Civil Procedure

First Semester, A.Y. 2024-2025

Philippine Christian University

I. Preliminaries
a. Remedial Law distinguished from Substantive Law
b. Prospective Effect of the Rules of Court/Retroactive Application of
Rules of Court
i. In re: to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon Datumanong,
G.R. No. 150274, 04 August 2006
c. Applicability to pending actions; retroactivity
d. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court
i. Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 30
ii. Constitution, Art. Viii, Sec 5 (5)
e. Power of the Supreme Court to suspend the Rules of Court
i. Sarmiento v. Zaratan, G.R. No. 167471, 05 February 2007
ii. Labao v. Flores, G.R. No. 187984, 15 November 2010
iii. Gios-Samar, Inc. v. DOTC, G.R. No. 217158, 12 March 2019
f. Distinctions: Civil Actions, Criminal Actions, and Special Proceedings

II. General Principles

a. Nature and classification of Philippine Courts
b. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
i. Spouses Gonzales v. Marmaine Realty Corp., G.R. No. 214241, 13
January 2016
c. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
i. Fabia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132684, 11 September 2002
ii. Lihaylihay v. The Treasurer of the Republic of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 192223, 23 July 2018
d. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability
i. Tan v. Cinco, G.R. No. 213054, 15 June 2016

III. Jurisdiction
a. Statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action
i. Cang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105308, 25 September 1998
b. Classification of jurisdiction
i. Original vs. Appellate
ii. General vs. Special
iii. Exclusive vs. Concurrent
c. Doctrines of hierarchy of courts and continuity of jurisdiction
i. Gios-Samar, Inc. v. DOTC (supra)
d. Jurisdiction of various Philippine courts
i. Katarungang Pambarangay (Sec. 399-422, Local Government Code)
• Condition precendent
¨ Art. 151, Family Code
• Art. 2041 of the Civil Code
• Lansangan v. Caisip, G.R. No. 212987, 6 August 2018
• Abagatnan v. Spouses Clarito, G.R. No. 211966, 7 August 2017
• Chavez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159411, 18 March 2005
 ii. Jurisdiction over small claims, cases covered by the Rules on
Summary Procedure
• Summary Procedure v. Summary Proceeding
¨ Arts. 100, 252, 253 of the Family Code
iii. Section 5 (4) Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
iv. B.P. 129 – Judicial Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by
R.A. No. 115761
• Spouses Trayvilla v. Sejas, G.R. No. 204970, 1 February 2016
• Heirs of Reterta v. Spouses Lopez, G.R. No. 159941, 17 August
2011
v. R.A. No. 7691
• Suapo, et al. v. Spouses De Jesus, G.R. No. 198356, 20 April
2015
vi. P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249; R.A. No. 10660
vii. R.A. No. 8369
viii. R.A. No 8799
e. Aspects of Jurisdiction
i. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
• Spouses Erorita v. Spouses Dumlao, G.R. No. 195477, 25
January 2016
• Heirs of Julao v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 176020, 29 September
2014
ii. Jurisdiction over the Parties
• David v. Agtibay, G.R. No. 199113, 18 March 2015
• Palmiano-Salvador v. Angeles, G.R. No. 171219, 3 September
2012
iii. Jurisdiction over the Issues
• Bernabe v. Vergara, G.R. No. L-48652, 16 September 1942
iv. Jurisdiction over the Res
• De Joya v. Marquez, G.R. No. 162416, 31 January 2006
• Gomez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127692, 10 March 2004
v. Estoppel Jurisdiction
• Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, 15 April 1968
• Figueroa v. People, G.R. No. 147406, 4 July 2008

IV. Actions
a. Ordinary Civil Actions, Special Civil Actions, Criminal Actions, Special
Proceedings
b. Personal actions and Real actions
i. Spouses Trayvilla v. Sejas (supra)
ii. Heirs of Reterta v. Spouses Lopez (supra)
c. Actions in rem, in personam, and quasi in rem

V. Rule 2 – Cause of Action

a. Meaning of cause of action
i. Heirs of Tomas Dolleton v. Fil-Estate Management, Inc., G.R. No.
170750, 7 April 2009
ii. Right of action
 • Multi-Realty Development Corp. v. Condominium Corp., G.R.
No. 146726, 16 June 2006
b. Test of sufficiency of cause of action
i. Misamis Occidental II Cooperative, Inc. v. David, G.R. No. 129928
c. Splitting of a single cause of action and its effects
i. Marilag v. Martinez, G.R. No. 201892, 22 July 2015
ii. Yap v. First E-Bank Corporation, G.R. No. 169889, 29 September
2009
iii. Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corp., G.R. No. 167246, 20
July 2011
iv. Chu, et al. v. Cunanan, G.R. No. 156185, 12 September 2011
v. Riviera Golf Club Inc. v. CCA Holdings B.V., G.R. No. 173783, 17
June 2015
d. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action
i. Perez v. Hernano, G.R. No. 147417, 8 July 2005
ii. Danilo v. Pedro, G.R. No. 155736, 31 March 2005
iii. Totality Rule (BP 129, Sec. 33)
iv. Flores v. Mallare-Phillips, G.R. No. L-66620, 24 September 1986

VI. Rule 3 – Parties to Civil Actions

a. Natural and Juridical Persons, Entities Authorized by law
i. Verzosa v. Fernandez, 49 Phil. 627 (1926)
b. Real parties in interest
i. Evangelista v. Santiago, G.R. No. 157447, 29 April 2005
c. Representatives as parties
i. V-Gent, Inc. v. Morning Star Travel & Tours, Inc., G.R. No. 186305,
22 July 2015
ii. Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993
iii. Resident Marine Mammals of Tanon Strait v. Reyes, G.R. No.
180771, 21 April 2015
d. Indispensable Parties
i. In re: Heirship of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez, G.R. No.
182645, 15 December 2010 (Resolution)
ii. Cerezo v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 141538, 23 March 2004
iii. Foster-Gallego v. Spouses Galang, G.R. No. 130228, 27 July 2004
e. Necessary Parties
i. Caravan Travel & Tours International, Inc. v. Abejar, G.R. No.
170631, 10 February 2016
f. Indigent Parties
i. Spouses Algura v. City of Naga, G.R. No. 150135, 30 October 2006
g. Alternative Defendants
h. Compulsory and Permissive Joinder of Parties
i. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties
i. Divinagracia v. Parilla, G.R. No. 196750, 11 March 2015
j. Class Suit
k. Suits against entities without juridical personality
l. Effect of death of party litigant
i. Spouses Dela Cruz v. Joaquin, G.R. No. 162788, 28 July 2005
ii. Gaffney v. Butler, G.R. No. 219408, 08 November 2017
 iii. San Juan v. Cruz, G.R. No. 167321, 31 July 2006
m. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer
n. Incompetency or incapacity
o. Transfer of Interest
p. Notice to Solicitor General

VII. Rule 4 – Venue

a. Venue vs. Jurisdiction
i. Nocum v. Tan, G.R. No. 145022, 23 September 2005
b. Venue in civil cases vs. criminal cases
i. Nocum v. Tan (supra)
c. Venue of real actions
d. Venue of personal actions
e. Venue of actions against non-residents
f. When the rules on venue do not apply
i. Ley Construction & Development Corp. v. Sedan, G.R. No. 222711,
23 August 2017
ii. Unimasters Conglomeration, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 119657, 07
February 1997
g. Effects of stipulation on venue
h. Rule 8, Sec. 12

VIII. Rules 6 to 11 (as amended by the 2019 Amendments to the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure) – Pleadings
a. Pleading vs. Motion (Rule 6, Sec. 1; Rule 15, Sec. 1)

Pleading
• Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims
and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for
appropriate judgment. (Sec. 1, Rule 6)

Motion
• A motion is an application for relief other than by a pleading.
(Sec. 1, Rule 15)

b. Kinds of Complaint and when they should be filed

• The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s or claiming

party’s cause or causes of action. (Sec. 3, Rule 6)
• The filing of the original complaint in court signifies the
commencement of the civil action.
• It is through the filing of the complaint that the court acquires
jurisdiction over the plaintiff.
• Criminal complaint – commences a criminal action
• Civil complaint – commences a civil action

c. Pleadings allowed in small claims cases and cases covered by the

Rules on Summary Procedure
SMALL CLAIMS CASES (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)
- Sec. 6:
Commenced by filing an accomplished and verified Statement of
Claim (Form 1-SCC)
- Secs. 12 and 13
Instead of an answer, the defendant shall file a duly accomplished
and verified Response (Form 3-SCC). This would include a
compulsory counterclaim
- Sec. 15
However, the defendant may elect to file a permissive counterclaim
IF it does not arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject of the plaintiff’s claim

PLEADINGS, MOTIONS, or PETITIONS THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED IN

SMALL CLAIMS (Sec. 16):
- Motion to dismiss the settlement of claims
- Motion for a bill of particulars
- Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for
reopening of trial
- Petition for relied from judgment
- Motion for extension of time
- Memoranda
- Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any
interlocutory order
- Dilatory motions for postponement
- Reply and rejoinder
- Third-party complaints
- Interventions

RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE

- Complaint
- Compulsory Counterclaim pleaded in the answer
- Cross-claim pleaded in the answer
- Answer
- Reply – only allowed when an actionable document is attached to
the answer, and must be filed within 10 calendar days

• All new matters shall be deemed controverted

d. Parts and contents of a pleading (Rule 7, Sec. 1-5, Rule 6, Sec. 3-5)
i. Efficient Use of Paper Rule, A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC
ii. Ao-As v. CA, G.R. No. 128464, 20 June 2006
iii. Victory Liner, Inc. v. Malinias, G.R. No. 151170, 29 May 2007
iv. Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC
v. Cosco Philippines Shipping Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Co., G.R. No.
179488, 23 April 2012

e. Periods to file pleadings

Answer – 30 calendar days from the service of summons, one extension
of 30 days is allowed
- If there is an amended complaint:
o If filed as a matter of right, defendant has 30 calendar days
o If not a matter of right, defendant has 15 days
- If the defendant is a private foreign juridical entity, 60 calendar
days, whether the summons is served on the designated
government official, or through extraterritorial service
- If there a supplemental complaint, the defendant has 20 calendar
days

f. Allegations in a pleading
i. Manner of making allegations

JUDGMENT OR DECISION OF A DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN COURT,

JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL, BOARD, or OFFICER
(Sec. 6, Rule 8)
- Sufficient to aver the judgment or decision
- No need to allege matters showing the jurisdiction of the court,
tribunal, board or officer

OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OR ACT (Sec. 9, Rule 8)

- Sufficient to aver that the document or act was issued in
compliance with law
- Public documents are admissible in evidence without further proof
of their due execution and genuineness, and has the presumption
of regularity

FRAUD, MISTAKE OR CONDITION OF THE MIND (Sec. 5, Rule 8)

- The circumstances constituting such fraud or mistake must be
stated with particularity
- Malice, intent, knowledge, or other conditions of the mind of the
person may be averred generally

ALTERNATIVE CAUSES OF ACTIONS OR DEFENSES (Sec. 2, Rule 8)

- 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
- La Mallorca v. Court of Appeals, 17 SCRA 739, 744-745
o Plaintiffs were allowed to sue based on a quasi-delict theory
and in the alternative, on a breach of contract
- This applies to suing two or more defendants in the alternative
(Sec. 13, Rule 3)
- This is allowed only as long as the allegations pleaded in one cause
of action are consistent with the other
- The rule only requires that one of the causes of action, if made
independently, would be sufficient to support a cause of action
- Also applies to alternative defenses
ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS (Sec. 7, Rule 8)
- An instrument or document on which an action or defense is
founded
- The pleader must:
o Set forth the substance of the instrument or document, and
attach the original or copy of the document as an exhibit
o Set forth said copy of the instrument or document

ii. Complaint
• Reyes v. RTC of Makati, G.R. No. 165744, 11 August 2008
• Lazaro v. Brewster International, Inc., G.R. No. 182779, 23
August 2010
iii. Pleading an actionable document

How to contest an actionable document:

- Specific denial of the genuineness and due execution of the
document UNDER OATH, except:
o When the adverse party is not a party to the document
o When compliant with an order for an inspection of the
original instrument is refused
- Set forth the claimed facts
- When genuineness and due execution under admitted, the
following defenses are cut off:
o Forgery
o Lack of authority to execute the document
o The party charged signed the document in some other
capacity than that alleged in the pleading
o Delivery
o Document was not in words and figures
- But the following defenses are still available:
o Payment or non-payment
o Want of consideration
o Illegality of consideration
o Usury
o Fraud

iv. Answer

Negative defenses
- Specifically denies the material averments in the pleading of the
opposing party (Sec. 5(a), Rule 6)
Affirmative defenses
- Purpose is to prevent or bar recovery by the claiming party, even if
it hypothetically admits the material allegations in the pleading of
the claimant
- Fraud, prescription, release, payment, illegality, estoppel, former
recovery, etc.
- Must be raised in the answer otherwise deemed waived (Sec. 5(b),
Rule 6)
 o Lack of jurisdiction
o Improper venue
o Lack of capacity to sue of the plaintiff
o Pleading states no cause of action
o A condition precedent has not been complied with

• Specific denials

- Creates the issues in civil litigations

- Types:
o Absolute denial where the defendant specifies each material
allegation of fact, the truth of which he does not admit and
sets forth the substance of the matters relied on to support
the denial (Sec. 10, Rule 8)
o Partial denial where the defendant does not make a total
denial, but only part of the averment
o Denial by disavowal of knowledge

¨ Memita v. Masongsong, G.R. No. 150912, 28 May 2007

• Effect of failure to make specific denials

- Allegations or material averments not specifically denied shall be

deemed admitted, except averments as to unliquidated damages

• Negative pregnant

- A negative also implying an affirmative, and which, though stated

in the negative form, really admits the allegations

¨ Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Sweet

Lines, G.R. No. 87434, 8 May 1992
¨ Galofa v. Nee Bon Sing, G.R. No. L-22018, 17 January 1968

• Affirmative defenses

- Purpose is to prevent or bar recovery by the claiming party, even if

it hypothetically admits the material allegations in the pleading of
the claimant
- Fraud, prescription, release, payment, illegality, estoppel, former
recovery, etc.
- Must be raised in the answer otherwise deemed waived (Sec. 5(b),
Rule 6)
o Lack of jurisdiction
o Improper venue
o Lack of capacity to sue of the plaintiff
o Pleading states no cause of action
o A condition precedent has not been complied with
 • When a specific denial requires an oath

- Denial of an actionable document

¨ Go Tong Electrical Supply Co., Inc. v. BPI Family Savings

Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 187487, 29 June 2015
¨ Filipinas Textile Mills v. CA, G.R. No. 119800, 12 November
2003

g. Counterclaims

- Any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing

party (Sec. 6, Rule 6) It partakes of a complaint by the defendant
against the plaintiff.
- When filed, there are two separate, distinct, and simultaneous
actions between the same parties

i. Bangis v. Heirs of Adolfo, G.R. No. 190875, 13 June 2012

ii. Compulsory

- Arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction that

is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim
- Falls within the jurisdiction of the court
- Does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties

• Metropolitan Bank v. CPR Promotions, G.R. No. 200567, 22

June 2015
• Financial Building Corp. v. Forbes Park Association, G.R. No.
133119, 17 August 2000
• Pinga v. Santiago, G.R. No. 170354, 30 June 2006
• Maceda v. CA, G.R. No. 83545, 11 August 1989
• Carpio v. Rural bank of Sto. Tomas (Batangas) Inc., G.R. No.
153171, 4 May 2006
• North Greenhills Association, Inc. v. Morales, G.R. No. 222821,
9 August 2017

iii. Permissive

- Does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected to the subject

matter of the plaintiff’s claims
- It may be filed independent of the case at bar

• Alba v. Malapajo, G.R. No. 198752, 13 January 2016

• Sy-Vargas v. Estate of Ogsos, G.R. No. 221062, 5 October 2016
h. Effect of failure to plead
i. Failure to plead defenses and objections
ii. Failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim
 - A compulsory counterclaim that is not raised in the same action is
barred, unless otherwise allowed (Sec. 7, Rule 6), in which case,
leave of court must be requested (Sec. 10, Rule 11)
- A cross-claim not set up in the answer shall be barred (Sec. 2, Rule
9)

i. Reply

- A pleading, the function of which is to deny, or allege facts in

denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relating to, an
actionable document attached to the answer (sec. 10, Rule 6)
- Not mandatory
- But must be filed within 15 calendar days

i. Casent Realty Development Corp. v. Philbanking Corporation, G.R.

No. 150731, 14 September 2007

j. Rejoinder

k. Default

i. When a declaration of default is proper

- A procedural concept that occurs when the defending party fails to

file his answer within the reglementary period (Sec. 3, Rule 9)
- Does not refer to failure to attend the pre-trial or the trial, although
the consequence is similar

• Momarco Import Co., Inc. v. Villamena, G.R. No. 192477, 27

July 2016

ii. Effect of an order of default

- The party declared in default loses his stading in court – Preventrs

him from taking part in the trial (Sec 3(a), Rule 9)
- He forfeits his right as party-litigant, has no right to present
evidence, or to cross-examine witnesses
- He will still receive notices of subsequent proceedings, but shall
not take part in the trial
- It does not mean an admission of the truth or validity of the
plaintiff’s claims

• Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, G.R. No. 151098, 21 March 2006

iii. Relief from an order of default

- After notice of order and before judgment

 o File a motion under oath to set aside the order of default and
properly show that the failure to answer was due to fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence and that he has a
meritorious defense contained in an affidavit of merit (Sec.
3(b), Rule 9

• Ramnani v. CA, G.R. No. 101789, 28 April 1993

iv. Default judgment and Relief from judgment by default

- After judgment and before judgment becomes final and executory

o File a motion for new trial under Rule 37
o Appeal the judgment
- After the judgment as become final and executory
o Petition for relief under Rule 38

• Rule 37, Rules 40-41, Rule 38

• Rule 38, Sec. 3(c)
• Martinez v. Republic, G.R. No. 160895, 30 October 2006
• Jao & Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 93233 (Resolution), 19 December
1995
• Indiana Aerospace University v. CHED, G.R. No. 139371, 4 April
2001

v. Effect of partial default

- Happens in a case where there are several defendants

- The court shall try the case against all the defendants based on the
answers filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented
where the claim states a common cause of action against them
(Sec. 3(c) Rule 9)

vi. Extent of relief

- Sec 3(d), Rule 9 – relief cannot exceed the amount or be different in

kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages

vii. Actions where default is not allowed

- Annulment of marriage
- Declaration of nullity of marriage
- Legal separation

viii. Extension of time to file an Answer

- Non-extendible period of 30 calendar days

ix. Filing and service of pleadings – Rules 11 and 13, as amended

• Payment of docket fees
 • Periods of filing of pleadings
• Manner of filing

- Personal filing
- Registered Mail
- Accredited courier
- Electronic means

• Modes of service

- Personal
- Registered mail
- Accredited courier
- Electronic mail
- Facsimile transmission
- Other electronic means
- * substituted service – only when residence or office address is
unknown, deliver a copy to the clerk of court

• Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions; service of

court-issued orders and other documents

- Personal
- Registered mail

• Priority of filing and service – conventional service or filing of

orders, pleadings, and other documents

- Initiatory pleadings and initial responsive pleadings

- Subpoena, protection orders, and writs
- Appendices and exhibits
- Sealed and confidential documents

• When service is deemed complete

- Only upon actual delivery (Sec. 15, Rule 13)

• Proof of filing and service

• SC Admin Order No. 251-20 (11 September 2020)
•
l. Notice of Lis Pendens
i. Spouses Gonzales v. Marmaine Realty Corp., G.R. No. 214241, 13
January 2016
m. Amendments
i. Barfel Devt. Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 98177, 8 June 1993
ii. Godinez v. CA, G.R. No. 154330, 15 February 2007
n. Supplemental Pleadings
i. Shoemart, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 86956, 1 October 1990
ii. Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435, 13 August 2012
IX. Summons – Rule 14, as amended
a. Nature and purpose of summons

- Summons is the writ by which the defendant is notified of the

action brought against him or her.
- Purpose:
o To acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
o To notify the defendant that an action as been commenced
so that he may be given an opportunity to be heard on the
claim against him
o In actions in rem and quasi in rem, to satisfy due process
requirements

i. De Pedro v. Romasan Devt. Corp., G.R. No. 194751, 26 Nov. 2014

b. Duty to issue, Validity of Summons, Form

- Regardless of the type of action, whether in personam, in rem, or

quasi in rem, proper service of summons is imerative
- Without service of summons, or when summons are improperly
made, both the trial and the judgment, being in violation of due
process, are null and void.
- Should include a direction that the defendant should answer the
complaint within the period fixed by the Rules, and that, unless he
so answers, plaintiff will take judgment by default and may be
granted the relief applied for.
- Knowledge by the defendant of an action filed against him does not
dispense with the need for summons.
- The summons shall contain:
o Name of the court and the names of the parties to the action
o When authorized by the court upon ex parte motion, an
authorization for the plaintiff to serve the summons to the
defendant
o A direction that the defendant answer within the time under
the Rules
o A notice that, unless the defendant so answers, the plaintiff
will take judgment by default and may be granted the relief
prayed for (Sec. 2, Rule 14)

c. Voluntary Appearance

- Exception to the rule on summons

- Summons is a coercive process
- The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be
equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to
dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary
appearance. (Sec. 23, Rule 14)
 i. Uy v. Del Castillo, G.R. No. 223610, 24 July 2017
ii. Tujan-Militante v. Nustad, G.R. No. 209518, 19 June2017

d. Who may serve summons

- Unless the complaint is on its face dismissible under Sec. 1, Rule

9, the court shall, within five (5) calendar days from receipt of the
initiatory pleading and proof of payment of the requisite legal fees,
direct the clerk of court to issue the corresponding summons to the
defendant (Sec. 2, Rule 14)
- The summons may be served by the sheriff, his or her deputy, or
other proper court officer, and in case of failure, the court may
authorize the plaintiff to serve the summons, together with the
sheriff. (Sec. 3, Rule 14)
- The plaintiff shall be authorized to cause the service of summons if
the summons is to be served outside the judicial region of the court
where the case is pending

e. On whom summons will be served

- A summons is a writ that is directed to the defendant, not the

plaintiff (Sec. 2, Rule 14)

i. Heirs of Manguiat v. CA, G.R. Nos. 150768 and 160176, 20 August

2008
ii. CCC Insurance Corp. v. Kawasaki Steel Corp., G.R. No. 156162, 22
June 2015

f. Personal service, Substituted service and Constructive service

- Substituted service is allowed only when the summons cannot be

promptly served on the defendant in person and after stringent
formal and substantive requirements have been complied with
- Substituted service may be availed of if, for justifiable causes, the
defendant cannot be served personally after at least three (3)
attempts on two (2) different dates (Sec. 6, Rule 14)
- Made by:
o Leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence
to a person at least 18 years of age
o By leaving copies at the defendant’s office or place of
business with some competent person in charge thereof
o By leaving copies with any of the officers of the homeowners’
association or condominium corporation, or its chief security
officer
o By sending it through an email, with permission from the
court
 - Constructive service may be effected if the identity of the defendant
is unknown or his whereabouts are unknown through summons
by publication
o Also applicable if the defendant is temporarily not in the
Philippines through publication in a newspaper of general
circulation

g. Extraterritorial service, when allowed

- Requisites:
o The defendant is a nonresident
o He is not found in the Philippines
o The action is in rem or quasi in rem
- Actions covered:
o Actions that affect the personal status of the plaintiff
o Actions which involve property within the Philippines in
which the defendant claims a lien or interest
o Actions in which the relief demanded consists wholly or in
part, in excluding the defendant from an interest in property
located in the Philippines
o When the defendant’s property has been attached in the
Philippines

i. Arrieta v. Arrieta, G.R. No. 234808, 19 November 2018

ii. Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. V. Dakila Trading Corp. G.R. No.
172242, 14 August 2007

h. Service upon prisoners and minors; upon spouses

UPON PRISONERS – by the officer having management of the jail or

institution, the officer being considered as a deputized sheriff

UPON MINORS OR INCOMPETENTS:

- Upon him or her personally AND
- On his legal guardian, or upon the guardian ad litem, which shall
be applied for by the plaintiff
UPON SPOUSES
- If sued jointly, individual service

i. Service upon domestic or foreign private juridical entities

DOMESTIC PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITY

- Upon the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate
secretary, treasurer, in-house counsel
- If service cannot be made upon them, upon the person who
customarily receives correspondence
- If under receivership or liquidation, upon the receiver or liquidator

FOREIGN PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITY

 - Resident agent
- Designated government official
- Any of the opfficers or agents of said foreign entity

j. Proof of service
- Within 30 calendar days, the sheriff or process officer shall
complete the service
- Within 5 days from service, the server shall file with the court and
serve a copy of the return to the plaintiff’s counsel

X. Motions – Rule 15, as amended

a. Motions in general
b. Form and Contents
c. Omnibus Motion Rule; Exceptions
d. Prohibited Motions; Exceptions
e. Litigious and non-litigious motions
f. Motion day
g. Motion for Bill of Particulars (Rule 12)

XI. Dismissal of Actions – Rule 17

a. Dismissal with prejudice
b. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff
c. Dismissal upon motion by plaintiff; effect on existing counterclaim
d. Dismissal due to the fault of the plaintiff
e. Dismissal of counterclaim; cross-claim or third-party complaint
• Limaco v. Shonan Gakuen Children’s House Phil. Inc., G.R. No. 158245,
30 June 2005
• Heirs of Tungpalan v. CA, G.R. No. 136207, 21 June 2005
• Blay v. Baña, G.R. No. 232189, 7 March 2018
• Quintos v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 210252, 16 June 2014
XII. Pre-Trial – Rule 18, as amended
a. Concept, Nature, and Purpose of pre-trial
b. Notice of pre-trial
c. Appearance of parties; effect of failure to appear
d. Pre-trial brief; effect of failure to appear and to file pre-trial brief
i. Paredes v. Verano, G.R. No. 164375, 12 October 2006
ii. Spouses Khonghun v. UCPB, G.R. No. 154334, 31 July 2006
iii. Domingo v. Spouses Singson, G.R. Nos. 203287 & 207936, 5 April
2017
e. Pre-trial Order
f. Pre-trial in civil cases and pre-trial in criminal cases
g. Court-Annexed Mediation
h. Judicial Dispute Resolution
i. A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC
j. Judgment after pre-trial

XIII. Intervention – Rule 19

a. Office of the Ombudsman v. Bongais, G.R. No. 226405, 23 July 2018
 b. Pulgar v. RTC Br. 64 of Mauban, Quezon, G.R. No. 157583, 10
September 2014

XIV. Calendar of Cases – Rule 20

XV. Subpoena
a. Subpoena duces tecum
b. Subpoena ad testificandum
c. Service of subpoena
d. Compelling attendance of witnesses; contempt
e. Quashing of subpoena

XVI. Computation of Time – Rule 22

XVII. Modes of Discovery – Rules 23 to 29

a. Depositions pending action; depositions before action or pending
appeal
i. Santamaria v. Cleary, G.R. Nos. 197122 & 197161, 15 June 2016
ii. Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375, 13 December 2011
iii. People v. Sergio, G.R. No. 240053, 9 October 2019
b. Written interrogatories to adverse parties
i. Phil. Health Insurance Corp. v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, G.R.
No. 193158, 11 November 2015
ii. Sibayan v. Alda, G.R. No. 233395, 17 January 2018
c. Request for admission
i. Allied Agri-Busines Devt. Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 118438, 4
December 1998
ii. Duque v. Spouses Yu, G.R. No. 226130, 19 February 2018
iii. Metro Manila Shopping Mecca Corp. v. Toledo, G.R. No. 190818, 5
June 2013
iv. Estate of Marcos v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 213027 & 213253
(Resolution), 18 January 2017
v. Lañada v. CA, G.R. Nos. 102390 & 102404, 1 February 2002
vi. Manzano v. Despabiladeras, G.R. No. 148786, 16 December 2004
d. Production or inspection of documents or things
i. Insigne v. Abra Valley Colleges, Inc., G.R. No. 204089, 29 July
2015
ii. Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. 172835, 17
December 2007
e. Physical and mental examination of persons
f. Consequences of refusal to comply with modes of discovery
i. Spouses Afulugencia v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No.
185145, 5 February 2014

XVIII. Trial – Rule 30

a. Schedule of trial
b. Adjournments and postponements
c. Requisites of motion to postpone trial
d. Agreed statement of facts
 e. Order of trial; reversal of order
i. Judicial Affidavit Rule
f. Oral offer of documentary exhibits
g. Suspension of Actions
i. Art. 2030 and 2035, Civil Code
h. Consolidation or severance of hearing or trial – Rule 31
i. PNB v. Gotesco, G.R. No. 183211, 6 June 2009
i. Delegation of reception of evidence
j. Trial by commissioners – Rule 32
k. A.M. No. 20-12-10-SC

XIX. Demurrer to Evidence – Rule 33

a. Ground
b. Effect of denial
c. Effect of grant
d. Waiver of right to present evidence
e. Demurrer to evidence in a civil case vs. criminal case
• Republic v. De Borja, G.R. No. 187448, 9 January 2017
• Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Spouses Del Rosario, G.R. No. 138739, 6
July 2000
• GMA Network, Inc. v. Central CATV, Inc., G.R. No. 176694, 18 July 2014

XX. Judgment and Final Order – Rule 36

• BA Finance Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 107345, 27 January 1994
• Silverio v. CA, G.R. No. 178933, 16 September 2009
• Garrido v. Tortogo, G.R. No. 156358, 17 August 2011
a. Default Judgment – Rule 9
b. Judgment after pre-trial, Judgment after ex parte presentation of
evidence – Rule 18
c. Judgment without trial
d. Judgment on Compromise
i. Gadrinab v. Salamanca, G.R. No. 194560, 11 June 2014
e. Judgment on the pleadings – Rule 34
i. Sunbanun v. Go, G.R. No. 163280, 2 February 2010
ii. Diman v. Alumbres, G.R. No. 131466, 27 November 1998
iii. Iloilo Jar Corp. v. Comglasco Corp., G.R. No. 219509, 18 January
2017
iv. Comglasco Corp. v. Santos Car Check Center Corp., G.R. No.
202989, 25 March 215
f. Summary judgments – Rule 35
i. Asian Construction v. PCIB, G.R. No. 153827, 25 April 2006
ii. Republic v. Sandiganbayan (supra at XVII)
iii. Province of Pangasinan v. CA, G.R. No. 104266, 31 March 1993
g. Contents of a judgment
h. Rendition of judgments and final orders
i. Amendment of Judgment v. Supplemental Judgment
i. Esquivel v. Alegre, G.R. No. 79425, 17 April 1989
 ii. Flight Attendants and Stewards Assoc. of the Philippines v. PAL,
G.R. Nos. 178083 & A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC (Resolution), 13 March
2018
j. Judgment nunc pro tunc
i. Cardoza v. Singson, G.R. No. 59284, 12 January 1990
ii. Nuñal v. CA, G.R. No. 94005, 6 April 1993
k. Entry of judgment and final order
l. Law of the case
m. Bar by former judgment and conclusiveness of judgment
i. Del Rosario v. Far East Bank, G.R. No. 150134, 31 October 2007
ii. Islamic Directorate of the Philippines v. CA, G.R. No. 117897, 14
May 1997
iii. Allied Banking Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 108089, 10 January 1994
iv. Sps. Noceda v. Arbizo-Directo, G.R. No. 178495, 26 July 2010
n. Immutability of final judgment
i. Griffith v. Estur, G.R. No. 161777, 7 May 2008

XXI. Post-judgment remedies

a. Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration
i. Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 137122, 15
November 2000
ii. Dinglasan, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 145420, 19 September 2006
iii. Flight Attendants and Stewards Assoc. of the Philippines v. PAL
(supra)
b. Appeal – Appeals in general
i. Judgment and final orders subject to appeal
ii. Matters not appealable
iii. Remedies against judgment and orders which are not appealable
iv. Modes of appeal
v. Issues to be raised on appeal
• Custodio v. CA, G.R. No. 116100, 9 February 1996
• Citytrust Banking Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 92591, 30 April 1991
vi. Period of appeal
• Heirs of Albano v. Spouses Ravanes, G.R. No. 183645, 20 July
2017
• Neypes v. CA, G.R. No. 141524, 14 September 2005
• Sumiran v. Sps. Damasco, G.R. No. 162518, 19 August 2009
• Sumaway v. Urban Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 142534, 27 June 2006
• San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group v. Bayang,
G.R. No. 194702, 20 April 2015
vii. Perfection of Appeal
• Julian v. DBP, G.R. No. 174193, 7 December 2011
• Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. CA, G.R. No.
165155, 12 April 2010
viii. Residual jurisdiction
• Fernandez v. CA, G.R. No. 131094, 16 May 2005
ix. Appeal from judgment or final orders of the MTC, MeTC, MTC in
cities, MCTC
x. Appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC
 • Ordinary Appeal (Rules 40-41)
¨ Encarnacion v. Amigo, G.R. No. 169793, 15 September 2006
¨ Canlas v. Tubil, G.R. No. 184285, 25 September 2009
• Petition for review (Rule 42)
¨ Ross Rica Sales v. Ong, G.R No. 132197, 16 August 2005
¨ LBP v. CA, G.R. No. 190660, 11 August 2011
¨ Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. v. CA,
G.R. No. 115104, 12 October 1998
¨ Anderson v. Ho, G.R. No. 172590, 7 January 2013
¨ Heirs of Garcia I v. Municipality of Iba, Zambales, G.R. No.
162217, 22 July 2015
¨ Intramuros Administration v. Offshore Construction Devt.
Co., G.R. No. 196795, 7 March 2018
xi. Appeal to the Court of Appeals
xii.Appeal from judgments or final orders of the Court of Appeals
xiii. Petition for Review – Rule 45
xiv. Rule 45 vs. Rule 65; Question of Law vs. Question of Fact
• Republic v. Mercadera, G.R. No. 186027, 8 December 2010
• Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Simon Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No.
177116, 27 February 2013
• Maza v. Turla, G.R. No. 187094, 15 February 2017
• Philippine Bank of Communications v. CA, G.R. No. 218901
• Mackay v. Angeles, G.R. No. 144230 (Resolution), 30 September
2003
xv. Appeal from judgments or final orders of the Sandiganbayan
xvi. Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CTA
xvii. Review from judgments or final orders of the COA
xviii. Review from judgments or final orders of the COMELEC
xix. Review from judgments or final orders of the CSC
xx. Review from judgments or final orders of the Ombudsman
xxi. Review from judgments or final orders of the NLRC
xxii. Review from judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies
• Petition for Review – Rule 43
¨ Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, 16 September 1998
¨ Lanting v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 141426, 6 May 2005
¨ St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866
¨ Alcaraz v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 164715, 20 September 2006
c. Relief from judgments, orders and other proceedings
i. Purcon v. MRM Philippines, G.R. No. 182718, 26 September 2008
ii. Valencia v. CA, G.R. No. 119118, 19 February 2001
iii. Gomez v. Montalban, G.R. No. 174414, 14 March 2008
iv. Victory Liner v. Malinias, G.R. No. 151170, 29 May 2007
v. Madarang v. Spouses Morales, G.R. No. 199283, 9 June 2014
d. Annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions
i. Republic v. De Castro, G.R. No. 189724, 7 February 2011
ii. Victory Liner v. Malinias (supra)
iii. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines v. CA, G.R. No. 80892,
29 September 1989
 e. Collateral attack on judgments

XXII. Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Remedies – Rule 39

a. Difference between finality of judgment for purposes of appeal; for
purposes of execution
b. When execution shall issue
c. How judgment is executed
i. Villeza v. German Management and Services, Inc., G.R. No.
182937, 9 August 2010
ii. Gagoomal v. Sps. Villacorta, G.R. No. 192813, 18 Jan 2012
iii. Testate Estate of Maria Manuel Vda. De Biascan v. Biascan, G.R.
No. 138731, 11 December 2000
iv. Office of the Court Administrator v. Corpuz, A.M. No. P-00-1418,
24 September 2003
v. Florendo v. Paramount Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 167976, 20
January 2020
vi. Balajonda v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 166032, 28 February 2005
vii. Saligumba v. Palanog, G.R. No. 143365, 4 December 2008
viii. Infante v. Aran Builders, G.R. No. 156596, 24 August 2007
d. Immediate execution
i. Centennial Guarantee Assurance Corp. v. Universal Motors Corp.,
G.R. No. 189358, 8 October 2014
e. Properties exempt from execution
f. Proceedings where property is claimed by third persons (third party
claims and replevin)
g. Rules on redemption
h. Examination of judgment obligor when judgment is unsatisfied
i. Effect of judgment or final orders
i. Del Rosario v. Far East Bank, G.R. No. 150134, 31 October 2007
ii. Islamic Directorate of the Philippines v. CA, G.R. No. 117897, 14
May 1997
iii. Allied Banking Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 108089, 10 January 1994
iv. Sps. Noceda v. Arbizo-Directo, G.R. No. 178495, 26 July 2010
j. Enforcement and effect of foreign judgments or final orders

XXIII. Provisional Remedies

a. Nature and Purpose
b. Jurisdiction over provisional remedies

XXIV. Preliminary attachment

a. Grounds for issuance of writ of attachment
b. Requisites
c. Issuance and contents of order of attachment; affidavit and bond
d. Rule on prior or contemporaneous service of summons
e. Manner of attaching real and personal property; third person claims
the property to be attached
f. Discharge of attachment and the counter-bond
g. Satisfaction of judgment out of property attached
• Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 93262, 29 Nov 1991
• Torres v. Satsatin, G.R. No. 166759, 25 Nov 2009
• Valmonte v. CA, G.R. No. 108538, 22 January 1996
• Traders Royal Bank v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 66321, 31
October 1984
• Pacis v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-29026 (Resolution), 22 August 1969

XXV. Preliminary Injunction

a. Definition and differences: preliminary injunction, TRO, and status
quo ante order
b. Requisites
c. Kinds of injunctions and TRO
d. When writ may be issued
e. Grounds for issuance
f. Grounds for objection to, or dissolution of injunction of restraining
order
g. Duration of TRO
h. Rule on prior or contemporaneous service of summons in relation to
attachment
i. Laws prohibiting injunction – PD 605, 1818, 385
• Hernandez v. NPC, G.R. No. 145328, 23 March 2006
• Australian Professional Realty v. Municipality of Padre Garcia, Batangas,
G.R. No. 183367, 14 March 2012
• City of Iloilo v. Honrado, G.R. No. 160399, 9 December 2015
• Dungog v. CA, G.R. No. 139767, 5 August 2003
• Antig v. Antipuesto, G.R. No. 192396 (Resolution) 17 January 2018
• Sps. Laus v. Optimum Security Services, Inc., G.R. No. 208343, 3
February 2016
• Verzosa v. CA, G.R. Nos. 119511-13, 24 November 1998
• Tay Chun Suy v. CA, G.R. No. 93640, 7 January 1994
• Federation of Land Reform Farmers of the Philippines v. CA, G.R. No.
88384, 14 July 1995

XXVI. Receivership
a. Cases when receiver may be appointed
b. Requisites
c. Requirement before issuance of an order
d. General powers of a receiver
e. Two kinds of bonds
f. Termination of receivership
• Normandy v. Duque, G.R. No. L-25407, 29 August 1969

XXVII. Replevin
a. When writ may be issued
b. Requisites
c. Affidavit and bond; redelivery bond
d. Sheriff’s duty in the implementation of the writ
• BA Finance Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 102998, 5 July 1996
• Rivera v. Vargas, G.R. No. 165895, 5 June 2009
• Advent Capital and Finance Corp. v. Young, G.R. No. 183018, 3 August
2011
• Northern Motors, Inc. v. Herrera, G.R. No. L-32674, 22 February 1973

XXVIII. Provisional Remedies under Special Laws and Rules

a. Provisional remedies of the Family Courts; Support Pendente Lite
i. Francisco v. Zandueta, G.R. No. L-43794, 9 August 1935
ii. San Juan v. Valenzuela, G.R. No. L-59906, 23 October 1982
b. Human Security Act
c. R.A. No. 9262
d. AMLA
e. Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act
f. Precautionary Hold Departure Orders