filipino and a Answer. – An answer is a pleading in which a defending
resident of Consolacion, Cebu where he may be party sets forth his or her defenses. (4a)
served upon with the summons of this case.
3. That on February 14, 2010, defendant obtained a The one that is underlined, the words “or her” defenses are
loan from plaintiff in the amount of 10K, payable being introduced under the amended rules in order to be
within 1 year, evidenced by the promissory notes gender sensitive. Equality before the law of men and women,
hereto attached Annex “A” thereof. that’s why the pronoun “her” is inserted in Section 4 of Rule
4. That the loan obligation incurred by the defendant 6. Basically, an answer is a written document in which the
from the plaintiff had long matured, but despite defendant pleads his answer to the charges or claims of the
demands, the defendant failed and still fails to pay plaintiff.
the amount of the loan.

Q: What are the defenses which the defendant may put forth
PRAYER
in his or her answer?
WHEREFORE, after notice and hearing, this court shall issue
A: Section 5 of Rule 6. This pertains to defenses which may
an order or judgment holding defendant liable to pay the
either be negative or affirmative.
amount of 10K plus interest, representing the principal loan
that he obtained from the plaintiff. [end]
Section 5
The complaint is expected to recite and contain all the Defenses. — Defenses may either be negative or
elements of a cause or causes of action as discussed before. affirmative.
Again, it has to be in writing.
(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the
material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of
Under the amended rules, Section 3 of Rule 6 has been the claimant essential to his or her cause or
amended to the end that the complaint is considered as the causes of action.
pleading alleging the plaintiff’s or claiming party’s cause or (b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new
causes of action. The one that is underscored or underlined
matter which, while hypothetically admitting the
is the portion that is introduced in the amended rules. So it
material allegations in the pleading of the
mentions about claiming parties. The reason for this
claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar
amendment to the end that the complaint is also the pleading
containing the claiming party’s cause of action is to be recovery by him or her. The affirmative defenses
consistent with Section 1, Rule 3. include fraud, statute of limitations, release,
payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel,
Section 1
former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and
Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. — Only natural
any other matter by way of confession and
or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be
avoidance.
parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may refer to the
claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or
the third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff. The term "defendant" Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the
may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a dismissal of a complaint, specifically, that the court has no
counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is
— party defendant. (1a) another action pending between the same parties for the
same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior
Under our previous discussion of the provision of Section 1, judgment. (5a)
Rule 3, we learned that the term plaintiff has been defined
also as to include the counterclaimant, the cross-claimant, or To reiterate, this second sentence of paragraph b is a new
the third-party claimant as the case may be. In fact, we provision incorporated under Section 5 of Rule 6. So again,
underscore the fact that the term plaintiff may also refer to when it comes to defenses, the defenses which the
the defendant insofar as the defendant becomes the plaintiff defendant may put up or put forth in his or her answer may
with respect to his counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party either be a negative defense or an affirmative defense.
complaint, as the case may be. Precisely, the amendment is
introduced to Section 3 of Rule 6 to be consistent with the
Under Section 5, a negative defense is a specific denial of the
definition given under Sec 1 of Rule 3. So that’s the reason
material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant
why Section 3 is amended to include the provision that the
essential to his or her cause of action.
complaint also may refer to the pleading alleging the claiming
party’s cause or causes of action. In so far as the plaintiff is
concerned, the complaint is considered to be his initiatory Example:
pleading, meaning this is the first pleading that the plaintiff Waldi filed a case against me for collection of unpaid loan
files in court. alleging that sometime on February 14, 2010, I obtained a

59 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
loan of money from him to the tune of 10,000 payable in one recovery by saying that he cannot anymore collect because
(1) year, supposedly evidenced by a promissory note that I the action for filing the same has long prescribed. So that is a
executed and signed. good example of an affirmative defense.

So in my answer, I may put forth therein a negative defense As I said earlier, there is this new provision that is
as by stating probably that: paragraph 1 pertaining to those incorporated under Section 5 of Rule 6 pursuant to the
circumstances of the plaintiff is denied for lack of knowledge; amendments. I’m referring to this provision under the second
paragraph 2 pertaining to my personal circumstances is sentence of paragraph b, to the end that affirmative defenses
admitted; paragraph 3 is specifically denied under oath, the may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint,
truth being that defendant did not incur any loan obligation specifically, that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
from the plaintiff because in truth and in fact, defendant does matter, that there is another action pending between the
not know plaintiff and the promissory note appended to the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred
complaint supposedly signed by the defendant is sham or by a prior judgment. Basically, there are three (3) grounds
bogus and that the signature therein purporting to be that of that are stated under this second sentence of paragraph b of
the defendant is a forgery evidenced by the PNP report Section 5, Rule 6 and these are: (1) lack of jurisdiction or that
signifying that the signature appended therein is not that of the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2)
the defendant and a copy of which is hereto attached as based on litis pendentia, the pendency of another action or
Annex 1 of the answer. action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
and (3) res judicata, that the action is barred by prior
That kind of defense is obviously a negative defense because: judgment.
(1) I denied knowing the plaintiff;
(2) I denied having obtained any loan from him; and I’d like to emphasize that these three (3) grounds: lack of
(3) I vehemently denied under oath that I signed any jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, and res
promissory note in favor of the plaintiff. So that is a judicata are basically grounds for filing a motion to dismiss
negative defense. under the present rules or the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
(under Rule 16, supposedly). But under the amended rules,
On the other hand, when we speak of affirmative defense, it these three (3) grounds are now to be pleaded by way of
is defined under Section 5 of Rule 6 as an allegation of a new affirmative defenses in the answer. So again, these grounds
matter which, while hypothetically admitting the material are supposedly grounds for filing a motion to dismiss but
allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would under the amended rules, these grounds may now be
nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him or her. It included in the answer by way of affirmative defenses.
includes fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment,
illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, Q: Is the filing a motion to dismiss, under the amended rules,
discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of altogether prohibited?
confession and avoidance. Basically, an affirmative defense is A: If you look at the amended rules, it is merely stated therein
considered a confession and avoidance. Confession in the that Rule 16 has been transposed. It may be noted that the
sense that if what is pleaded in the answer is an affirmative amended rules does not expressly provide that the filing of a
defense, defendant hypothetically admits the allegations in motion to dismiss is now altogether prohibited.
the complaint but puts forth a defense which would deny or
prevent the plaintiff from recovering his claim.
It only mentions Section 5B Rule 6 as a whole. Suggesting that
if you read section 5 rule 6 with section 12 rule 8. It would
Example: appear that the grounds stated under paragraph B of section
Let’s go back to the problem again where Gravador filed a 5 to include the 3 grounds:
case against me for collection of unpaid loan but in my 1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
answer instead of denying the obligation, I admitted having 2. Litis pendencia
obtained a loan from him to the tune of 20,000 and admitted 3. Res Judicata
having executed in his favor a promissory note. But in my
answer, I would contend and argue that I already paid the ~shall also be raised in the answer by way of affirmative
same such that I would attach to my answer this receipt defenses. And that can also justify the postulate that indeed
signed by Waldi. So you take note, that is a way of confession it would appear now that the filing of a motion to dismiss
of avoidance. I confessed and admitted to having obtained a prior to the filing of the answer is already prohibited
loan from Gravador but I avoided his claim by saying that I
already paid the same. Or probably, in my answer, I would
want to say that yes indeed, I obtained a loan from Gravador Section 5 (b).
on February 14, 2010 to the tune of 10,000 but he cannot (b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new
now claim or that he cannot now collect that loan because matter which, while hypothetically admitting the
the action for filing the same has long prescribed knowing material allegations in the pleading of the claimant,
fully well that an action based on a written instrument shall would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him
prescribe after ten years. As you can see, I admitted having or her. The affirmative defenses include fraud,
obtained a loan from him but denied his claim or denied him statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality,

60 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, likely. In fact, I am inclined to believe that the 2nd
discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by interpretation is correct. (THIS IS JUST ATTY’S OPINION)
way of confession and avoidance.
TN: The section 2 of rule 6 mentions about counterclaims as
RULE 8 among the pleadings which may be filed in an ordinary civil
Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings action.
Section 12.
Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein. — Upon Counterclaim
motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if
no responsive pleading is permitted by these Rules, upon Section 6
motion made by a party within twenty (20) days after the Counterclaim. — A counterclaim is any claim which a
service of the pleading upon him, or upon the court's own defending party may have against an opposing party. (6)
initiative at any time, the court may order any pleading to be
stricken out or that any sham or false, redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter be stricken out therefrom. Example:
(5, R9) The plaintiff files a complaint, then the defendant has to file
his answer to the complaint, and TN that in his answer to the
complaint, the defendant may raise therein what is known as
There is already merit to that postulate because it is now, or
a COUNTERCLAIM.
even before, the effectivity of this amended rules, the court
ruled already issued a directive enjoining the defendant from
filing a motion to dismiss. Now, the summon that the court Situation:
will issue will contain a caveat directing the defendant to Gravador filed a case against me for allegedly causing damage
refrain from filing a motion to dismiss or just to plead a to his car. He accused me of being negligent in driving my car.
ground of dismissal of action in its answer by way of So, he files a case for damages. Alleging that I was negligent
affirmative defenses. in driving my car such that I hit his car and caused a damage
for P50 000. In my answer, I can dispute the allegation of
The reason why the amendments are introduced, specifically Gravador by saying that the cause of the collision complained
under section 12 Rule 8 and section 5 rule 6, is to prohibit or of is actually the negligence on the part of Gravador and that
to somehow not to delay the proceedings. Under the present he was the one who caused the damage to my car for P100
rules, where a motion to dismiss is allowed to be filed, that 000. If in my answer, I pray therein that Gravador be instead
will entail a delay in the proceedings. Because where a held liable to pay for the damage of my car, that is a
motion to dismiss is filed before the Answer, the plaintiff is counterclaim called a compulsory counterclaim.
still given the chance to file his comment or opposition to the
motion to dismiss, then the defendant will file his reply to the When I denied driving my car in a negligent manner, that is a
opposition, and the plaintiff will file rejoinder to the negative denial/ negative defense. But when i prayed that
opposition or the comment filed by the defendant. So, the gravador be held liable to pay for the damage of my car, that
filing of the motion to dismiss entails delay of the disposition is already the counterclaim.
of the case.
TN: Section 6 defines counterclaim as ANY CLAIM. In the
The amendment is to avoid unnecessary delay. That’s the example, my counterclaim is basically intertwined with that
reason why if you look at sec 5 rule 6, the filing of the motion of Gravador because my claim arose from the same vehicular
to dismiss or the grounds for dismissal of action, may now be accident complained of by gravador.
pleaded in the answer. And sec 12 rule 8, which mandates
that the filing of the answer shall already include therein the
Q: Can I raise in my answer another claim against Gravador
grounds enumerated therein.
which is not necessarily connected with the vehicular
accident? Like if he is liable to me because he has an unpaid
So, the postulate of the theory that the amended rules obligation of P100 000, that there can be an off-setting if
already prohibit the motion to dismiss is consistent with the indeed I was held liable for the damage.
thrust of the amendment, and that is to avoid unnecessary A: YES. Because section6 defines counterclaim as ANY CLAIM
delay in the hearing of the case. which a defending party may have against an opposing party.
This claim is called a permissive counterclaim. One that is not
As to which postulate is correct, I cannot tell you which one related with the claim of the opposing party.
is correct because this needs clarification from the SC.
In the case of Deborja v. Deborja, SC made it clear that a
Atty’s advice: I’d rather commit an aware at the sight of counterclaim may be a claim different in kind from that being
caution. I would not want to venture into the unknown. So, if sought by the opposing party.
I am a lawyer for the defendant, I’d rather file an answer and
incorporate therein the dismissal of the action. Because what
if the 2nd postulate is the correct interpretation? That is very
61 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
So, it’s possible that while Gravador’s claim against me is TN: Section 6 of Rule 6 merely defines what a counterclaim is
supposedly for damages, my counterclaim against him is on ”any claim...against an opposing party”. However, there is
account of the unpaid loan in my favor. That kind of such thing as a compulsory counterclaim as distinguished
counterclaim is considered as a permissive counterclaim, one from permissive counterclaim. To determine whether the
that is not basically related to the claim of the opposing party. counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, look at Section 7
of Rule 6.
Q: Is it possible that Gravador’s demand against me is
payment of sum of money, unpaid loan, in the amount of
Section 7
P50,000, but in my answer I would raise, by way of
counterclaim, that he also owed me P100,000, pursuant to a Compulsory counterclaim. — A compulsory counterclaim is
previous loan transaction? Is it possible that may one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of
counterclaim would exceed the amount demanded by justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction or
Gravador? occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing
party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the
A: Yes. Because in the case of Deborja, the Supreme Court
presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
held that a counterclaim did not diminish or defeat the
jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the
recovery sought by the opposing party and it may even claim
jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the
an amount exceeding the amount demanded by the opposing
nature thereof, except that in an original action before the
party.
Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount. A compulsory
Accordingly, a counterclaim need not be related to the claim counterclaim not raised in the same action is barred, unless
of the opposing party. If the counterclaim is related to the otherwise allowed by these Rules. (7a)
claim of the other party, the nature of that counterclaim is
called a compulsory counterclaim. If your counterclaim is not
If we determine what a compulsory counterclaim is, it follows
related to the claim of the opposing party, the nature thereof
that if one does not comply with the requirements
is that of a permissive counterclaim.
mentioned under Section 7, it follows that the counterclaim
may be considered as a permissive counterclaim. Thereofere,
The reason why permissive counterclaim and even it is important to know the requisites of a compulsory
compulsory counterclaim has to be raised in the answer or counterclaim.
that the same may be allowed to be pleaded in the answer, is
to prevent the multiplicity of suits.
Elements of a Compulsory Counterclaim:
1. It is cognizable by the regular courts of justice;
TN: While it is true that the defendant may file a counterclaim 2. It arises out of or it is connected with a transaction
against the plaintiff, the rule is that the plaintiff must be sued or occurrence constituting a subject matter of the
in that counterclaim in the same capacity that plaintiff filed opposing party’s claim.
an action against the defendant. 3. It does not require for its adjudication the presence
of third parties who the court cannot acquire
Instructive of this is the following case: jurisdiction.
4. It must be within the jurisdiction of the court, both
Deborja v. Deborja as to the amount and the nature thereof, except
FACTS: that in an original action before the RTC, the
“A” died, leaving behind his estate, “X” was appointed counterclaim may be considered compulsory
administrator or legal representative. “W” owes a sum of regardless of the amount; and
money to the estate of “A”, and “X”, in his capacity as the 5. The defending party has a counterclaim at the time
administrator of “X’s” estate, filed a case against “W” to he files his answer. (Pursuant to Section 8 of Rule
collect the unpaid loan. “X” obviously filed the case in a 11).
REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY pursuant to Section 3, Rule 3. Section 8
“W” filed an answer, thereby asserting a counterclaim Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. — A compulsory
against “X”, in the latter’s personal/individual capacity. counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending party has
at the time he or she files his or her answer shall be contained
HELD: therein.
The counterclaim is improper. When X sued W, X was not
suing in his own personal capacity. He is acting as So, section 8 requires that a compulsory claim must be
administrator of the estate of A. The real plaintiff is the already existing at the time of the filing of the answer.
estate of A. X is just the legal representative. Therefore,
you cannot file a counterclaim against X in the latter’s Discussion in seriatim:
capacity when X is suing W in a representative capacity.
1. It is cognizable by the regular courts of justice
Situation:

62 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Gravador filed a case for collection of a sum of money alleging Case of forcible entry is filed against galeon. Cognizable by
that Galeon (his worker) obtained a loan from him. That is a the first level court. In his answer, he countered that he must
case for collection of unpaid loans. be reimbursed of the necessary expenses which he spent in
the
Q: Is Galeon permitted to raise by way of compulsory
counterclaim that Gravador has payable in favor of Galeon by cultivation of the land belonging to the plaintiff to the tune of
way of unpaid salary? 600,000. His counterclaim, demand for neccessary expenses,
A: No. It is because the claim for unpaid salary is not is 600k which is beyond the jurisdiction of mtc. Can he plead
cognizable by the regular court. It is before the grievance that?
machinery, VA, or RAB, etc., as the case may be. A: No. For it to be a compulsory counterclaim, it must be
within the jurisdiction of the court as to the amount and the
2. It arises out of or it is connected with a transaction nature thereof.
or occurrence constituting a subject matter of the
opposing party's claim Situation:
Situation: Let’s vary the situation. If the case is action publiciana. The
Vehicular collision case. Gravador filed a case for damages assessed value is 100k, cognizable by rtc. Galeon in his
against Galeon. If Galeon denies the accusation of Grava and answer counterclaimed demand for the expenses to the tune
argues that it's the other way around and that Gravador of 50k. This amount falls within the first level court. Can this
should be sued for damages in the car of Galeon for 100,000, be pleaded?
A: YES. Covered by the caveat or proviso “except that in an
Q: What type of counterclaim is that? original action before the rtc, the counterclaim may be
A: Compulsory counterclaim. It arises out of or connected considered compulsory regardless of the amount”.
with the claim alleged by Gravador in the complaint
Q: Am I allowed to plead that by way of compulsory
counterclaim in that action that is pending before the RTC?
Meliton v. Court of Appeals The answer is in the affirmative. That is the situation covered
216 SCRA 485 by the caveat or the proviso to the end that the compulsory
HELD: counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court both
It has been postulated that while a number of criteria have as to the amount and the nature thereof EXCEPT that in an
been advanced for the determination of whether the original action before the RTC the counterclaim may be
counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, the one considered compulsory regardless of the amount. IOW, even
compelling test of compulsoriness is the logical if my compulsory counterclaim or the amount thereof falls
relationship between the claim alleged in the complaint below the jurisdictional amount of the RTC, such
and that in the counterclaim, that is, where conducting counterclaim may be pleaded in that action for as long as the
separate trials of the respective claims of the parties original action is filed before the RTC.
would entail a substantial duplication of the effort and
time, as where they involve many of the same factual But if the original action is filed before the MTC and my
and/or legal issue. compulsory counterclaim is beyond the jurisdictional amount
of the MTC, then that cannot be pleaded by way of
This case emphasized the importance of the 2nd requirement counterclaim in the action before the MTC because the
to constitute as a compulsory counterclaim. exception applies only where the main action is filed before
the RTC.

3. It does not require for its adjudication the presence

of third parties of who the court cannot acquire Maceda v. Court of Appeals
jurisdiction 176 SCRA 440
The reason why we allow counterclaim is To avoid delay and
HELD:
multiplicity of suits. If we are to require the presence of third
parties in the adjudication, then it will be contrary to the The jurisdiction of the MTC in a civil action for sum of
purpose of counterclaim, that is to abbreviate the proceeding money is limited to a demand that does not exceed
and to give a holistic approach to the proceeding. P100,000 (now P300,000), exclusive of interest and costs.
A counterclaim beyond its jurisdiction and limit may be
pleaded only by way of defense to weaken the plaintiff’s
4. It must be within the jurisdiction of the court, both claim, but not to obtain affirmative relief.
as to the amount and the nature thereof, except that
in an original action before the rtc, the counterclaim
may be considered compulsory regardless of the IOW, that can never be raised by way of a compulsory
amount counterclaim. BUT if the case is rather filed with the RTC, then
Situation: the proviso or the exception will apply.

63 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
The last requirement for a counterclaim to be considered as the other way around, it was Gravador who was driving his
compulsory is that the defending party has a counterclaim at car in a negligent manner.” But in my answer, I did not
the time he files his answer. Such counterclaim must not be demand therein that Gravador be held liable instead to pay
contingent or that it must be there already or it must be in for the damages of my car. I merely refuted his accusation
existence already before filing the answer. That’s the and allegation that I was negligent in driving my car. I did not
requirement again under Section 8 of Rule 11. pray that he be held liable instead to pay for the damages of
my car. After trial, the court determined that indeed, I was
Why is it important for us to determine whether the not negligent or that it was Gravador who was negligent in
counterclaim is compulsory or permissive? driving his car.

First, if the nature of the counterclaim is considered as Q: Can the court, in the very same case, award damages in
compulsory, you don’t have to pay for the filing fee thereof. my favor?
Because where the counterclaim is considered compulsory, No, because in my answer, I did not pray that Gravador be
pursuant to the ruling in the case of Sun Insurance Office, held liable to me instead.
Lltd., et al. v. Asuncion, there is no required payment of
docket fee or filing fee. In fact, the ruling in the case of Sun Q: Can I subsequently file another case demanding that
Insurance was also reiterated in the case of Metal Gravador pay me for the damages of the car?
Engineering v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 95631), where our No, because I should have raised that counterclaim in that
SC citing the case of Sun Insurance ruled that compulsory very same case filed by Gravador against me. The
counterclaim does not require the payment of filing fee or counterclaim is in the nature of compulsory counterclaim. As
docket fee. It is only when the counterclaim is regarded as provided under Section 7 of Rule 6 and Section 2 of Rule 9,
permissive that payment of docket or filing fee is required. such a compulsory counterclaim not set up in the answer
shall already be barred.
In fact, pursuant to the ruling in the case of Sun Insurance as
reiterated in the case of Metal Engineering, the SC came up But where the nature of my counterclaim is permissive, my
with ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR No. 00-2-01, to the end that purported counterclaim is a demand for the payment of
only permissive counterclaim, among others, requires unpaid loan owed to me by Gravador and his action against
payment of docket fee. IOW, there is no required payment if me is for damages out of that vehicular accident complained
what is put forth in the answer is a compulsory counterclaim. of, even if I did not raised that in my answer; even if I did not
plead that by way of counterclaim in my answer, if the court
Second, if the counterclaim is considered to be compulsory, determines in the end in that case filed by Gravador against
it is a requirement that it must be pleaded in the very same me that I am not negligent, I can still file a case against
action, otherwise, it is already considered as barred forever. Gravador for collection of sum of money. Even if I did not
That is the provision under the last sentence of Section 7 of plead the counterclaim for collection of unpaid loan against
Rule 6 to the end that a compulsory counterclaim not raised Gravador, the same is in the nature of a permissive
in the same action is barred unless otherwise provided for counterclaim, hence, it is not considered barred even if not
under the Rules. That’s also the provision under Section 2 of pleaded in the answer. I can still file a separate case against
Rule 9. Gravador.
Section 2.
Compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim, not set up barred. – If the counterclaim is compulsory, it must be raised in the
A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up shall very same action; otherwise, it shall be barred forever. But
be barred. where the nature of the counterclaim is merely permissive,
even if that’s not raised in that same action, it can still be
Where the nature of the counterclaim is compulsory, it must raised in another action or in a subsequent action. That’s the
be pleaded; it must be raised in the very same action or in the rule on counterclaims in ordinary civil actions.
answer filed by the defendant opposing the complaint of the
plaintiff. Otherwise, if that compulsory counterclaim is not Rule on Counterclaims Arising from Criminal Actions
set up therein, then that is already forever barred.
Javier v. IAC
FACTS:
But where the nature of the counterclaim is only permissive,
even if it is not raised in the very same action, it cannot be The Javier spouses filed a criminal case against Leon
considered as being barred forever. Gutierrez Jr. for BP 22 or the Bouncing Check Law, for
issuing a bad check. The criminal case was filed before the
RTC of Makati. The complainants did not reserve the civil
Problem: action. The implication is that the claim for civil liability is
Vehicular collision involving Gravador’s car and mine. deemed instituted with the criminal case. Gutierrez in turn
Gravador filed a case for damages against me, alleging that I filed a civil action for damages against the Javier spouses
was reckless in driving my car. But then, in my answer, I said, in the RTC of Catarman, Northern Samar, wherein he
“No, I’m not. I observed due diligence in driving my car. It is accused spouses of having tricked him into signing the

64 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
check. What happened now is that Gutierrez was being aside or refused cognizance without prejudice to their
criminally sued in Makati but he, in effect, defended filing in separate proceedings at the proper time. At
himself in Catarman, Northern Samar. He is explaining in balance, until there are definitive rules of procedure to
the Samar court what he should be doing in the Makati govern the institution, prosecution and resolution of the
court. civil aspect and the consequences and implications
thereof impliedly instituted in a criminal case, trial courts
HELD: should limit their jurisdiction to the civil liability of the
accused arising from the criminal case.
The civil case in Samar should be dismissed. It must be in
the Makati court that Gutierrez, as accused in the criminal
charge of violation of BP 22, should explain why he issued So, the rule now is there’s no such thing as a counter-claim
the bouncing check. He should explain that story in Makati even as to the civil aspect in a criminal case. But you can file
and not in Samar. This should have been done in the form a separate action in a civil case for that.
of a counterclaim for damages for the alleged deception
by the Javier spouses. In fact, the counterclaim was This ruling in the case of Cabaero v. Cantos, which basically
compulsory and should have been filed by Gutierrez upon abandoned the case of Javier, has already been incorporated
the implied institution of the civil action for damages in the under the Rules of Court in Sec. 1, Rule 111 providing that no
criminal case. counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-party complaint may be
filed by the accused in the criminal case but any cause of
TN: But the ruling of this case was heavily criticized by some action which could have been the subject matter thereof may
of the legal luminaries. Because as a rule, in a civil action, if be litigated in a separate civil action.
the action is personal, pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 4, venue of the Section 1, Rule 111.
action is the place of the residence of the plaintiff or the Institution of criminal and civil actions. — xxx
principal plaintiff, or the residence of the defendant or the No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be
principal defendant, at the election of the plaintiff filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of
action which could have been the subject thereof may be
So, it would appear in the Rules, that the filing of Gutierrez of litigated in a separate civil action. Xxx
the civil action before the RTC of Catarman is justified.
Consequently, confronted with that criticism, the Supreme
Court in the subsequent case of Cabaero somehow
Cross-claim
overturned the ruling in the case of Javier. Section 8
Cross-claim. – A cross-claim is any claim by one party
TN: Again, in the case of Javier, the Supreme Court ruled that against a co-party arising out of the transaction or
there’s such a thing as a counter-claim in a criminal case. Or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original
that the counter-claim of Gutierrez, the one that he filed action or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may
before the RTC of Catarman, should have been fused or that cover all or part of the original claim. (8a)
any counter-claim should have been raised in the criminal
case before the Makati Court. But that ruling has already
Example:
been abandoned in the case of Cabaero v. Cantos.
Randi and I obtained a loan of money from Gravador. We
signed and executed a promissory note thereby obligating
Cabaero v. Cantos ourselves to pay solidarily the obligation owing to Gravador
HELD: in the amount of P100,000. And while I signed the promissory
note, somehow all the money went to Randi.
The logic and cogency of Javier notwithstanding, some
reservations and concerns were voiced out by members of
the Court during the deliberations on the present case. Upon default in the payment thereof, Gravador filed a case.
These were engendered by the obvious void in the Rules But in that case, Randi and I were impleaded as defendants
of Court, which contains no express provision for the but of course I objected because I received nothing because
adjudication of a counterclaim in a civil action impliedly the entire amount was taken by Randi.
instituted in a criminal case. By the foregoing discussion,
we do not imply any fault in Javier. The real problem lies in So in that action filed by Gravador, wherein Randi and I were
the absence of clear-cut rules governing the prosecution made as defendants, I may, if I want in my answer, raise a
of impliedly instituted civil actions and the necessary cross-claim against Randi to the end, that if at all I would be
consequences and implications thereof. For this reason, held liable to pay the obligation owing to Gravador, then
the counter-claim of the accused cannot be tried together Randi should be made liable also to reimburse me for I am
with the criminal case because, as already discussed, it will held liable to pay Gravador because in truth and in fact, he
unnecessarily complicate and confuse the criminal got all the money that we obtained from Gravador.
proceedings. Thus, the trial court should confine itself to
the criminal aspect and the possible civil liability of the
accused arising out of the crime. The counter-claim (and TN that even if RMG is impleaded as a defendant to the action
cross-claim or third-party complaint, if any) should be set together with Randy, in that same action, RMG raised a claim

65 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
against his co-defendant. That is in the nature of a cross What is important is that the cross-claim must be related to
claim. That is proper because the cross claim raised by RMG the original action or at the very least the counterclaim in that
is connected with the original action filed by Waldemar very same action.
against RMG and Randy.
Distinction between a cross-claim and a counterclaim
Q: What if in the action filed by Gravador against Galeon and Both of these claims can be raised by the defendant. The
Torregosa, Galeon raised by way of a cross claim against differences between them are as follows:
Torregosa a demand for the payment of a separate and
Cross Claim Counterclaim
distinct personal loan that Torregosa obtained from Galeon?
Is that permissible by way of a cross claim? Is a claim by a defendant Is a complaint by the
against a co-defendant defendant against the
A: NO. As defined under Section 8, that cross claim must arise
plaintiff
out of the same transaction or must, at the very least, be
connected with the counterclaim. Clearly, this claim is alien As defined under Section 8 (permissive) may be
to the transaction with Gravador. of Rule 6, Cross Claims must asserted whether or not it
always arise out of the arises out of the same
same transaction or transaction or occurrence
Example: (of a cross claim arising from a counterclaim) occurrence that is the that is the subject matter of
Torregosa and Galeon rode on the motorbike of Gravador subject matter of the action the action.
and they met an accident. Torregosa and Galeon filed a or at the very least, the
complaint against Gravador for damages, culpa acquiliana, counterclaim therein
and joined their causes of action, as co-plaintiffs. In The life of a Cross Claim Even if the action is
Gravador’s answer, he raised by way of permissive depends on the life of the dismissed, such
counterclaim a demand for repayment of Galeon and main action. It is merely a counterclaim may still
Torregosas’ unpaid solidary loan of Php 100,000.00 (that the consequence of the case survive. (especially
two incurred on a separate occasion however, the whole filed by the plaintiff against permissive counterclaim)
amount was taken solely by Torregosa leaving Galeon with the defendants. Where the
nothing). main action is dismissed,
the cross-claim is also
In this case, Gravador hit the two complaining parties back dismissed.
with a permissive counterclaim to recover the unpaid loan.
Since the loan is solidary, Gravador may collect the entire Illustrative case:
amount from Galeon. Therefore, by way of cross claim,
Galeon may demand reimbursement from Torregosa if he is Ruiz v. Court of Appeals
made to pay the total amount of the loan to Gravador. This 212 SCRA 660
cross claim is permissible because it is connected with the
Held:
counterclaim raised by Gravador.
When the main action was dismissed, the cross-action
must also be dismissed. The life of a cross-claim depends
TN: A cross claim is considered proper even if it is not on the life of the main action. If the main action is
connected with the main action as long as it is connected with dismissed, the cross-claim will have to be automatically
the counterclaim in the same action. dismissed. A cross-claim could not be the subject of
independent adjudication once it lost the nexus upon
This cross claim can also cover the whole or only a part of the which its life depended. The cross-claimants cannot claim
original claim more rights that the plaintiffs themselves, on whose cause
of action the cross-claim depended. The dismissal of the
complaint divested the cross-claimants of whatever
Example: (of cross claim covering part of the original claim)
appealable interest they might have had before and also
Refer to the example where Galeon and Torregosa obtained made the cross-claim itself no longer viable.
a solidary loan from Gravador in the amount of Php
100,000.00 but the entire amount was taken by Torregosa.
The cross claim of Galeon in this situation would be for the Simply put, where the main action is dismissed, then the
entire amount covered by the general claim. cross claim is thereby necessarily dismissed.

However, if the proceeds of the loan were split 50-50 However, the rule is different when it comes to permissive
between Galeon and Torregosa, then Galeon’s cross claim counterclaims. A permissive counterclaim is not necessarily
would only be for the remaining Php 50,000.00. Thus, should dismissed if the main action is dismissed.
the court order Galeon to pay the entire amount to Gravador,
Galeon can only demand Php 50,000.00 from Torregosa Example:
which covers only part of the original claim. [Recall the previous example where Galeon and Torregosa
got injured in the vehicular accident when they rode on the
motorbike of Gravador and they filed a case for damages.

66 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Gravador, in turn, filed a permissive counterclaim for
collection of a sum of money] In that context, I filed a cross-claim against Randi.

Note that even if the action Galeon and Torregosa filed But if Randi would contend otherwise, or if he would advance
against Gravador is dismissed by the Court, then in that the argument that it is not true that he got all the money, in
situation, the permissive counterclaim of Gravador may still fact, it was me who got the money, then he is allowed to file
be adjudicated in his favor by the court. It will not be a counterclaim to my cross-claim by saying that I should
dismissed. instead be held liable to pay him the amount the court may
adjudge him liable.
Then, in that situation, the permissive counterclaim of Waldy
may still be adjudicated in his favor by the court. It will not be So, here we are mentioning about a cross-claim and a
dismissed. counterclaim. Again, the distinctions:
Distinction between a cross-claim and a counterclaim
While our claim for damages against Waldy will be dismissed, Counterclaim Cross-claim
his permissive counterclaim will be given due course.
Filed by the defendant Filed by the defendant
against the plaintiff against a co-defendant
This explains the difference. Cross-claim is necessarily Permissive counterclaim Must be connected with
dismissed together with dismissal of the main action. may not be connected to the main action, or at the
Permissive counterclaim is not necessarily dismissed with the the main action very least the counter-
dismissal of the main action. claim.
A permissive counterclaim A cross-claim dies or is
Section 9 is not necessarily dismissed terminated once the main
with the dismissal with the action is dismissed.
Counter-counterclaims and counter-cross-claims. — A
main action.
counterclaim may be asserted against an original counter-
claimant.
Reply
A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross- Section 10
claimant. (9)
Reply. — All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed
controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims
Example: (of a counterclaim against an original counter- arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall
claimant) be set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint.
I filed a case against Gravador an action for damages arising However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending
out of the vehicular accident. Gravador denied. Instead, he party attaches an actionable document to his or her
raised a permissive counterclaim alleging that if at all there is answer.
any person who should be liable, it should be me. This is
because while he denies his liability to me, Gravador alleges
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to
that I have an unpaid loan obligation supposedly owing in his
deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters
favor.
alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document.

In Gravador’s answer, he attached a promissory note to

In the event of an actionable document attached to the
support his permissive counterclaim. It appeared in such a
reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is
note that I owed him money in the amount of P500,000. But
based solely on an actionable document. (10a)
then, a closer examination of that promissory note shows
that the signature placed is not my signature or it was just
forged by Gravador. Where that happens, then I may assert In the old rules, a rejoinder is a prohibited pleading.
him with a counterclaim to his counterclaim, claiming for
damages arising from the forged signature. TN Under the amended rules, the plaintiff may file a reply
only if the defending party attaches an actionable document
Example: (of a cross-claim against an original cross-claimant) to his answer. This is consistent with Section 2, Rule 6.
Randi and I obtained a loan from Gravador, which is
evidenced by a promissory note, signed by two of us. It is a Example:
solidary obligation. But, the entire amount went to Randi. So, Gravador filed a case against me for collection of unpaid loan.
Gravador filed a case against us. Based on the allegation that In my answer, I admitted obtaining a loan from Gravador, but
the entire money went to Randi, I pleaded a cross-claim contended that the same have been fully paid. To prove my
against Randi demanding that if at all, I will be held liable for point, I attached to my answer an acknowledgement receipt
the payment of the loan owing to Gravador, then Randi signed by Gravador.
should reimburse me.

67 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
TN: a reply is to be filed by the plaintiff in the action, in like
If Gravador wanted to dispute the authenticity of the manner the defendant interposed in his answer a
acknowledgement receipt or allege that the signature is not counterclaim, the plaintiff has to file an answer thereto.
his, then, he should file a reply, pursuant to the amended
rules. Q: What is the difference between a reply filed by the plaintiff
and an answer?
Considering that I attached an actionable document to my
answer, then, pursuant to the amended rules, Section 10, If Reply vs. Answer to Counterclaim
Gravador wanted to dispute the authenticity of the receipt, 1. A REPLY is a response to the defenses interposed by
then he should file a reply. the defendant in his answer to which an actionable
document is attached; an ANSWER TO A
Q: What is the consequence if Gravador does not file a reply? COUNTERCLAIM is a response to a cause of action
A: Gravador is deemed to have admitted the due execution by the defendant against the plaintiff;
for the existence of the acknowledgment receipt. 2. The filing of a REPLY is required only when an
actionable document is attached to the answer;
whereas, the filing of an ANSWER TO A
But if in my answer, I merely averred that I mentioned the COUNTERCLAIM (especially permissive) is generally
amount supposedly owing to Gravador but I did not attach mandatory under Rule 11, because if the plaintiff
any proof of such payment, then there is no need on the part fails to file an answer to the counterclaim, he will be
of Gravador to file a reply. declared in default on the counterclaim.

Reply may only be filed if there is an actionable document

that is attached to the answer. Under the rules, all new Section 11
matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. Third, (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. — A third (fourth,
etc.)-party complaint is a claim that a defending party may,
If for example, I attached on my answer an acknowledgment with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the
receipt, Gravador has to file a reply controverting or disputing action, called the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant for
the existence of acknowledgment receipt and file a contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in
supplemental complaint praying for additional damages for respect of his or her opponent's claim.
my act counterfeiting or somehow falsifying my signature in
the questioned receipt. The third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be denied
admission, and the court shall require the defendant to
Suppose, in his reply to my answer, Gravador did not dispute institute a separate action, where: (a) the third (fourth,
the signature but he argued in his reply that the etc.) party defendant cannot be located within thirty (30)
acknowledgment receipt was merely signed by way of calendar days from the grant of such leave; (b) matters
accommodation. In his reply, he averred that I requested that extraneous to the issue in the principal case are raised; or
he will issue an acknowledgment receipt in my favor only to (c) the effect would be to introduce a new and separate
be able to fool my wife into believing that the money he gave controversy into the action. (11a)
me for payment of the loan had already been delivered to
Gravador, but in reality, I did not pay the money and I Situation:
appropriated it. In support of his allegation, Gravador Where Randi and I obtained a loan of money from Walde and
attached to his reply a letter whereby I requested that he we executed and signed a promissory note to pay obligation
should issue a receipt in my favor. If that happens, and I want solidarily. In as much as our obligation is solidary, it follows
to dispute that the signature alleged is not mine, or that the that Walde can demand the payment of the entire obligation
letter request is not written by me, then he should file a from any one of us. But then, Walde filed a case only against
rejoinder. That is the import of the last sentence of Section one defendant. If, let’s say, Walde filed the case only against
10. Randi, so, Randi may be held liable to pay since it is solidary.
So, in that situation, Randi, if he wants and considering that I
Last sentence of Section 10, Rule 6: was not impleaded in the action, may file a third-party
In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply, complaint against me so that I may be impleaded as a
the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is based solely defendant in the action.
on an actionable document.
Example:
In other words, rejoinder (which is now allowed under the Randi obtained a loan from Walde and I acted as a surety for
amended rules), may only be filed if there is an actionable the payment of the obligation. As surety, my obligation is
document that is attached to the reply. solidary with Randi. But Walde only filed the case against me.
Where I am being sued by Walde, of course, the action will
prosper, but I can still demand reimbursement from Randi.
Where that happens, I may file a third-party complain against

68 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
Randi so that Randi will be impleaded in the action as an Sublease. I entered into a lease contract with Gravador. I
additional party. rented his apartment but in the contract of lease I am
permitted to sublease a portion thereof. I sublease the
TN that a third-party complaint requires a leave of court. That portion to Randi. If Waldi would file a case against me for
is very clear from the provision. Leave of court is necessary. damages supposedly caused on his apartment unit then I can
Meaning permission from the court. Because the court may file a third-party complaint against Randi bring in Randi for
deny the application for leave for the filing of the third-party possible subrogation. After all, he is the one actually
complaint if (see provision a-c) occupying the property and he is the one causing damage to
the property of Walde.

In a sense, the third-party complaint is similar to a cross-claim

because it must be related to the main action. Situation (where purpose is for any other relief, in respect of
his or her opponent's claim):
When Walde would file a case against me for recovery of
Third-party Complaint vs. Cross-claim
parcel of land but then it turned out that I simply bought that
Among other things: land from Randi. So, in that action, I can file a third-party
Third, (fourth, etc)-party Cross-claim complaint against Randi on the basis of warranty against
Complaint eviction. That is permissible.
When we speak of a third- But a cross-claim is filed
party complaint, the against a person who is In that context, we will go to this case of Capayas v. CFI:
complaint is filed against a already a defendant in the
person who is not an action Capayas v. Court of First Instance
original defendant in the 77 PHIL. 181
action HELD:
The filing of a third-party Cross-claim does not There are four possible tests to determine the propriety of
complaint requires leave of require. a third-party complaint. In order for it to be allowed, it
court. must pass one of them. And these are:
Third-party complaint Cross-claim does not entail 1. A third-party complaint is proper if it arises out of
requires payment of payment of docket/filing the same transaction on which plaintiff is based;
docket/filing fee just like a fee pursuant to Admin Circ
2. A third-party complaint is proper if the third-party
permissive counterclaim. 00-2-01.
complaint, although arising out of another
transaction, is connected with the plaintiff’s
Section 11 states such third-party complaint may be allowed claim.
especially if the purpose thereof is for contribution, 3. Third-party defendant would be liable to the
indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his or original plaintiff’s claim. Although the third-party
her opponent's claim. defendant’s lability arises out of another
transaction.
Situation (where purpose is for contribution): 4. The third-party defendant may assert any
Case filed by Walde against me for the collection of the defense which the third-party plaintiff has or may
unpaid loan which Randi and I obtained from him. Solidary. If have against plaintiff’s claim.
the case is only filed against me, then I may bring in Randi as
an additional defendant by filing third-party complaint. I can There are four tests but it is enough that one is satisfied.
demand contribution from Randi. Then, we can now say that a third-party complaint is proper.

Example for no.1:

Situation (where purpose is for indemnity):
Where Randi and I obtained a loan of money from Waldi. We
When a case is filed by Walde against me in my capacity as
are solidary debtors but the action was filed only against
the surety of the obligation of Randi. If I may be held liable in
Randi. Randi can file a third-party complaint against me so
the action, I can demand indemnity from Randi by filing third- that I may be impleaded as a defendant in that action. It
party complaint. This may also happen if, for example, I arises from the same action. But if Randi would file a case
injured a pedestrian and then the pedestrian filed a case for against me out of the transaction or to demand contribution
reckless imprudence against me with damage. Culpa but for another loan that I apparently obtained from him, the
acquiliana. In as much as my car is covered by a third-party third-party complaint is not valid.
insurance, then in that action I may bring in the insure as by
filing a third-party complaint so that the insurance company Example for no. 2:
may be impleaded.
Case of damages, third-party liability if a pedestrian would file
a case against me for causing injuries out of my negligence in
Situation (where purpose is for subrogation): driving my car. I may file a third-party complaint against the

69 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
insurance company which issued a third-party liability
insurance in my favour for covering my vehicle. HELD:
YES, that is possible. In a third-party complaint, normally
Example for no. 3: the third-party defendant is liable to the third-party
Sublease. I entered into a lease contract with Gravador. I plaintiff. But the third-party defendant can be made liable
rented his apartment but in the contract of lease I am to the original plaintiff, or the third-party defendant can
permitted to sublease a portion thereof. Sublease the portion be made liable to both the original plaintiff and the third-
to Randi. If Waldi would file a case against me for damages party plaintiff. Under the Rules, a person not a party to an
supposedly caused on his apartment unit then I can file a action may be impleaded by the defendant either: (a) on
third-party complaint against Randi being the one in actual an allegation of liability to the latter (original defendant);
possession of the apartment unit. Although actually our (b) on the ground of direct liability to the plaintiff, or, (c)
transaction is covered by a separate contract and that is the both (a) and (b). The situation in (a) is covered by the
sublease contract while what I have with Waldi is the main phrase “for contribution, indemnity or subrogation;” while
contract. Randi may be held liable directly with Waldi. (b) and (c) are subsumed under the catch all “or any other
relief, in respect of his opponent’s claim.
Example for no. 4:
Case filed by Gravador against me being the surety for the Shafer v. Judge of RTC Of Olongapo City
obligation of Randi without impleading Randi. I may file a
167 SCRA 386
third-party complaint against Randi because Randi may
possibly put up a defense that in truth and in fact he already FACTS:
paid the obligation such that Walde has no more right of Shafer while driving his Ford Laser car covered by a TPL,
recourse against him and even against him being the surety. bumped another Volkswagen car driven by Felino Legaspi.
Felino Legaspi filed a criminal case against Shafer for
physical injuries arising from reckless imprudence. Felino
Another example of this is when I owned a car and I sold it to
Legaspi did not make any reservation to file a separate civil
Waldi but Waldi did not cause the transfer of the registration
action. So obviously, the claim for civil liability is deemed
of the car in his name and then it met an accident in the
instituted. Shafer was covered by the insurance, so he filed
pedestrian in the person of Randi. Randi, believing that I am
a third-party complaint against the insurance company,
still the owner of the property, filed a case against me. I may
insofar as the civil liability is concerned. The insurance
file a third-party complaint against Waldi being the real
company questioned the propriety of the third-party
owner of the property because while the third-party
complaint in a criminal case, because according to the
defendant while they may assert any defense which the third-
insurance company, the third-party complaint is entirely
party plaintiff has or may have against the plaintiff, so, he may
different from the criminal liability.
want to confront or to answer the accusation of Randi head
on by asserting, I’m referring to Waldi, that the actually
default lies with Randi, in that, he was the one who somehow ISSUE:
crossed the street in a rather negligent manner, even if Waldi Whether or not the filing of the third-party complaint in a
was already on full speed. criminal case is procedurally correct.

Another case worthy of consideration is this case of Samala HELD:

v. Victor, this case is quite peculiar: Yes, it is proper. There could be a third-party complaint in
a criminal case because an offense causes two classes of
Samala v. Victor
injuries – the SOCIAL and the PERSONAL injury. In this case,
170 SCRA 453 the civil aspect of the criminal case is deemed impliedly
FACTS: instituted in the criminal case. Shafer may raise all defense
This case involves a vehicular accident. One Emerita available to him insofar as the criminal and civil aspects are
Jumaman rode a passenger jeepney on her to work, but it concerned. Shafer’s claim of indemnity against the
collided with a bus owned by Saint Raphael Transit. insurance company are also the claim by the victim in the
Emerita Jumaman suffered injuries, so she filed a case for criminal claim. Therefore, Shafer’s claim against the
damages against the jeepney operators and the jeepney insurance company is related to the criminal case.
driver. The jeepney operators and the jeepney driver filed
a third-party complaint against the owner and the driver Actually, the case of Shafer is similar to the case of Javier. The
of the Saint Raphael bus. The trial court found that the rule in Shafer is not controlling because the rule, as it is now,
jeepney driver was not at fault, and holding the third-party is under Sec. 1 under Rule 11, there is no more counterclaim
defendants liable for plaintiff’s claim. or cross-claim in a criminal case. It is now subject to a
separate proceeding.
ISSUE:
Can third-party defendants be held liable directly to the Another case worthy of consideration:
original plaintiff?
Eastern Assurance v. CUI

70 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
105 SCRA 642 to seek “contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other
FACTS: relief, in respect to his opponent’s claim”.
Transunion Corporation filed a complaint in CFI Manila
against Rey Pan, Pan Phil Trading and Eastern Assurance I’d like the to point out that this case of Republic v. Central is
Corporation for payment of merchandise. After Eastern correct because here the main action was cognizable by the
Assurance Corp. filed its answer, it file a third-party RTC such that, in our discussion of counterclaims, RTC could
complaint against Rey Pan’s wife, Loreata B. Pan, but the take cognizance even if the amount of the counterclaim or
latter filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper third-party complaint is below its jurisdictional amount. Had
venue, invoking the stipulation in the Indemnity it been that this case was filed originally with the MTC, but
Agreement Contract, stipulating that venue of any suit then the third-party complaint amount thereof is cognizable
between her and her husband, on one hand, and the by the RTC, then the ruling might have been different. Again,
Eastern Assurance Corp., on the other hand, shall be file in he ruling here was correct because the main action was
Quezon City. Is the venue proper? cognizable by the RTC. Otherwise, if it was cognizable by the
MTC, then the ruling would’ve been different.
HELD:
The venue is proper because the venue of the main action Section 12
is proper. So automatically third-party complaint is also
Bringing new parties. — When the presence of parties
proper. The third-party complaint has to yield to the
other than those to the original action is required for the
jurisdiction and venue of the main action.
granting of complete relief in the determination of a
counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to
In other words, the venue of the third-party complaint has to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them can
yield to the venue of the main case. Otherwise, there will be be obtained. (12)
sort of a splitting of the cause of action.
Situation:
Another case worthy of consideration: Randi and I obtained a loan from Randi in the amount of
Republic v. Central Surety Co. 100,000. Then, in the promissory noted, we stipulated
therein that our obligation is solidary. We spilt the amount
25 SCRA 641 [1968]
50-50. But the action was filed by Gravador only against me.
Facts: Randi was not impleaded. I did not file a third-party complaint
Republic filed a case with the CFI (now RTC) against Central also against Randi. But when the court took notice that in the
Surety that it executed in favor of the Deportation Board a promissory note, there is another party who likewise
bond for the temporary release of Po Kee Kam, a Chinese obligated himself to pay the obligation in the person of Randi.
citizen and the respondent in deportation proceeding. Po Then even if I did not file a third-party complaint, the party
Kee Kam did not anymore show up during the schedule may direct that the other party be impleaded in the action.
hearings of his case, so such case was filed. Central Surety That is to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Co. filed a third-party complaint against Po Kee Kam for
the amount of P5,000.00 that is assumed under the Surety
Same thing also may happen if the creditor files a case
Bond.
directly against the surety and the court, even if the surety
does not file a third-party complain against the principal
Issue: debtor, may order that the other party be brought in as
The trial court dismissed the complaint for being additional defendant, if only to grant a complete relief in the
cognizable by the lower court? Is the trial court correct? determination of the case, the claim, the counterclaim, or
even the cross-claim, as the case may be. So that’s the import
of Section 12.
Held:
NO. “The third-party complain is an ancillary suit which
depends on the jurisdiction of the court over the main But then, it may interest us to discuss this case of Sapugay v.
action. Since the trial court had acquired jurisdiction over CA:
the complaint, it necessarily follows that it likewise has Sapugay v. Court of Appeals
jurisdiction over the third-party complaint which is but an
183 SCRA 464
incident thereof. This must be so because jurisdiction over
the main case embrace all incidental matters arising Facts:
therefrom and connected therewith. A contrary rule Mobil Philippines filed a case against Sapugay, its gasoline
would result in “split jurisdiction” which is not favored, and dealer. Sapugay filed an answer and interposed a
in multiplicity of suits, a situation obnoxious to the orderly counterclaim for damages against Mobil and included
administration of justice. The court acquired jurisdiction Cardenas (the manager of Mobil) who is not a plaintiff. As
over the third-party complaint, provided it had jurisdiction counterclaim, defendant prayed that plaintiff and its
over the main case, for the reason that the third-party manager be made liable for their pre-operation expenses
complaint is but a continuation thereof, its purpose being rental, storage, and guarding fees, unrealized profit

71 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
including damages and the return of the LP-Gas Mobil’s complaint should be considered as the answer to
equipment to the premises. After trial, the court dismissed petitioners’ compulsory counterclaim, leads us to the
the complaint and ordered plaintiff and its manager to pay inescapable conclusions that the trial court treated the
the counterclaims of the defendants. opposition as having been filed in behalf of both Mobil and
Cardenas and that the latter had adopted as his answer
Issue: the allegations raised in the complaint of Mobil. Obviously,
it was this ratiocination which led the trial court to deny
Whether or not the inclusion of Cardenas in the the motion to declare Mobil and Cardenas in default.
counterclaim is proper where he is not a plaintiff in the Furthermore, Cardenas was not unaware of said incident
Mobil case. and the proceedings therein as he testified and was
present during trial, not to speak of the fact that as
Held: manager of Mobil he would necessarily be interested in
A counterclaim is defined as any claim for money or other the case and could readily have access to the records and
relief which a defending party may have against an pleadings filed therein.
opposing party. However, the general rule that a
defendant cannot by a counterclaim bring into the action By adopting as his answer the allegations in the complaint
any claim against persons other than the plaintiff admits which seeks affirmative relief, Cardenas is deemed to have
of an exception under Section 14 (now Section 12), Rule 6 recognized the jurisdiction of the trial court over his
which provides that “when the presence of parties other person and submitted thereto. He may not now be heard
than those to the original action is required for the to repudiate or question that jurisdiction.
granting of complete relief in the determination of a
counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to
be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them can TN: The situation here is a peculiar because normally if you
be obtained”. The inclusion, therefore, of Cardenas in file a counterclaim if you are a defendant, you file your claim
petitioners’ counterclaim is sanctioned by the Rules. as against the plaintiff in the action. BUT here Cardenas was
not actually the plaintiff of the action because the plaintiff is
Mobil. But the SC ruled that Cardenas is equally liable with
Issue: Mobil with regards to the counterclaim of the defendant
Did the court acquire jurisdiction over Cardenas? even if Cardenas was not formally impleaded as the plaintiff
in the action because Cardenas was presumed to have
Held: knowledge of the filing of the counterclaim even as against
himself and more than that he actively participated in the
YES. In her answer, filed on November 29, 1982, to the
case.
amended complaint, petitioner Lina Sapugay impleaded
Cardenas as a defendant in her counterclaim therein, and
prayed that judgement be rendered holding specifically BUT the case of Cardenas should be differentiated from the
Mobil and Cardenas jointly and severally liable to herein case of the case of Chavez:
petitioners. Thereafter, petitioner filed a “Motion to
Chavez v. Sandiganbayan
Declare Plaintiff and its Manager, Ricardo P. Cardenas, in
Default on Defendant’s Counterclaim” for failure of private 198 SCRA 282
respondents to answer the counterclaim. Cardenas was Facts:
furnished copies of both the answer and the motion to Petitioner Francisco Chavez (former solicitor general)
declare them in default. Respondent Mobil filed an represented the government for PCGG. The case arose out
opposition to the motion to declare them in default, of PCGG cases, wherein Enrile was sued for accumulation
alleging that they, the private respondents herein, may not of his ill-gotten wealth. Enrile filed an answer to the
be so declared. The court below agreed with private complaint. Enrile contends that the case is a harassment
respondents’ reasoning therein that a compulsory suit whose mastermind was the Solicitor General himself.
counterclaim being involved, the issues raised in the Enrile files a counterclaim against Chavez. (Enrile’s lawyer
counterclaim are deemed automatically joined by the must be aware of the Sapugay case) Chavez questioned
allegations of the complaint, hence the complaint itself such counterclaim contending that he was not a plaintiff.
stood as the answer to defendant’s counterclaim. Sandiganbayan denied such contention.
Consequently, the trial court denied the motion to declare
the herein private respondents in default.
Held:
The inclusion of plaintiff’s lawyer is improper. To allow a
It is noteworthy that Cardenas did not file a motion to counterclaim against a lawyer who files a complaint for his
dismiss the counterclaim against him on the ground of lack clients, and who is merely their representative in court,
of jurisdiction. While it is a settled rule that the issue of and is not the plaintiff, or complainant in the case would
jurisdiction may be raised even for the first time on appeal, lead to mischievous consequences. A lawyer owes his
this does not obtain in the instant case. Although it was client entire devotion to his genuine interest, warm and
only Mobil which filed an opposition to the motion to zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the
declare in default, the fact that the trial court denied said exertion of his utmost learning and ability. A lawyer cannot
motion, both as to Mobil and Cardenas on the ground that

72 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
properly attend to his duties towards his client if, in the party plaintiff but also to put up a defense directly as against
same case, he is kept busy defending himself. the original plaintiff.

In the case of Sapugay, Sapugay (I think he meant Cardenas) Situation:

acted as the manager of Mobil and he actively participated So, if Gravador will file a case against me, and if I file against
not as the counsel there in but a witness possibly in the case. the Randy, Randy now becomes the 3rd party defendant.
But here, here Chavez filed a case in his official capacity as
the Solicitor General or the lawyer for the state. But the
Generally, the third-party defendant in the person of Randy
Ruling in the case of Chavez does not mean that one may one
would refute my claims against him. So, he would put up a
file a case against the lawyer for filing baseless and unwanted
defense, against my claims. But under section 13, Randy the
suits. An administrative case may be filed against the lawyer
3rd party defendant is also allowed to put up a defense which
in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and if you want you can file
would inure to my favor. In fact, he can answer the
a separate civil case but definitely it cannot be treated as a
allegations filed against me, by the original plaintiff.
counterclaim in a pending case. So, a lawyer is not totally
exempt from any liability in filing baseless or harassment
suits. He may held administratively or civilly liable but it Example:
should be pursuant to a separate case and it cannot be When I sold my car to Randy, but Randy did not transfer the
impleaded by way of counterclaim in a pending action. name of registration in his name. So, while driving the car
Randy bumped the vehicle of Gravador. So, when Gravador
dug up the records in the LTO, then it appeared in the records
Section 13 that I am still the owner of the car which bumped the car of
Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. — A third Gravador. So, Gravador filed a case against me. But since I am
(fourth, etc.)-party defendant may allege in his or her not already the owner of the car, I filed a third-party
answer his or her defenses, counterclaims or cross-claims, complaint against Randy. So, under Section 13, Randy, the
including such defenses that the third (fourth, etc.)-party real owner of the car, although in the LTO I am still the owner,
plaintiff may have against the original plaintiff's claim. In is permitted to meet the allegations of Gravador head on. In
proper cases, he or she may also assert a counterclaim stating that while it is true that Randy is now the owner of the
against the original plaintiff in respect of the latter's claim property, but the vehicular accident complained of was due
against the third-party plaintiff. (13a) to the fault of Gravador. So, in that context, instead of putting
up a defense, Randy is in effect taking a defense against the
claim of Gravador and that may inure to my benefit. This is
I’d like to emphasize that the rules mentioned about the
the import of Section 13 to the end that the third-party
third-party complaint, fourth, fifth, sixth, so on and so forth,
defendant may also include in his defense such defenses that
because it is possible, it could happen. It is possible there is
the third-party plaintiff may have against the original plaintiff.
other party complaint such as fourth- or fifth-party
It is as if that third-party defendant (Randy) is now defending
complaint.
the action on my behalf by saying that the accident is due to
the fault or negligence of Waldi. In fact, Randy may also put
Example: up a counter-claim directly against Waldi by saying that –
There are cases na cars na magbangaay, magsunod, naay six since it is Waldi’s fault, then the Court shall hold you liable.
vehicles involved in a vehicular accident. So, A, B, C, D, E, and To summarize, Randy put a defense favorable to Galeon and
F. Party A is bumped by B, B is bumped by C, C is bumped by he also pleaded therein a counter-claim directly as against
D, D is bumped by E and E is bumped by F; So, if A would file Waldi.
a case against B probably B would say that it was the fault of
C. So, B would file a third party complain against C. And C on On that score, it is important to take notice of the case of
the other hand would say that he was bumped by D so C Singapore Airlines v. CA, this case is quite long but briefly:
would have to file a third-party complaint against D so on and
so forth until E would file a third-party complaint against F. Singapore Airlines v. Court of Appeals
So, in that situation, it would give rise up to 5th party 243 SCRA 143
complaint. Under Section 13 it is provided for the 3rd party
FACTS:
defendant or 4th party defendant as the case may be may
allege in his or her own answer his or her defenses, Sancho Rayos was an overseas contract worker who had a
counterclaims or cross claims including such defenses that renewed contract with the Arabian American Oil Company
the third-party plaintiff may have against the original plaintiff. (Aramco). As part of Aramco’s policy, its employees
In fact, in proper cases, the third-party defendant or the 4th- returning to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia from Manila are
party defendant as the case maybe may file a counterclaim allowed to claim reimbursement for amount paid for
to the original plaintiff in respect to the latter’s claim against excess baggage of up to 50 kilograms, as long as it is
the 3rd party plaintiff. properly supported by receipt. Rayos took a Singapore
Airlines (SIA) flight to report for his new assignment, with
a 50-kilogram excess baggage for which he paid P4,147.50.
Simply put, Section 13 allows the third-party defendant not Aramco reimbursed said amount upon presentation of
only to file a claim and to put up a defense against the 3rd said excess baggage ticket. Later, Rayos learned that he

73 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
was one of several employees being investigated by unsatisfactory performance rather than the alleged
Aramco for fraudulent claims. He immediately asked his tampering of his excess baggage ticket. In response to
wife Beatriz in Manila to seek a written confirmation from PAL's appeal, SIA argued that it was improper for PAL to
SIA that he indeed paid for an excess baggage of 50 question SIA's liability to the plaintiff, since this was no
kilograms. SIA’s manager, Johnny Khoo, notified Beatriz of longer an issue on account of the finality and, in fact,
their inability to issue the certification requested because satisfaction of the judgment.
their records showed that only three kilograms were xxx xxx xxx
entered as excess and accordingly charged. SIA issued the There is no question that a third-party defendant is
certification requested by the spouses Rayos but only after allowed to set up in his answer the defenses which the
its investigation of the anomaly and after Beatriz, assisted third-party plaintiff (original defendant) has or may have
by a lawyer, threatened it with a lawsuit. Subsequently, to the plaintiff's claim. There are, however, special
Aramco did not anymore renew Sanchos’ employment. circumstances present in this case which preclude third-
party defendant PAL from benefiting from the said
The spouses Rayos, convinced that SIA was responsible for principle.
the non-renewal of Rayos’ employment contract with
Aramco, sued it for damages. SIA claimed that it was not One of the defenses available to SIA was that the plaintiffs
liable to the Rayoses because the tampering was had no cause of action, that is, it had no valid claim against
committed by its handling agent, Philippine Airlines (PAL). SIA. SIA investigated the matter and discovered that
It then filed a third-party complaint against PAL. PAL, in tampering was, indeed, committed, not by its personnel
turn, countered that its personnel did not collect any but by PAL's. This became its defense as well as its main
charges for excess baggage; that it had no participation in cause of action in the third-party complaint it filed against
the tampering of any excess baggage ticket; and that if any PAL. For its part, PAL could have used the defense that the
tampering was made, it was done by SIA’s personnel. The plaintiffs had no valid claim against it or against SIA. This
trial court adjudged SIA liable to plaintiffs, but PAL was also could be done indirectly by adopting such a defense in its
held liable to SIA on the latter’s third-party complaint. PAL answer to the third-party complaint if only SIA had raised
filed an appeal. the same in its answer to the main complaint, or directly
by so stating in unequivocal terms in its answer to SIA's
Notably, in its appeal, PAL claimed that the spouses Rayos complaint that SIA and PAL were both blameless. Yet, PAL
had no valid claim against SIA because it was the efficiency opted to deny any liability which it imputed to SIA's
of Rayos which led to the non-renewal of his contract with personnel. It was only on appeal — in a complete
Aramco, and not the alleged tampering of his excess turnaround of theory — that PAL raised the issue of no
baggage ticket. valid claim by the plaintiff against SIA. This simply cannot
be allowed.
HELD:
The third-party complaint is actually independent of and While the third-party defendant; would benefit from a
separate and distinct from the plaintiff’s complaint ... victory by the third-party plaintiff against the plaintiff, this
When leave to file the third-party complaint is properly is true only when the third-party plaintiff land third-party
granted, the Court renders in effect two judgments in the defendant have non-contradictory defenses. Here, the
same case, one on the plaintiff’s complaint and the other defendant and third-party defendant had no common
on the third-party complaint. When he finds favorably on defense against the plaintiffs' complaint, and they were
both complaints, as in this case, he renders judgment on even blaming each other for the fiasco.
the principal complaint in favor of plaintiff against
defendant and renders another judgment on the third- The trial court's decision, although adverse to SIA as
party complaint in favor of defendant as third-party defendant, made PAL ultimately answerable for the
plaintiff, ordering the third-party defendant to reimburse judgment by ordering the latter to reimburse the former
the defendant whatever amount said defendant is for the entire monetary award. On appeal, PAL tried to
ordered to pay plaintiff in the case. Failure of any of said exonerate itself by arguing that the Rayoses had no valid
parties in such a case to appeal the judgment as against claim against SIA. From PAL's viewpoint, this seemed to be
him makes such judgment final and executory. By the the only way to extricate itself from a mess which the court
same token, an appeal by one party from such judgment a quo ascribed to it. This cannot, however, be allowed
does not inure to the benefit of the other party who has because it was neither raised by SIA in its answer to the
not appealed nor can it be deemed to be an appeal of such main complaint nor by PAL in its answer to the third-party
other party from the judgment against him. complaint. The prudent thing that PAL should have done
was to state in its answer to the third-party complaint filed
It must be noted that in the proceedings below, PAL by SIA against it everything that it may conceivably
disclaimed any liability to the Rayoses and imputed the interpose by way of its defense, including specific denials
alleged tampering to SIA's personnel. On appeal, however, of allegations in the main complaint which implicated it
PAL changed its theory and averred that the spouses Rayos along with SIA.
had no valid claim against SIA on the around that the non-
renewal of Sancho's contract with Aramco was his TN: SIA blamed PAL and in return PAL blamed SIA.

74 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared
 Civil Procedure | Atty. Galeon | EH 306 2019-2020
From Classroom and Online Discussions
If you also look at section 13, it mentions that such defense
In answering the third-party complaint filed by SIA against must be alleged in the answer to 3rd, 4th, 5th party
PAL, PAL said that the tampering was done by SIA. On appeal, complaint, as the case may be, it doesn't mention about filing
PAL changed its theory. Therefore, clearly there was a 2 separate answers.
changed of theory in the case. PAL questioned the ruling of
the trial court holding it liable for the third-party complaint For atty, the prudent thing to do is to raise that answer or
filed by SIA against PAL. that defense in the answer to the 3rd or 4th party complaint,
as the case may be, in line with the ruling in the case of SIA.
According to SC, in essence, if PAL really would want to take
up the grudges (?) for SIA, it should have stated that in its Bottomline is that a 3rd, 4th party defendant may include as
answer to the 3rd party complaint filed by SIA. However, PAL its defense an answer which is favorable to the main
rather took the blame to SIA that the tampering was done by defendant in the action. In fact, he may directly confront or
SIA’s personnel. The SC said that it cannot be allowed refute the allegation of the complaint head on. And that
because it was neither raise by SIA in its answer to the main should be taken up in his answer to the third-party complaint
complaint nor PAL in its answer to the 3rd party complaint. or fourth-party complaint, as the case may be, in that under
Section 13 the third, fourth-party defendant, as the case may
In other words, while under Section 13 the 3rd, 4th, 5th party be, may even file a counterclaim as against the original
defendant may put up a defense favorable to the 3rd or party plaintiff in the action.
plaintiff, as the case may be, that should be at the very least
stated in its answer to the 3rd, 4th, 5th party complaint as the --x--
case may be. Especially if that defense is not put up by the
original defendant himself.

But if that defense is already taken up by the original

defendant, then the 3rd party defendant may just adapt the
answer of the original defendant. If that defense, favorable
to the original defendant, is not somehow raised in his
Note:
answer to the main complaint then that’s the time that the
3rd party defendant must unequivocally raise that in his This is not 100% error free. This is meant to be used as a
answer to the main complaint. supplement. Good luck!

What is peculiar here in the case of PAL is that SIA in his

answer to the complaint of Rayos did not say that Rayos or
determination of the termination of Rayos was by reason of
the fact that he is inefficient in his work. SIA did not put up
the defense that the alleged tampering of the excess sticker
was because of the termination of the employment of Rayos.
And in the answer also of PAL, PAL also did not mention it. It
was only on appeal that PAL made that as a defense.

So, the SC said that it came too late. PAL could have raised
that in his answer to the 3rd party complaint of SIA. It is for
that reason that the SC sustained the ruling of trial court even
as against PAL.

There is this legal luminary who was of the view that what
should have been done by PAL in this case if he really wanted
to contest or to put up a defense directly as against the claims
of Rayos was to file 2 answers. The second answer would be
in answer to the complaint of spouses Rayos. But in Atty’s
view, that submission is not in accordance with the ruling in
the case of PAL. Because in the case of PAL, the SC mentioned
that what PAL should have done was to raise that in its
answer to the 3rd party complaint filed against it by SIA. So,
the defense that the termination of that employment for
Rayos is that was not by reason of alleged tampering of ticket
should have been raised by PAL in its answer to the complaint
filed by Rayos.

75 | USC
Balagon • Bacquial • Barbaso • Cazar • Eguia • Elpa • Espinosa • Gabuya • Madrid • Parilla • Pestolante • Rufin • Yared