FILING FEES
3
JURISDICTION
4
SMALL CLAIMS
7
Rule 1
9
RULE 2 CAUSE OF ACTION
11
RULE 3 PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
14
RULE 4 VENUE OF ACTIONS
23
RULE 5 UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS
26
RULE 6 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
29
RULE 7 PARTS OF A PLEADING
35
RULE 8 MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
37
RULE 9 EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
40
RULE 10 AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
43
RULE 11 WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
46
RULE 12 BILL OF PARTICULARS
48
RULE 13 FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS 50
RULE 14 SUMMONS
55
RULE 15 MOTIONS
62
RULE 16 MOTION TO DISMISS
65
RULE 17 DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
69
RULE 18 PRE-TRIAL
70
RULE 19 INTERVENTION
74
RULE 20 CALENDAR OF CASES
75
RULE 21 SUBPOENA
75
RULE 22 COMPUTATION OF TIME
77
MODES OF DISCOVERY
77
RULE 23 DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTIONS
78
RULE 24 DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION OR PENDING APPEAL.
84
RULE 25 INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
85
RULE 26 ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY
86
RULE 27 PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
87
RULE 28 PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS
87
RULE 29 REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY
88
RULE 31 CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE
91
RULE 32 TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER
91
RULE 33 DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
93
RULE 34 JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
94
RULE 35 SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
94
RULE 36 JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS AND ENTRY THEREOF
95
RULE 37 NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
97
RULE 38 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS
99
RULE 39 EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
101
Brief overview of remedies
116
APPEALS
116
RULE 40 APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS
116
RULE 41 APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
117
RULE 44 ORDINARY APPEALED CASES (PROCEDURE IN CA)
121
RULE 42
123
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS
123
123
RULE 43 APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL
AGENCIES TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
125
RULE 45 APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
127
PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
129
RULE 46 ORIGINAL CASES
129
RULE 48 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE IN THE CA
130
RULE 49 ORAL ARGUMENT
130
RULE 50 DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
130
RULE 51 JUDGMENT
131
RULE 52 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
133
RULE 53 NEW TRIAL
133
RULE 55 PUBLICATION OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL RESOLUTION
134
RULE 47 ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS 135
• This reviewer is based on Atty. Tranquil Salvador’s lectures, stuff from Atty. Guevarra, Glenn Tuazon’s brilliant lecture notes, cases, and Feria-Noche’s book. (No Riano since I left it in my locker)
FILING FEES
• Important: Payment of docket fees is not only mandatory, but JURISDICTIONAL.
• Know the true nature of the action because it will determine the docket fees. So take note of the facts of each case.
o It may seem like a cancellation of deed of sale, but it can ultimately be one for the recovery of property, making it a real action. (Ruby Shelter v Formaran III, 2009)
For example: if the action is for the cancellation of a deed of sale and the titles have already been transferred to another party, that’s a real action because the ultimate purpose is the recovery of real property. (that’s what happened in Ruby Shelter)
• If the titles have not yet been transferred, it can be considered as a personal action. (Spouses de Leon cited in Ruby Shelter)
• Docket fees to be paid:
o Real action: depends on the FMV stated in the current tax declaration or current zonal valuation of the BIR (whichever is higher), or if there is none, the stated value of the property in litigation.1
o Cases involving actions incapable of pecuniary estimation: flat rate
• Docket fees computation include interests, penalties, surcharges, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, court expenses. (see footnote 1) (Proton v Banque Nationale de Paris, 2005)
o So, if the plaintiff fails to pay the docket fees for alleged interest payments accruing before the complaint is filed, plaintiff can not recover such. (Proton, wherein a certain period of interest payment was alleged but the corresponding docket fees pertaining to such was not paid)
o Important!: Compare with amount for jurisdictional purposes: only the principal claim is considered.
• It is the duty of the parties claiming such damages to specify the amount sought on the basis of which the court may make a proper determination and for the proper assessment of the appropriate fees.
o The damages sought must be placed in the PRAYER of the complaint. (Philippine First Insurance v Pyramid Logistics, 2008, wherein Pyramid amended their complaint and still did not put the damages sought in the prayer. It was a sign of bad faith on their part.)
If not, the complaint will be expunged.
If the pleading specifies the claim, but the fees paid are insufficient, the court may allow a reasonable time for the payment of the prescribed fees, or the balance thereof.
• Example: if the party filing the case paid less than the correct amount for the docket fees because of the wrong assessment of the clerk of court, the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment lies with the same clerk. Party cannot be penalized for such, so court will continue to have jd over the case. But party will still have to pay the fees (Montaner v Shari’a District, 2009)
• This also happened in Bautista v Unangst (2008) which involved the deficient assessment in the Court of Appeals. SC said that it was not the appellant’s fault but he still has to pay the deficient fees within the reglementary period. (since it was on appeal)
o Exception: no need to place the amount sought if the damages arise AFTER the filing of the complaint since you wouldn’t know how much that would be
• Compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims must now pay docket fees. (see footnote 1) 1 Rule 141, Sec. 7. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts.–
a) For filing an action or a permissive OR COMPULSORY counter-claim, CROSS-CLAIM, or money claim against an estate not based on judgment, or for filing a third-party, fourth-party, etc. complaint, or a complaint-in-intervention, if the total sum claimed, INCLUSIVE OF INTERESTS, PENALTIES, SURCHARGES, DAMAGES OF WHATEVER KIND, AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES AND COSTS and/or in cases involving property, the FAIR MARKET value of the REAL property in litigation STATED IN THE CURRENT TAX DECLARATION OR CURRENT ZONAL VALUATION OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, OR IF THERE IS NONE, THE STATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION OR THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN LITIGATION AS ALLEGED BY THE CLAIMANT, is: xxx
• GR: docket fees must be paid when you file the complaint. (clerk will look at prayer and then determine how much you have to pay.)
o Exceptions:
If the damages arose AFTER the filing, the additional docket fee will serve as a lien on the judgment
• Like interests accruing after the filing of the complaint (Proton v BNP) If the complaint is amended and new damages are alleged, the additional docket
fee will be allowed to be paid within a reasonable time within the applicable prescriptive period or reglementary period (Tacay, cited in Philippine First)
If the clerk makes a wrong assessment, the full amount must be paid within the applicable prescriptive period or reglementary period.
• Recipients of the service of the National Committee on Legal Aid and of the Legal Aid offices of the IBP are EXEMPT from payment of filing, docket fees. (Re: Request for NCLA, 2009)
o This exemption does NOT apply to juridical entities, even if these entities are formed for charitable purposes or make extremely delectable ube jam. (Query of Mr Roger Prioreschi of the Good Shepherd Foundation, AM 9-6-9-SC)
JURISDICTION
• Define jurisdiction:
o The power of the court to hear, try, or decide the case o AS CONFERRED by law
• Court knows if it has jurisdiction based on the allegations of the complaint. (Villacastin v Pelaez, 2008, where the SC said that the allegations of a complaint made out an ejectment case so the MTC, and not the DARAB, had jd over the case even if the case was over agri land since it was not an agrarian dispute anyway.)
• The jurisdiction of a court may be questioned at any stage of the proceedings. No estoppel. It is the duty of the court to dismiss an action whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. (Vargas v Caminas, 2008, where jd was questioned before trial court decided)
o EXCEPT: laches (Tijam, where jd was questioned only after 15 years)
• For a court to properly exercise jd over a case, the requirements of law must be complied with. o Hence, when a RTC takes cognizance over an indirect contempt case filed through an
unverified motion (and not through a verified petition with a certificate of non-forum shopping as required by Rule 71), the RTC has gravely erred.2
• Can the SC create special courts? 3
o NO. It can only designate. It can’t confer jurisdiction, only law can do that. SC can only designate which courts will become special courts.
• IMPORTANT: in determining jurisdiction, you do NOT include damages, interest, attorney’s fees, etc.
o Only limit the amount to the demand or the claim.
But, of course, if your action is for damages, then the amount of damages claimed is determinative.
o The interest to exclude is the accessory interest. Not the loan interest.
Example: The case is in Pampanga. The promissory note is for P298,000 with interest of 10% per annum, where do you file the collection suit for this?
• In the RTC of Pampanga. The cause of action revolves around the entire promissory note.
• MTC
o Original and exclusive
2 Rule 71, Sec 4: How proceedings commenced. — Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu propio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision. (n)
Opposite of RTC
Ejectment/unlawful detainer • Regardless of value
• MTC can determine ownership provisionally
• RTC
o Original and Exclusive
Amount incapable of pecuniary estimation • Can NOT be measured in money • Depends on the nature of the action
o Where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is only incidental or a consequence of the principal relief sought, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation. (FEBTC v Shemberg, 2006, where the SC held that an action to cancel mortgage for want of consideration is incapable of pecuniary estimation)
o Examples: rescission, reformation of contract, specific performance o What about expropriation? Always with RTC, whether personal or
real property, regardless of value. Law zeroes in on the exercise of such right.
o What about declaratory relief? RTC, except when there is an issue of constitutionality, SC can take it.
o What about support? Family courts, regardless of value.
Civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the ASSESSED value of the property involved exceeds P20,000,00 or exceeds P50,000 if in Metro Manila4
• EXCEPT actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer (original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the MTC, MeTC, MTCC)
• Assessed value is the worth or value of property established by taxing authorities on the basis of which the tax rate is applied. (vda de Barrera v Heirs of Legaspi, 2008, which was a accion publiciana case)
In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds P300,000.00 or, in Metro Manila, exceeds P400,000.00
• RTC acting in general jurisdiction, no special maritime courts
In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000.00 or, in Metro Manila, exceeds P400,000.00
• What if the value of the estate is 100k, the MTC has jurisdiction over that, right? But will it be subject to summary procedure?
o No. Of course not. Probate cases always under ordinary procedure since you have to determine the due execution of the will.
o Summary procedure rules explicitly exclude probate proceedings. In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations
• Like support, annulment, nullity
• Courts will act as Family courts, special jurisdiction.
In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
• So juvenile, agrarian cases
Other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds P300,000, or in Metro Manila, exceeds P400,000
Those under the securities regulation code
• Cases involving devices or schemes employed by the corporation amounting to fraud
• Intra-corporate or partnership relations
• Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustess, 4 So if accion publiciana case and less than P50,000 in Manila, file with MTC
officers, etc
• Suspension of payments, etc o Original and Concurrent (see SC and CA) o Appellate
Cases decided by the MTC, etc • Court of Appeals
o Original and Exclusive
Annul judgments of the RTC based on extrinsic fraud or lack or jurisdiction o Concurrent with the SC
Petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the
• NLRC, CSC, RTC o Concurrent with the RTC and SC
Habeas corpus, habeas data, writ of amparo, quo warranto, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition vs lower courts
• In Thornton, 2004, a writ of habeas corpus was filed with the CA. There was an argument that only the RTC could issue a writ of habeas corpus. SC said the CA can issue a writ of habeas corpus especially in this case where the whereabout of the child was unknown so a writ of habeas corpus from the CA would be more effective than that from the RTC.5 (SC and CA writs are enforceable anywhere, while RTC writs are enforceable only within their territorial jurisdiction.)
• When it comes to concurrent jurisdiction, always remember the rule on hierarchy of courts. If you can file with the RTC first, then go ahead. Once a court acquires jd, it excludes all other courts.
o Appellate
Over RTC Exercising original jurisdiction
• By ordinary notice of appeal (if question of fact or question of fact and law)
• If pure question of law in the RTC, go straight to SC! Over RTC exercising appellate jurisdiction over the MTC:
• By petition for review, even if pure question of law Over Quasi-judicial agencies
• By petition for review, even if pure question of law • Supreme Court
o Original and Exclusive
Petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the:
• CA, COMELEC, CoA, Sandiganbayan, CTA
Declaratory relief only when there is a question of constitutionality • Like of treaties, laws, etc
o Concurrent with the CA
Petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the
• NLRC, CSC, RTC o Concurrent with the RTC and CA
Habeas corpus, habeas data, writ of amparo, quo warranto, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition vs lower courts
o Concurrent with the RTC
Cases affecting ambassadors, etc o Concurrent with the IBP
Actions against members of the Bar o Appellate over
RTC exercising original jurisdiction
5 There are two kinds of writ of habeas corpus. One for the custody of minors, and the regular one under the ROC. The difference is that in the former, pre-trial is required. In the latter, it is not.
• by petition for review on certiorari (rule 45) on pure questions of law CA
• Sandiganbayan, CTA en banc, CoA, Comelec
SMALL CLAIMS (AM-8-8-7-SC, 2008)
• Small claims are filed in the MTC
• Small claims cases involve cases with amounts NOT EXCEEDING P100k o No distinction between cases outside Metro Manila and Metro Manila • What should be included in the P100k?
o The claim itself, EXCLUSIVE OF INTERESTS and COSTS6 What if the claim is for damages itself?
• Then it’s not covered by small claims because these damages have yet to be ascertained. Damages cases (like from personal injury) are not akin to sum-of-money cases.
o Segue: what if the case is for P100k and is outside MM, what do you follow – small claims or summary procedure?
Atty Tranquil suggests that it is the option of the complainant since there is concurrent jd between small claims court and court of summary procedure.
• Does it cover quasi-delicts?
o Yes. It covers cases of fault/negligence, quasi-contract, contract, and even the civil aspect of criminal cases.7
• No need for lawyers nor the filing of a regular complaint. You can just use the standard form given.8
• Can you join separate claims? o Yes, as long as:
Against same defendant
Total does NOT exceed P100k, exclusive of interests and costs.9 • Do you have to pay docket fees?
o Unfortunately, yes.10
6 Section 2. Scope. - This Rule shall govern the procedure in actions before the Metropolitan trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts for payment of money where the value of the claim does not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.
7 Section 4. Applicability - The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions which are; (a) purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement of sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule of 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
These claims or demands may be;
(a) For money owned under any of the following; 1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan; 3. Contract of Services; 4. Contract of Sale; or 5. Contract of Mortgage;
(b) For damages arising from any of the following; 1. Fault or negligence;
2. Quasi-contract; or 3. Contract;
(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving a money claim covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.
8 Section 5. Commencement of Small Claims Action. - A small claims action is commenced by filing with the court an accomplished and verified Statement of Claim (Form 1 - SCC) in duplicate, accompanied by a Certification of Non-forum Shopping (Form 1-A,SCC), and two (2) duly certified photocopies of the actionable document/s subjects of the claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses and other evidence to support the claim. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or submitted together with the Claim, unless good cause is shown for the admission of additional evidence.
No formal pleading, other than the Statement of Claim described in this Rule, is necessary to initiate a small claims action.
9 Section 6. Joinder of Claims - Plaintiff may join in a single statement of claim one or more separate small claims against a defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed P100,00.00.
10 Section 8. Payment of Filing Fees. - The plaintiff shall pay the docket and other legal fees prescribed under Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, unless allowed to litigate as an indigent.
A claim filed with a motion to sue as indigent (Form 6-SCC) shall be referred to the Executive Judge for immediate action in case of multi-sala courts, or to the Presiding Judge of the court hearing the small claims case. If the motion is granted by the Executive Judge, the case shall be
If an indigent sues, it will immediately be referred to the executive judge. (See footnote)
• Even if indigent, he still has to pay P1,000 for the summons fee. • Can the court dismiss the case outright?
o Yes!11
• If court finds no reason to dismiss outright, it will issue summons and notice of hearing to the defendant.12
o Defendant has 10 days to make a verified response. The 10 days can NOT be extended.13 If he fails to respond, the court can render judgment based on the Statement of
the Claim. The judgment must be limited to the amount of the claim, but it can be lowered by the court.14
• Can the defendant file a counterclaim? o Yes, as long as:
Also not exceeding P100k, exclusive of interests and costs
Arising out of the same transaction or event that is the subject matter of the claim Does not require for adjudication 3rd parties, and
Not subject of a pending action.
• If not filed as a counterclaim, it is barred.15
o If it doesn’t arise out of the same transaction or event, a counterclaim can still be filed in the response as long as docket fees have been paid for it and the claim does not exceed P100k, exclusive of interests and costs.
• Can you file Rule 65 Certiorari from an order of the small claims court? o No, it’s prohibited.16
• Can a lawyer appear in the hearing?
raffled off or assigned to the court designated to hear small claims cases. If the motion is denied, the plaintiff shall be given five (5) days within which to pay the docket fees, otherwise, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice. In no case shall a party, even if declared an indigent, be exempt from the payment of the P1,000.00 fee for service of summons and processes in civil cases.
11 Section 9. Dismissal of the Claim. - After the court determines that the case falls under this Rule, it may, from an examination of the allegations of the Statement of Claim and such evidence attached thereto, by itself, dismiss the case outright of any of the grounds apparent from the Claim for the dismissal of a civil action.
12 Section 10. Summons and Notice of Hearing - If no ground for dismissal is found, the court shall forthwith issue Summons (Form 2-SCC) on the day of receipt of the Statement of Claim, directing the defendant to submit a verified Response.
The court shall also issue a Notice (Form 4-SCC) to both parties, directing them to appear before it on a specific date and time for hearing, with a warning that no unjustified postponement shall be allowed, as provided in Section 19 of this Rule.
The summons and notice to be served on the defendant shall be accompanied by a copy of the Statement of Claim and documents submitted by plaintiff, and a copy of the Response (Form 3-SCC) to be accomplished by the defendant. The Notice shall contain an express prohibition against the filing of a motion to dismiss or any other motion under Section 14 of this Rule.
13 Section 11. Response - The defendant shall file with the court and serve on the plaintiff a duly accomplished and verified Response within a non - extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of summons. The Response shall be accompanied by certified photocopies of documents, as well as affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in support thereof. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or submitted together with the Response, unless good cause is shown for the admission of additional evidence.
14 Section 12. Effect of Failure to File Response - Should the defendant fail to file his response within the required period, the court by itself shall render judgement as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the Statement of claim limited to what is prayed for. The court however, may, in its discretion, reduce the amount of damages for being excessive or unconscionable
15 Section 13. Counterclaims Within the Coverage of this Rule - If at the time the action is commenced, the defendant possesses a claim against the plaintiff that (a) is within the coverage of this rule, exclusive of interest and costs; (b) arises out of the same transaction or event that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim; (c) does not require for its adjudication the joinder of third parties; and (d) is not the subject of another pending action, the claim shall be filed as a counterclaim in the response; otherwise, the defendant shall be barred from suit on the counterclaim. The defendant may also elect to the file a counterclaim against the plaintiff that does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence , provided that the amount and nature thereof are within the coverage of this Rule and the prescribed docket and the other legal fees are paid. 16 Section 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions - The following pleadings, motions, and petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the compliant except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; (b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgement, or for reopening of trial; (d) Petiton for relief from judgement;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other paper; (f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court; (h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement; (j) Reply;
(k) Third-party complaints; and (l) Interventions.
o No. Lawyers are NEVER allowed. (unless they are the ones claiming)17 • What happens if a party is absent from the hearing?
o Plaintiff: dismissal of case
Defendant who appears shall be allowed to recover from his permissive counterclaim
• Compare to normal cases where claim is dismissed (counterclaims, regardless of nature, survive. Not sure if this was an oversight only, but that’s what the codal says)
o Defendant: as if he didn’t file a response o Both: dismissal of claim and counterclaim18 • Are postponements allowed?
o Yes,
Only ONCE per party, and
Upon proof of physical disability to appear in court.19 • For judgments and execution, see footnote.20
Rule 1
Section 1. Title of the Rules.
These Rules shall be known and cited as the Rules of Court. Sec. 2. In what courts applicable.
These Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. Sec. 3. Cases governed.
These Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal, and special proceedings.
(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.
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 for a special civil action.
(b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law.
(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
• What is an action?
o Formal demand of one’s legal rights in a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law.
o Method of applying legal remedies according to definite established rules. • Kinds of actions:
o Civil
Protection or enforcement of a right, or prevention or redress of a wrong Can be ordinary or special (sca)
o Criminal
Once the information is filed in court, it becomes a criminal action. o Special proceeding
17 Section 17. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed. - No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.
If the court determines that a party cannot properly present his/her claim or defense and needs assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow another individual who is not an attorney to assist that party upon the latter's consent.
18 Section 18. Non-appearance of Parties. - Failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the claim without prejudice. The defendant who appears shall be entitled to judgement on a permissive counterclaim.
Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the same effect as failure to file a Response under Section 12 of this Rule. This shall not apply where one of two or more defendants who are sued under a common cause of action and have pleaded a common defense appears at the hearing. Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal with prejudice of both the claim and counterclaim.
19 Section 19. Postponement When Allowed. - A request for postponement of a hearing may be granted only upon proof of the physical inability of the party to appear before the court on the scheduled date and time. A party may avail of only one (1) postponement.
20 Section 23. Decision. - After the hearing, the court shall render its decision on the same day, based on the facts established by the evidence
(Form 13-SCC). The decision shall immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy thereof forthwith served on the parties.
The decision shall be final and unappealable.
Application or proceeding to establish: • the status of a party, or • the right of a party, or • a particular fact.
Examples are petition for adoption, petition for hospitalization of an insane person, settlement of estate of a deceased person
Sec. 4. In what cases not applicable.
These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
Sec. 5. Commencement of action.
A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on the date of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.
• The commencement of an action interrupts the period of prescription as to all the parties to the action.
• When does an action commence?
o Upon filing of the original complaint in the court
• With respect to an additional defendant, when does it commence?
o The present rule provides that it is the date of the filing of the amended complaint joining the additional defendant which is the date of the commencement of the action with regard to such additional defendant.
You only file a motion for the admission of such amended complaint when then here has been an answer served on the plaintiff.
In cases where the amended complaint is attached to the motion for its admission, the date of filing thereof is the date of the commencement of the action with regard to the additional defendant, irrespective of the action of the court on the motion.
• Does the filing alone vest the court with jurisdiction over the subject matter? o No. You have to 1) file and 2) pay the docket fees.
o It is important to remember that it is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading but also the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action.
o Without the payment of the docket fees, no original complaint or pleading is considered. o If the complete amount of the docket fee is not paid, the prescriptive period continues to
run as the complaint is deemed not filed.
Sec. 6. Construction.
These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
RULE 2 CAUSE OF ACTION
Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of.
Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action. Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined.
A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
• What is a cause of action?
o It is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other. o Its essential elements are:
Legal right of the plaintiff
Correlative obligation of the defendant
• Example – Mario doesn’t pay Luigi as agreed upon in a debt contract.
o Luigi has the legal right to be paid and Mario has the obligation to pay, arising from the contract.
o The non-payment of debt is the act/omission or the cause of action. • When must the cause of action exist?
o At the time the complaint is filed.
Hence, a complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured by an amended or supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action during the pendency of the action. (Turner v Lorenzo Shipping, 2010, a corp case involving right of appraisal)
• Even if there is an existing contract, a tort can still be the cause of action if what breaks the contract is a tortious act. (Mindanao Terminal v Phoenix, 2009)
Sec. 3. One suit for a single cause of action.
A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.
Sec. 4. 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 any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
• The purpose of this rule is to prevent repeated litigation.
• The rule applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims and cross-claims.
• If two or more complaints are brought for different parts of a single cause of action, the filing of the first may be pleaded in abatement of the other. It can be set up either by means of:
o A motion to dismiss or an affirmative defense in the answer. What ground? Res judicata or litis pendentia.
• “Splitting a cause of action” is not a ground.
• Where there is only one delict or wrong, there is only one cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated belonging to one person.
o Same cause of action but different prayers = splitting. • You can’t split…
o Recovery of property and damages
o Annulment of foreclosure sale and damages (Chua v MBTC, 2009) o Recovery of ownership of and income from same land
o Installments due and unpaid
o Non-payment of debt secured by a mortgage (you can’t split it to payment of debt and foreclosure of mortgage, you have to choose one)
o Total breach of entire contract
As a general rule, a contract to do several things at several times is divisible, and a judgment for a single breach of a continuing contract is not a bar to a suit for a subsequent breach.
• But where the contract is entire, and the breach total, there can be only one action in which plaintiff must recover all damages.
• Can you consolidate split causes of action?
o No. So the two pending cases can’t be consolidated. One (or both) will be dismissed for forum shopping. (see Rule and cases on consolidation, particularly Megaland v CE)
Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action.
A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties; (b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
• Maraming angal si Mario versus Luigi (hindi nagbayad ng utang tapos kinain yung pasta niya na hindi nagpapaalam tapos hinalikan si Princess Daisy tapos sinuntok si Toad tapos hindi pina-tae si
Yoshi, etc)
• You do this when there’s 1 case but several causes of action. o For every breach, there is one cause of action.
If there is a claim of money and there are claims of damages (moral, exemplary) arising from the claim of money, there is only one cause of action. The claims for damages are mere incidents of the breach (failure to pay)
If there are several promissory notes, but only one loan, and no payment on all notes, there are several causes of action (since based on PNs).
• You can even do a joinder of ALTERNATIVE causes of action.
o Example: shipping contract. First cause of action is based on contract. Second cause of action is based on tort.
Can you do alternative causes of action against multiple/different parties? • Yes. Rule 3, Sec 6.21
• Example: 2 buses collided with Mr. X’s car. Mr. X can file alternative causes of action against the two buses.
• What conditions must be met for a proper joinder of causes of action? o The rules on joinder of parties must be observed, meaning:
It arises from the same or series of transactions, and It involves a common question of law (Rule 3, Sec 6)
• IMPORTANT: This must only be followed if there are multiple defendants. o If just between two parties, no need for this rule.
Scenario 1: X versus Y – can join as many causes of action, even if totally UNRELATED.
• See Mario v Luigi above. Totally unrelated causes of action.
Scenario 2: X versus A, B, C, D (multiple) – can only join the causes of action if it complies with the rule on joinder, meaning series of actions arising from the same or series of transactions involving a common question of law)
• Seen in Pantanco v Standard, (2005), where the plaintiff and their insurance company sought relief from the bus company. Court said there was proper joinder of parties (and thus joinder of causes of action) because there was a single transaction common to all – the accident caused by the bus company.
• Seen in Perez v Hermano (2005), where plaintiffs properly joined defendant company and defendant X because said company allegedly misled plaintiff in signing a mortgage deed in favor of defendant X. It’s an example of a question of law and fact arising from a “series of transactions.”
• To determine identity of cause of action, it must be ascertained whether the same evidence which is necessary to sustain the second cause of action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first. (Pantranco v Standard, this case is also relevant for jurisdiction, as it focused on totality of claims)
o Special civil actions or actions governed by special rules are not covered.
You can’t join an ejectment case with money claims because ejectment cases are governed by special rules on summary procedure.
You can’t join two special civil actions either. 21 Rule 3, Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties.
All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest.
o In cases of different venues or jurisdiction between the SAME parties, the joinder may be made in the RTC, provided it has jurisdiction over one of the causes of action and the venue lies therein.
If one cause of action falls within the RTC and the other in the MTC, the action should be filed in the RTC.
If the causes of action have different venues, they may be joined in any of the courts of proper venue.
• So, a real action and a personal action may be joined either in the RTC of the place where the real property is located or where the parties reside.
o Case 1: Sum of money 350k, plaintiff resides in Makati, defendant in QC
o Case 2: Real property worth 80k in Cavite.
You can join those two cases in either Cavite, Makati or QC. (for academic purposes)
But in practice, just severe because other lawyers don’t know about this.
o Where all the causes of action are for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
Important: This totality rule will only apply if ALL cases of action are for recovery of money.
• Does this mean we can’t have joinder of real action and personal action? o No. We can still do it, using Sec 5(c), but you just don’t use the
totality rule.
The totality of the principal claims for money determines which court has jurisdiction.
But, in cases of joinder of parties, the first condition should apply.
• Joinder of causes of action is permissive and not mandatory. It’s up to the litigant if he wants to avail of such. But when he decides to do a joinder, he must comply with the requirements. (Perez v Hermano, 2005)
Sec. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action.
Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately.
• Is misjoinder a ground for dismissal of an action?
o No. It will not cause the dismissal of the principal action.
It is severed and will proceed separately, after separate filing.
o In fact, if neither the court nor the adverse party objects, it will be adjudicated together with the other causes of action. (Atty Guevarra)
o Example – a joinder of collection of money and an ejectment case. Di pwede yan, boy! Pero kung walang nagobject, oh di lusot!
RULE 3 PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant.
Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be 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" may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party defendant.
Plaintiff=claimant
Defendant=against whom the claim is asserted. • Who may be parties to a civil action?
o Natural persons o Juridical persons
o Duly incorporated and registered with the SEC On Foreign Corporations
Isolated transaction: can sue and be sued
EXCEPT: if other party is estopped because he benefitted from dealing with such foreign corporation
Doing business and licensed: can sue and be sued o Entities authorized by law (see Rule 3, Sec 15)
Examples: Political parties Labor unions Archdiocese Estate
Rule 3, Sec 15 (as defendants) • What about entities without juridical existence?
o Can NOT institute under the name of the non-juridical entity. They have to sue individually.
o But they can be parties as defendants, and named as such. (see Rule 3, Section 15) • Can estates be a party? Yes, Rule 3, Section 20.
• Can executors or administrators be parties? Yes, Rule 87, Section 1. • Can the state be sued?
• Generally, no. Except when:
o There is express consent (there’s a law allowing it) o There is implied consent, like when:
The state enters into a private contract
It enters into a business operation, unless it does so only as a necessary incident of its prime governmental function
the state sues a private party, unless the suit is entered into only to resist a claim.
There is failure to abide by what the law of contract requires.
Sec. 2. Parties in interest.
A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
• The real party in interest is one who:
o Stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or o Is entitled to the avails of the suit.
• What’s important here is actual interest, not merely inchoate or expectant interest. o Incidental interest also does not count.
Hence, when the managing director of a hotel files a complaint pertaining to a contract entered into by the corporation, it is the corporation which is the RPI, not the managing director. Her interest is merely incidental. (Republic v Coalbrine International, 2010)
• Law uses “party” here so it applies to defendants, third party-defendants, etc – anyone who is impleaded and who will be benefitted or be injured.
• Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
o Hence, when a labor union fails to include the name of the employee that they represent in the caption of their petition for certiorari, the court rightly dismissed the petition based on the formal defect. (NLMK-OLALIA-KMU v Keihin, 2010)
o When the suit is against a government employee (like the zone administrator of an economic zone), the nature of the suit is one against the State, and the Republic is the RPI. (Republic v Coalbrine)
o When the suit involves private land, the Republic is no longer a RPI. (Republic v Agunoy, where the state made a mistake giving a land patent over private land. They tried to get it back)
o In a derivative suit, the corporation is the RPI and the suing stockholder is only a nominal party. (Cua v Tan, 2009 – more on this case in class suits v derivate suits)
Hence, when two sets of stockholders file a derivate suits based on the same facts, alleging the same causes of action, and praying for the same reliefs, it’s tantamount to allowing the corporation to file the same suit twice. This results to
forum-shopping which is not allowed. (Cua v Tan)
In Cua, the Court noted that the indispensable parties were not only the Board of Directors, but also the majority stockholders who approved and ratified the action that was the subject of the controversy.
o In an action for inspecting corporate books and records, it is the stockholder demanding for the inspection that is the RPI. The right to inspect corporate books is personal. (Cua v Tan)
• Difference between RPI and legal standing/locus standii o The concept of RPI will only apply to private suits.
o Locus standii usually applies to public suits filed by a private party.
It pertains to government actions wherein a person may suffer injury.
You can base your legal standing as a taxpayer, voter, Congressman, citizens suit22 (for environment cases – here, even generations yet unborn can be parties based on a citizens suit. In fact, plaintiffs don’t need any interest in filing a citizens suit. As long as he’s Pinoy, he can file.)
• Important: what is the remedy for impleading the wrong party? (For example, Harry sues Ron, claiming that Ron owns the property, but Ron doesn’t own it and doesn’t have anything to do with Harry in the first place)
o Motion to Dismiss. Ground: Pleading states no cause of action
This ground absorbs the situation wherein the party impleaded is not the RPI. (Atty. Tranquil/Riano)
Difference between “pleading states no cause of action” and “lack of cause of action” will be discussed when we get to Motion to Dismiss
• What happens when the action has commenced, but the party in interest changes?
o The original action continues, and the original plaintiff becomes the representative of the transferee of the interest. (See Section 19)
• What happens when the interest has changed, and then the action commences? o The original plaintiff is no longer the party in interest.
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties.
Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
• The beneficiary should be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest.
o If the beneficiary’s name is not included in the title, the defect can be cured by the simple expedient of requiring the association to disclose the names of the principals and to amend the title and averments of the petition accordingly (MIAA v Rivera, 2005, wherein a homeowners association filed in behalf of the homeowners – compare to the later case of Keihin, where the court averred that it could have dismissed the case because the Union did not disclose the name of the employee it was helping)
• A representative may be:
o A trustee of an express trust, o A guardian,
o An executor or administrator,
o A party authorized by law or these Rules.
• An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may be sued or sue without joining the principal
o EXCEPT when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
22 SEC. 5. Citizen suit.—Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies of said order.
Sec. 4. Spouses as parties.
Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law.
• General rule: Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly as both are co-administrators of the community property.
o Exceptions:
Suit of one against the other Based on a criminal act/delict Judicial separation of property Abandonment
Exclusive property of spouses
Suits involving the practice of one’s profession
Sec. 5. Minor or incompetent persons.
A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued, with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem.
• Can a minor or incompetent be a party?
o Yes, but with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem.
• A person need not be judicially declared to be incompetent. It is enough that he be alleged to be incompetent. (Kawawa naman. Paano kung hindi talaga bobo?)
Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties.
All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest.
• What are the requisites for permissive joinder of parties? o Claim arises from same or series of transactions o Common questions of law or fact in the action o Read with joinder of causes of action
• It’s permissive in the standpoint of the party initiating the cause of action. • Examples
o Mario & Luigi versus Bowser & Princess o Mario, Luigi & Princess versus Bowser o Mario versus Luigi, Princess & Bowser
Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.
Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
• Who is an indispensable party?
o Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had. o Without them, there will be no resolution of the case, no judgment at all. • Examples (see Feria book, p. 233)
o Co-owners in an action for partion of an undivided interest in land. o Vendee in an action for annulment of a contract of sale.
o Those with titled claims over the land in a petition for reconstitution of title.
Sec. 8. Necessary party.
A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.
• Who is a necessary party?
o if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or
o for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.
• Plaintiff may choose to file versus the necessary party not impleaded, but they ought to be joined to avoid multiple litigation.
• Examples (see Feria book, p. 237)
o Co-owners of a promissory note in an action for its collection
o Solidarily liable, either is indispensable, and the other is not even necessary because complete relief may be obtained from either.
o Jointly liable, either is indispensable, and the other is necessary to accord complete relief. Problem
• Action fro recovery of title and possession. X holds title, Y has possession. The action is solely for recovery of title. Can you sue X?
o Yes, he’s the proper party.
o Can you sue Y for recovery of title without suing X? No, Y mere possessor. X is holder of title, he’s the indispensable one.
Indispensable Necessary
Without whom no final determination of the case can be had; inextricably intertwined with the other parties’ that his legal presence is an absolute necessity
Interest is distinct and divisible from the interest of the other parties; will not necessarily be prejudiced by a judgment which does complete justice to the parties in court Should be joined under any and all conditions Should be joined whenever possible; his
presence would merely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to the action, or simply avoid multiple litigation Effect of failure to implead (important!)
• If necessary party
o GR: failure to implead is non-prejudicial
o No waiver of right to implead. There is no waiver UNLESS there is an order to implead from the court, and you still did not implead.
• If indispensable party
o The court should ORDER that the indispensable party be impleaded. (Domingo case) o If despite the order, you still did not comply, the case will be dismissed. On what ground?
Failure to comply with an order of the court.23
o If court did not notice the non-joinder (and thus did not order to implead the indispensable party), and renders a decision… what happens?
The judgment is null and void.24
The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to those present. (NLMK-Olalia v Keihin, 2010)
Sec. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded.
Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary
23 Rule 17, Sec. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff.
If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
24 The ruling in Republic v Sandiganbayan (2003) stating that the judgment is still binding on the parties present during trial (even if some indispensable parties were absent) is wrong. Atty. Tranquil said it’s not binding precedent and is actually a “sensitive” judgment.
party.
• What if a necessary party is not joined, what happens?
o The pleader shall set forth his name and shall state why he is omitted. • What if the court finds the reason for his omission unmeritorious?
o The may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
• When if, after the order, the pleader fails to explain to the non-joinder or fails to comply, without justifiable cause, with the order of the court? (Given that jurisdiction over the person may be obtained)
o Then it will be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.
• What if the joint obligor can’t be impleaded because jurisdiction over the person couldn’t be obtained?
o The judgment rendered against the impleaded joint obligor will not prejudice the rights of the joint obligor not impleaded.
Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff.
If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint.
• What if the consent of a party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained? o He may be made a defendant, and
o The reason therefore shall be stated in the complaint.
Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.
Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately.
• Is misjoinder or non-joinder of parties a ground for dismissal of an action? o No.
o The non-joinder of an indispensable or a necessary party is not ipso facto a ground for the dismissal.
The court should order the joinder of such party and non-compliance with the said order would be a ground for the dismissal of the action. (it’s the non-compliance with the order, not the misjoinder itself)
Remember: The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.
Sec. 12. Class suit.
When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest.
• Requisites of a class suit
o Subject matter is one of common or general interest to many persons,
o The interested persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join them all as parties, and
o The parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all concerned (Banda v Ermita, 2010)
• An action does not become a class suit merely because it is designated as such in the pleadings. It must depend on the facts of the case.
• Common or general interest is essential!
o For example, there was a bus accident. Some passengers died, some got injured, some got out scot-free. Can there be a class suit? No, because the interests and the possible damages that each victim will want may differ. For there to be a class suit, their interests must be the same. Remember common or general interest. (Atty. Tranquil)
o In determining the question of fair and adequate representation of members of a class, determine:
Whether the interest of the named party is coextensive with the interest of the other members of the class
The proportion of those made a party to the total membership of the class
Any other factor bearing on the ability of the named party to speak for the rest of the class
• Just because a person represents a number of people doesn’t mean it’s a class suit. It has to comply with the requisites.
o Courts exercise caution before allowing a class suit, which is the exception to the joinder of indispensable parties. Why? Because if the judgment against the class represented is not favorable, the represented would certainly claim denial of due process. (MIAA v Rivera)
• Differentiate derivative suit from a class suit in the context of corporations
o Derivative suits are those instituted by an individual stockholder on behalf of the corporation in order to protect or vindicate corporate rights. Usually filed when there is an allegation of mismanagement or wrongful acts committed by the directors or trustees. The wrong here is done to the corporation itself.
o Class suits are those instituted when the wrong is done to a group of, let’s say, stockholders. An example would be a violation of the rights of preferred stockholders. The wrong here is done to the a certain group or class.
• Give an example of a class suit that has prospered. o Oposa v Factoran.
• Practical tip from Atty Guevara: If a judge denies the class suit, go for a permissive joinder of parties. The thing here is that those not pleaded will not be affected by the judgment (as compared to having a class suit where all will get affected)
Sec. 13. Alternative defendants.
Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may 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.
• If you’re not sure who to go against, what do you do?
o 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.
o Just be careful, because this will open yourself up to counter-suits.
Sec. 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant.
Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other designation as the case may require; when his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended accord.
Sec. 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant.
When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known. In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed.
• These folk can only be sued under the name which they are generally or commonly known, ie as defendants.
o Service of summons may be effected upon all the defendants by serving upon any one of them; or upon the person in charge of the office or place of business maintained under such name.
• They can’t sue as an entity, they will have to file as individuals. • What should be contained in their answer?
o Their answer must reveal the names and addresses of the persons composing it, so that the judgment rendered against them shall set out their individual or proper names.
Sec. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel.
