Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.
If a defense relief on is based on law,
the pertinent provisions thereof and
their applicability to him shall be clearly and concisely stated. (Sec. 1, Rule 8)
Ultimate facts are those which directly form the basis of the right sought to be enforced, or the defense relied upon. They are the very facts without which, for example, the cause of action stated in a complaint would be insufficient.
Test of sufficiency—
If from the facts alleged, a valid judgment may be rendered for the plaintiff, the complaint is prima facie sufficient.
No need to allege the following in the pleadings:
(1) evidentiary or probative facts (2) those presumed by law (3) facts of judicial notice
(4) inferences, arguments and conclusions of law derived or inferred from the stated ultimate facts Capacity
The following must be averred:
(1) Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued:
(2) The authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity; or (3) The legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party.
Contesting the capacity of a party
A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge. (Sec. 4, Rule 8)
Specific denial
How to make a specific denial:
(1) Absolute denial—specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial.
(2) Partial denial—where only a part of an averment is denied, he specify so much of it as is true and material and deny only the remainder.
(3) Denial by disavowal of knowledge—where defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial. (Sec. 10, Rule 8)
NOTE: Allegations not specifically denied are deemed admitted. Exception:
amount of unliquidated damages, which must always be proved;
allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are admitted if not denied under oath. (Sec. 11, Rule 8) Alternative claims and defenses
A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either
in one cause of action or defense or
in separate causes of action or defenses.
When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is NOT made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. (Sec. 2, Rule 8)
Examples
Alternative cause of action: Breach of contract of carriage or tort
Alternative defense: Payment; even if not paid, action has prescribed Conditions precedent
In any pleading a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient. (Sec. 3, Rule 8)
Example: Exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Fraud and mistake, condition of mind
In all averments, the circumstances constituting the following must be stated with particularity:
(1) fraud or (2) mistake
NOTE: If the above rule is not complied with,
the complaint may be dismissed, or
the answer may be stricken off the records and he will be declared in default.
The following may be averred generally:
(1) malice, (2) intent, (3) knowledge or
(4) other condition of the mind of a person.
(Sec. 5, Rule 8) Judgments
In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient
to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it. (Sec. 6, Rule 8) Official documents
In pleading an official document or official act, it is sufficient to aver:
that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law. (Sec. 9, Rule 8) Need to bring in new parties
When the presence of parties other than those to the original action is required for the 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 be obtained. (Sec. 12, Rule 6)
COMPLAINT
Defined and in general
The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint. (Sec. 3, Rule 6)
It is the first pleading a party filed in court.
It must be in writing.
Allegations In general
Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.
If a defense relief on is based on law,
the pertinent provisions thereof and
their applicability to him shall be clearly and concisely stated.
REYES v. RTC MAKATI (2008)
Allegations of deceit, machination, false pretenses, misrepresentation, and threats are largely conclusions of law that, without supporting statements of the facts to which the allegations of fraud refer, do not sufficiently state an effective cause of action.
FACTS: Pedro and Anastacia Reyes, along with their two children Oscar, Rodrigo, owned shares of stock in Zenith Insurance Corporation (Zenith). When Pedro and Anastacia died, Rodrigo owned 4,250 shares while Oscar owned 8,715,637 shares. Pedro’s estate was properly partitioned in the 70’s but Anastacia’s estate was not partitioned (which includes her shares in Zenith).
Zenith and Rodrigo filed a complaint designated as a derivative suit with the SEC against Oscar to obtain an accounting of the funds and assets of Zenith which are now or formerly in the control, custody, and/or possession of petitioner Oscar and to determine the shares of stock of deceased Reyes spouses that were “arbitrarily and fraudulently” appropriated by Oscar for himself and which were not collated and taken into account in the partition, distribution, and/or settlement of the estate of the deceased spouses. The complaint prayed that Oscar be ordered to account for all the income from the time he took these shares, and deliver to his brothers and sisters their just and respective shares.
In his Answer with Counterclaim, Oscar denied the charge that he illegally acquired the shares of Anastacia, asserting that he purchased the shares with his own funds from Zenith’s unissued stocks, and that the suit is not a bona fide derivative suit because the requisites have not been complied with. He questioned the SEC's jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because it pertains to the settlement of the estate of Anastacia Reyes.
The RTC was later conferred with jurisdiction over the matter due to a presidential declaration confirming the former as a special commercial court. Oscar filed a Motion to Declare Complaint as Nuisance or Harassment Suit. The RTC denied the motion and the CA affirmed. Hence this petition
ISSUE: Whether the allegations against Oscar were sufficient to hold him guilty of fraud
NO. The rule is that a complaint must contain a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action and must specify the relief sought. Section 5, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that in all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity . These rules find specific application to Section 5(a) of P.D. No. 902-A which speaks of corporate devices or schemes that amount to fraud or misrepresentation detrimental to the public and/or to the stockholders.
Allegations of deceit, machination, false pretenses, misrepresentation, and threats are largely conclusions of law that, without supporting statements of the facts to which the allegations of fraud refer, do not sufficiently state an effective cause of action. Fraud and mistake are required to be averred with particularity to enable the opposing party to controvert the particular facts allegedly constituting such fraud or mistake.
The charges of fraud against Oscar were not properly supported by the required factual allegations. While the complaint contained allegations of fraud purportedly committed by him, these allegations are not particular enough to bring the controversy within the special commercial court's jurisdiction; they are not statements of ultimate facts, but are mere conclusions of law: how and why the alleged appropriation of shares can be characterized as "illegal and fraudulent" were not explained nor elaborated on.
Capacity of parties
The following must be averred:
(1) Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued:
(2) The authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity; or (3) The legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party.
Contesting the capacity of a party
A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge. (Sec. 4, Rule 8)
Actions based upon a document
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the party shall:
(1) set forth in the pleading the substance of such instrument or document , and
(2) attach the original or a copy thereof an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or (3) set forth said copy be in the pleading with like effect. (Sec. 7, Rule 8)
Actionable document is one which is the basis of the claim or defense. Examples:
promissory note
deed of sale
contract
NOTE: Letters by parties regarding the actionable document are not actionable documents, but mere evidence of the existence of the actionable document.
To contest an actionable document The party must
(1) specifically deny the genuineness and due execution of the document under oath; and
(2) set forth what he claims to be the facts.
NOTE: A mere specific denial is insufficient. The denial must be coupled with an oath; the denial must be verified.
Absence of an oath will be deemed an implied admission of the due execution and genuineness of the document.
When a party is deemed to have admitted genuineness and due execution of an actionable document, defenses implied from said admission are waived (forgery, lack of authority to execute the document, no capacity to sign, non-delivery of the document, defense that the document was not in words and figures as set out in the pleadings)
The following are NOT cut-off by the implied admission since they are unrelated to the genuineness and due execution of the document:
(1) Payment;
(2) Want of consideration;
(3) Illegality of consideration;
(4) Usury;
(5) Fraud;
(6) Prescription, (7) Release;
(8) Waiver;
(9) Statute of frauds;
(10) Estoppel;
(11) Former recovery or discharge in bankruptcy, etc.
When an oath is not required
A specific denial under oath will not apply in the following cases:
(1) When the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the document, or
(2) When compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused. (Sec. 8, Rule 8) ANSWER
Defined and in general
An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses. (Sec. 4, Rule 6)
This pleading may be an answer to the complaint, to a counterclaim, or an answer to a cross-claim.
There is NO answer to a reply.
There may be an answer to a third-party complaint or complaint-in-intervention.
Types of defenses Negative
A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his cause or causes of action. (Sec. 5[a], Rule 6)
A defense is negative when the material averments alleged in the pleading of the claimant are specifically denied. (Sec.
5, Rule 3)
How alleged, generally
It is alleged in the form of a specific denial.
If the denial is not under Sec. 10, Rule 8, it is deemed a general denial.
A general denial is an admission.
Specific denial
How to make a specific denial:
(1) Absolute denial—specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial.
(2) Partial denial—where only a part of an averment is denied, he specify so much of it as is true and material and deny only the remainder.
(3) Denial by disavowal of knowledge—where defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.
(Sec. 10, Rule 8) Capacity of parties
The following must be averred:
(1) Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued:
(2) The authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity; or (3) The legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party.
Contesting the capacity of a party
A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge. (Sec. 4, Rule 8)
Genuineness of documents
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the party shall:
(1) set forth in the pleading the substance of such instrument or document , and
(2) attach the original or a copy thereof an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or (3) set forth said copy be in the pleading with like effect. (Sec. 7, Rule 8)
Actionable document is one which is the basis of the claim or defense. Examples:
promissory note
deed of sale
contract
NOTE: Letters by parties regarding the actionable document are not actionable documents, but mere evidence of the existence of the actionable document.
To contest an actionable document The party must
(1) specifically deny the genuineness and due execution of the document under oath; and (2) set forth what he claims to be the facts.
NOTE: A mere specific denial is insufficient. The denial must be coupled with an oath; the denial must be verified.
Absence of an oath will be deemed an implied admission of the due execution and genuineness of the document.
When a party is deemed to have admitted genuineness and due execution of an actionable document, defenses implied from said admission are waived (forgery, lack of authority to execute the document, no capacity to sign, non-delivery of the document, defense that the document was not in words and figures as set out in the pleadings)
The following are NOT cut-off by the implied admission since they are unrelated to the genuineness and due execution of the document:
(1) Payment;
(2) Want of consideration;
(3) Illegality of consideration;
(4) Usury;
(5) Fraud;
(6) Prescription, (7) Release;
(8) Waiver;
(9) Statute of frauds;
(10) Estoppel;
(11) Former recovery or discharge in bankruptcy, etc.
When an oath is not required
A specific denial under oath will not apply in the following cases:
(3) When the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the document, or
(4) When compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused. (Sec. 8, Rule 8) MEMITA v. MASONGSONG
(2007)
The genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts. A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial.
FACTS: Masongsong, under the business name of RM Integrated Services, was the distributor of San Miguel Foods, Inc.’s Magnolia chicken products. He supplied said products on a 25-day payment credit to Memita’s Vicor Store.
Masongsong filed a complaint before the RTC, alleging that Memita’s P603,520.50 credit on goods purchased remain unpaid despite his several demands. He also prayed for the issuance of a writ of attachment against Memita.
Thereafter, the RTC orderedthe issuance of a writ of attachment against Memita, taking into account: (1) the allegations of the verified complaint; (2) the testimonies of Masongsong and Joel Go, his sales person; and (3) Masongsong’s bond. According to the sheriff’s return of service, the Provincial Sheriff issued a notice of levy on attachment to the Registrar of the TO and a notice of embargo to the Register of Deeds of Bacolod City.
Memita did not deny that he purchased goods on credit from Masongsong, but based his refusal to pay on the following grounds: (1) questionable deliveries; (2) short deliveries and discrepancies; and (3) possible manipulation of delivery receipts. He made a counterclaim and asked for P300,000 in actual damages for the seizure of two of his vehicles; P500,000 as moral damages; at least P200,000 as exemplary damages; and P150,000 as attorney’s fees.
The RTC ruled that Masongsong was entitled to the reliefs prayed for. However, Memita filed a notice of appeal with the trial court. In his brief, Memita averred that the trial court erroneously admitted as evidence the machine copies of the seventy-two (72) sales invoices despite the patent lack of proof of due execution and authenticity; and in holding that Memita acknowledged receipt of the deliveries made by Masongsong.
The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision. They said Memita failed to explicitly deny or contest the genuineness and due execution of the receipts or any signatures on the receipts.
ISSUES: Whether Memita was able to contest the genuineness and due execution of the 72 sales invoices
NO. Without specifying the date of purchase or the receipt number, Memita denied the quantities and value of his purchases. He alleged that there were questionable deliveries and questionable number of kilos per crate, and concluded that Masongsong might have manipulated the delivery receipts. However, he failed to point out any particular Sales Invoice which substantiates his claim of short deliveries or questionable deliveries. The appellate court reiterated the trial court’s position and stated that Memita’s The Answer failed to explicitly deny or contest the genuineness and due execution of any of the receipts nor any of his signatures or that of his authorized representative appearing therein.
Section 8 of Rule 8 provides that the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts.
Memita, in alleging "questionable" and "short" deliveries, in effect alleges that Masongsong committed fraud. Whoever alleges fraud or mistake affecting a transaction must substantiate his allegation, since it is presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns and private concerns have been fair and regular. Memita chose to present evidence which did not
"set forth the facts" nor the "substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial.”
Negative pregnant
Denial in the form of a negative pregnant—
It is a denial which at the same time involves an affirmative implication favorable to the opposing party, and is thus an admission of an averment to which it is directed. It is a literal denial pregnant with admission.
It is a denial which at the same time involves an affirmative implication favorable to the opposing party, and is thus an admission of an averment to which it is directed. It is a literal denial pregnant with admission.