Remedial Law Review I
Venue: Where the real property or part
Jurisdiction
Q: Case for unlawful detainer: defense is that since the
defendant is a protestant, the case falls in the jurisdiction
of Sharia’h District Courts
A: The defense is not tenable
Under Batas Pambansa B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691,
the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over forcible
entry and unlawful detainer cases. P.D. 1083 also provides
that actions for unlawful detainer and municipal courts
shall be cognizable by the municipal courts. Hence, the
defense is not tenable.
Q: Special Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts
A: Under B.P. 129, the Supreme Court may designate
certain branches of the RTC to handle exclusively criminal
cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian
cases, urban land reform cases not falling within the
jurisdiction of any quasi-judicial bodies or agencies or such
other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine
in the interest of speedy and efficient administration of
justice
Q: RTC even if sitting as special court has jurisdiction over
injunction since it is a court of general jurisdiction
Jurisdiction and Venue
Accion Jurisdiction: MTC, MeTC, MCTC
Interdictal Venue: Where the real property or part
thereof is situated
Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Where the value of the
of Mortgage property exceeds 50,000 within Metro
Manila, the venue is with the RTC,
otherwise the MTC
Where the value of the property exceeds
P20,000 outside Metro Manila, the venue
is with the RTC, otherwise the MTC
Venue: If real property, where the real
property or a part thereof is situated
thereof is situated
Partition Jurisdiction: If real property, with the RTC
if the value of the property within Metro
Manila exceeds P50,000, otherwise MTC
If real property, with the RTC if the value of
property outside Metro Manila exceeds
P20,000, otherwise MTC
If personal property, with the RTC if the
value of the property within Metro Manila
exceeds P400,000, otherwise MTC
If personal property, with the RTC if the
value of the property outside Metro
Manila exceeds P300,000, otherwise with
the MTC
Venue: If real property, where the real
property or a part thereof is situated
If personal property, where the plaintiff or
any principal plaintiff resides or any of the
principal defendant or any defendants
resides, or in case of a non-resident where
he may be found at the election of the
plaintiff
Interpleader Jurisdiction: If real property, with the RTC
if the value of the property within Metro
Manila exceeds P50,000, otherwise MTC
If real property, with the RTC if the value of
property outside Metro Manila exceeds
P20,000, otherwise MTC
If personal property, with the RTC if the
value of the property within Metro Manila
exceeds P400,000, otherwise MTC
If personal property, with the RTC if the
value of the property outside Metro
Manila exceeds P300,000, otherwise with
the MTC
If personal property, where the plaintiff or
any principal plaintiff resides or any of the
principal defendant or any defendants
resides, or in case of a non-resident where
he may be found at the election of the
plaintiff
Small File a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
Claims with the RTC since the adverse decision in
Cases Small Claims is final, executory and
unappealable. No MR is required since it is
a prohibited pleading in Small Claims
Cases.
Katarungang Pambarangay
Q: Action in barangay. One party dies. Need for another
conciliation
A: Yes the judge is correct in dismissing the case.
Under the Rules, the heirs are substituted to the action
that survives without the need of appointment of executor
or administrator when the action survives. However, the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law requires that there should
be a confrontation before the Lupon or Pangkat. Hence, if
the original party to the action dies, he should be properly
substituted to the action but his heirs and another
barangay conciliation is required.
In this case, since C and D have not reached a
confrontation with B in the barangay, there is a need for
another confrontation between them before the Lupon or
Pangkat. Hence, the action should be dismissed.
Q: Defendant is a non-resident.
A: I will grant the motion
Under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, a party cannot
institute an action in the barangay if the defendant is not a
resident here in the Philippines. Both must be a resident
thereof.
1

Q: Lack of barangay conciliation raised on appeal.
A: If I were the judge, I would deny the appeal raising the
issue of lack of barangay conciliation because the same
not being a jurisdictional requirement, is deemed waived if
not seasonably objected to. Defenses and objections not
pleaded are deemed waived under Rule 9, Sec. 1 if not
raised in the motion to dismiss or answer.
Rule 3: Parties
Q: Define class suit.
Rule 3, 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.
Rule 2: Cause of Action
Q:
(a) B&D filed two suits based on the same cause of
action? Is this valid?
(b) What is the remedy in case of splitting of causes of
action?
A: No, this violates the principle of splitting of causes of
action under the Rules
Under Rule 2, Sec. 4, 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 remedies
The remedy in case of splitting of causes of action on the
ground of that there is another action pending the same
parties for the same cause of action and that the cause of
action is barred by prior judgment is to file an appeal.
Rule 3: Parties
PUP entered into a contract with B Corp. for the
rehabilitation of school building. B complied with the
obligation. However, PUP did not pay because its funds
were disapproved by COA. B filed a suit against PUP. PUP
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that it is immune
from suit. Decide. CA dismissed the case. Was the
dismissal proper.
A: No, the judgment is not valid.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the State cannot be sued
without its consent.
Q: Juana Complex I HOA v. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., (2012). In
this case, the suit is clearly one that benefits all
commuters and motorists who use La Paz Road. As
succinctly stated by the CA:
The subject matter of the instant case, i.e., the closure
and excavation of the La Paz Road, is initially shown to be
of common or general interest to many persons. The
records reveal that numerous individuals have filed
manifestations with the lower court, conveying their
intention to join private respondents in the suit and
claiming that they are similarly situated with private
respondents for they were also prejudiced by the acts of
petitioners in closing and excavating the La Paz Road.
Moreover, the individuals sought to be represented by
private respondents in the suit are so numerous that it is
impracticable to join them all as parties and be named
individually as plaintiffs in the complaint. These
individuals claim to be residents of various barangays in
Biñan, Laguna and other barangays in San Pedro, Laguna.
Rule 4: Venue
Q:
(a) May the parties in an action for foreclosure of
mortgage stipulate as to the exclusive venue of the
action?
(b) As judge, what would you do?
A: No. As a general rule, the parties may validly agree in
writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive
venue thereof under Rule 4, Sec. 4. However, in Sps.
Ochoa v. China Banking Corp. (2011), it was held by the
Supreme Court that Rule 4, Sec. 4 can only be applied to
ordinary action and not to foreclosure of mortgage.
As judge, I would grant the motion to dismiss on the
ground of improper venue without prejudice to the
refilling of the case since improper venue as a ground for
the dismissal of the action is not one of those mentioned
in Rule 16, Sec. 5 which is appealable.
Rule 6: Pleadings
Q: In a letter dated February 18, 2004, Flordelis B.
Menzon, Regional Director of the Home Development
Mutual Fund (Pag-IBIG), requested the intervention of
Executive Judge Sinforiano A. Monsanto (Executive Judge
Monsanto) of the RTC of Catbalogan, Samar on the
alleged anomalous auction sale conducted by Sheriff
IVLorenzo De Guzman (De Guzman). According to Pag-
IBIG, De Guzman previously acceded to its request to
move the date of the auction sale to January 20, 2004;
however, to its surprise, the sale proceeded as originally
scheduled on January 15, 2004. Pag-IBIG also claimed
that the winning bid of Leoncio Lim (Leoncio) in the
amount of P500,000.00 was grossly disadvantageous to
the government considering that the outstanding loan
obligations of the mortgagor, Eduardo Monsanto
(Eduardo), was more than the bid amount. Is the
intervention valid?
A: Monsato v. Lim, (2014). In this case, records show that
no formal complaint or petition was filed in court. The case
was supposedly "commenced" through a letter of Pag-IBIG
asking the intervention of Executive Judge Monsanto on
the alleged anomalous foreclosure sale conducted by De
Guzman. However, said letter could not in any way be
considered as a pleading. Rule 6, Sec. 1 defines pleadings
as "written statements of the respective claims and
defenses of the parties submitted to the court for
appropriate judgment." To stress, Pag-IBIG’s letter could
not be considered as a formal complaint or petition. First,
the parties to the case were not identified pursuant to
Section 1, Rule 3 and Section 1, Rule 7. Second, the so-
2
called claim or cause of action was not properly
mentioned or specified. Third, the letter miserably failed
to comply with the requirements of Rule 7, Rules of Court.
The letter bore no caption; it was not even assigned a
docket number; the parties were not properly identified;
the allegations were not properly set forth; no particular
relief is sought; in fact, only the intervention of Executive
Judge Monsanto is requested; it was not signed by a
counsel; and most of all, there is no verification or
certification against forum-shopping.
Rule 7: Forum Shopping
No, A’s contention is not tenable.
Forum shopping (a) is the act of litigants who (b)
repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial remedies
(MJR) in different fora, (c) simultaneously or successively
(SS), (d) all substantially founded on the same transactions
and the same essential facts and circumstances; and (e)
raising substantially similar issues either pending in or
already resolved adversely by some other court; or (f) for
the purpose of increasing their chances of obtaining a
favorable decision, if not in one court, then in another.
In this case, although there is identity of the parties in the
present case, the actions filed by the Respondents prayed
for different relief. It is also not resorted to, to gain
favorable judgment in different courts but only in pursuant
of the remedies available to it under the law. Hence, there
is no forum shopping.
Rule 8: Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
Q: Failure to deny under oath the allegations in an
actionable document
A: As counsel for B, I will move for judgment on the
pleadings.
Under Rule 8, Sec. 8, an action based on an actionable
document to be contested must deny specifically under
oath the genuineness and due execution of such
document and set forth the facts that he claims to be.
In this case, since the denial was not under oath, the
contents of the promissory note are deemed admitted.
Hence, there is no longer a triable issue. Thus, as counsel I
shall move for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34.
Q: A obtained a loan in the amount of P1M from B and
executed a promissory note, A failed to pay the said
loaned amount. B filed a case against A for sum of
money. A filed her answer and denied the existence of
the said promissory note for lack of knowledge sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the said document.
A: Under Rule 8, Sec. 10, where a defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of an allegation, he shall so state and this shall
have the effect of denial. However, the denial of A
constitutes bad faith, and such denial is constitutes an
admission. Moreover in contesting an actionable
document, the genuineness and due execution of such
promissory note are deemed admitted because A did not
make a denial under oath of the genuineness and due
execution of the document.
Since there is already an admission by A, judgment on the
pleadings under Rule 34 is proper upon motion of B and
the RTC may grant such relief as B’s pleading may warrant.
Rule 9: Effect of Failure to Plead
Q: Motion for extension of time in environmental cases
A: Under the Rules on Environmental Cases, a motion for
extension of time to file a pleading is a prohibited motion,
except to file an answer, the extension of which shall not
exceed 15 days.
Hence, a motion for extension of time to file an answer
may be allowed.
Q: Declaration of Default in Environmental Cases
A: Under the Rules on Environmental Cases, a motion to
declare a defendant in default is a prohibited motion.
However, under the same rules, it provides that:
Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within
the period provided, the court shall declare defendant in
default and upon motion of the plaintiff, shall receive in
evidence ex parte and render judgment based thereon and
the reliefs prayed for.
Q:
A: No, the dismissal is not correct.
The complaint is the written statement of cause of action
of the plaintiff submitted to the court for appropriate
action. The allegations therein must be considered in
rendering judgment. Moreover, preponderance of
evidence is the quantum of evidence required in civil cases
where the evidence of the parties when taken together, it
must be shown that the evidence of one is greater than
the other.
In this case, since B failed to file an answer to the
complaint of A should be given merit because he proved
his claim by preponderance of evidence.
Rule 10: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Q: Is it required to pay docket fees when supplemental
complaint is filed?
A: No, payment of docket fees is no longer required in a
supplemental complaint.
In the case of Do-All Metal Industries, Inc. v. Security Bank
Corp. it was held that on the issue of jurisdiction,
respondent Bank argues that plaintiffs’ failure to pay the
filing fees on their supplemental complaint is fatal to their
action.
But what the plaintiffs failed to pay was merely the filing
fees for their Supplemental Complaint. The RTC acquired
jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ action from the moment they
filed their original complaint accompanied by the
payment of the filing fees due on the same. The plaintiffs’
non-payment of the additional filing fees due on their
additional claims did not divest the RTC of the jurisdiction
it already had over the case.
3
A supplemental complaint is like any complaint and the
rule is that the filing fees due on a complaint need to be
paid upon its filing. The rules do not require the court to
make special assessments in cases of supplemental
complaints.
Q: Jejomar filed a motion to dismiss. Then declared in
default. Remedy
A: Under Rule 10, Sec. 2, a party may amend his pleading
once a matter of right at any time before a responsive
pleading is served or, in case of a reply, at any time within
10 days after it is served. Moreover, according to
jurisprudence, a motion to dismiss is not a responsive
pleading.
Hence, since Jejomar did not file his answer, the court
properly declared him in default.
In case of declaration of default, his remedy is to file a
motion to lift order of default on the ground of FAME with
the corresponding affidavit of merit. If denied, file MR
then petition for certiorari under Rule 65 since there is no
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.
Before finality, he may file MR, new trial or appeal.
After finality, file petition for relief from judgment under
Rule 38, annulment of judgment under Rule 47, petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 or collateral attack
Rule 14: Summons
Q:
(a) Service of summons to a housemaid, valid?
(b) As judge, what would you do in case of defect in the
summons?
A: Under the law, the general rule is that service must be
done by personal service pursuant to Rule 14, Sec. 6.
However, substituted service may be effected provided
that the following requisites are present:
(1) The party relying on substituted service or the sheriff
must show that defendant cannot be served promptly
or there is impossibility of prompt service
(2) The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons
the facts and circumstances surrounding the
attempted personal service. The efforts made to find
the defendant and the reasons behind the failure
must be clearly narrated in detail in the Return.
(3) If the substituted service will be effected at
defendants house or residence, it should be left with
a person of suitable age and discretion then residing
therein
(4) If the substituted service will be done at defendants
office or regular place of business, then it should be
served on a competent person in charge of the place
In the case at bar, since the personal service of summons
was not made, there was substituted service of summons
given to the housemaid of B, who is living in his residence
and of suitable age and discretion.
I will deny the motion of B
Under the Rule 14, Sec. 20, the defendant’s voluntary
appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of
summons. Also, according to jurisprudence, there can be
voluntary appearance of the defendant when he seeks
affirmative relief to the court such as filing a motion for
extension of time.
In this case, his motion for extension of time, which
constitutes an affirmative relief is tantamount to voluntary
appearance and the court has acquired jurisdiction over
his person.
Rule 15: Motion
Q: What is the omnibus motion rule? What are the
exceptions?
Rule 15, Sec. 8. Omnibus motion — Subject to the
provisions of Sec. 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a
pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding (POJP) shall
include all objections then available, and all objections not
so included shall be deemed waived.
Q: A file a case for collection of sum of money against B
in the RTC of Manila. After hearing, the court rendered a
decision in favor of A ordering B to pay A, which became
final and executory. C, counsel for A file a Motion for
Issuance of Writ of Execution on May 16, 2012 and set it
for hearing on May 18, 2012 at 2PM copy furnished D
counsel for B. On the hearing of the motion A & B
appeared together with their counsel, and the latter was
given a chance to file his Comment on the motion within
five (5) days. In his comment, D contended that the
motion does not comply with the three (3) days notice
requirement on motions. Is the contention correct?
Answer: No, the contention is not correct.
The 3 day notice rule on motion is not an absolute rule. By
way of exception, as long as the adverse party will be given
an opportunity to be heard and to object on the motion,
the 3 day notice rule will not apply.
In this case, B and his counsel was given five (5) days to
comment on the motion. Hence, there was no violation of
the 3 day notice rule.
XPN to 3-Day Notice Rule: urgent motions, non-litigated
motions, ex parte motions, joint motions, motions agreed
by the parties to be served on shorter notice, and
summary judgment motions.
Rule 16: Motion to Dismiss
Q: Motion to dismiss based on res judicata, requisites.
A: For dismissal on res judicata to apply, the following
requisites must be present:
(a) There should be a judgment that is final;
(b) The judgment must be an adjudication on the merits
(c) Jurisdiction was acquired by competent court on the
subject matter and defendant
(d) Identity of the parties, causes of action and relief
In this case, since there was no valid service of summons,
jurisdiction was not acquired over the person of the
4
defendant. Hence, the dismissal on the ground of res
judicata shall not apply.
Rule 17: Dismissal of Actions
A filed a case against B. B filed counterclaim. A failed to
prosecute the case so Judge dismissed the claim and the
counterclaim. Is the dismissal of the counterclaim
correct?
A: Under Rule 17, Sec. 3, if, for no justifiable cause, the
plaintiff fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable
length of time, the complaint may be dismissed upon
defendant’s motion 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.
In this case, the dismissal of the judge of the counterclaim
is not correct since it can be prosecuted by the defendant
in the same or separate action pursuant to Rule 17, Sec. 3.
Q: Failure to appear in the presentation of evidence in
chief
A: Under Rule 17, Sec. 3, if, for no justifiable cause, the
plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of
his evidence in chief on the complaint, the complaint may
be dismissed upon defendant’s motion 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.
Q:
(a) Failure to appear in envi cases, effect?
(b) Recourse of plaintiff?
A:
(a) The court shall not dismiss the complaint, except
upon repeated and unjustified failure to appear. The
dismissal shall be without prejudice and the court
may proceed with the counterclaim.
(b) If the defendant fails to appear at the pre-trial, the
court shall receive evidence ex parte.
Rule 29: Refusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery
Q: Refusal to comply with written interrogatories
Rule 29, Sec. 5. Failure of party to attend or serve answers
— If a party or an officer or managing agent of a party
wilfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take his
deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or fails
to serve answers to interrogatories submitted under Rule
25 after proper service of such interrogatories, the court
on motion and notice, may strike out all or any part of any
pleading of that party, or dismiss the action or proceeding
or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by default against
that party, and in its discretion, order him to pay
reasonable expenses incurred by the other, including
attorney's fees.
Rule 33: Demurrer to Evidence
A filed a case against B before the RTC of Quezon City for
collection of sum of money. After the presentation of the
plaintiff’s evidence, B filed a demurrer to evidence which
was denied by the court, and the trial proceeded, then
the court rendered a judgment in favor of A. B filed an
appeal to the Court of Appeals and assigned as one of the
errors the denial of his demurrer to evidence. The Court
of Appeals set aside the judgment of the lower court and
granted the demurrer to evidence based on insufficiency
of evidence, and dismissed the case. Is the dismissal
valid?
A: No, considering that demurrer to evidence is a motion
to dismiss which must be filed before the court which
renders the judgment, and it is no longer within the power
of the Court of Appeals to rule on the same.
Rule 34: Judgment on the Pleadings
Rule 36: Judgment
A file a case against B, C, D. D is a corporation. Judgment
in favor of A. B filed a petition for certiorari of the
judgment. It was signed by counsel (no board resolution).
While the petition for certiorari was pending. Judgment
by A was satisfied. If you were the judge, how would you
treat the decision?
A: Jacinto v. Gumaru, G.R. No. 191906, June 2, 2004
The Court finds that the Petition has become moot and
academic.
It is true, as petitioner asserts, that if for reasonable or
justifiable reasons he is unable to sign the verification and
certification against forum shopping in his CA Petition, he
may execute a special power of attorney designating his
counsel of record to sign the Petition on his behalf. In
Altres v. Empleo, this view was taken:
For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates
in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements
already reflected above respecting noncompliance with
the requirements on, or submission of defective,
verification and certification against forum shopping:
(1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance
with the requirement on or submission of defective
verification, and non-compliance with the
requirement on or submission of defective
certification against forum shopping.
(2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a
defect therein does not necessarily render the
pleading fatally defective. The court may order its
submission or correction or act on the pleading if the
attending circumstances are such that strict
compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in
order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
(3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with
when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the
truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition
signs the verification, and when matters alleged in
the petition have been made in good faith or are true
and correct.
(4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-
compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in
verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent
5
 submission or correction thereof, unless there is a
need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial
compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or
compelling reasons."
(5) The certification against forum shopping must be
signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case;
otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as
parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or
petitioners share a common interest and invoke a
common cause of action or defense, the signature of
only one of them in the certification against forum
shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
(6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must
be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel.
H, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the
party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a
Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of
record to sign on his behalf.
However, while the Court takes the petitioner's side with
regard to the procedural issue dealing with verification
and the certification against forum shopping, it
nonetheless appears that the Petition has been overtaken
by events. In a May 24, 2011 Manifestation, respondent
informed this Court that the judgment award has been
satisfied in full. The petitioner does not dispute this claim,
in which case, the labor case is now deemed ended. "It is
axiomatic that after a judgment has been fully satisfied,
the case is deemed terminated once and for all." And
"when a judgment has been satisfied, it passes beyond
review, satisfaction being the last act and the end of the
proceedings, and payment or satisfaction of the obligation
thereby established produces permanent and irrevocable
discharge; hence, a judgment debtor who acquiesces to
and voluntarily complies with the judgment is estopped
from taking an appeal therefrom."
With the above development in the case, the instant
Petition is rendered moot and academic. The satisfaction
of the judgment in full has placed the case beyond the
Court's review. "Indeed, there are no more proceedings to
speak of inasmuch as these were terminated by the
satisfaction of the judgment."
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for being moot and
academic.
Rule 38: Petition for Relief
Q: Remedy in case of petition for relief from judgment?
A: The remedy is to file a motion for reconsideration. And
in case of denial of MR, file a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 since under Rule 41, no appeal shall be taken from
an order denying a petition for relief or other similar
action seeking relief.
Rule 39: Execution
Q: A filed an ejectment case against B. The court, after
due hearing, ruled in favor of A. During the execution of B
suddenly disappeared, hence, it cannot be enforced. How
would you enforce the judgment after 5 years? Which
court has jurisdiction? Venue?
A: I will file action for revival of judgment with the RTC
because it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. It depends
whether the property is real or personal.
Appeal
Q: Lack of verification in appealed cases
A: Yes, the CA is correct in dismissing the action
Under the Rules, non-compliance of the formal
requirements in appealed cases shall be a ground for the
dismissal of the CA motu proprio or upon motion of the
appellee of the case.
In this case, the CA correctly dismissed the case since
verification is a formal requirement in appealed cases.
Q: A filed a case before the MTC for the recovery of a
sum of money which was dismissed by the said court for
lack of jurisdiction. A appealed to the RTC wherein said
court assumed jurisdiction.
(a) Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over the case?
(b) In case of adverse decision of RTC, what is the
proper remedy?
A:
(a) Rule 40, Sec. 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case
without trial; lack of jurisdiction – If an appeal is taken
from an order of the lower court dismissing the case
without a trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court
may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In case
of affirmance and the ground of dismissal is lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial
Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case
on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it.
In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for
further proceedings.
If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court
without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional
Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has
original jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the case in
accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice
to the admission of amended pleadings and additional
evidence in the interest of justice.
(b) Since it is as if originally filed with the RTC, the
remedy is to file an appeal, by notice of appeal within
15 days from decision by way of Rule 41.
Q: RTC sitting as Special Commercial Court, remedy?
A: The remedy in case of adverse decision of RTC sitting as
special commercial court is to file a petition for review
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court with the court of
Appeals
Under the Intellectual Property Code, the RTC sitting as
commercial court is acting as a quasi-judicial body in
adjudicating the cases before it.
Hence, I would file a petition for review under Rule 43 with
the Court of Appeals.
Q: Where no appeal can be taken?
6
A; Rule 41, Sec. 1. Subject of appeal — An appeal may be
taken from a judgment or final order that completely
disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein
when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a motion for new trial or
reconsideration;
(b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar
motion seeking relief from judgment;
(c) An interlocutory order;
(d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(e) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by
consent, confession or compromise on the ground of
fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground
vitiating consent;
(f) An order of execution;
(g) A judgment or final order for or against one or more
of several parties or in separate claims,
counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party
complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the
court allows an appeal therefrom; and
(h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
In all the above instances where the judgment or final
order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. (n)
Summary Procedure
Q: A filed collection for sum of money for 100,000 and
attorney’s fee (jurisdictional amount sa summary
procedure). B filed a counterclaim for 50,000. A failed to
appear in the trial? Judge dismissed the complaint and
counterclaim.
a. Was the dismissal of the complaint proper?
Yes, Under Sec. 7 of the Rules on Summary Procedure, the
failure of the plaintiff to appear in pre-trial shall be a cause
for the dismissal of the complaint.
b. Is the dismissal of the counterclaim proper?
Under Sec. 7, the defendant who appears in the absence
of the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on his
counterclaim in accordance with Sec. 6 hereof. All cross-
claims shall be dismissed.
If the sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall
be entitled to judgment either upon motion or motu
proprio by the court as may be warranted by the facts
alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for.
This Rule shall not apply where one of two or more
defendants sued under a common cause of action who
had pleaded a common defense shall appear at the
preliminary conference.
Q: Jurisdiction in Summary regardless of unpaid rentals
sought.
A: The motion should be denied.
Under B.P. 129, as amended, the MTC shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction over unlawful detainer cases.
Moreover, the Rules on Summary Procedure provides that
jurisdiction of MTC over unlawful detainer cases is
irrespective of the unpaid rentals sought to be recovered.
In this case, jurisdiction was properly acquired since the
case was filed in the MTC of Maguindanao. Hence, the
motion should be dismissed/denied.
Q: Unlawful detainer where parties are Muslims
Under Batas Pambansa 129, cases of forcible entry and
unlawful detainer falls within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the MTC. Also the rules on Summary
Procedure provides that jurisdiction of MTC over unlawful
detainer cases is irrespective of the unpaid rentals sought
to be recovered and even if one or both of the parties are
Muslims.
In this case, SDC has no jurisdiction over forcible entry or
unlawful detainer cases even if both or one of the parties
is Muslim. It is the MTC which has jurisdiction.
Small Claims
Q: Engaged in the Business of Lending, venue?
As counsel for Rodrigo, and considering that the amount
claimed is within the Rules on Small Claims, I will file the
case in the Municipal/City Trial Court in Davao.
Under the 2016 Amended Rules on Small Claims, as a
general rule, the regular rules on venue shall apply,
However, if the plaintiff is engaged in the business of
lending and that he has a branch where the defendant
resides, it shall be filed where such branch is located.
In this case, it shall be filed in the municipal or city court of
Davao City.
Q: False representation as to engaged in lending or other
business activities?
A: Yes, the dismissal is correct since under the Rules on
Small Claims, when the plaintiff falsely represents that he
is engaged in the business of lending or similar activities, it
shall be a cause of the dismissal of the Statement of Claims
with prejudice and shall be meted with appropriate
sanctions such as direct contempt. Hence, the dismissal is
proper
Q: Remedy in Small Claims?
A: The remedy is petition for certiorari under Rule 65 since
judgment in Small Claims is final, executory and
unappealable. He may no longer move for reconsideration
since it is a prohibited pleading under the Rules on Small
Claims
Q: Physical inability in small claims
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.
Motion means a party’s request, written or oral, to the
court for an order or other action. It shall include an
informal written request to the court, such as a letter;
7

Q: Failure of the plaintiff to appear
Sec. 20. Non-appearance of Parties – Failure of the
plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the
Statement of Claim/s without prejudice. The defendant
who appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be
entitled to judgment on a permissive counterclaim.
Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the same
effect as failure to file a Response under Section 14 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 Statement of Claim/s and the
counterclaim.
Rule 57: Preliminary Attachment
Rule 57, Sec. 1. Grounds upon which attachment may
issue — At the commencement of the action or at any
time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper
party may have the property of the adverse party attached
as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may
be recovered in the following cases:
(a) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of
money or damages, other than moral and exemplary,
on a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-
contract, delict or quasi-delict against a party who is
about to depart from the Philippines with intent to
defraud his creditors;
(b) In an action for money or property embezzled or
fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use
by a public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or
an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the
course of his employment as such, or by any other
person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation
of duty;
(c) In an action to recover the possession of property
unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or converted,
when the property, or any part thereof, has been
concealed, removed, or disposed of to prevent its
being found or taken by the applicant or an
authorized person;
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a
fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the
obligation upon which the action is brought, or in the
performance thereof;
(e) In an action against a party who has removed or
disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with
intent to defraud his creditors; or
(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and
is not found in the Philippines, or on whom summons
may be served by publication. (1a)
Rule 58: Preliminary Injunction
Q: Is TRO allowed in the Environmental Cases?
A: Under the Rules on Environmental Cases, no court can
issue a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction against lawful
actions of government agencies that enforce
environmental laws or prevent violations thereof, except
the Supreme Court.
Q: Can the RTC acting as Special Commercial Court issue
injunction?
A: Concorde Condominium, Inc. v. Baculio, et. al., (2016).
Yes, since the RTC is a court of general jurisdiction
Rule 64: Review of Judgments and Final Order or
Resolutions of the COMELEC and COA
Q: Respondent Provincial Government of Antique (LGU)
and the petitioner executed a MOA concerning the life
insurance coverage of qualified barangay secretaries,
treasurers and tanod, the former obligating
P4,393,593.60 for the premium payment, and
subsequently submitting the corresponding
disbursement voucher to COA Antique for pre-audit. The
latter office disallowed the payment for lack of legal basis
under R.A. 7610, LGC. Respondent LGU appealed but its
appeal was denied.
Consequently, the petitioner filed its petition for money
claim in the COA. On November 15, 2012, the COA issued
its decision denying the petition, holding that under Sec.
447 and Sec. 458, LGC only municipal or city governments
are expressly vested with the power to secure group
insurance coverage for barangay workers; and noting the
LGU’s failure to comply with the requirement of
publication under Sec. 21 of R.A. 9184 (Government
Procurement Reform Act).
The petitioner received a copy of the COA decision on
December 14, 2012, and filed it MR on January 14, 2013.
However, the COA denied the motion, the denial being
received by the petitioner on July 14, 2014.
Hence, the petitioner filed the petition for certiorari on
August 12, 2014, but the petition for certiorari was
dismissed as earlier stated through the resolution
promulgated on August 19, 2014 for (a) the late filing of
the petition; (b) the non-submission of the proof of
service and verified declaration; and (c) the failure to
show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
respondents.
In its motion for reconsideration, the petitioner submits
that it filed the petition for certiorari within the
reglementary period following the fresh period rule
enunciated in Neypes v. CA; and that the petition for
certiorari included an affidavit of service in compliance
with Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. It admits
having overlooked the submission of a verified
declaration; and prays that the declaration attached to
the motion for reconsideration be admitted by virtue of
its substantial compliance with the Efficient Use of Paper
Rule by previously submitting a compact disc (CD)
containing the petition for certiorari and its annexes. It
disagrees with the Court, insisting that it showed and
proved grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA
in issuing the assailed decision.
(a) Can the Neypes Rule apply in Rule 64?
(b) Can Neypes Rule can be given retroactive effect?
A: The petitioner posits that the fresh period rule applies
because its Rule 64 petition is akin to a petition for review
brought under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court; hence,
8
conformably with the fresh period rule, the period to file a
Rule 64 petition should also be reckoned from the receipt
of the order denying the motion for reconsideration or the
motion for new trial.
The petitioner’s position cannot be sustained.
There is no parity between the petition for review under
Rule 42 and the petition for certiorari under Rule 64.
As to the nature of the procedures, Rule 42 governs an
appeal from the judgment or final order rendered by the
RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Such
appeal is on a question of fact, or of law, or of mixed
question of fact and law, and is given due course only
upon a prima facie showing that the RTC committed an
error of fact or law warranting the reversal or modification
of the challenged judgment or final order. In contrast, the
petition for certiorari under Rule 64 is similar to the
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, and assails a
judgment or final order of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC), or the Commission on Audit (COA). The
petition is not designed to correct only errors of
jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Questions of fact
cannot be raised except to determine whether the
COMELEC or the COA were guilty of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The reglementary periods under Rule 42 and Rule 64 are
different. In the former, the aggrieved party is allowed 15
days to file the petition for review from receipt of the
assailed decision or final order, or from receipt of the
denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. In the
latter, the petition is filed within 30 days from notice of
the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be
reviewed. The filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, if allowed under the procedural rules of
the Commission concerned, interrupts the period; hence,
should the motion be denied, the aggrieved party may file
the petition within the remaining period, which shall not
be less than five days in any event, reckoned from the
notice of denial.
The petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration on
January 14, 2013, which was 31 days after receiving the
assailed decision of the COA on December 14, 2012.
Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 64, it had only five days from
receipt of the denial of its motion for reconsideration to
file the petition. Considering that it received the notice of
the denial on July 14, 2014, it had only until July 19, 2014
to file the petition. However, it filed the petition on August
13, 2014, which was 25 days too late.
We ruled in Pates v. COMELEC that the belated filing of the
petition for certiorari under Rule 64 on the belief that the
fresh period rule should apply was fatal to the recourse. As
such, the petitioner herein should suffer the same fate for
having wrongly assumed that the fresh period rule under
Neypes applied. Rules of procedure may be relaxed only to
relieve a litigant of an injustice that is not commensurate
with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying
with the prescribed procedure. Absent this reason for
liberality, the petition cannot be allowed to prosper.
Q:
(a) In case of judgment, final order or resolution of COA,
what is your remedy? (You will be asked as counsel
the legal recourse)
A: File a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation
Rule 65 within 30 days from notice of judgment, final
order or resolution.
(b) Provided that MR was filed within the 15 day period,
but it was denied, how many days will you file the
petition for certiorari?
A: Within 15 days (balance of the 30 day period). Note:
Neypes rule is not applicable in Rule 64 petition for
certiorari.
Rule 65: Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus
Petitioner Rolly Mijares (Mijares) prays for the issuance
of a writ of mandamus in order to compel this court to
exercise its judicial independence and fiscal autonomy
against the perceived hostility of Congress. The complaint
implied that certain acts of members of Congress and the
President after the promulgation of these cases show a
threat to judicial independence. Will mandamus lie?
Answer: Requisites for the issuance of a writ of mandamus
not shown Rule 65, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that:
Rule 65, Sec. 3. Petition for mandamus – When any
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust,
or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use
and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper
court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered commanding the respondent,
immediately or at some other time to be specified by the
court, to do the act required to be done to protect the
rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained
by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
respondent.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-
forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of
section 3, Rule 46.
The writ of mandamus will issue when the act sought to be
performed is ministerial. An act is ministerial when it does
not require the exercise of judgment and the act is
performed in compliance with a legal mandate. In a
petition for mandamus, the burden of proof is on
petitioner to show that one is entitled to the performance
of a legal right and that respondent has a corresponding
duty to perform the act. Mandamus will not lie "to
compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to
do or which it is his duty not to do, or to give to the
applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law."
In this case, petitioner has not shown how he is entitled
to the relief prayed for. Hence, this court cannot be
compelled to exercise its power of judicial review since
there is no actual case or controversy.
Note: See Highlighted parts
Rule 67: Expropriation
9
 denied, file a separate civil specifically deny under oath
Q: During the pendency of the trial, the property action the genuineness and due
expropriated was no longer intended for public purpose. Dismissal by the plaintiff Dismissal by plaintiff may execution of the document
Plaintiff filed a motion to discontinue expropriation. Rule be effected by notice to the and state the facts which
on the motion court but if a prior action he believes to be true
has been dismissed by Motion to dismiss Defendant: File an answer
A: Motion to discontinue expropriation granted. notice, the defendant may alleging as affirmative
file a motion to dismiss on defense the ground for
Under the 1987 Constitution, private property shall not be the basis of the two dismissal and proceed to
taken for public use without payment of just dismissal rule pursuant to trial. In case of adverse
compensation. Moreover, jurisprudence provided that Rule 17, Sec. 1 decision, file an appeal.
public use is a continuing requirement in expropriation
proceeding such that if it cease to exist, it becomes duty of Dismissal may also be by Plaintiff: if appeal is
the court to dismiss the complaint. motion of the plaintiff. The granted, file MR, and if
dismissal is without tainted with grave abuse of
Hence, since the property expropriated is no longer prejudice discretion, file a petition for
intended of public purpose, the motion to discontinue Splitting of Causes of Defendant: File a motion to certiorari under Rule 65
expropriation proceedings must be granted. Action dismiss on the ground of Defective Verification Plaintiff: Motion to amend
that there is another case the pleading
(b) Is the respondent entitled to anything, if any? pending between the same
parties for the same cause Defendant: File a motion to
Answer: Respondent shall not be entitled to “just of action under Rule 16, strike out the unverified
compensation” since the property expropriated shall be Sec. 1(e) or that the cause pleading from the records.
reverted to him as a consequence of the expropriation of action is barred by prior Dismissal in Small Claims File petition for certiorari
proceedings. However, he shall be entitled to actual and judgment under Rule 16, under Rule 65.
other compensatory damages from the time of taking Sec. 1(f)
(filing of complaint/actual taking) up to the time that the 1. Denial of Third Party File MR, if MR is denied file
property is reverted to him. If motion is denied, file an Complaint petition for certiorari under
answer alleging as Rule 65 since judgment or
Expropriation. Is motion to dismiss allowed in affirmative defense either final orders in third-party
expropriation? both grounds and proceed complaints, while the main
to trial. In case of adverse case is pending is generally
Answer: Under Rule 67, Motion to Dismiss is not allowed decision, file an appeal. not appealable, unless the
in expropriation proceedings. The proper remedy is to file Judgment by Default court allows an appeal
an Answer and raise affirmative defense the grounds for Execution of Award in (1) Execution within 6 therefrom.
dismissal. Katarungang Pambarangay months from the date 1. Complete relief for File a motion to bring in
of settlement or award counterclaim and new parties (Rule 6, Sec.
to the Barangay cross claim other than 12)
Remedies
(2) File the proper the original parties
petition with the court 2. Failure of the Amended Rules on Small
Granting of complete relief Motion to bring in new after then lapse of 6 Respondent to file Claims, Sec. 14. Should the
in the determination of parties under Rule 6, Sec. months from date or Verified Response in defendant fail to file
counterclaim or cross- 12 award or settlement, Small Claims his/her/its Response within
claim for the execution the required period, and
Order denying motion to File an appeal to the
likewise fail to appear on
intervene motion to intervene. If still Actionable Document The defendant shall the date set for hearing,
10
 the court shall render
judgment on the same day,
as may be warranted by the
facts alleged in the
Statement of Claim/s.
Should the defendant fail to
file his/her/its Response
within the required period
but appears on the date set
for hearing, the court shall
ascertain what defense
he/she/it has to offer which
shall constitute his/ her/its
Response, and proceed to
hear or adjudicate the case
on the same day as if a
Response has been filed.
Notice of Lis Pendens Plaintiff: File an appeal to
the LRA en consulta within
5 days from notice of
denial.
If appeal is denied, file MR
if the motion is denied file a
petition for review under
Rule 43 with the CA.
In case denial, file MR
under Rule 52.
In case the motion is
dismissed, file petition for
review on certiorari with
the Supreme Court under
Rule 45
3. Action is a SLAPP Rules on Envi, Rule 6, Sec.
2. SLAPP as a defense; how
alleged – In a SLAPP filed
against a person involved in
the enforcement of
environmental laws,
protection of the
environment, or assertion
of environmental rights, the
defendant may file his
answer interposing as
defense that the case is a
SLAPP and shall be
supported by documents,
affidavits, papers, and
other evidence, and, by
way of counterclaim, pray
for damages; attorney’s
fees. And costs of suit.
In case of adverse decision
in SLAPP.
Rules on Envi, Rule 6, Sec.
4. The dismissal shall be
with prejudice.
Remedy: Appeal
4. Motion for File a petition for certiorari
Reconsideration of an under Rule 65 pursuant to
Interlocutory Order Rule 41, Sec. 1(b)
5. Failure to comply with Two remedies:
order to file bill of
particulars (1) Motion to strike the
pleading with
ambiguous allegations
(2) Dismissal under Rule
17, Sec. 3 for failure to
comply with lawful
order of the court
6. Denial of Petition for Two remedies:
Annulment of
Judgment (1) If annulment of
judgment of MTC, file
an appeal by notice of
appeal within 15 days
to the Court of
Appeals under Rule 41
(2) If annulment of
judgment of RTC, file a
petition for review on
certiorari with 15 days
to the Supreme Court
under Rule 45
Improper Venue in File Answer and raise as
Unlawful Detainer Cases affirmative defense the
Remedy in case of denial of
writ of execution
Denial of Motion for
Intervention
Failure to make page
reference in appellant’s
brief
Examination of deponent
is to harass or annoy him
Pleading with sham and
scandalous matter
ground of improper venue
and proceed to trial.
Note: Motion to dismiss is a
prohibited motion in
summary proceedings. So
hindi pede mag MTD.
File a motion for
reconsideration.
In case of denial, file
petition for mandamus
under Rule 65. (Note: Writ
of execution shall issue as a
matter of right when the
judgment has become final
and executory. Hence, it is
the ministerial duty of the
court to issue it)
Two remedies:
(1) File an appeal from the
order denying motion
for intervention
(2) File a separate action
Rule 50, Sec. 1(f). An
appeal may be dismissed by
the Court of Appeals, on its
own motion or on that of
the appellee
File a Writ of Kalikasan and
ask for Temporary
Environmental Protection
Order in the same action
File a motion to terminate
or limit examination with
the RTC where the action is
pending (Rule 23, Sec. 18)
Motion to strike pleading or
part thereof. Plus
Rule 7, Sec. 3. Counsel who
deliberately alleges
scandalous or indecent
matter shall be subject to
appropriate disciplinary
11

When Admission under
Rule 26 is thru mistake
Failure to comply with the
Order to Provide SPL
Denial of Petition for Relief
from Judgment
Denial of Motion for New
Trial
Remedy in case of Adverse
Claim
action
File a motion to withdraw
or amend admission (Rule
26, Sec. 4) on the ground
that no admission was
actually made and that his
silence on the request for
admission was merely due
to inadvertence or
excusable neglect.
Rule 61, Sec. 5.
Enforcement of Order – If
the adverse party fails to
comply with an order
granting support pendente
lite, the court shall, motu
proprio, or upon motion,
issue an order of execution
against him, without
prejudice to his liability for
contempt
Motion to amend the
pleading to conform to
evidence. However, failure
to make such motion will
not affect the court’s
judgment on the case.
Not appealable (Rule 41,
Sec. 1(a))
Remedy: File a motion for
reconsideration. In case of
denial of MR, file petition
for certiorari under Rule 65
Appeal the judgment as
well as the order denying
motion for new trial
pursuant to A.M. No. 07-7-
12-SC
File an appeal to the LRA en
consulta within 5 days from
denial.
In case of denial, file MR.
If MR is denied, file a
petition for review with the
Court of Appeals under
Rule 43.
In case of denial, file MR.
In case of denial of MR, file
petition for review on
certiorari with the SC within
15 days pursuant to Rule 45
7. Adverse Decision in If originally filed with the
Accion Publiciana, MTC, file a notice of appeal
how made? within 15 days from notice
of judgment or final order
appealed from under Rule
40. Appeal is with the RTC
If originally filed with the
RTC, file a notice of appeal
within 15 days from notice
of judgment or final order
appealed from under Rule
41 with the RTC.
8. Adverse decision in File a notice of appeal
interdictal, how within 15 days from notice
made? of judgment or final order
appealed from under Rule
41. Appeal should be filed
with the RTC
9. Adverse decision in The appeal shall be taken
expropriation, how within 15 days from notice
made? of judgment or final order
appeal from. Where a
record on appeal is
required, the appellant
shall file a notice of appeal
and a record on appeal
within 30 days from notice
of the judgment or final
order. Appeal is with the
RTC
10. Adverse decision in The appeal shall be taken
partition, how made within 15 days from notice
of judgment or final order
appeal from. Where a
record on appeal is
required, the appellant
shall file a notice of appeal
and a record on appeal
within 30 days from notice
of the judgment or final
order. Appeal is with the
RTC
11. Adverse decision in Under Rule 71, Sec. 11, the
indirect contempt judgment or final order of a
court in a case of indirect
may be appealed to the
proper court as in criminal
cases. But execution of the
judgment or final order
shall not be suspended
until a bond is filed by the
person adjudged in
contempt, in an amount
fixed by the court from
which the appeal is taken,
conditioned that if the
appeal be decided against
him he will abide by and
perform the judgment or
final order.
12. Denial of Writ of Under Rule 7, Sec. 16 of the
Kalikasan Rules on Environmental
cases, within 15 days from
the date of notice of the
adverse judgment or denial
of the motion for
reconsideration, any party
may appeal to the SC under
Rule 45. The appeal may
raise question of fact.
13. Motion to dismiss is File an answer alleging as
denied. affirmative defense the
grounds for the dismissal.
In case of adverse decision,
appeal to the next higher
court
File a Petition for certiorari
if there is grave abuse of
discretion.
14. Denial of Writ of Under Sec. 19 of the Rule
12
 Amparo
15. Remedy of defendant
in SLAPP cases
16. Petition for certiorari
17. In case of grave abuse
of discretion of Civil
Service Commission
18. Adverse Claim
on Writ of Amparo, any
party may appeal from the
final judgment or order to
the SC under Rule 45.
The appeal may raise
questions of fact or law or
both.
The period to appeal shall
be 5 working days from the
date of notice of the
adverse judgment. The
appeal shall be given
priority as in habeas
corpus.
Under Rule 6, Sec. 2, the
defendant may file an
answer interposing as a
defense that the case is a
SLAPP and shall be
supported by documents,
affidavits, papers and other
evidence, and, by way of
counterclaim, pray for
damages, attorney’s fees
and costs of suit.
File a petition for certiorari,
the petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45
File MR, then file a petition
for certiorari with the next
higher court
File an appeal to the LRA en
consulta within 5 days from
notice of denial of the
adverse claim. In case of
adverse decision, file MR.
If MR is denied, file petition
for review under Rule 43
with the Court of Appeals.
In case of adverse decision,
file MR. In case MR is
denied, file petition for
review on certiorari under
Rule 45 with the CA
19. FEUD, defendant in
case of non-payment
of periodic monthly
rentals
20. Denial of Continuing File MR, if denied, file
Mandamus petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 with the next lower
court
21. Death of Mortgagor,
remedy of mortgagee
22. Denial of Habeas Data Under Sec. 19 of the Rule
on Writ of Amparo, any
party may appeal from the
final judgment or order to
the SC under Rule 45.
The appeal may raise
questions of fact or law or
both.
The period to appeal shall
be 5 working days from the
date of notice of the
adverse judgment. The
appeal shall be given
priority as in habeas
corpus.
23. Denial of Foreclosure The appeal shall be taken
of REM within 15 days from notice
of judgment or final order
appeal from. Where a
record on appeal is
required, the appellant
shall file a notice of appeal
and a record on appeal
within 30 days from notice
of the judgment or final
order. Appeal is with the
RTC or CA as the case may
be
24. Two Dismissal Rule File an appeal to the next
lower court by filing a
notice of appeal within 15
days since dismissal is with
25. RTC in Unfair
Competition
26. Failure to refer the
case with barangay
27. Failure to appear in
pre-trial conference
Distinctions
Q: Error of Judgment v. Error of Jurisdiction
Error of Judgment
One which the court may
commit in the exercise of
jurisdiction
Such an error does not
deprive the court of
jurisdiction
Correctible by appeal
Q: Failure to State Cause of Action v. Lack of Cause of
Action
Failure to State Cause of
Action
Rule 16, Sec. 1(g)
prejudice
File an MR. If MR is denied,
file a petition for review
under Rule 43 with the CA
since the RTC is acting as a
quasi-judicial body.
Defendant: Motion to
dismiss based on failure to
comply with a condition
precedent under Rule 16,
Sec. 1(j). In case of denial,
file an answer and raise as
affirmative defense of
failure to comply with
adverse judgment. In case
of adverse decision, file an
appeal
Plaintiff: In case of motion
to dismiss is granted,
comply with the referral of
the case and refile the case.
Error of Jurisdiction
One which the court acts
without or in excess of
jurisdiction
Such an error renders an
order or judgment void or
voidable
Correctible by the special
civil action of certiorari
Lack of Cause of Action
Rule 33; Rule 10, Sec. 5
13
Refers to the insufficiency
of the pleading, and a
ground for dismissal under
Rule 16
A matter of insufficiency of
the pleading
The remedy is to move for
dismissal of the pleading
Motion to dismiss is made
within the time for but
before the filing of an
answer
Determined on the basis of
the allegations in the
complaint of the plaintiff
May still be curable by
amendment of the pleading
(Rule 16, Sec. 3) as a matter
of right before a responsive
pleading has been filed,
even when a motion to
dismiss on such ground has
been made by the
defendant, the same not
being a “responsive
pleading” under the Rules
Refers to a situation where
the evidence does not
prove the cause of action
alleged in the pleading
A matter of insufficiency of
evidence
The remedy is to demur to
evidence
Demurrer is filed after the
plaintiff has completed the
presentation of his
evidence/rested its case.
Based on the appreciation
of evidence
When a demurrer is filed on
the ground of insufficiency
of evidence after the
plaintiff rests its case, the
latter may not anymore ask
for an amendment of his
pleading, but may ask the
court for the admission of a
supplemental pleading in
light of supervening events,
setting forth “transactions,
occurrences or events
(TOE) which have happened
since the date of the
pleading sought to be
supplemented.
The court may however
require an amendment
during the presentation of
evidence of the plaintiff, if
evidence that is not in issue
is not objected to by the
defendant, in which case
the evidence is deemed
“impliedly admitted” so an
amendment is not really
necessary to appreciate the
evidence; or when an
objection was in fact made,
but at the liberal discretion
If the motion to dismiss is
denied, the movant shall be
required to file his answer
within the balance of the
period to which he is
entitled at the time such
motion was filed, but in no
case shall be less than five
(5) days (Rule 16, Sec. 4)
If a motion to dismiss on
the ground of failure to
state a cause of action has
been granted, the dismissal
is without prejudice to the
refilling of the action
May be invoked in a motion
to dismiss or as an
affirmative defense in the
pleading (Rule 16, Sec. 6)
Q: Compulsory Counterclaim v. Permissive Counterclaim
Compulsory Counterclaim
Also known as Principle of
recoupment
Arises out of or is
connected with the
transaction or occurrence
constituting the subject
of the court “if the
presentation of the merits
of the action and the ends
of substantial justice will be
subserved thereby (Rule 10,
Sec. 5)
If a demurrer is denied, the
defendant shall have the
right to present evidence
If a demurrer to evidence is
granted, the dismissal is
with prejudice, as the same
is considered a judgment
on the merits of the case,
hence, the remedy of the
plaintiff is to appeal from
such judgment.
Consequently, on appeal, if
the judgment was reversed,
the defendant shall be
deemed to have waived his
right to present his
evidence
The ground of insufficiency
of evidence may be invoked
in a motion for demurrer to
evidence (Rule 33), in a MR
(Rule 37) or in an appeal
memorandum
Permissive Counterclaim
Also known as Principle of
set-off
May not arise out of and
may not be connected with
the transaction or
occurrence constituting the
matter of the opposing subject matter of the
party’s claim opposing party’s claim
Barred if not set-up in the Not barred even if not set
answer (or in the amended up in the answer
answer)
Plaintiff need not answer. Plaintiff need to answer. He
He cannot be declared in can be declared in default
default for not answering in respect thereto
Does not require Requires certification of
certification against forum non-forum shopping
shopping
Docket and other lawful Docket and other lawful
fees are suspended fees should be paid
Responsive pleading Initiatory pleading
Does not require for its Requires for its
adjudication presence of adjudication the presence
third parties of whom the of third parties of whom
court cannot acquire the court can acquire
jurisdiction jurisdiction
Motu Proprio
Affirmative Yes, under Rule 16, Sec. 6, if no motion
Defense to dismiss has been filed, any of the
Raised in the grounds for dismissal provided for in
Answer this Rule may be pleaded as affirmative
defense in the answer and, in the
discretion of the court, a preliminary
hearing may be had thereon as if a
motion to dismiss had been filed.
Trial by As a general rule, no since under the
Commissioner Rule 32, Sec. 1, the court may order any
or all the issues in a case to be referred
to a commissioner only upon written
consent of both parties.
As exception, the court may motu
proprio appoint a commissioner in the
following cases:
(a) When the trial of an issue of fact
requires the examination of a long
account on either side, in which
case the commissioner may be
directed to hear and report upon
14
 the whole issue or any specific ordinary civil action.
question involved therein
(b) When the taking of an account is By way of exception, under the Rules on
necessary for the information of Environmental Cases, the court may
the court before judgment, or for motu proprio declare a defendant in
carrying a judgment or order into default but the plaintiff may upon
effect motion be allowed to present evidence
(c) When a question of fact, other ex parte.
than upon the pleadings, arises Issuance of No, it requires an ex parte motion by
upon motion or otherwise, in any Writ of the prevailing party pursuant to Rule 39,
stage of a case, or for carrying a Execution Sec. 1.
judgment or order into effect Conclusiveness Yes, since conclusiveness of judgment is
Demurrer to As a general rule, there must be a of Judgment a specie of res judicata, the court may
Evidence motion filed by the defendant. dismissed under Rule 9, Sec. 1, in small
claims cases and summary procedure.
By way of exception, in case of
Summary Procedure or Rules on Small
Claims.
Single Motion Under the Single Motion Rule, once a
Rule MR is filed, no second motion for
reconsideration shall be filed in the
Court of Appeals or Supreme Court
Certification of No, as expressly provided in Rule 7, Sec.
Non-Forum 5, dismissal based on non-compliance
Shopping with the certification of non-forum
shopping must be upon motion and
after hearing. Moreover, it is not a
ground mentioned in Rule 9, Sec. 1 for
motu proprio dismissal of the case.

By way of exception, in Summary

Procedure and in Small Claims cases
Limit or No, under Rule 23, Sec. 18, ay anytime
Terminate during the taking of the deposition, on
Examination motion or petition of any party or of the
of Deponent deponent and upon showing that the
examination s being conducted in bad
faith or in such manner as unreasonably
to annoy, embarrass or oppress the
deponent or party,
Lapse of time Yes, under Rule 50 lapse of time of
to appeal or appeal or non-payment of docket fees is
non-payment a ground of dismissal of the case motu
of docket fees proprio or upon motion of the appellee
Declaration of As a general rule, no because it requires
Default a motion from the plaintiff in case of
15