WHO MAY BE PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

Who may be parties to civil actions?

There are several special rules on this topic, and these are found in Sections 1 to 22 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

These parties are called plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff is the claiming party, while the defendant is the party who is opposing the plaintiff’s claim. Remember that the designations of parties in ordinary civil actions are plaintiff and defendant. Not petitioner and respondent which refers to special proceedings.


There are three kinds of parties to civil actions

1. Natural persons
2. Juridical persons
3. Entities authorized by law

A natural person is an individual human being. A juridical person is a fictional person is created by law.

Under Article 44 of the New Civil Code there are 3 kinds of juridical persons:

(1) The State and its political subdivisions, such as local governments;
(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created by law, such as government-owned or controlled corporations; 
(3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose. These are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission

A sole proprietorship is not authorized by law to be a party. What I mean is that it cannot sue or be sued under its business name. The person to sue or be sued is the individual owner, but you can indicate that he/she is doing business under the name style of the single proprietorship business, and you should include the business name along with the name of its owner.

Let’s look at a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2002. It is the case of Anita Mangila vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 125027.

This caseinvolved two individuals, Anita Mangila who resided in Pampanga and Loreta Guina who resided in Paranaque.

Mangila is a seafood exporter doing business under the name and style Seafood Products. This is a sole proprietorship business. Guina has a freight forwarding business under the name and style of Air Swift International, also a single proprietorship.

Mangila engaged the services of Guina to transport seafood products from the Philippines to Guam. The items were shipped but Mangila did not pay on time despite demand.

Guina filed a complaint for sum of money against Mangila in the RTC of Pasay City. She filed it in Pasay City because that was the location of her sole proprietorship business Air Swift International.

There were a number of issues raised in this case, and one of them is improper venue.
The issue was: is it proper for the plaintiff to file the complaint in Pasay City where her sole proprietorship business is located, instead of plaintiff’s residence which is Paranaque or defendant’s residence which is Pampanga?

The Supreme Court held that venue was improper. The case should have been filed either in Paranaque or Pampanga, residence of plaintiff and defendant respectively. It should not have been filed in Pasay where the sole proprietorship business is located. 

It would have been different if the business is a corporation, which has a separate legal personality. On the other hand, in a sole proprietorship, the legal personality belongs to its owner, who is a natural person.

Another important case is Berman Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Cheng, decided in 2005.

In this case, Iloilo Memorial Park was impleaded as a Defendant. In the course of the proceedings, it was revealed that Iloilo Memorial Park is not a corporation. It is just a business name used by its owner for the memorial park. The owner of Iloilo Memorial Park was Berman Memorial Park, Inc. which is registered as a corporation. The Supreme Court ordered that Berman Memorial Park, Inc. should be impleaded as a party instead of Iloilo Memorial Park


Real parties in interest

It is important that a person who is impleaded as a party to a civil action is a real party-in-interest. Section 2 of Rule 3 defines real party-in-interest:

The interest of a party, either as a plaintiff or defendant, should be real and substantial. It should be an existing interest, one that is in esse, and not a future or inchoate one.

To determine who the real party in interest is, let us go back to the elements of a cause of action: the plaintiff's right, the defendant's obligation to respect that right, and the violation that causes damage or injury. A person can be a plaintiff if he is the owner of the right that is violated. A person can be the defendant if he was the one who committed the violated.

Thus, suppose there was a vehicular collision in which the driver of a car was injured but a passerby was not. In an action for damages due to physical injury, the driver is a real party in interest and he can bring the action as a plaintiff. The passerby cannot bring the action as a party plaintiff because he had no right that was violated by the driver.

Section 2 also states that the action must be brought in the name of the real party-in-interest. The name of the real party in interest must be stated in the title of the Complaint, either as Plaintiff or Defendant.

Even if he is a minor or an incompetent person who is under guardianship, the name of the minor or the incompetent person must be stated in the title of the Complaint, together with the name of his father, mother, guardian or guardian ad litem. (Section 5)

If the person named as Plaintiff or Defendant is not the real party in interest, Defendant can raise the affirmative defense that the Complaint states no cause of action. (Aguila vs. Court of Appeals, 319 SCRA 253).

I said earlier that the interest of a person should be in esse or already existing. Suppose Pedro is a widower. He has one son, George.  Pedro sold his land to Maria, but Pedro's son George now brings an action to nullify the sale, claiming that he is interested in the land because he is a future heir of Pedro, and he should not be deprived of his share. Since Pedro is still alive, the son George has no right over his father's property and cannot bring an action to nullify the sale. Pedro can freely dispose of his property as an owner.


Spouses as parties

When the case is against a husband and wife, they must be sued jointly, as a general rule. This is because of the presumption that their property regime is absolute community under the Family Code. However, there are instances when they may not be sued jointly.

Suppose the husband owns a piece of property that he received by inheritance during the marriage. This is his exclusive property. If that property becomes the subject of a case, only the husband has to be impleaded as a party defendant.


Indispensable parties

Rule 3, Section 7 requires that all indispensable parties be joined either as Plaintiffs or Defendants. It defines indispensable parties are those "without whom no final determination can be had of an action."

In Ma. Elena R. Divinagracia vs. Coronacion Parilla et al, GR No. 196750, March 11, 2015, the Supreme Court stated:

An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court’s action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party’s interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought is so inextricably intertwined with the other parties’ that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. Thus, the absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.

As an example, let us suppose that Juan, Pedro and Maria are siblings and they are co-owners of a parcel of land. Juan wants to have the land partitioned. Pedro and Maria are not willing to have the property partitioned. Juan now brings an action for partition but impleads Pedro only.

Can the case proceed? No. Maria is an indispensable party because the partition case cannot be completely decided without her participation. She has to be impleaded in the case as a Defendant. Under the rules on partition, if a co-owner refuses to join as plaintiff, he/she should be joined as defendant.

Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties

Indispensable parties should be joined, either as Plaintiffs or Defendants (Section 7). Otherwise, the case cannot proceed because it cannot result in a full resolution.

The court will not dismiss a case when an indispensable party is not joined. Instead, it will issue an Order to implead or join the indispensable party in the case. According to Section 11, non-joinder of parties is not a ground to dismiss a case.

Necessary party

A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who should be joined so that complete relief may be had (Section 8). In other words, the case can proceed even without that party and can be partly resolved. However, there can only be a complete resolution if the necessary party is joined.

A simple illustration is in order so you can understand this. Let's think of a "joint obligation" for a sum of money. "Debtor 1" and "Debtor 2" borrowed P100,000 from "Creditor" under a single promissory note.

It was agreed that "Debtor 1" and “Debtor 2" will each be liable for P50,000, for a total of P100,000.

After the lapse of the deadline for payment, and despite repeated demands, both debtors did not pay.

The Creditor should sue both Debtors for P100,000 under the promissory note so that he can recover the full amount.

If the creditor cannot locate "Debtor 1", he can sue "Debtor 2" for P50,000. The case can proceed against "Debtor 2" and be resolved against him to the extent of P50,000. Note that under Section 9, the creditor should explain why he cannot implead "Debtor 1" in this case.

According to Section 9:

Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. — Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted, a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.

The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.

The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party. (8a, 9a)

Unwilling co-plaintiff

According to Section 10 on unwilling co-plaintiff, "If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint."

Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties

Under Section 11 on misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, "Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately."


Class suit

Section 12 on class suit provides that "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."

The requisites are:

1. Subject matter is of common or general interest to all;
2. Persons are too numerous to bring them all before the court;
3. Suit is brought on their behalf by persons who are sufficiently numerous and representative.


An example in the imposition of toll fees along the expressway. Thousands of people use the expressway everyday. There is an impending toll fee increase, and users of the toll road would like to prevent it. This can be the subject of a class suit.

Here's an example of a case that is not a class suit: A vessel with 300 passengers sank and all passengers died. Relatives sue the shipping company for damages for their respective losses. This is not proper for a class suit because not all requisites are present. The claims of the relatives for their respective losses (damages) are specific to them, and not of a common or general interest to all.


Alternative defendants

According to Section 13 on alternative defendants, "Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right of relief against the other."


For example, we have a shipper (sender) of goods from China to Manila that engaged the services of a shipping company in China and warehouse in Manila for storage. When the consignee (recipient) received the goods in Manila, 50% were damaged. 

The consignee wants to sue for damages, but is not sure where the damage occurred – during shipping from China to Manila, or when the items were already in the warehouse in Manila. The consignee can sue both shipping company and warehouse company as alternative parties.


Unknown identity of defendant

Section 14 on unknown identity or name of defendant states: "Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other designation as the case may require, when his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended accordingly."


Entity without juridical personality

Section 15 governs entities without juridical personality as defendant. It provides: "When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known.

For example, Juan, Maria and Pedro hold themselves out as doing business under the name JMP company but did not register with the SEC. They caused damage to a client named George. George can sue them under the name JMP Company, In their answer, they should state their respective names and addresses.

Death of party

Under Section 16 on the death of a party:

Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a specified time to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. (16a, 17a)

Death or separation of a party who is a public officer

Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer. — When a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard. (18a)

Incompetency or incapacity of a party

Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity. — If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem. (19a)

Transfer of interest

Section 19. Transfer of interest. — In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. (20)

Action and contractual money claims

Section 20. Action and contractual money claims. — When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. (21a)

Indigent party

Section 21. Indigent party. — A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.

Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.

Notice to the Solicitor General

Section 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. — In any action involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the court, in its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor General who may be heard in person or a representative duly designated by him. (23a)

Representatives as parties

Representatives are those who act on behalf of another person. The representative should be duly authorized to act as such by a written document such as a special power of attorney (SPA) or a trust agreement. He or she is acting on behalf of a principal (under an SPA) or a beneficiary (under a trust agreement).

The name of the principal or beneficiary should be included in the title of the case, along with the name of the representative. (Section 3)


Permissive joinder of parties

It is also possible to join two or more persons as Plaintiffs or as Defendants, as long as certain requisites are present. Rule 3, Section 6 requires that there should be a question of law or fact that is common to all such plaintiffs or such defendants.

As an example, suppose there is a vehicular collision between a car and a passenger jeepney, and two passengers in the jeepney were injured as a result. The jeepney was also damaged. These two passengers as well as the owner of the damaged jeepney can bring separate actions of damages against the driver of the car. However, since the damages arose out of the same vehicle collision, both passengers along with the owner of the jeepney can bring one case against the driver of the car, There will be permissive joinder of plaintiffs in that case.

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE AND JUDICIAL STABILITY

 A court cannot interfere with the decision and actions of another court of co-equal rank. This is to maintain judicial stability. Decisions of courts can be reviewed, revised, modified or affirmed only by courts of higher rank.

Several cases illustrate this:

1. Atty. Tomas Ong Cabili vs. Judge Rasad G. Balindong, AM No. RTJ-10-2225 (September 6, 2011)
2. Hon. Judge Adriano R. Villamor vs. Judge Bernardo LL Salas and George Carlos, GR 101014 (November 13, 1991)
3. Rafael Aquino Sr. vs. Judge Julito B. Valenciano, AM No. MTJ093-746 (December 27, 1994)
4. Russel Esteva Coronado vs. Judge Eddie R. Rojas, AM No. RTC-07-2047 (July 3, 2007)
   
5. Heirs of Simeon Piedad vs. Executive Judge Cesar O. Estrera, AM No. RTJ-09-2170 (December 16, 2009)

Here are excerpts from the case of Cabili vs. Balindong:

A civil action for damages was filed before the RTC in Branch 6 of the Iligan City RTC against Mindanao State University (MSU). The action arose from a vehicular accident that caused the death of Jesus Ledesma and physical injuries to several others.

RTC Iligan City issued a writ of execution. When MSU failed to comply, the sheriff served a notice of garnishment on MSU's bank.

MSU sought to stop the execution by filing a petition with RTC Marawi City for prohibition and mandamus with an application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction against its bank and the sheriff. The case was raffled to Branch 8 of RTC Marawi presided over by the respondent judge.

The judge issued a TRO against the sheriff and the bank.  The sheriff moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, which was granted by RTC Marawi.

Atty. Cabili, counsel for plaintiffs in the civil case for damages, filed an administrative complaint against the judge of RTC Marawi Branch 8. The charge was for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, abuse of discretion, and/or grave misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the judicial service. The basis of this administrative case was the judge's act of interfering with the order of a co-equal court, Branch 6 of RTC Iligan City, by issuing a TRO to enjoin the sheriff from garnishing the amount with MSU's bank.

The Office of the Court Administrator found the judge of RTC Marawi "guilty of gross ignorance of the law for violating the elementary rule of non-interference with the proceedings of a court of co-equal jurisdiction."

The Supreme Court's ruling:

The Court finds the OCA's recommendation well-taken.

The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice: no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.

Thus, we have repeatedly held that a case where an execution order has been issued is considered as still pending, so that all the proceedings on the execution are still proceedings in the suit.[25] A court which issued a writ of execution has the inherent power, for the advancement of justice, to correct errors of its ministerial officers and to control its own processes. To hold otherwise would be to divide the jurisdiction of the appropriate forum in the resolution of incidents arising in execution proceedings. Splitting of jurisdiction is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.

CLASSIFICATION OF PHILIPPINE COURTS

There are several ways of classifying Philippine courts. Here are some of them.

Original and appellate jurisdiction

An original court, or a court of original jurisdiction, is a court that takes cognizance of a case at the first instance. Examples of these are the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) or Metropolitan Trial Courts (MetCs) for cases such as forcible entry and unlawful detainer. Regional Trial Courts are also courts of original jurisdiction over certain cases such as those which are incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Appellate courts are those that review the decisions of lower tribunals. RTCs have appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions; the Court of Appeals (CA) has appellate jurisdiction over RTC decisions on questions of fact and law.


General and special jurisdiction

Courts of general jurisdiction are those that can pass upon any type of controversy that does not come under the exclusive jurisdiction of a court. The RTC is a court of general jurisdiction.

Courts of special jurisdiction pass upon only specific types of cases, such as family cases under the Family Courts or the Court of Tax Appeals.


Constitutional and statutory courts

Constitutional courts are those created by the Constitution while statutory courts are created by law.

The Supreme Court is the only court created by the 1987 Constitution in the Philippines. Section 1 of Article VIII states, "The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law."

All other courts are created by law, specifically, BP 129 as amended.


Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction

Certain cases come within the exclusive original jurisdiction of certain courts. For instance, the RTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions in which the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, and cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest and costs or value of property in controversy, amounts to more than Php2,000,000.

There are cases that come within the concurrent original jurisdiction of different courts. This means that these cases may be filed originally in any of these courts. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 comes within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Supreme Court.


Courts of law and court of equity

Courts of law are courts that interpret the law and apply these to controversies. Philippines courts are courts of law.

In exceptional situations, when there are no applicable laws, the courts may apply principles of equity. In David Reyes vs. Jose Lim, et al, GR No. 134241, August 11, 2003, the Supreme Court stated: "Equity jurisdiction aims to do complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case because of the inflexibility of its statutory or legal jurisdiction. Equity is the principle by which substantial justice may be attained in cases where the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate."


Principle of judicial hierarchy: general rule and exceptions

Courts have a hierarchy, in which the Supreme Court is the highest, followed by the Court of Appeals, then the Regional Trial Court. The courts at the lowest level are the Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or Metropolitan Trial Courts.

This principle comes into play when there are cases within the concurrent jurisdiction of different courts. The rule is that we have to file the case with the lower court so that courts of the higher levels will not be unduly burdened.

This is what the Supreme Court stated in the case of Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. Department of Transportation and Communications, et al, GR No. 217158, March 12, 2019:

x x x This Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari (as well as prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts (formerly Courts of First Instance), which may issue the writ, enforceable in any part of their respective regions. It is also shared by this Court, and by the Regional Trial Court, with the Court of Appeals (formerly, Intermediate Appellate Court), although prior to the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 on August 14, 1981, the latter's competence to issue the extraordinary writs was restricted to those "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction." This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. x x x

The Court feels the need to reaffirm that policy at this time, and to enjoin strict adherence thereto in the light of what it perceives to be a growing tendency on the part of litigants and lawyers to have their applications for the so-called extraordinary writs, and sometimes even their appeals, passed upon and adjudicated directly and immediately by the highest tribunal of the land. xxx

COMPLAINT: IMPORTANCE, PARTS, VERIFICATION, NON-FORUM SHOPPING CERTIFICATION

THE IMPORTANCE OF A COMPLAINT

A Complaint is the most important pleading in litigation. It initiates a case, which is why it is called an initiatory pleading. Moreover, it dictates the way a case will proceed because the Complaint shows you the following:

In the title and caption of the Complaint, you will see the:

• Judicial region in which the court sits
• Court which has jurisdiction over the case
• Venue where the case is filed
• Name of the Plaintiff
• Name of the Defendant
• Designation of either the cause of action or relief sought.

In the first two or three paragraphs, you will see:

• The name and address of the Plaintiff, and whether the Plaintiff is an individual, a partnership or a corporation;
• The name and address of the Defendant, and whether the latter is an individual, a partnership or a corporation

These names and addresses are important because, in personal actions, the choice of venue depends on the place where the residence of Plaintiff is located, or where the residence of Defendant is located, at the option of Plaintiff. 

If the case is filed in another place, there is an improper venue, unless the parties have made a valid written stipulation on a different venue prior to the filing of the case. This is discussed in a different post on venue.

In the body of the Complaint, you will see the allegations of facts through which the Plaintiff seeks to establish his/her cause of action. The latter part of the body will state the evidence that Plaintiff will submit. The body will end with a prayer or a statement of the reliefs sought. The lawyer's signature will be followed by a Verification and a Certification of Non-Forum Shopping which we will discuss in detail later in this post.

Since the Plaintiff (really, the Plaintiff's lawyer) is the one who prepares the Complaint, it is the Plaintiff who decides who the parties will be, where the case will be filed, what the cause of action is, what evidence will be presented, and what reliefs are sought. In this sense, the Complaint is the most important pleading.


COMPLAINT AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

When you draft a Complaint, you should be careful to indicate the court which has the proper subject matter jurisdiction over your case. As stated, this is indicated in the caption of the Complaint. You will indicate if the Complaint is to be filed in the MTC or RTC based on the provisions of the law on subject matter jurisdiction.

Remember that your choice of subject matter jurisdiction must be correct because if a case is filed in a court that has no subject matter jurisdiction, your case can be dismissed at any time during the proceedings either upon motion of the Defendant or by the court motu proprio. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is one of four grounds for dismissal that can be raised at any time.

Although subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law, it is determined by the allegations of the Complaint. To reiterate, it is the Complaint that determines subject matter jurisdiction. The Answer does not do so.

To illustrate this concept more concretely, if the Complaint is for unlawful detainer, the MTC has subject matter jurisdiction. An action for unlawful detainer can be filed by a landlord who leased out a piece of real property, but the lessee continued to stay despite the termination of the lease contract.

Suppose the lessee, as Defendant, claims in his Answer that he owns the real property, in an attempt to prove that the case is not for unlawful detainer and that the issue involves ownership of the property. Defendant insists that the RTC, not the MTC, has subject matter jurisdiction given the assessed value of the property. He now files a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Will this prosper?

The answer is no. The reason is that the allegations of the Complaint (not the Answer) determine the subject matter jurisdiction.


BODY OF THE COMPLAINT

The body of the Complaint should contain the following:

• Statement of the names and circumstances of the parties
• Statement of the facts constituting the cause of action
• Legal basis
• Factual basis (Evidence)
• Witnesses
• Documentary evidence
• Real evidence
• Attachments

For details, refer to Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules of Court.


STATEMENT OF THE NAMES 

AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF 

THE PARTIES

Typically, this will appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the Complaint. For the Plaintiff, a sample allegation is as follows if the Plaintiff is an individual:

"1. Plaintiff is Filipino, of legal age, single, and residing at 54321 Macopa Street, Frutas Village, Sampaloc, Manila."

If the Plaintiff is a corporation, here is a sample allegation:

"1. Plaintiff is a domestic corporation organized under Philippine laws with principal address at 54321 Macopa Street, Frutas Village, Sampaloc, Manila."

The next paragraph will provide the allegations about the Defendant. If he is an individual, it would be as follows:

"2. Defendant is Filipino, of legal age, single, and with residential address at 987 Kalye Onse, Black Jack Village, Sampaloc, Manila where he may be served with summons and other processes of the Honorable Court."

If it is a corporation, the allegation would be:

"2. Defendant is a domestic corporation organized under Philippine laws with principal address at 987 Kalye Onse, Black Jack Village, Sampaloc, Manila where it may be served with summons and other processes of the Honorable Court."

Note that these allegations would enable anyone to determine if the Complaint has been filed in the proper venue if it is a transitory action.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

CONSTITUTING THE CAUSE

OF ACTION

The next paragraphs should state FACTS that present the cause of action of the Plaintiff. 

Again, let us go back to the elements of a cause of action. Make sure that in reciting the facts, you are able to show that each element is present - the Plaintiff's right, the Defendant's obligation, and the violation committed by Defendant resulting in damage or injury to Plaintiff. It is important that the factual basis of each element be STATED in clear terms. Do not rely on implications.

The best way to present the facts is in chronological order. It should show a clear and logical story, starting with how Plaintiff's right was acquired or recognized, what Defendant did to violate the right, and what injury Plaintiff incurred because of the violation. The chronological order makes it easier for the judge and the parties to process the story.

Naturally, the story should end with the effects of the violation --- injury and damage, costs and expenses incurred by the Plaintiff.

This will be followed by the relief sought: what remedies does the Plaintiff seek to restore him as close as possible to his position before the violation? This will entail indemnity for damages or payment of a sum of money, interests, costs, and attorney's fees.

STATEMENT OF THE LEGAL BASIS

Rule 8, Section 1 states:

Section 1. In general. — Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts, including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his or her claim or defense, as the case may be.

If a cause of action or defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to him or her shall be clearly and concisely stated. (1a)

You should state the legal basis of your claim, in such a case.

FACTUAL BASIS: DOCUMENTARY

AND REAL EVIDENCE

Remember, I told you that every case deals only with two types of issues: legal and factual. Legal issues are resolved by a resort to the applicable laws. Factual issues are resolved by a study of the available evidence.

Therefore, in your Complaint, you are required to lay down the factual basis of your claim. Rule 7, Section 6 requireS you to include the following in your Complaint:

Section 6. Contents. — Every pleading stating a party’s claims or defenses shall, in addition to those mandated by Section 2, Rule 7, state the following:

(a)Names of witnesses who will be presented to prove a party’s claim or defense;

(b)Summary of the witnesses’ intended testimonies, provided that the judicial affidavits of said witnesses shall be attached to the pleading and form an integral part thereof. Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are attached to the pleading shall be presented by the parties during trial. Except if a party presents meritorious reasons as basis for the admission of additional witnesses, no other witness or affidavit shall be heard or admitted by the court; and

(c)Documentary and object evidence in support of the allegations contained in the pleading. (n)

PRAYER, LAWYER'S SIGNATURE,

VERIFICATION, AND CERTIFICATION 

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

Prayer; reliefs sought

The prayer in the Complaint tells the court what reliefs  the Plaintiff is seeking.  The reliefs must be specific because these tell the court exactly what the Plaintiff should prove by evidence. These also serve as the basis for computing the filing fee. 

According to the Supreme Court, "the court’s grant of relief is limited only to what has been prayed for in the Complaint or related thereto, supported by evidence, and covered by the party’s cause of action." (Leticia Diona versus Romeo A. Balangue, et al, GR No. 173559, January 7, 2013)

Plaintiff may include a general prayer for "such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises." The Supreme Court stated that "Certainly, a general prayer for "other reliefs just and equitable" appearing on a complaint or pleading (a petition in this case) normally enables the court to award reliefs supported by the complaint or other pleadings, by the facts admitted at the trial, and by the evidence adduced by the parties, even if these reliefs are not specifically prayed for in the complaint." (Ramon K.Ilusorio versus Sylvia K. Ilusorio, GR No. 210475)


Lawyer's signature

The lawyer's signature on a pleading is valuable and carries with it certain ethical commitments. Rule 7, Section 3 states:

Section 3. Signature and address. — 

(a) Every pleading and other written submissions to the court must be signed by the party or counsel representing him or her.

(b) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him or her that he or she has read the pleading and document; that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1)It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2)The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or jurisprudence, or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing jurisprudence;

(3)The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after availment of the modes of discovery under these rules; and

(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

(c) If the court determines, on motion or motu proprio and after notice and hearing, that this rule has been violated, it may impose an appropriate sanction or refer such violation to the proper office for disciplinary action, on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule, or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly and severally liable for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee. The sanction may include, but shall not be limited to, non-monetary directive or sanction; an order to pay a penalty in court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation, including attorney’s fees for the filing of the motion for sanction. The lawyer or law firm cannot pass on the monetary penalty to the client. (3a)

Take note of the sanctions and disciplinary action that may be imposed upon the lawyer and law firm for violations of these commitments. Note also that these violations may be committed not only by the lawyers but also by non-lawyer employees of the firm. Lastly, if a monetary penalty is imposed on the lawyer or the law firm, they cannot pass this on to the client.

Verification and certification 

of non-forum shopping

These are different parts of the pleading, governed by Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 7. However, sometimes, the lawyer combines these.

The verification should be under oath. It is signed by Plaintiff or his/her representative. 

There are two situations when a representative may sign. One is when the Plaintiff is not available, as when he is out of the country. The other is when the Plaintiff is a juridical person such as a partnership or a corporation. The authorization of the representative is proven by a special power of attorney or a secretary's certificate which should be attached to the Complaint.

This signature of the Plaintiff/representative also carries certain commitments specified in Section 4, and which should be alleged in the verification itself:

(a)The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on his or her personal knowledge, or based on authentic documents;

(b)The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and

(c)The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in the pleading.

A pleading required to be verified that contains a verification based on “information and belief,” or upon “knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. (4a)

The significance of an oath (verification) is that if it turns out that the allegations are not true, the person who signed it can be held criminally liable for perjury.

Perjury is penalized under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code:

 

"Article 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. - The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, knowingly making untruthful statements and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires.

Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section, shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein: Provided, That is the person responsible for the commission of this felony is a public officer or employee, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period: Provided, finally, That the offender shall also suffer a fine not to exceed One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) and perpetual absolute disqualification from holding any appointive or elective position in the government or in any agency, entity, or instrumentality thereof."

 The Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is governed by Section 5 which states:

Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:

(a) that he or she has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his or her knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;

(b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and

(c) if he or she should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he or she shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the court wherein his or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

The rules also provide that:

The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary's certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his [or her] counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. 

EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear, try and decide a case. On the other hand, the exercise of jurisdiction is the court's act of actually taking cognizance of a case.

When a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, it can validly render a judgment. The judgment may be wrong, but this does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The erroneous judgment may be corrected on appeal.

On the other hand, when a court has no jurisdiction, any judgment that it renders will be void. So also, when a court acts with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the judgment is void. In both instances, the proceedings may be annulled through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

In the case of ANSELMO ELLO VS. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ANTIQUE and INOCENCIO VALDEVIN, G.R. No. L-26802, July 23, 1926, the Supreme Court cited De la Cruz vs. Moir (36 Phil., 213), thus:

None of the acts set out in the petition affect the jurisdiction of the court. They are acts performed in the exercise of jurisdiction; and, even though the decision of the court upon each one of the questions presented by the allegations of the petition was wrong in fact and in law, his jurisdiction would remain unaffected. As we have said so many times, it is always necessary to bear in mind the difference between jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction. When a court exercises its jurisdiction an error committed while engaged in that exercise does not deprive it of the jurisdiction which it is exercising when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This, of course, is not possible. The administration of justice would not survive such a rule. The decision of the trial court in the case before us holding the certain ballots cast by illiterates which had been prepared for them by the inspectors of election were legal and valid although the illiterates did not, previous to the preparation of their ballots by inspectors, take the oath required by law showing that they could not cast their ballots without assistance, is a decision entirely within the jurisdiction of the court, even if we concede for the sake of argument that the court was wrong in that decision. The same could be said if he had held the precise contrary and had excluded all of the ballots cast by illiterates; and, of course, it necessarily follows that his failure to separate those which the petitioner claims were illegal from those he claims were legal does not alter the situation. The court has power and authority to conduct the case as he believes law and justice require and whatever he does is within his jurisdiction so long as he does not violate the principle of due process of law or transcend the limits of the case before him.

ESTOPPEL AND OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION

It is crucial for a court to have jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case. Otherwise, all proceedings and the decision that will eventually be rendered will be null and void.

Therefore, if a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the case may be dismissed anytime, upon motion by any party, or by the court motu proprio (on its own).

However, if a party invokes the subject matter jurisdiction of a court, and relies upon it for 15 years, he cannot turn around on appeal and insist that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction just because the case was decided against him. This is the ruling in the case of Serafin Tijam, et al vs. Magdaleno Sibonghanoy, et al, GR No. L-21450, April 15, 1968:

As already stated, the action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Cebu on July 19, 1948, that is, almost fifteen years before the Surety filed its motion to dismiss on January 12, 1963 raising the question of lack of jurisdiction for the first time.

      xxx

A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches.

Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

The doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.

xxx 

 

The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the present action by reason of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Were we to sanction such conduct on its part, We would in effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings had in the present case since it was commenced on July 19, 1948 and compel the judgment creditors to go up their Calvary once more. The inequity and unfairness of this is not only patent but revolting.

JURISDICTION IN GENERAL

Jurisdiction is the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. This is the definition of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Although jurisdiction has several aspects, we usually refer to the subject matter when we discuss the concept of jurisdiction.

In Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation vs. Bureau of Customs, GR No. 209830, June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court explained that:

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have the authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by an erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Thus, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action.

Another important point about subject matter jurisdiction is that it is conferred by law. It cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties, by the rules, or by failure to object.

By law, we mean laws made by the legislature. We do not mean the Rules of Court and other rules issued by the Supreme Court.

In our country, the subject matter jurisdiction of courts is defined by BP 129 as amended, known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. This law has been amended over the years by RA 7691 (1994) and RA 11576 (2021) which expanded the jurisdiction of the first-level courts. The specific subject matters under the jurisdiction of our courts are discussed in a separate post.

Other than subject matter, aspects of jurisdiction include person, issues, remedies, and property. A separate post will be devoted to this. For now, let us deal with legal concepts related to jurisdiction.

DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY, GENERAL RULE AND EXCEPTIONS

Courts have a hierarchical order. 

The first level courts are the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

The second level courts are the Regional Trial Courts.

 Next, we have the Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Appeals.

Finally, we have the Supreme Court.

Under the doctrine of judicial hierarchy, when a case falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of courts of different levels, the case must be filed with the court of the lowest level so that the higher level courts will not be unduly burdened.

There are four exceptions to this doctrine:

(1) when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of public policy; 

(2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; 

(3) when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or 

(4) when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct handling of the case.

The Supreme Court explained the general rule and exception were explained in the case of ERNESTO DY VS. HON. GINA M. BIBAT-PALAMOS ET AL, G.R. No. 196200, September 11, 2013, as follows:

Petitioner argues that his situation calls for the direct invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction in the interest of justice. Moreover, as pointed out by the RTC, what is involved is a judgment of the Court which the lower courts cannot modify. Hence, petitioner deemed it proper to bring this case immediately to the attention of this Court. Lastly, petitioner claims that the present case involves a novel issue of law – that is, whether in an action to recover, a defendant in wrongful possession of the subject matter in litigation may be allowed to return the same in a deteriorated condition without any liability.

Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petition should have been filed with the CA, following the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. It pointed out that petitioner failed to state any special or important reason or any exceptional and compelling circumstance which would warrant a direct recourse to this Court.

Under the principle of hierarchy of courts, direct recourse to this Court is improper because the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must remain to be so in order for it to satisfactorily perform its constitutional functions, thereby allowing it to devote its time and attention to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction and preventing the overcrowding of its docket. 16 Nonetheless, the invocation of this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari has been allowed in certain instances on the ground of special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition, such as,(1) when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of public policy; (2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; (3) when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or (4) when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct handling of the case.

This case falls under one of the exceptions to the principle of hierarchy of courts. Justice demands that this Court take cognizance of this case to put an end to the controversy and resolve the matter which has been dragging on for more than twenty (20) years. Moreover, in light of the fact that what is involved is a final judgment promulgated by this Court, it is but proper for petitioner to call upon its original jurisdiction and seek final clarification.

DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

Demurrer to the evidence.  We can understand this better by reviewing the basic stages of a civil case.

First, the plaintiff will file a complaint. Next, the defendant will file an Answer. Then the court will schedule the case for pre-trial. Trial will follow, during which the plaintiff will present evidence first. 

After he presents all his witnesses and evidence, he will make an oral  formal offer of evidence, then he will rest his case. After this,  the defendant will present evidence, make an oral formal offer of evidence, and rest his case. Then the case will be submitted for decision.

The relevant stage for filing a demurrer is after the plaintiff rests his case. This means that he has already presented evidence. This is before the defendant presents evidence.

WHAT THEN IS A DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE?

This is equivalent to a motion to dismiss. However, it is called a demurrer to show that it was filed after the plaintiff has presented evidence. 

WHAT ARE THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN A DEMURRER IN A CIVIL CASE AND A DEMURRER IN A CRIMINAL CASE?

1. When are they filed? They are both filed after the plaintiff/prosecution rests their case.

2. What is the goal? They are filed with the goal of having the case dismissed without the defendant having to present evidence.

3) What is the basis?  Insufficiency of evidence of the plaintiff/prosecution.

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES?

1. Is leave of court necessary before the defendant/accused files a demurrer to evidence?

When we say leave of court, the defendant or accused must first submit a motion for leave before actually filing the demurrer. In other words, there are two things to be filed: one is the motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, and the second is the demurrer to evidence itself.

In civil cases, it is not necessary to file a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence. The defendant can directly submit the demurrer itself.

In criminal cases, it is up to the accused's counsel if he wants to move for leave to file a demurrer, or if he wants to submit a demurrer immediately without asking for leave of court. The results will not be the same.

a) What is the effect if the court grants the demurrer in a civil case?

The case will be dismissed through an order issued by the court. However, if the plaintiff appeals the order of dismissal, and the appellate court finds that there was sufficient evidence presented by the plaintiff, then the defendant can no longer present evidence.

b) What is the effect if the court denies the demurrer in a civil case?

The denial means that the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence, and so the defendant now has to present evidence. 

c)  How about in a criminal case?

It depends. 

If the accused's counsel filed the demurrer with leave of court, and the court denies the demurrer, the accused can present evidence to support his defense.

However, if the accused's counsel filed the demurrer without leave of court, and the demurrer is denied, then the accused can no longer present evidence.

2. PERIOD FOR FILING

In civil cases, the defendant may file a demurrer after the plaintiff has completed presentation of evidence, and rests his case under Rule 33. 

A demurrer to evidence is a litigious motion under Rule 15, Section 5. Therefore the opposing party has 5 days from notice to file an opposition, and the court has 15 days to resolve.

In criminal cases  there is a specific procedure under the Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial.

After the prosecution rests, the court will orally ask the accused if he wants leave of court to file a demurrer or to present evidence.

If the accused orally moves to file a demurrer, the court will resolve it immediately, and orally. 

If the court denies the motion, the accused will present evidence. 

If the court approves the motion, the accused will have 10 days to file the demurrer, and the prosecution will have 10 days to file an opposition.

If the demurrer with leave is denied, the accused will present evidence.

Suppose the motion for leave to file demurrer is denied yet the accused insists on filing the demurrer, the court will cancel all trial dates allocated to the accused. 

This means that the accused will lose the right to present evidence if his demurrer is denied.

CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 AND CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65

TRANSCRIPT OF YOUTUBE VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fq3vhYN8kM

This video deals with the differences between certiorari under Rule 45 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

For law students, the remedy of certiorari could be confusing because the term is used for different remedies under our Rules of Court. In this video, I would like to explain the difference between these two remedies. 

POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES (PART 2) - Handout for my YouTube video

NOTE: This is the handout for my video recording on POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES (PART 2) - Atty. Chato Olivas-Quinto



In Part 1 of the video on Post-judgment remedies, we discussed two remedies:

1. Motion for reconsideration, and
2. Motion for new trial.

In this video, which is Part 2 of Post-judgment remedies, we will discuss several remedies.

I also want to clarify that post-judgment remedies are divided into two categories:

1. Remedies that you can file within 15 days from receipt of the decision

• Motion for reconsideration (Rule 37)
• Motion for new trial (Rule 37)
• Appeal by notice of appeal/with record on appeal in certain cases
• From MTC to RTC (Rule 40)
• From RTC to CA (Rule 41, Section 2A; Rule 44)
• Petition for review
• From RTC to CA on decisions rendered by the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction (MTC —> RTC —> CA) (Rule 41, Section 2B; Rule 42)
• From quasi-judicial agencies to the CA (Rule 43)
• Appeal by certiorari or petition for review on certiorari
• From RTC, CA, CTA, Sandiganbayan to SC on pure questions of law (Rule 45)

2. Remedies that you can file after the 15-day period of appeal

• Petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38)
• Action for annulment of judgment, order, or resolution of the RTC, filed as an original action with the CA (Rule 47)
• Action for annulment of judgment, order, or resolution of the MTC,  filed with the RTC (Section 10 of Rule 47)

3. Petition for certiorari under Rule 65

• General rule: This is NOT a post-judgment remedy. It is an original action.
• Exception: With respect to the final judgments, orders, or resolutions of the COMELEC and COA, a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 is a post-judgment remedy.

DISCUSSION NOTES

APPEAL BY NOTICE OF APPEAL/WITH RECORD ON APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES: FROM MTC TO RTC (RULE 40)

• Final decision, order or resolution of MTC
• File Notice of Appeal with the MTC, and pay the docket fees
• Same caption and title, but add “appellant” and “appellee” as the case may be.
• Example: XYZ, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. ABC, Defendant-Appellee
• File within 15 days from receipt of final decision, order or resolution
• In certain special proceedings, when record on appeal is required, file within 30 days. MTC will have to approve record on appeal.
• Serve on adverse party.
• MTC Clerk of Court will transmit full case records including transcripts of stenographic notes and evidence, to the RTC
• RTC Clerk of Court will notify the parties when they have received the case records
• Within 15 days from notice, appellant should file a memorandum. Otherwise, the court will dismiss the appeal.
• Within 15 days from receipt of the appellant’s memorandum, the appellee may file an appellee’s memorandum.
• Case will be submitted for resolution.
• If the appeal is taken from an order of the MTC dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, without a trial on the merits, the RTC may affirm or reverse the MTC decision.
• If RTC reverses the dismissal, and makes a finding that the MTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter, RTC will remand the case to the MTC for further proceedings.
• If RTC affirms the dismissal, and makes a finding that the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC will try the case as if it was originally filed with it.

APPEAL BY NOTICE OF APPEAL/WITH RECORD ON APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES: FROM RTC TO CA (RULE 44)

• Final decision, order or resolution of RTC
• File Notice of Appeal with the RTC, and pay the docket fees
• Same caption and title, but add “appellant” and “appellee” as the case may be.
• The counsel and guardians ad litem of the parties in the court of origin shall be respectively considered as their counsel and guardians ad litem in the Court of Appeals.
• File the notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the decision, final order or resolution.
• When record on appeal is required as in certain special proceedings, the period to appeal is 30 days
• RTC will approve the record on appeal.
• If RTC finds the notice of appeal to have been filed on time and the docket fees paid, it will forward the records to the CA.
• CA will notify the parties when the records have been received from the RTC.
• Appellant shall file appellant’s brief within 45 days from notice from the CA.
• Appellee has 45 days from receipt of the appellant’s brief within which to file an appellee’s brief.
• Appellant may file a reply brief within 20 days from receipt of appellee’s brief.
• Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus cases - the parties shall file, in lieu of briefs, their respective memoranda within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice issued by the clerk that all the evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to the record.
• The failure of the appellant to file his memorandum within the period may be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
• Questions that may be raised on appeal. - Appellant may include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and which is within the issues framed by the parties.

PETITION FOR REVIEW (Rules 42, 43, 45)

• Two kinds

a) From RTC to CA on decisions rendered by the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction (MTC —> RTC —> CA) (Rule 41, Section 2B; Rule 42)

b) From quasi-judicial agencies to the CA (Rule 43)

• Note that this is a petition, that this is not a matter of right. In contrast, an appeal by notice of appeal is a matter of right.
• The petitioner files the petition directly with the court that will review the decision. In this case, file it with the CA.
• The designation of the parties: petitioner and respondent
• Petition must be verified, and docket fees must be paid.
• A certification of non-forum shopping is required.
• A copy of the petition must be served upon the adverse party before the same is filed with the CA.
• The CA may require the respondent to file a comment within 10 days from notice.
• Certified true copies of the material portions of the records must be submitted to the court. Note: this is not like an ordinary appeal where the whole case file is forwarded by the RTC to the CA.
• CA may set the case for oral arguments or require the parties to file memoranda within 15 days from notice.
• Case will be submitted for decision.

APPEAL BY CERTIORARI OR PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI (RULE 45)

• From RTC, CA, CTA, Sandiganbayan to SC on pure questions of law
• File a petition for review on certiorari which must be verified and may include application for writ of preliminary injunction and other provisional remedies
• Not a matter of right
• Discretionary upon the Court
• Filed within the 15-day period to appeal
• Docket fees must be paid
• Statement of material dates
• Certified copy of the judgment, final order or resolution subject of the petition
• Grounds for review that the SC may consider
• When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or
• When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.
• SC may require that the whole records or parts of it be elevated

REMEDIES THAT YOU CAN FILE AFTER THE 15-DAY PERIOD OF APPEAL

• Petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38)
• Action for annulment of judgment, order, or resolution of the RTC, filed as an original action with the CA (Rule 47)
• Action for annulment of judgment, order, or resolution of the MTC, filed with the RTC (Section 10 of Rule 47)
• Petition for certiorari under Rule 65
• General rule: This is NOT a post-judgment remedy. It is an original action.
• Exception: With respect to the final judgments, orders, or resolutions of the COMELEC and COA, a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 is a post-judgment remedy.

PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (RULE 38)

• Verified petition for relief from judgment
• Judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
• File a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order, or proceeding be set aside.

• Verified petition for relief from denial of appeal.
• Judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an appeal
• File a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the appeal be given due course.

• Time for filing petition
• Filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken

• Contents
• Petition must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be

• Order to file answer
• The court in which it is filed shall issue an order requiring the adverse parties to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the receipt thereof. The order shall be served in such manner as the court may direct, together with copies of the petition and the accompanying affidavits.

• Preliminary injunction pending proceedings.
• The court may grant preliminary injunction as may be necessary for the preservation of the rights of the parties, upon the filing by the petitioner of a bond in favor of the adverse party, conditioned that if the petition is dismissed or the petitioner fails on the trial of the case upon its merits, he will pay the adverse party all damages and costs that may be awarded to him by reason of the issuance of such injunction or the other proceedings following the petition; but such injunction shall not operate to discharge or extinguish any lien which the adverse party may have acquired upon the property of the petitioner.

• Proceedings after answer is filed.
• Court shall hear the petition and if after such hearing, it finds that the allegations thereof are not true, the petition shall be dismissed;
• If it finds said allegations to be true, it shall set aside the judgment or final order or other proceeding complained of upon such terms as may be just.
• Thereafter the case shall stand as if such judgment, final order or other proceeding had never been rendered, issued or taken.
• The court shall then proceed to hear and determine the case as if a timely motion for a new trial or reconsideration had been granted by it.

• Procedure where the denial of an appeal is set aside.
• Where the denial of an appeal is set aside, the lower court shall be required to give due course to the appeal and to elevate the record of the appealed case as if a timely and proper appeal had been made.

ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR RESOLUTION OF THE RTC, FILED AS AN ORIGINAL ACTION WITH THE CA (RULE 47)

• Coverage.
• This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

• Grounds for annulment. - The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
• Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.

• Period for filing action. - If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.

• Filing and contents of petition. - The action shall be commenced by filing a verified petition alleging therein with particularity the facts and the law relied upon for annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.

• A certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution shall be attached to the original copy of the petition intended for the court and indicated as such by the petitioner.

• The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting the cause of action or defense

• Certification against forum shopping is required.

• Action by the court. 
• Should the court find no substantial merit in the petition, the same may be dismissed outright with specific reasons for such dismissal.
• Should prima facie merit be found in the petition, the same shall be given due course and summons shall be served on the respondent.

• Procedure. - The procedure in ordinary civil cases shall be observed. Should a trial be necessary, the reception of the evidence may be referred to a member of the court or a judge of a Regional Trial Court.

• Effect of judgment. - A judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. However, where the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein.

• Suspension of prescriptive period. - The prescriptive period for the refiling of the aforesaid original action shall be deemed suspended from the filing of such original action until the finality of the judgment of annulment. However, the prescriptive period shall not be suspended where the extrinsic fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the original action.

• Relief available. - The judgment of annulment may include the award of damages, attorney s fees and other relief.

• If the questioned judgment or final order or resolution had already been executed, the court may issue such orders of restitution or other relief as justice and equity may warrant under the circumstances.

ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR RESOLUTION OF THE MTC (SECTION 10 OF RULE 47)

• An action to annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former. It shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and sections 2, 3 4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall be applicable thereto.

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65

• General rule: This is NOT a post-judgment remedy. It is an original action.
• Exception: With respect to the final judgments, orders, or resolutions of the COMELEC and COA, a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 is a post-judgment remedy.

• Scope
• Review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit.

• Mode of review
• A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided.

• Time to file petition
• The petition shall be filed within thirty (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 of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed.
• If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.

• Docket and other lawful fees.
• Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the clerk of court the docket and other lawful fees and deposit an amount for costs.

• Form and contents of petition.
• The petition shall be verified.
• The petition shall name the aggrieved party as petitioner and shall join as respondents the Commission concerned and the person or persons interested in sustaining the judgment, final order or resolution a quo.
• The petition shall state the facts with certainty, present clearly the issues involved, set forth the grounds and brief arguments relied upon for review, and pray for judgment annulling or modifying the questioned judgment, final order or resolution.
• Findings of fact of the Commission supported by substantial evidence shall be final and non-reviewable.
• The petition shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, final order or resolution subject thereof, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to therein and other documents relevant and pertinent thereto.
• The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein, and shall contain a sworn certification against forum shopping.
• The petition shall further be accompanied by proof of service of a copy thereof on the Commission concerned and on the adverse party, and of the timely payment of docket and other lawful fees.
• The failure of petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

• Order to comment
• If the Supreme Court finds the petition sufficient in form and substance, it shall order the respondents to file their comments on the petition within ten (10) days from notice thereof; otherwise, the Court may dismiss the petition outright.

• The Court may also dismiss the petition if it was filed manifestly for delay, or the questions raised are too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings. 
• Comments of respondents.
• The original shall be accompanied by certified true copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to therein together with other supporting papers. The requisite number of copies of the comments shall contain plain copies of all documents attached to the original and a copy thereof shall be served on the petitioner.
• No other pleading may be filed by any party unless required or allowed by the Court.

• Effect of filing.
• The filing of a petition for certiorari shall not stay the execution of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, unless the Supreme Court shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just.

• Submission for decision.
• Unless the Court sets the case for oral argument, or requires the parties to submit memoranda, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of the comments on the petition, or of such other pleadings or papers as may be required or allowed, or the expiration of the period to do so.