1University of the Philippines REMEDIAL LAW 2

COLLEGE OF LAW
Diliman, Quezon City
[CIVIL PROCEDURE]

PROF. THEODORE O. TE
2nd Semester, AY 2008-2009

I. SCOPE, METHODOLOGY AND GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

A. This course is an introduction to the procedure for filing and pursuit of civil actions in court.
At the end of the course, students are not only expected to know Rules 1 to 71 of the 1997
Rules on Civil Procedure, they are also expected to know how these rules work ( or dont
work), and why.
B. All classes will be conducted through a healthy mix of the so-called Socratic manner,
workshop, seminar and a practical application of the rules that may be deemed appropriate to
facilitate a better understanding of the course. Recitation is called and graded every session. A
student who is absent and who is called for recitation automatically gets a grade of 5.0 for that
session.

II. COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING CRITERIA:

A. The course will start with an introductory lecture and end with an integration lecture.
B. Aside from attendance and meaningful participation in class discussions during the
semester, each student is expected to have attended and observed the conduct of the
following proceedings within the semester:
(a) pre-trial conference,
(b) direct-examination,
(c) cross-examination ,
(d) hearing on motions,
(e) hearing on any case involving any of the provisional remedies under Rules 58-61 ,
(f) hearing of any case under Summary Procedure,
(g) proceedings before the mediation office ,
and to submit a Reflection Paper attaching individually accomplished Field Observation
Reports detailing their observations based on guide questions to be provided.
C. Each student is also expected to be able to draft selected pleadings and be familiar with
selected legal forms pertinent to civil procedure.
D. In lieu of, and sometimes in addition to, recitation, short quizzes may be given.
E. For each section, Integrated Outlines or Checklists will be required. Part of the
assignment is knowing what an Integrated Outline is. The Integrated Outlines should be in the
students own hand, written on as many sheets of yellow pad as necessary. They are to be
submitted within the period given.
F. There will be one (1) comprehensive final examination.
G. The passing grade for the course is 75% . The following components shall make up the
final grade: (i) recitation/short quizzes/pleadings <50> , (ii) field work/field reports <10%>, (iii)
integrated outlines/Checklists <10%> and (iv) final examination <30%>.

III. COURSE MATERIALS:

Primary course materials are: (a) The 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, covering Rules 1 to 71 of
the Rules of Court, and (b) cases assigned. Secondary course materials will be commentaries,
articles, and insights obtained from practical field experiences and interaction with lawyers
engaged in trial practice. No commentary is required; if you must read a commentary, choose
wisely.
Page 2 of 34
 Page 3 of 34
If you dont love the law, what should you love (aside
from loved ones)? Love liberty. Love justice. Love the
good that law can produce. Aspirations dont disappoint,
so long as you realize that the struggle for liberty, justice
and anything else worth pursuing never stays won.

- Alan Dershowitz, Dont Do What Youre

Best At from LETTERS TO A YOUNG LAWYER
at 23 (Basic Books, 2001)

COURSE OUTLINE

Preliminary Readings:
______________________________________________________________________________
Note: The following will not be discussed separately but will be integral to the course. Before
starting on Part One, each student is expected to have, at least, read the foregoing and taken
note of the salient points embodied in each issuance.

Study Guide: Take note of the different matters over which each court has jurisdiction; know the
difference between exclusive original jurisdiction and exclusive appellate jurisdiction as well as
concurrent jurisdiction.

Output: Draft an Integrated Outline of the rules on jurisdiction in civil cases starting from courts
of the first level to the Supreme Court, taking into account various cases involving original and
exclusive jurisdiction as well as those with concurrent jurisdiction.

Reglementary Period: One week from assignment.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_

* Republic Act No. 7691 (1994) amending Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (1980);
* SC Administrative Circular 09-94;
* Interim Rules Relative to Implementation of BP 129 (SC Resolution
dated January 11, 1983);
* 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, Section 1, Part A (1991);
* Const. (1987), art. VIII, sec. 5(5);
* Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (2000);
* Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies
under RA No. 8799;
*Republic Act No. 8799;
 Page 4 of 34

1. GETTING STARTED
(Definitions, Actions, Causes of Actions,
Jurisdiction, Parties, Venue)

Study Guide: [1] Compare the various jurisdictions; [2] Determine the essential allegations
required in any civil action for purposes of jurisdiction; [3] Know the components of a cause of
action, the difference between the various types of actions and parties; [4] Know the difference
between venue and jurisdiction; [5] Be able to formulate a Theory of the Case.

Output: (1) Draft a Checklist of the various rules on actions, venue, jurisdiction, parties and
cause of action contained in Rules 1-4. (2) Based on a fact pattern to be given, develop and
formulate a Theory of the Case.

Reglementary Period: One week from assignment.

A. Knowing the tools of the trade

Rules 1, 5;
1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure for Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts;
Const., art. VIII, sec. 5(5); cf. Rule 135, section 6;
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, Resolution dated
January 19, 1999 (reserve section);
Alonzo v. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315 (1910);

B. Dealing with jurisdiction

Colarina v. CA, 303 SCRA 647 (1999);

Ortigas & Co. v. CA, 106 SCRA 121(1981);
Dy v. CA, 195 SCRA 585 (1991);
Manchester Development Co. v. CA, 149 SCRA 562 (1987);
Sun Insurance v. Asuncion, 170 SCRA 274 (1989);
cf. Rule 1, sec. 5;
Javier v. CA, 214 SCRA 572 (1992);
Santos v. NW, 210 SCRA 256 (1992);
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 (1968);
Lopez v. NW, 223 SCRA 469 (1993);

(1) Supreme Court

Const. (1987), art. VIII, secs. 1, 5;

Judiciary Act of 1948, sec. 17;
 Page 5 of 34

(2) Court of Appeals

BP 129, sec. 9;
RA 7902;

(3) Regional Trial Courts

BP 129, secs. 18-23;

RA 7691, secs. 1, 5;
Russell v. Vestil, 304 SCRA 748 (1999);

(4) Metropolitan Trial Courts

BP 129, secs. 32-35;

RA 7691, secs. 3, 4, 5;
Rules on Summary Procedure, sec. 1A;
Lavibo v. CA, 271 SCRA 36 (1997);

(5) Katarungang Pambarangay

RA 7160 (Local Government Code), secs. 349-422;

SC Administrative Circular No. 14-93, 236 SCRA xii-xvi
(1994);
Blardony Jr. v. Coscolluela, 182 SCRA 825 (1990);
Garces v. CA, 162 SCRA 504 (1988); cf. Rule 16;
Galuba v. Laureta, 157 SCRA 627 (1988);
Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444 (1983);
Royales v. IAC, 127 SCRA 470 (1983);

C. The Theory of the Case

Read : Rogelio E. Subong, Annotation, Theory of the Case: A Restatement in

201 SCRA 718 (1991);
Tinio v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 460 (1999);

(1) Whats it all about?

Rule 2;
Ballatan v. CA, 304 SCRA 34 (1999);
Solid Homes Inc. v. CA, 271 SCRA 157 (1997);
Virata v. Sandiganbayan, 272 SCRA 661 (1997);
Joseph v. Bautista, 170 SCRA 540 (1989);
City of Bacolod v. SM Brewery, 29 SCRA 819 (1969);
Bayang v. CA, 148 SCRA 91 (1987);
Cuevas v. Pineda, 143 SCRA 674 (1986);
 Ruiz v. CA, 303 SCRA 637 (1999); Page 6 of 34

(2) Whos who?

Rule 3;
Family Code, Arts. 96, 111, 145 [on spouses];
Rule 87, sec. 1 [on executors/administrators]
Cf. Ruiz v. CA, 303 SCRA 637 (1999);
Fajardo v. Freedom to Build Inc., 347 SCRA 474 (2000);
Gonzales v. Narvasa, 337 SCRA 733 (2000);
State Investment Homes Inc. v. CA, 318 SCRA 47 (1999);
Kilosbayan v. Morato, 250 SCRA 130 (1995);
Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 (1993);
Filipinas Industrial Corporation v. San Diego, 23 SCRA
706 (1968);
Aranico-Rabino v. Aquino, 80 SCRA 254 (1977);
Laperal Development Corporation v. CA, 223 SCRA 261
(1993);
Barfel Development Corporation v. CA, 223 SCRA 268
(1993);
Mathay v. Consolidated Bank, 58 SCRA 559 (1974);
Veterans Manpower and Protective Services v. CA, 214
SCRA 286 (1992);
Nery v. Leyson, 339 SCRA 232 (2000);
Cf. Agro Conglomerate Inc. v. CA, 345
SCRA 450 (2000);
Ortigas & Co. Ltd. v. CA, 346 SCRA 748 (2000);
Dar v. Alonzo-Legasto, 339 SCRA 306 (2000);
SBMA v. Universal International Group of Taiwan, 340
SCRA 359 (2000);
Sps. Algura v. LGU, G.R. No. 150135, Oct 30, 2006;
Cabutihan v. Landcenter, 383 SCRA 353;

(3) No place but here . . .

Rule 4;
Diaz v. Adiong, 219 SCRA 631 (1993);
Spouses Lantin v. Judge Lantion, GR No. 160053, August
28, 2006;
 Page 7 of 34

2. PUTTING PEN TO PAPER

(Pleadings)

______________________________________________________________________________
Study Guide: (1) Know the various types of pleadings, compare their requirements and essential
allegations; (2) Know the different periods within which to file the various pleadings; (3) Determine
the difference between specific types of pleadings, e.g., counterclaim vs. crossclaim, third-party
complaints vs. interventions, (4) Know the formal requirements for the various pleadings.

Output: (1) Draft an INTEGRATED OUTLINE of the various technical requirements for each
pleading or motion allowed by the Rules. (2) Based on a fact pattern to be given, draft the
appropriate pleadings and motions pursuant to the Theory of the Case developed in Part 1.

Reglementary Period: One week from assignment.

A. Pleadings

(1) In general; making allegations

Rule 6, secs. 1, 2, 12 (cf. Rule 3);

Rule 7;

Requirements against Forum Shopping

Rule 7, sec. 5;
Digital Microwave Corporation v. CA, 336
SCRA 419 (2000);
Clark Dev v. Mondragon, March 2, 2007;
Kaunlaran v. Uy GR 154974, Feb 4, 2008;
Ateneo de Naga v. Manalo, 458 SCRA 325;

Rule 8;
Gerales v. CA, 218 SCRA 638 (1993);

(2) Initiatory pleadings

a. Complaints
Rule 6, sec. 3;
Cf. Tantuico v. Republic,
204 SCRA 428 (1991);
Rule 8, secs. 1, 4, 7;;
Cf. Metrobank v. Quilts, 222
SCRA 486 (1993);
Mathay v. Consolidated
Bank, 58 SCRA 559 (1974);
b. Amended and Supplemental Complaints Page 8 of 34

Rule 10;
Rule 11, secs. 3, 7;
Josephine Ng v. Sps. Marcelo and Marie Fe
Soco, G.R. No. 149132, May 9, 2002;
Remington Industrial Sales Corporation v.
CA, G.R. No. 133657, May 29, 2002;
Siasoco v. CA, 303 SCRA 186 (1999);
Metropolitan Bank v. Presiding Judge, 189
SCRA 820 (1990);
O Laco v. Co Cho Chit, 220 SCRA 656
(1993);
PHILBANK v. IAC, 187 SCRA 257 (1990);
PNB v. Florendo, 206 SCRA 582 (1992);
Shoemart v. CA, 190 SCRA 189 (1990);

See also A. R. Bautista, Comment: Varying

Approaches to the Problem of Variance between
Pleading and Proof, 73 PHIL. L. J. 101
(1998);

b. Third/Fourth Party Complaints

Rule 6, sec. 11;

Cf. Go v. CA, 224 SCRA 143
(1993);
Pascual v. Bautista, 33 SCRA
301 (1970);
Balbastro v. CA, 48 SCRA
232 (1972);
Republic v. Central Surety,
25 SCRA 641 (1968);
De Dios v. Balagot, 20 SCRA 950 (1967);

c. Counterclaim

Rule 6, secs. 4, 6, 7, 9;
Cf. BA Finance v. Co, 224
SCRA 163 (1993);
Reyes v. CA, 38 SCRA 138
(1971);
Maceda v. CA, 176 SCRA
440 (1989);
Rule 11, secs. 4, 8, 9, 10;
Cf. Rule 111, sec. 1;
Rule 119, sec. 3;
 Page 9 of 34
Shafer v. RTC Judge, 167 SCRA 386 (1988);
Javier v. IAC, 171 SCRA 605
(1989);
Rule 9, sec. 2;
Cf. Meliton v. CA, 216
SCRA 485 (1992);
Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete, 66
SCRA 425 (1975);
Visayan Packing v.
Reparations, 155 SCRA 542
(1987);
Rule 11, sec. 10;

c. Crossclaim

Rule 6, secs. 8, 9;
Rule 9, sec. 2;
Rule 11, secs. 4, 8, 9, 10;

(3) Responsive pleadings

a. Answers

Rule 6, secs. 4, 5, 13;

Rule 8, secs. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11;
Rule 9;
Rule 11;

b. Reply

Rule 6, sec. 10 vis Rule 8, sec. 8, Rule 9, sec.

1;
Rule 11, sec. 6;

c. Rejoinder

SC Adm. Circ. No. 99-2-04-SC (1999);

B. Other legal documents seeking judicial relief

(1) Motions in general

Rule 15;
Provident International Resources Co. v. CA, 259 SCRA
510 (1996);
Orosa v. CA, 261 SCRA 376 (1996);
 KKK Foundation Inc. v. Hon. Bargas, et al GR 163785 Dec Page 10 of 34
27, 2007;

(2) Bill of Particulars

Rule 12;
Tantuico v. Republic, 204 SCRA 428 (1991);
Virata v. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA 53 (1993);
Republic v. SB and Marcos, GR 148154, Dec 17, 2007;

(3) Intervention

Rule 19;
Metropolitan Bank v. Presiding Judge, 189 SCRA 820
(1990);
CariZo v. Ofilada, 217 SCRA 206 (1993);
Mago v. CA, 303 SCRA 600 (1999);
SJS v. Hon. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, Feb. 13, 2008;

(4) Extension of Time to Plead

Rule 11, sec. 11;

(5) Leave of Court

Rule 15, sec. 9;

C. Objections to pleadings

(1) Motion to Suspend Proceedings

Rule 30, sec. 8;

SC Administrative Circular No. 14-93, 236 SCRA xii-xvi
(1994);

(2) Motion to add/drop parties

Rule 3, sec. 11;

(3) Motion to sever cause of action

Rule 2, sec. 6;

(4) Motion to strike out

Rule 8, sec. 12;

Rule 7, sec. 3;
 Rule 12, sec. 4; Page 11 of 34
Rule 29, sec. 3(c);

C. Effects of failure to plead

(1) Default

Rule 9;
Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete, 66 SCRA 425 (1975);
Dulos v. CA, 188 SCRA 413 (1990);
Crisologo v. Globe, GR 167631, Dec 16, 2005;
Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, GR 151098, March 21, 2006;

(2) Dismissals

Rule 17;
Rule 18, sec. 6 vis sec. 5;

D. Formal requirements

(1) Generally

Rules 7, 22;
SC Circ. No. 28-91;
SC Circ. No. 04-94;

(2) Service

Rule 13;

(3) Proof of service

Rule 13, secs. 12, 13;

SC Circ. No. 19-91;
Romulo et al v. Peralta, GR 165665 Jan 31, 2007;

3. KILLING THE CASE

(Dismissals, Judgments, Terminations
of Actions before or without trial)

Study Guide: (1) Compare the various modes by which an action may be dismissed; (2) Know
the grounds for each mode; (3) Know the effects of the dismissal of an action;

Output: Draft an INTEGRATED OUTLINE of the various rules on dismissals and means of
terminating a case before or without trial.

Reglementary Period: One week from assignment.

 Page 12 of 34

A. Dismissal of Actions

(1) Upon plaintiffs instance

Rule 17, secs. 1, 2;

International Container Terminal Services v. CA, 214
SCRA 456 (1993);

(2) Upon defendants instance due to failure to prosecute

Rule 17, sec. 3;

Cf. Rule 18, sec. 5;
Calalang v. CA, 217 SCRA 462 (1993);

(3) Upon Courts instance

Rule 17, sec. 3;

Rule 7, sec. 5;
Ayala Land Inc. v. Valisno, 324 SCRA 5 (2000);
Barroso v. Ampag Jr., 328 SCRA 530 (2000);
Ong v. CA, 333 SCRA 189 (2000);

(4) Dismissal of counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party complaints

Rule 17, sec. 4;

(5) Effects of dismissal

Meliton v. CA, 216 SCRA 485 (1992);

DBP v. Pundagor, 218 SCRA 118 (1993);
Vallanga v. CA, 173 SCRA 42 (1989);

B. Motion to Dismiss

(1) Nature of the motion

Lagutan v. Icao, 224 SCRA 9 (1993);

Galeon v. Galeon, 49 SCRA 516 (1993);
Foster Parents Plan v. Demetriou, 142 SCRA 505 (1986);

(2) Grounds

Rule 16, secs. 1, 6 (cf. Hadji Ali Mamadsual v. Mosdn, 190

SCRA 86 [1990]);
 Rule 14, sec. 20; Page 13 of 34
Javier v. CA, 214 SCRA 572 (1992);
Laus v. CA, 219 SCRA 688 (1993);
Delos Santos v. Montesa, 221 SCRA 15 (1993);
Boticano v. Chu, 148 SCRA 541 (1987);
DBP v. Pundogar, 218 SCRA 118 (1993);
Tanpinco v. IAC, 207 SCRA 612 (1992);
Diaz v. Adiong, 219 SCRA 631 (1993);
HSBC v. Sherman, 176 SCRA 331 (1989);
Vitrionics Computers v. RTC, 217 SCRA 517 (1993);
The Anderson Group Inc. v. CA, 266 SCRA 423 (1997);
Abalos v. CA, 223 SCRA 551 (1993);
Nabus v. CA, 193 SCRA 732 (1991);
U.P. v. CA, 218 SCRA 728 (1993);
Gatmaytan v. CA, 267 SCRA 487 (1997);
Heirs of Penaverde v. Penaverde, 324 SCRA 69 (2000);
Mid Pasig Land Dev v. CA 413 SCRA 204;
Republic v. Glasgow, G.R. 170281, Jan 18, 2008;

(3) Period to file; effects of denial of motion on time to plead

Rule 16, secs. 1, 4;

(4) Effects

Rule 16, secs. 4, 5;

Rule 9, sec. 1;

C. Judgment on the Pleadings

Rule 34;
Tropical Homes v. CA, 272 SCRA 428 (1997);

D. Summary Judgments

Rule 35;
Army and Navy Club v. CA, 271 SCRA 36 (1997);
Sps. Camilo Go v. CA, 252 SCRA 564 (1996);
Paz v. CA, 181 SCRA 26 (1990);
Bell Carpets International Trading Co. v. CA, 185 SCRA 35 (1990);
Guevarra v. CA, 124 297 (1983);

E. Demurrer to Evidence

Rule 33;
Syiangco v. Costibolo, 27 SCRA 272 (1969);
 Page 14 of 34
F. Compromise Agreements/Judgments on Compromise

NPC v. Vine Development Corporation, 339 SCRA 580 (2000);

Salvador v. Ortoll, 343 SCRA 125 (2000);
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. CA, 346 SCRA 126
(2000);
Anacleto v. Van Tweest, 239 SCRA 211 (2000);
AFP Mutual Benefit Association v. CA, 311 SCRA 143 (1999);

4. EN GARDE
(Filing and/or Service of Pleadings, Judgments,
Other Papers and Issuance and Service of Summons)

Study Guide: (1) Know the various modes of service of pleadings, judgments and summons; (2)
Compare the various modes of service;

Output: (1) Draft a CHECKLIST embodying the various rules on service. (2) Carry out the
actual service of the pleadings and motions drafted under Parts 2 and 3.

Reglementary Period: One week from assignment.

A. Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgments and other Papers

Rule 13;

B. Issuance and Service of Summons

(1) Generally

Rule 14, secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 17;

(2) Persons susceptible to service

a. Generally

Rule 14, secs. 1, 6;

b. Entity without juridical personality

Rule 14, sec. 9;

c. Associations

Rule 14, sec. 9;

d. Corporations
 Rule 14, secs. 11, 12, 13; Page 15 of 34
Rebollido v. CA, 170 SCRA 800 (1989);
Summa Trading v. AvendaZo, 146 SCRA
197 (1986);
BPI v. Spouses Santiago Mar 28, 2007;

e. Minors, insane, incompetents

Rule 14, sec. 10;

f. Prisoners

Rule 14, sec. 9;

g. Unknown defendant

Rule 14, sec. 14;

h. Resident temporarily abroad

Rule 14, secs. 18, 16;

Venturanza v. CA, 156 SCRA 305 (1987);

i. Non-resident

Rule 14, sec. 15;

(3) Modes of service

a. Personal

Rule 14, sec. 6;

Samartino v. Raon et al., G.R. No. 131482,
July 3, 2002;

b. Substituted

Rule 14, sec. 7;

Laus v. CA, 219 SCRA 688 (1993);
Mapa v. CA, 214 SCRA 417 (1993);

c. Extraterritorial service

Rule 14, sec. 15;

Dial Co. v. Soriano, 161 SCRA 737 (1988);
Sievert v. CA, 168 SCRA 692 (1988);
Citizens Surety v. Herrera, 38 SCRA 369
 (1972); Page 16 of 34
Consolidated Plywood v. Breve, 166 SCRA
589 (1988);

(4) Waiver of service

Rule 14, sec. 20;
Delos Santos v. Montesa, 221 SCRA 15 (1993);

(5) Proof of service

Rule 14, secs. 4, 18, 19;

5. THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM

(Pre-trial)

Study Guide: (1) Know the reasons for and the various incidents covered by pre-trial; (2) Know
the effects of failure to appear during pre-trial; (3) Know the various remedies available during
pre-trial;

Output: (1) Draft a CHECKLIST of the requirements for pre-trial and the consequences of pre-
trial. (2) Based on the pleadings and other submissions drafted and served, draft a Pre-Trial
Brief according to the requirements provided and prepare for Pre-trial as directed under the
Rules of Court.

Reglementary Period: One week from assignment.

A. Pre-trial

See generally R. S. Puno, Towards a More Effective Pre-Trial Procedure and

Settlement Conferences: The Philippine Model, 71 Phil. L. J. 1 (1996);

See also A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by

Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-trial and
Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures)

(1) Nature and purpose

Rule 18, sec. 2;

Caltex v. CA, 212 SCRA 448 (1992);
Alarcon v. CA, 323 SCRA 716 (2000);

(2) Duty to ask for pre-trial conference

Rule 18, sec. 1;

(3) Appearances required

 Rule 18, sec. 4, 5, 6; Page 17 of 34
Rule 9, sec. 3;
cf. Philippine Transmarine Carrier Inc. v. CA, 326 SCRA
18 (2000);

(4) Procedure

Rule 18, secs. 1, 3, 6, 7;

(5) Consequences

Rule 18, sec. 7;

Interlining Corporation et al. v. Philippine Trust Company,

G.R. No. 144190, March 6, 2002;
Goldloop Properties v. CA, 212 SCRA 498 (1992);
Rule 30, sec. 8 vis RA 7160 (Local Government Code), secs.
349-422 (on the Katarungang Pambarangay);
Citibank N.A. v. Chua, 220 SCRA 75 (1993);
Anatalia Ramos v. Dominga Dizon, GR No. 137247, Aug. 7,
2006;

B. Calendar

Rule 20;

C. Subpoena

Rule 21;

D. Mediation and Conciliation

6. SHOW ME YOURS, ILL SHOW YOU MINE

(Modes of Discovery)

Study Guide: (1) Know the various modes of discovery prescribed under the Rules and the
requirements for each; (2) Compare the efficacy of each mode; (3) Know the consequences of
availing of each mode;

Output: Prepare an INTEGRATED OUTLINE of the various modes of discovery, their

requirements and their legal consequences.

Reglementary Period: One week from assignment.

Rules 21, 23-29; cf. A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (Rule on Guidelines to be

Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of
Pre-trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures)
 Page 18 of 34
Lazada v. CA; Nestle Philippines v. CA, G.R. No. 102390, February 1,
2002;
Duque v. CA; Valenzuela v. CA, G.R. No. 125383, July 2, 2002;
Security Bank Corporation v. CA, 323 SCRA 330 (2000);
Bribonera v. CA, 216 SCRA 607 (1992);
Po v. CA, 164 SCRA 668 (1988);
Valmonte v. Belmonte, 217 SCRA 583 (1993);
Pfeger Dulay v Dulay, GR 158857 Nov 11, 2005;
Hyatt Industrial v. Ley Construction, GR No. 147143, March 10, 2006;

7. SO SUE ME!
(Trial)

Study Guide: (1) Know the various stages and order of trial; (2) Compare the various modes of
trial prescribed;

Output: (1) Prepare a Trial Plan (based on the Theory first developed and according to a
format to be provided). (2) Prepare to present a witness on direct examination according to
the trial Plan.

A. Trial

Rule 30;
cf. OCA Circular 39-98 (August 19, 1998);
Rule 132, secs. 1, 2, 4-10, Rule 141, as amended;
Municipality of BiZan v. Garcia, 180 SCRA 576 (1989);

B. Trial by Commissioner

Rule 32;
Manotok Realty v. CLT Realty GR 123346 Dec 14, 2007;

C. Consolidation or Severance

Rule 31 vis Rule 2, sec. 5, Rule 3, sec. 6;

PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, 209 SCRA 894 (1992);

8. THE VERDICT
(Judgments)

Study Guide: (1) Know the various types of judgments and their legal effects and
consequences; (2) Know the modes for modifying or amending a judgment, short of appeal or
review.

Output: Prepare an INTEGRATED OUTLINE embodying the various rules on judgments and
their consequences.
 Page 19 of 34
Reglementary Period: One week from assignment.

A. Form

Rule 36, sec. 1;

Rule 41, sec. 1;
Ceniza v. CA, 218 SCRA 390 (1993);

B. Various types of judgments

(1) As to parties

Rule 36, secs. 3, 4 (Cf. Rule 9, sec. 3c), 6;

(2) As to finality

Rule 36, secs. 1 (Cf. Rule 40, sec. 2, Rule 41, sec. 3, Rule 42,
sec. 1), 2 (See also Rule 38, sec. 3, Rule 39, sec. 6);
Rule 39, secs. 44 and 45;

(3) As to mode of procurement

a. Judgment on the pleadings

Rule 34;

B. Judgment on Demurrer to the Evidence

Rule 33;

C. Summary judgments

Rule35 (See also Rule 29, sec. 3);

D. Default judgments

Rule 29, sec.. 3;

E. Judgments after ex parte presentation of evidence

Rule 18, sec. 5;

F. Compromise Judgment

See Rule 18;

David v. CA, 14 SCRA, 217 SCRA 644
(1992);
Page 20 of 34
 Page 21 of 34

G. Orders of dismissal

Rules 16, 17;

Rule 18, sec. 5;
Rule 29, sec. 5;

(4) As to claims

Rule 36, sec. 5 (Cf. Rile 31, sec. 2, Rule 41, sec. 1(g);

(5) As to how executed

Rule 39, secs. 4, 9, 10, 11;

C. EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS

Rule 39, secs. 47-48;

D. AMENDMENTS OF JUDGMENT

Eternal Gardens Memorial v. IAC, 165 SCRA 439 (1988);

David v. CA, 214 SCRA 633 (1992);
Cardoza v. Singson, 181 SCRA 244 (1990);

9. LET ME TRY (OR BE TRIED) AGAIN!

(Appeals and other remedies from Judgments)

Study Guide: (1) Know the various modes of appeal and review, the requirements for each and
the corresponding courts with jurisdiction over the same; (2) Compare the efficacy of each mode
of appeal or review depending on the type of order or judgment sought to be corrected or
annulled.

Output: Draft an INTEGRATED OUTLINE embodying the various technical requirements for
appeals and other remedies from an adverse judgment.

Reglementary Period: One week from assignment.

A. REVIEW AND CORRECTION BY THE TRIAL COURT OF ITS OWN JUDGMENTS,

ORDERS OR PROCEEDINGS

(1) Motion for Reconsideration or for New Trial

Rule 37, sec. 1;

Rule 41, secs. 1 (a), 3, par. 2;
 Rule 40, sec. 2, par. 2; Page 22 of 34
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. A. Soriano Co., 267
SCRA 313 (1997);
Cf. Distinguished from Motion to reopen;
see Agulto v. CA, 181 SCRA 303 (1990);
Velasco v. Ortiz, 184 SCRA 303 (1990);
Tumang v. CA, 172 SCRA 332 (1989);
Pojas v. Gozo-Dadole, 192 SCRA 575 (1990);
Fernan v. CA, 142 SCRA 208 (1986);
Habaluyas v. Japson, 142 SCRA 208 (1986);
Director of Lands v. Aquino, 192 SCRA 296 (1990);
Delos Santos v. Elizalde, Feb 2, 2007:

(2) Petition for Relief from Judgments

Rule 38;
Rule 41, sec. 1(b)
Sps. Mesina v. Meer, G.R. No. 146845, July 2, 2002;
Garcia v. CA, 202 SCRA 228 (1991);
Conde v. IAC, 144 SCRA 144 (1986);
Meralco v. CA, 187 SCRA 200 (1990);
Villa Rey Transit Inc. v. Far East Motor Co., 81 SCRA 298
(1978);
David v. CA, 214 SCRA 644 (1992);
First Integrated Bonding v. Hernando, 199 SCRA 796
(1991);
Service Specialists v. Sheriff of Manila, 145 SCRA 139
(1986);
Cheesman v. IAC, 193 SCRA 93 (1991);
Ramirez v. CA, 187 SCRA 153 (1990);
Alvendia v. IAC, 181 SCRA 252 (1990);

B. REVIEW AND CORRECTION BY ANOTHER COURT IN AN INDEPENDENT

ACTION

(1) Annulment of Judgments (direct attack)

BP 129, sec. 9 (2);

Rule 47;

(2) Collateral attack

C. APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS; REVIEW AND CORRECTION BY ANOTHER

COURT ON APPEAL

(1) Generally
 BP 129; Page 23 of 34
Rules 40-43, 45;
Const. (1987), art. VIII, sec. 5;

(2) Nature and subject of appeal

Rule 41, sec. 1;

Rule 40, sec. 9;
Silverio v. CA, 141 SCRA 257 (1986);
Presco v. CA, 192 SCRA 232 (1990);

(3) SCA of Certiorari distinguished from Appeal by Certiorari

Rule 45;
Rule 65;
Const. (1987), art. VIII, secs. 2, 5;
MWSS v. CA, 143 SCRA 623 (19_);
Batongbakal v. CA, 218 SCRA 482 (1993);
Villareal v. CA, 219 SCRA 293 (1993);
St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494 (1998);
Madrigal Transport v. Lapanday Holdings cited in People
v. Judge Laguio & Lawrence Wang Mar 16, 2007;

(4) What may be appealed

i. Final judgments, orders or resolutions

ii. Contempt order
iii. Several judgments
iv. Order dismissing complaint
Cf. Marahay v. Melicor, 181 SCRA 811
(1990);
Cruz v. IAC, 169 SCRA 14 (1989);
v. Order denying Motion for New Trial
vi. Judgment by Default
vii. Order denying Petition for Relief
Cf. Rule 41, sec. 2(2);
Service Specialists v. Sheriff of Manila, 145
SCRA 139 (1986);

(5) What may not be appealed

i. Interlocutory orders
Cf. Newsweek v. IAC, 142 SCRA 171
(1986);
ii. Order granting Petition for Relief from judgment
Cf. Cheesman v. IAC, 193 SCRA 93 (1991);
iii. Order based upon a compromise
 iv. Order to execute a final judgment Page 24 of 34
Cf. GSIS v. CA, 218 SCRA 233 (1993);
v. Partial summary judgment
Cf. Guevarra v. CA, 124 SCRA 297 (1983);

(8) Periods

Sonida v. Wasan, 179 SCRA 763 (1989);

Lacsamana v. CA, 143 SCRA 643 (1986);
Ceniza v. CA, 218 SCRA 390 (1993);
Liboro v. CA, 218 SCRA 193 (1993);
But cf. Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29
(1968);
Soriano v. CA, 222 SCRA 545 (1993);

(9) Modes of Appeal

Rule 41, sec. 2;

Neypes v. CA GR 141524 Sep 14, 2005;
First Aqua Sugar v. BPI Feb 5, 2007;

i. Appeal from First Level Courts (MTC, MuTC, MCTC)

to:

(a) RTC:

Rule 40;
BP 129, sec. 39;
Rules on Summary Procedure, sec. 19(c);

(b) CA;

Rule 41, sec. 2(b);

Rule 42;
BP 129, sec. 22;

(c) SC;

Rule 41, sec. 2 (c);

Rule 45;
RA 5440;

ii. Appeal from RTC to :

(a) CA;

Rule 41;
 BP 129, sec. 39; Page 25 of 34

(b) SC;

Rule 42, 45;

RA 5440;

iii. Appeal from CA to SC

Rule 45;

iv. Appeal from quasi-judicial agencies to:

(a) CA;

Rule 43;
RA 5434;

(b) SC;
RA 5434;

(10) Procedures in Appellate Courts

i. CA
a. Ordinary cases

Rule 44;

b. Original cases, special civil actions,

annulment of judgments

RA 7902;
Rules 46, 47;

c. Common provisions

Rules 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55;

ii. SC

Rule 56;

(11) Rules on form

SC Circulars 1-88, 2-90, 19-91, 28-91;

Rules 45, 65;
 Page 26 of 34
10. I CANT GET NO . . . SATISFACTION.
(Execution, satisfaction and effect of judgments)

Study Guide: Know the effects of a final judgment and the manner by which a final and
executory judgment can be enforced.

Output: Draft a CHECKLIST of the requirements for enforcement of a final and executory
judgment in Rule 39.

Reglementary Period: One week from assignment.

A. EFFECT OF FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT

[1] Generally; execution on final judgments or orders

Rule 39, sec. 1;

[a] Form

Rule 39, sec. 8;

[b] Periods

Rule 39, sec. 6;

[2] Discretionary execution

(a) Pending appeal

Rule 39, sec. 2 (a)

Fortune Guarantee and Insurance
Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 110701, March
12, 2002;

[b] Several, separate or partial judgments

Rule 39, sec. 2(b)

B. EFFECT OF APPEAL OR REVERSED JUDGMENT

[1] Execution pending appeal

Rule 39, sec. 2(a);

Rule 39, sec. 4;

[2] Stay of discretionary execution

 Page 27 of 34

Rule 39, sec. 3;

[3] Effect of reversal of executed judgment

Rule 39, sec. 5;

C. EXECUTION OF PARTICULAR JUDGMENTS

[1] Execution of judgments for money

(a) Immediate payment by demand

Rule 39, sec. 9(a);

(b) Satisfaction by levy

Rule 39, sec. 9(b);

Rule 39, sec. 12;

(c) Garnishment of debts and credits

Rule 39, sec. 9(c);

[2] Execution of judgment for specific act

(a) Conveyance, delivery or other specific acts; vesting title

Rule 39, sec. 10(a);

(b) Sale of real or personal property

Rule 39, sec. 10(b);

(c) Delivery or restitution of real property

Rule 39, sec. 10 (c);

[d] Removal of improvements on property subject of

execution

Rule 39, sec. 10(d);

[e] Delivery of personal property

Rule 39, sec. 10 (e);

 NSC v. CA, 302 SCRA 522 (1999); Page 28 of 34

[3] Execution of special judgments

Rule 39, sec. 11;

Foreign arbitral award:

Korea Technologies vs. Hon. Lerma, GR 143581 Jan 7, 2008;

D. PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION

Rule 39, sec. 13;

Family Code, art. 152, 153, 155, 157, 160;

E. PROCEDURE

[1] Return

Rule 39, sec. 14;

[2] Notice of sale

Rule 39, sec. 15, 17, 18

Cf. Proceedings where property is claimed by 3rd persons

Rule 39, sec. 16;

[3] Sale of property

Rule 39, sec. 19-21;

[4] Adjournment

Rule 39, sec. 22;

[5] Conveyance

Rule 39, secs. 23-25;

Cf. Where Property Claimed by 3rd Person/s

Rule 39, sec. 26;

[6] Redemption

[a] Who may redeem

 Page 29 of 34

Rule 39, sec. 27;

[b] Periods, manner, amounts payable, procedure

Rule 39, sec. 28;

Rule 39, sec. 33;

[c] Effect of redemption by judgment obligor

Rule 39, sec. 29;

Rule 39, sec. 30;

[d] Occupation pending redemption

Rule 39, sec. 31, 32

[7] Recovery of Price; Contribution and reimbursement

Rule 39, secs. 34-35;

[8] Entry of satisfaction of judgment

Rule 39, sec. 44-45;

F. EXAMINATIONS ALLOWED IN EVENT OF NON-SATISFACTION

[1] Judgment obligor

Rule 39, sec. 36;

[2] Obligor of judgment obligor

Rule 39, sec. 37;

Rule 39, sec. 39;

Cf. When indebtedness denied or property claimed by

another

Rule 39, sec. 43;

[3] Enforcement remedies and order for application of property to satisfy

judgment

Rule 39, sec. 38;

Rule 39, sec. 40;
 Page 30 of 34

G. RECEIVERS

[1] Appointment

Rule 39, sec. 41;

[2] Sale of ascertainable interest in real property

Rule 39, sec. 42;

H. EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS

[1] Judgment rendered in Philippines by Philippine court

Rule 39, sec. 47;

[2] Judgment rendered by foreign court

Rule 39, sec. 48;

11. INTERIM MEASURES AND DRASTIC STEPS

(Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions)

Study Guide: (1) Know the nature of provisional remedies and special civil actions; (2)
Distinguish between provisional remedies and special civil actions and ordinary civil actions; (3)
Know the requirements and grounds for each provisional remedy or special civil action;

Output: Draft a CHECKLIST of the requirements of the various provisional remedies and special
civil actions provided.

Reglementary Period: One week from assignment.

A. Provisional Remedies

(1) Notice of Lis Pendens

Rule 13, sec. 14;

(2) Preliminary Attachment

Rule 57;
Civil Code, Art. 1387;
OZate v. Abrogar, 230 SCRA 181 (1995); cf. Sievert v. CA,
168 SCRA 692 (1988)
K.O. Glass Construction v. Valenzuela, 116 SCRA 563
(1982);
 Perla Compania de Seguros v. Ramolete, 203 SCRA 487 Page 31 of 34
(1991);
Peroxide Philippines Co. v. CA, 199 SCRA 882 (1991);
Consolidated Bank and Trust Company v. CA, 197 SCRA
663 (1991);
Towers Assurance Co. v. Ororama Supermart, 80 SCRA
262 (1977);
Santos v. CA, 95 Phil. 360 (1954);
Silangan Textile v. Judge, Mar 12, 2007;

(3) Preliminary Injunction

Rule 58;
Bataclan v. CA, 175 SCRA 764 (1989);
Bacolod-Murcia Milling v. Capitol, 17 SCRA 731 (1966);
Merville Park Homeowners Association Inc. v. Velez,.
196 SCRA 189 (1991);
Gilchrist v. Cuddy, 29 Phil. 542 (1915);
SSC v. Bayona, 5 SCRA 126 (1962);
SJS v. Hon Atienza, GR 156052 Feb 13, 2008;

(4) Receivership

Rule 59;
Commodities Storage v. CA, 274 SCRA 439 (1997);

(5) Replevin

Rule 60;

(6) Support Pendente Lite

Rule 61;
Ramos v. CA, 45 SCRA 604 (1972);

B. Special Civil Actions

(1) Interpleader

Rule 62;

(2) Declaratory Relief and similar remedies

Rule 63;

(3) Review of Judgments of Final Orders of COMELEC and COA

 Rule 64; cf. Rule 43; Page 32 of 34
Tugade v. COMELEC, March 2, 2007;

(4) Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus

Rule 65;
Philgreen Trading Construction Corporation v. CA, 271
SCRA 719 (1997);
Chua v. CA, 271 SCRA 546 (1997);
GMCR v. Bell Telecommunications, 271 SCRA 790 (1994);

(5) Quo Warranto

Rule 66;
Torayno v. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 574 (2000);
Mendoza v. Allas, 302 SCRA 623 (1999);

(6) Expropriation

Rule 67;

(7) Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage

Rule 68;

(8) Partition

Rule 69;

(9) Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Rule 70;
Palattao v. CA, G.R. No. 131726, May 7, 2002;

Jurisdictional requirements for forcible entry:

Leonardo David v. Cordova GR 152992 July 27, 2005;

Jurisdictional requirements for unlawful detainer:

Ross-Rica v. Sps Ong GR 132197 Aug 16, 2005;

(10) Contempt

Rule 71; cf. OCA Circular No. 39-98 (August 19, 1998)
Regalado v. Go GR 167988 Feb 6, 2007;
A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC, In the Matter of the Allegations
Contained in the Columns of Mr. Amado P. Macasaet
Published in Malaya Dated September 18, 19, 20 and 21,
 2007, August 8, 2008 Page 33 of 34

C. Special Provisional Remedy

 Page 34 of 34
Rule on Search and Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement of
Intellectual Property Rights [A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC; January 22, 2002]

Cf. Rule 126, 2000 Rules on Criminal

Procedure

Do or do not. There is no try.

- Yoda, Jedi Master,
The Empire Strikes Back

A dream is an answer to a question we

havent yet learned how to ask.
- Dana Scully quoting Fox
Mulder from Paper Hearts,
THE X-FILES

Some men see things as they are and ask

why. Others dream things that never were
and ask why not.
- George Bernard Shaw

Yes, we can.
- Barack Obama, Chicago
November 2008).

d:\myfiles\civ proc outline (2008)