SUMMONS

A writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him.

What are its two-fold purpose?

The purpose of summons is two-fold: to acquire jurisdiction over the person of

the defendant and to notify the defendant that an action has been commenced so that
he may be given an opportunity to be heard on the claim against him.

What is the purpose of summon in an action in personal, action in rem or quasi-in

rem?

In an action in personam, the purpose of summon is not only to notify the

defendant of the action against him but also to acquire jurisdiction over his
person (Umandap vs. Sabio, Jr., 339 SCRA 243).

In an action in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the defendant is not

mandatory and the court acquires jurisdiction over an action as long as it acquires
jurisdiction over the res. The purpose of summons in these actions is not the
acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant but mainly to satisfy the constitutional
requirements of due process (Gomez vs. Court of Appeals, 420 SCRA 98; Biaco vs.
Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, 515 SCRA 106; PCI Bank vs. Alejandro, 533 SCRA
738).

Republic vs. Domingo 657 SCRA 621;

Facts:

Domingo filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages against the DPWH
Region III. Domingo averred that from April to September 1992, he entered into seven
contracts with the DPWH Region III for the lease of his construction equipment to said
government agency. After the completion of the projects, Domingo claimed that the
unpaid rentals of the DPWH Region III amounted to P6,320,163.05. Despite repeated
demands, Domingo asserted that the DPWH Region III failed to pay its obligations.

Thereafter, summons was issued by the RTC to DPWH Region III. Domingo filed a
Motion to Declare Defendant in Default in view of the failure of the DPWH Region III to
file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period. The RTC declared the DPWH
Region III in default.
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

CA promulgated its decision, dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by
the Republic. The appellate court elaborated that the regional office is an extension of
the department itself and service of summons upon the former is service upon the latter.
Clearly, nothing [in the functions of the OSG] remotely suggests that service of
summons upon the Republic should be made exclusively on the OSG. What the
[provisions] merely state is that the OSG will represent the government in all
proceedings involving it. It cannot be deduced nor implied from this, however that
summons should be served upon it alone. The same conclusion applies to the legal
service branch of the DPWH, as there is also nothing in the law that suggests that
service of summons on the DPWH should be made upon it alone.

Issue: Whether or not summons can only be served upon the Solicitor General, if in the
act by which the Republic consents to be sued, no designation is made as to the officer.

Ruling: Yes. Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought
against him. Service of such writ is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction
over his person. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired
through coercive process, generally by the service of summons issued by the court, or
through the defendant's voluntary appearance or submission to the court.

Jurisprudence further instructs that when a suit is directed against

an unincorporated government agency, which, because it is unincorporated, possesses
no juridical personality of its own, the suit is against the agency's principal, i.e., the State

It is clear under the Rules that where the defendant is the Republic of the
Philippines, service of summons must be made on the Solicitor General.

In sum, the Court holds that the Republic was not validly served with summons
Hence, the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the Republic.
Consequently, the proceedings had before the trial court and its Decision are hereby
declared void.

Manotoc vs. CA 499 SCRA 21;

- Jurisprudence tells us that the court's jurisdiction over a defendant is acquired

either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant's voluntary appearance
in court. Stated otherwise, without a valid service of summons, the court cannot
 acquire jurisdiction over the defendant, unless the defendant voluntarily submits
himself to the jurisdiction of the court. When the defendant does not voluntarily
submit to the court's jurisdiction or there is no valid service of summons, any
judgment of the court over the defendant will be null and void for lack of
jurisdiction over the defendant (Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals, 499 SCRA 21; Bar
1999)
- In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the
preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to the
defendant in person. If defendant, for excusable reasons, cannot be served with
the summons within a reasonable period, then substituted service can be
resorted to. While substituted service of summons is permitted, "it is
extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual method of service."
Hence, it must faithfully and strictly comply with the prescribed requirements and
circumstances authorized by the rules. Indeed, "compliance with the rules
regarding the service of summons is as much important as the issue of due
process as of jurisdiction."

Requirements for substituted service:

1. Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service

2. Specific Details in the Return (Jose vs Boyon)
3. A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion
4. A Competent Person in Charg

Guy vs. Gacott Jan. 13, 2016;

Facts: Gacott purchased two (2) brand new transreceivers from Quantech Systems
Corp (QSC)through its employee Rey Medestomas. Due to major defects, Gacott
returned the items to QSC and requested for replacement. However, despite
several demands, Gacott was never given a replacement or a refund. Thus,
Gacott filed a complaint for damages. Summons was served upon QSC and
Medestomas, afterwhich they filed their Answer

RTC’s decision ordered the defendants to jointly and severally pay the plaintiff. The
decision became final as QSC and Medestomas did not interpose an appeal.

Gacott then secured a Writ of Execution. During the execution stage, Gacot tlearned
that QSC was not a corporation, but was in fact a general partnership. In the
articles of partnership,Guy was appointed as General Manager of QSC. The sheriff
attached Guy’s vehicle. Guy filed his Motion to Lift Attachment Upon Personalty, arguing
that he was not a judgment debtor and, therefore, his vehicle could not be attached.
 On June 28, 2009, the RTC issued an order denying Guy’s motion and his subsequent
motion for reconsideration. RTC’s ratio: All partners are liable solidarily with the
partnership for everything chargeable to the partnership under Article 1822 and 1823.
Guy to seek relief before the CA. The CA dismissed Guy’s appeal for the same reasons
given by the trial court. Guy filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the
CA.

Issue: WON the service of summons to QSC was flawed.

Ruling: YES, however, voluntary appearance cured the defect. Under Section 11, Rule
14 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, when the defendant is a corporation,
partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical
personality, the service of summons may be made on the president, managing partner,
general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel. Jurisprudence is
replete with pronouncements that such provision provides an exclusive enumeration of
the persons authorized to receive summons for juridical entities..

In this case, QSC was not served with the summons through any of the
enumerated authorized persons to receive such, namely: president, managing
partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer or in house counsel.
Service of summons upon
Persons other than those officers enumerated in Section 11 is invalid. Even
substantial compliance is not sufficient
service of summons. Nevertheless, while proper service of summons is necessary to
vest the court jurisdiction over the defendant, the same is merely procedural in nature
and the lack of or defect in the service of summons may be cured by the defendant’s
subsequent voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction through his filing a
responsive pleading such as an answer.

In this case, it is not disputed that QSC filed its Answer despite the defective summons.
Thus, jurisdiction over its person was acquired through voluntary appearance.

Reicon Realty vs. Diamond Dragon Feb. 4, 2015

FACTS:

- Reicon is the owner of a parcel of land and the one-storey building.

- Reicon and respondent Diamond Dragon Realty and Management, Inc. entered
into a Contract of Lease, whereby Reicon leased the subject property to
Diamond for a period of twenty (20) years for a monthly rental of ₱75,000.00.
 - However, Diamond sublet portions of the subject property to Jollibee Foods
Corporation and Maybunga U.K. Enterprises.
- Starting June 2006, Diamond failed to pay the monthly rentals due and the
checks it had issued were all dishonored.
- Thus, Reicon demand payment of the accrued rentals and terminated the
Contract.
- Thereafter, it entered into separate contracts with Jollibee and Maybunga over
the portions of the subject property.
- Diamond filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages against Reicon,
Jollibee, Maybunga, Andrew, and a certain Mary Palangdao, defendants herein
before the Regional Trial Court alleging that the Contract did not provide for its
unilateral termination by either of the parties.
- It also alleged that the act of defendants in entering into separate contracts,
despite the existence of their Contract, constitutes unlawful interference and
prayed that the separate contracts of lease entered with Jollibee and Maybunga,
be declared invalid and illegal.
- Reicon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (a) lack
of jurisdiction over its person; (b) lack of legal capacity to sue as a juridical
person on the part of Diamond; and ( c) lack of cause of action. Also, Jollibee
filed a separate motion to dismiss.
- The Regional Trial Court denied Reicon's and Jollibee's motion to dismiss.
Motion for reconsideration was also denied.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed Reicon's certiorari petition based on
the following grounds: (a) non-compliance with the requirements of proof of
service of the petition on Diamond pursuant to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules,
and (b) non-compliance with the rule on service upon a party through counsel
under Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules. Reicon’s motion for reconsideration was
also denied. Hence, the petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not Reicon's certiorari petition before the CA was properly served
upon the person of Diamond. HELD: Petition GRANTED.

Held: Yes. Reicon's certiorari petition before the CA was properly served upon the
person of Diamond. Sections 3 and 4, Rule 46 of the Rules, which covers cases
originally Filed before the CA, provide as follows: SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition;
effect of non-compliance with requirements. - The petition shall contain the full names
and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the
matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for
the relief prayed for. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. SEC. 4.
Jurisdiction over the person of respondent, how acquired.
- The court shall acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by the service on
him of its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by his voluntary
submission to such jurisdiction.

In this case, the Court notes that Diamond declared the aforesaid address as its
business address in its complaint before the RTC, and that there is dearth of evidence
to show that it had since changed its address or had moved out. Hence, Reicon cannot
be faulted for adopting the said address in serving a copy of its certiorari petition to
Diamond in light of the requirement under Sections 3 and 4, Rule 46 of the Rules as
above-cited, which merely entails service of the petition upon the respondent itself, not
upon his counsel. Certiorari proceeding is, by nature, an original and independent
action, and, therefore not considered as part of the trial that had resulted in the rendition
of the judgment or order complained of. Hence, at the preliminary point of serving the
certiorari petition, as in other initiatory pleadings, it cannot be said that an appearance
for respondent has been made by his counsel. Consequently, the requirement under
Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules, which provides that if any party has appeared by
counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel, should not apply. In ordinary
civil cases, a conditional appearance to object to a trial court's jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant may be made when said party specifically objects to the service
of summons, which is an issuance directed by the court, not the complainant. If the
defendant, however, enters a special appearance but grounds the same on the service
of the complainant's initiatory pleading to him, then that would not be considered as an
objection to the court's jurisdiction over his person. It must be underscored that the
service of the initiatory pleading has nothing to do with how courts acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant in an ordinary civil action. Rather, it is the propriety of
the trial court's service of summons - same as the CA's service of its resolution
indicating its initial action on the certiorari petition - which remains material to the matter
of the court's acquisition jurisdiction over the defendant's/respondents' person.

Section 1 Rule 14 who issues summons

Clerk to Issue Summons. Unless the complaint is on its face dismissible under
Section 1, Rule 9, the court shall, within five (5) calendar days from receipt of the
initiatory pleading and proof of payment of the requisite legal fees, direct the clerk of
court to issue the corresponding summons to the defendants.

Exceptions to issuance of Summons: Section 1, Rule 9

1. No jurisdiction over the subject matter

2. Litis pendentia
3. Res judicata
4. Statute of limitations
Section 2 Rule 14 Contents of Summons (*paragraph b is the additional provision)

Contents. The summons shall be directed to the defendant, signed by the clerk
of court under seal, and contain:

(a) the name of the court and the names of the parties to the action;
(b) When authorized by the court upon ex parte motion, an authorization for
the plaintiff to serve summons to the defendant;
(c) a direction that the defendant answer within the time fixed by these Rules; &
(d) a notice that unless the defendant so answers, plaintiff will take
judgment by default and may be granted the relief applied for.
A copy of the complaint and order for appointment of guardian ad litem, if
any, shall be attached to the original and each copy of the summons.

Section 3 Rule 14 Who is authorized to serve summons

By Whom Served. The summons may be served by the sheriff, his or her
deputy, or other proper court officer, and in case of failure of service of summons
by them, the court may authorize the plaintiff — to serve the summons — together
with the sheriff. The plaintiff may thus move ex-parte to serve summons only when the
sheriff, the sheriff’s deputy or proper court officer fails to serve summons. The plaintiff
will serve summons together with the sheriff, unless the service is to be done outside
the judicial region of the court where the case is pending. In cases where summons
is to be served outside the judicial region of the court where the case is pending, the
plaintiff shall be authorized to cause the service of summons. If the plaintiff is a
juridical entity, it shall notify the court, in writing, and name its authorized
representative therein, attaching a board resolution or secretary's certificate
thereto, as the case may be, stating that such representative is duly authorized to serve
the summons on behalf of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff misrepresents that the
defendant was served summons, and it is later proved that no summons was served,
the case shall be dismissed with prejudice, the proceedings shall be nullified, and
the plaintiff shall be meted appropriate sanctions. If summons is returned without being
served on any or all the defendants, the court shall order the plaintiff to cause the
service of summons by other means available under the Rules. Failure to comply with
the order shall cause the dismissal of the initiatory pleading without prejudice.

When there is failure of service of summons?

If the summons is not served, the summons should be served by means of substituted
service sanctioned by the rules, without the need of seeking alias summons since the
amendment provides that the summons remains valid until duly served.
Section 4 Rule 14 relate to Section 6 Rule 14 on Substituted Service of Summons

Validity of Summons and Issuance of Alias Summons. Summons shall

remain valid until duly served, unless it is recalled by the court. In case of loss or
destruction of summons, the court may, upon motion, issue an alias summons.

There is failure of service after unsuccessful attempts to personally serve the

summons on the defendant in his or her address indicated in the complaint.
Substituted service should be in the manner provided under Section 6 of this
Rule. (Section 4 Rule 14)

Substituted Service. If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served
within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section personally after at least
three (3) attempts on two (2) different dates, service may be effect:

(a) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence to a

person at least eighteen (18) years of age and of sufficient discretion residing
therein;

(b) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's office or regular

place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. A competent person
includes, but is not limited to, one who customarily receives correspondences for the
defendant;

(c) By leaving copies of the summons, if refused entry upon making his or her
authority and purpose known, with any of the officers of the homeowners'
association or condominium corporation, or its chief security officer in charge of
the community or the building where the defendant may be found; and

(d) By sending an electronic mail to the defendant's electronic mail

address, if allowed by the court.(Section 6 Rule 14)

Manotoc vs. CA

- genuine efforts should be undertaken to have the defendant served in person

- For substituted service to be available there must be several attempts by the
sheriff to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period [of one
month] which eventually resulted in failure to prove impossibility of prompt
service. "Several attempts" means at least three (3) tries, preferably on at least
two different dates. In addition the sheriff must cite why such efforts where
unsuccessful. It is only then that impossibility of service can be confirmed or
accepted.
How is Substituted Service effected?

Substituted service is effected by delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with
proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail (Sec. 8, Rule 13, Rules of
Court).

Robinson vs. Miralles 510 SCRA 678;

What if diligent efforts were undertaken by the Sheriff to serve summons upon the
defendant but he was prevented from effecting such service by the defendant himself?

- Here, the plaintiff filed a complaint for a sum of money against the defendant.
Summons was served on the defendant at her given address but per return of
service of the sheriff it was learned that the defendant no longer resided at such
address. Later, the trial court issued an alias summons to be served at the
defendant's new address.
- Again, the summons could not be served on the defendant. The Sheriff explained
he was prevented from such by defendant.
- Eventually, the plaintiff filed a motion to declare the defendant in default for her
failure to file an answer seasonably despite service of summons. The trial court
granted respondent's motion declaring petitioner in default and allowing
respondent to present her evidence ex parte. A judgment by default was
rendered and upon respondent's motion, the trial court issued a writ of execution.
- The defendant filed with the trial court a petition for relief from the judgment by
default. She claimed that summons was improperly served upon her, thus, the
trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her and that all its proceedings are
void. The defendant contended that the service of summons upon the subdivision
security guard is not in compliance with Section 7, Rule 14 since he is not related
to her or staying at her residence. Moreover, he is not duly authorized to receive
summons for the residents of the village. Hence, the substituted service of
summons is not valid and that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her
person.
- The trial court issued a Resolution denying the petition for relief. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the trial court.
- SC declared that "Considering her strict instruction to the security guard, she
must bear its consequences. Thus, we agree with the trial court that summons
has been properly served upon petitioner and that it has acquired jurisdiction
over her. The summons was therefore, properly served"

Nature of Substituted Service

Chu vs. Mach Asia Trading 694 SCRA 302, 309-310;

Facts:
- Respondent Mach Asia Trading Corporation is a corporation engaged in
importing dump trucks and heavy equipments.
- On December 8, 1998, petitioner Sixto N. Chu purchased on installment one (1)
Hitachi Excavator worth P900,000.00 from the respondent. Petitioner initially paid
P180,000.00 with the balance of P720,000.00 to be paid in 12 monthly
installments through Prime Bank postdated checks.
- On March 29, 1999, petitioner again purchased two (2) heavy equipments from
the respondent on installment basis in the sum of P1,000,000.00, namely: one
(1) motorgrader and one (1) payloader. Petitioner made a down payment of
P200,000.00 with the balance of P800,000.00 payable in 12 monthly installments
through Land Bank postdated checks.
- However, upon presentment of the checks for encashment, they were dishonored
by the bank either by reason of "closed account," "drawn against insufficient
funds," or "payment stopped."
- On November 29, 1999, the RTC issued an Order allowing the issuance of a writ
of replevin on the subject heavy equipments.
- On December 9, 1999, Sheriff Doroteo P. Cortes proceeded at petitioner's given
address for the purpose of serving the summons, together with the complaint,
writ of replevin and bond.
- However, the Sheriff failed to serve the summons personally upon the petitioner,
since the latter was not there.
- The Sheriff then resorted to substituted service by having the summons and the
complaint received by a certain Rolando Bonayon, a security guard of the
petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not there was a valid substituted service
Ruling:
No. As a rule, summons should be personally served on the defendant. It is only
when summons cannot be served personally within a reasonable period of time that
substituted service may be resorted to.
In the case at bar, it was not shown that the security guard who received the
summons in behalf of the petitioner was authorized and possessed a relation of
confidence that petitioner would definitely receive the summons. This is not the kind of
service contemplated by law. Thus, service on the security guard could not be
considered as substantial compliance with the requirements of substituted service.

Jose vs. Boyon 414 SCRA 216

Facts: In 1998, Sps. Jose lodged a complaint for specific performance in RTC of Muntinlupa
against Sps. Helen and Romeo Boyon to compel them to facilitate the transfer of ownership
of a parcel of land subject of a controverted sale. The RTC issued a summons to
respondents. The process server went to the residence of Sps. Boyon in Alabang on July
22, 1998 to try to serve the summons personally. However, he found out that Helen was in
the United States and Romeo was in Bicol. Hence, the process server explained in the
Return of Summons that substituted service was resorted to because efforts to serve
personally failed.

Meanwhile, Sps. Jose filed before the RTC an ex parte motion for leave of court to
effect summons by publication. The court granted the motion. Sps. Boyon were declared in
default and Sps. Jose was allowed to present their evidence ex parte. On December 7, 1999,
the RTC issued a Resolution in favor of Sps. Jose.

Helen Boyon, who was then in United Sates, was surprised to learn from her sister of
the resolution issued by the court. Sps. Boyon filed an Ad Cautelam motion questioning,
among others, the validity of the service of summons effected by the court a quo. The RTC
denied the said motion on the basis of the defaulted respondent supposed loss of standing
in court. Their motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

Sps. Boyon appealed to the Court of Appeals which ruled that the RTC had no
authority to issue the questioned resolution and orders.

Issue: Were the summons validly served upon Sps. Boyon?

Held: No. The personal service of summons was defective and the summons by publication
was improper. In general, courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by the
service of summons. Where the action is in personam and the defendant is in the
Philippines, such service may be done by personal or substituted service, following the
procedures laid out in Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court.

As can be gleaned from the above-quoted Sections, personal service of summons is

preferred to substituted service. Only if service in person cannot be made promptly can the
process server resort to substituted service. Moreover, the proof of service of summons
must

(a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time;

(b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and

(c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and
discretion who is residing in the address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of
business of the defendant.
It is likewise required that the pertinent facts proving these circumstances be stated in the
proof of service or in the officer's return. The failure to comply faithfully, strictly and fully
with all the foregoing requirements of substituted service renders the service of summons
ineffective

In general, substituted service can be availed of only after a clear showing that personal
service of summons was not legally possible. Also, service by publication is applicable in
actions in rem and quasi in rem, but not in personal suits such as the present one which is
for specific performance.

Miranda vs. CA 326 SCRA 278 (same with Jose vs Boyon Case)

What is the effect if the defendant prevents service of summons? Robinson vs.
Miralles 510 SCRA 678 - Summons considered properly served.(See above for FIR)

Section 7 Rule 14 Entity with Juridical Personality;

Service upon entity without juridical personality. — When persons associated in an

entity without juridical personality are sued under the name by which they are generally or
commonly known, service may be effected upon all the defendants by serving upon any one of
them, or upon the person in charge of the office or place of business maintained in such name.
But such service shall not bind individually any person whose connection with the entity has, upon
due notice, been severed before the action was brought.

Section 8 Rule 14 Upon a prisoner;

Service upon Prisoners. When the defendant is a prisoner confined in a jail

or institution, service shall be effected upon him or her by the officer having the
management of such jail or institution who is deemed deputized as a special sheriff for
said purpose. The jail warden shall file a return within five (5) calendar days from
service of summons to the defendant.

Section 9 International Conventions;

Service Consistent with International Conventions. Service may be made

through methods which are consistent with established international conventions to
which the Philippines is a party.

Ex. Hague Service Convention

Section 10 Rule 14 upon minors

Service upon Minors and Incompetents. When the defendant is a minor,

insane or otherwise an incompetent person, service of summons shall be made upon
him or her personally and on his or her legal guardian if he or she has one, or if none,
upon his or her guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be applied for by the plaintiff.
In the case of a minor, service shall be made on his or her parent or guardian.

*In case defendant is a minor, service shall be made upon the minor personally
and on the guardian.

Section 11 Rule 14 upon spouses relate to Section 4 Rule 3;

Service upon Spouses. When spouses are sued jointly, service of summons
should be made to each spouse individually.

Section 4 Rule 3. Spouses as parties. Husband and wife shall sue or be sued
jointly, except as provided by law.

Section 12 Rule 14 upon a domestic private entity;

Service upon Domestic Private Juridical Entity. When the defendant is a

corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with
a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner,
general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel of the
corporation wherever they may be found, or in their absence or unavailability, on
their secretaries. If such service cannot be made upon any of the foregoing persons, it
shall be made upon the person who customarily receives the correspondence for
the defendant at its principal office. In case the domestic juridical entity is under
receivership or liquidation, service of summons shall be made on the receiver or
liquidator, as the case may be. Should there be a refusal on the part of the persons
above-mentioned to receive summons despite at least three (3) attempts on two (2)
different dates, service may be made electronically, if allowed by the court, as
provided under Section 6 of this Rule.

Nation Petroleum Gas vs. RCBC Aug. 17, 2015

How may improper service of summons be cured? Mapa vs. CA Oct. 2, 1992.

— By proof of actual receipt.

— "In the case at bar, there is no question that summons was timely issued and received by
private respondent. In fact, he never denied actual receipt of such summons but confined
himself to the argument that the Sheriff should prove that personal service was first made before
resorting to substituted service. x x x x
— On the same matter, Moran has this to say:
— "Irregularities of this kind may, however, be cured by proof that the copies have actually
been delivered to the defendant, which is equivalent to personal service.”

Section 13 Rule 14;

Section 13. Duty of counsel of record. — Where the summons is improperly served and a
lawyer makes a special appearance on behalf of the defendant to, among others, question the
validity of service of summons, the counsel shall be deputized by the court to serve summons
on his client. (n)

Carson Realty vs. Red Robin Feb. 8, 2017

—In Carson Realty & Management Corp vs. Red Robin Security Agency, GR No. 225035,
February 8, 2017, one of the issues that cropped up is whether substituted service can be
effected if the defendant is a corporation.
— The SC ruled that the substituted service effected by the sheriff is valid. It should be noted
that there were several attempts made by the sheriff to serve the summons upon the president
of the company but to no avail.

Section 14 Rule 14 Upon a foreign private entity, relate said provision to Section
129 of the Corporation Code;

How is service of summons effected upon a foreign private entity?

— When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted or is doing
business in the Philippines, as defined by law, service may be made on its resident agent
designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the
government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents, directors
or trustees within the Philippines

H.B Zachry Company Int’l vs/ CA 232 SCRA 329; Upon a foreign private entity not
registered in the Phil or no resident agent?

—It has been held that when a foreign corporation has designated a person to receive
summons on its behalf pursuant to the Corporation Code, that designation is exclusive and
service of summons on any other person is inefficacious (H.B. Zachry Company International
vs. C A, 232 SCRA 329).

Section 15, Rule 14 Upon the Republic of the Philippines;

How is service upon the Republic of the Philippines effected?

—When the defendant the Republic of the Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor
General.
—In case of a province, city or municipality, or like public corporations, service may be effected
on its executive head, or on such other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct.
Republic vs. Domingo 657 SCRA 621,636;

—Jurisprudence tells that when a suit is directed against an unincorporated agency, it is as if

directed against the agency’s principal which is the Republic of the Philippines, thus summons
should be served upon the Solicitor General (Republic vs. Domingo, 657 SCR A 621, 636).

Section 16 Rule 14 Upon unknown defendant or whereabouts unknown;

-If the action is instituted against a defendant, designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or
whenever his or her whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry,
service of summons, by leave of court, be effected through publication in a newspaper of
general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order.
-However, such kind of service of summons can only be effected if there is showing that
defendant’s whereabouts cannot ascertained by diligent inquiry within 90 days from the
commencement of the suit.

This is applicable in any action, in rem, in person…..

-Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than
sixty (60) calendar days after notice, within which the defendant must answer.

Santos vs. PNOC 566 SCRA 272

Thus, in Section 15 of Rule 14 authorizes summons by publication in any action and the rule
obviously does not distinguish whether the action is in personam, in rem or quasi in rem. The
tenor of the rule authorizes summons by publication whatever the action may be as long as the
identity of the defendant is unknown or his whereabouts are unknown (Santos vs. PNOC, 566
SCRA 272).

When is Extra-territorial service effected?

Section 17, Rule 14;

Section 17. Extraterritorial service. — When the defendant does not reside and is not found in
the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the
subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or
interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in
excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been
attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines
by personal service as under section 6; or as provided by international conventions to which the
Philippines is a party; or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and
for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the
court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other
manner the court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable
time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) calendar days after notice, within which the
defendant must answer. (15)

Jose vs. Boyon 414 SCRA 216;

The SC in several cases applies Section 15, Rule 14 to actions in rem or quasi in rem (Jose vs.
Boyon, 414 SCRA 216)
-not available in action in personam
Extraterritorial service of summons under this Section 15 applies when he following requisites
concur:
(a) the defendant is a non-resident;
(b) he is not found in the Philippines; and
(c) the action against him is either in rem or quasi in rem (Jose vs. Boyon 414 SCRA 216).

What are the modes of extra-territorial service;

1. Personal Service under Section 6, Rule 14

2. Publication in newspaper in such place Section 17, Rule 14
3. By international convention by Philippine is a party
4. Other manner the court may deem sufficient

Kawaski Port Service Corp. vs. Amores 199 SCRA 230;

-Extra-territorial service is not available in an action in personam (Kawasaki Port Service Corp
vs. Amores 199 SCRA 230, 237).
- Extra-territorial service is not available in an action in personam (Kawasaki Port Service Corp
vs. Amores 199 SCRA 230, 237).

Upon a resident temporarily outside of the Philippines, Section 18 Rule 14

Section 18. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. — When any action is commenced
against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it,
service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding
section. (16)

Palma vs. Galvez March 10, 2010

—P filed with the RTC a tort case against D. The sheriff went to D’s resident and served the
summons and complaint on D’s husband, since D was temporarily out of the country.
Subsequently, D filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that she was not properly served with
summons since she was temporary out of the country and hence, the service of summons on
her should conform to Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which requires extraterritorial
service.
Should RTC grant the motion to dismiss?
—The RTC should not grant the motion to dismiss.
—The SC rule that in the case of resident temporarily out of the Philippines, extraterritorial
service is not mandatory since Section 16 of Rule 14 uses the word “may” and thus, substituted
service of summons may be resorted to (Palma vs. Galvez, March 10, 2010).
Section 20 Rule 14, Return and substituted service

Section 20. Return. — Within thirty (30) calendar days from issuance of summons by the clerk
of court and receipt thereof, the sheriff or process server, or person authorized by the court,
shall complete its service. Within five (5) calendar days from service of summons, the server
shall file with the court and serve a copy of the return to the plaintiff’s counsel, personally, by
registered mail, or by electronic means authorized by the Rules. Should be substituted service
have been effected, the return shall state:
(1) The impossibility of prompt personal service within a period of thirty (30) calendar days from
issue and receipt of summons;
(2) The date and time of the three (3) attempts on at least (2) two separate dates to cause
personal service and the details of the inquiries made to locate the defendant residing thereat;
and
(3) The name of the person at least eighteen (18) years of age and of sufficient discretion
residing thereat: name of competent person in charge of the defendant’s office or regular place
of business, or name of the officer of the homeowner’s association or condominium corporation
or its chief security officer in charge of the community or building where the defendant may be
found.

Section 23, Voluntary appearance.

Section 23. Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall
be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds
aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall be deemed a voluntary
appearance. (20)

Republic vs. Domingo and Manotoc vs. CA

How is jurisdiction over the person of the defendant acquired?

-Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired through coercive process, generally
by 1) service of summons or through defendant’s 2) voluntary appearance or submission to the
court (Republic vs. Domingo, 657 SCRA 621, 632; Manotoc vs. CA, 499 SCRA 21)

MOTION (Rule 15

What is a Motion?

An application for relief other than by a pleading. (Section 1 Rule 15)

 ● The court may, in its discretion, and in the absence of a statute or rules of court
requiring the motion to be written, entertain an oral motion.

What are non-litigious and litigious motions? Examples

Definition Non-litigious motion is also Litigious motions - are made on

known as ex parte motion. It is an notice to the adverse party where
application made to the court on he is afforded an opportunity to
behalf of one or the other of the resist the application. Ex. Motion to
parties to the action, in the dismiss.
absence and usually without the
knowledge of the other party.

Provision Section 2 Rule 15. Section 5 Rule 15. Litigious

Non-Litigious Motions. Motions Motions.
which the court may act upon
without prejudicing the rights of (a) Litigious motions include:
adverse parties are non-litigious
motions. These motions include: 1) Motion for bill of particulars;
2) Motion to dismiss;
a) Motion for the issuance of an 3) Motion for new trial;
alias summons; 4) Motion for reconsideration;
b) Motion for extension to file 5) Motion for execution pending
answer; appeal;
c) Motion for postponement; 6) Motion to amend after a
d) Motion for the issuance of a writ responsive pleading has been filed;
of execution; 7) Motion to cancel statutory lien;
e) Motion for the issuance of an 8) Motion for an order to break in or
alias writ of execution; for a writ of demolition;
f) Motion for the issuance of a writ 9) Motion for intervention;
of possession; 10) Motion for judgment on the
g) Motion for the issuance of an pleadings;
order directing the sheriff to 11) Motion for summary judgment;
execute the final certificate of sale; 12) Demurrer to evidence;
and 13) Motion to declare defendant in
h) Other similar motions. default; and
14) Other similar motions.
These motions shall not be set
for hearing and shall be (b) All motions shall be served by
resolved by the court within five personal service, accredited private
(5) calendar days from receipt courier or
thereof. registered mail, or electronic
means so as to ensure their receipt
by the other party.

(c) The opposing party shall file his

 or her opposition to a litigious
motion within five (5) calendar days
from receipt thereof. No other
submissions shall be considered by
the court in the resolution of the
motion.

The motion shall be resolved by

the court within 15 days from its
receipt of the opposition thereto, or
upon expiration of the period to file
such opposition.

Procedure These motions shall not be set Notice of Hearing on Litigious

for hearing and shall be Motions; Discretionary. The court
resolved by the court within five may, in the exercise of its
(5) calendar days from receipt discretion, and if deemed
thereof. necessary for its resolution, call a
hearing on the motion. The notice
of hearing shall be addressed to all
parties concerned, and shall
specify the time and date of the
hearing.

Omnibus Motion Rule (Section 9 Rule 15)

Omnibus Motion. Subject to the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 9, a motion

attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then
available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived.

*The omnibus rule does not apply to a motion to dismiss the complaint.

Exceptions: Section 1 of Rule 9

1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter

2. Litis pendentia
3. Res judicata
4. Statute of limitations or prescription

Prohibited Motions (Section 12 Rule 15)

Prohibited Motions. The following motions shall not be allowed:

(a) Motion to dismiss except on the following grounds:
1) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
 2) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the
same cause; and
3) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the
statute of limitations.
(b) Motion to hear affirmative defenses;
(c) Motion for reconsideration of the court's action on the affirmative defenses;
(d) Motion to suspend proceedings without a temporary restraining order or
injunction issued by a higher court;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other papers,
except a motion for extension to file an answer as provided by Section 11,
Rule 11; and
(f) Motion for postponement intended for delay, except if it is based on acts of
God, force majeure or physical inability of the witness to appear and testify. If the
motion is granted based on such exceptions, the moving party shall be warned
that the presentation of its evidence must still be terminated on the dates
previously agreed upon.

A motion for postponement, whether written or oral, shall, at all times, be

accompanied by the original official receipt from the office of the clerk of court
evidencing payment of the postponement fee under Section 21 (b), Rule 141, to be
submitted either at the time of the filing of said motion or not later than the next hearing
date.
The clerk of court shall not accept the motion unless accompanied by the original
receipt.

Dismissal with prejudice (Section 13, Rule 15)

Dismissal with Prejudice. Subject to the right of appeal, an order granting a

motion to dismiss or an affirmative defense that the cause of action is barred by a
prior judgment or by the statute of limitations; that the claim or demand set forth
in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise
extinguished; or that the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable
under the provisions of the statute of frauds, shall bar the refiling of the same
action or claim.

*The aggrieved party may appeal the order of dismissal within the reglementary period.

PROCEEDINGS AFTER SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND FILING OF ANSWER

- Motion for bill of particulars

-A Bill Of Particulars is where a party agrees CoA but it is not clear

-If the allegations in the pleading is not definite or is vague to enable the adverse party to
prepare his responsive pleading, then a Motion for Bill of Particulars may be filed (Sec. 1, Rule
12)
. - If the motion is granted, the compliance therewith must be effected within ten (10) days from
notice of the order, unless a different period is fixed by the court. It may be filed either in a
separate or in an amended pleading, serving a copy thereof on the adverse party (Sec. 3, Rule
12).
- If the order is not obeyed, or in case of insufficient compliance therewith, the court may order
the striking out of the pleading or the portions thereof to which the order was directed or make
such other order as it deems just (Sec. 4, Rule 12).
- It is filed within a period for filing responsive pleading.

- Motion to dismiss; Within what time should a Motion to Dismiss

be filed?

—Within the time for but before filing the answer. However is the ground of the motion to
dismiss is lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, res judicata, lis pendens or prescription, and such
grounds appear from the pleadings or evidence on record, the motion to dismiss may be filed
even after answer had been filed (Section 1, Rule 9).

Requisites of litis pendentia

— Requisites:
1. Identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interest in both action;
2. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts;
3. Identity of the causes of action such that judgment in one case will amount to res judicata.

- The pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action

◦ When all the elements of the cause of action are not present in the complaint.

Remember: ◦ You have to hypothetically admit the allegations in the complaint. If after
hypothetically admitting, the Court cannot render a valid judgment, then, the allegations in the
complaint states no cause of action.

- Failure to comply with condition precedent

- What are the remedies when plea of dismissal for the action is
granted?

1. Refile the complaint depending on the ground for dismissal

-if without prejudice = certiorari
-if with = cannot refile = remedy is appeal
2. Appeal the order of dismissal the basis of the dismissal is the following: (with prejudice)
◦ Res judicata,
◦Prescription,
◦ Extinguishment of obligation
◦ Violation of statute of frauds. (Sec. 13, Rule 15) -
Petition for certiorari if dismissal is without prejudice pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 41.

- When complaint cannot be refiled after dismissal. Section 13, Rule

15

-1. Dismissal on the ground of res judicata.

—2. Dismissal on the ground of statute of limitations.
—3. Claim or demand has been extinguished, paid, waived, abandoned or extinguished.
—4. Claim, on which the action is founded, is unenforceable under statute of frauds.

- What is the effect of dismissal on counterclaim? Section 6 Rule 16

and Section 2 Rule 17

—I submit that the counterclaim can still be adjudicated in the same action. Section 2, Rule 17
may be applicable. It is provided therein that: “the dismissal shall be without prejudice to the
right of the defendant to prosecute his or her counterclaim in a separate action unless
within fifteen (15) calendar days from notice of the motion he or she manifests his or her
preference to have his or her counterclaim resolved in the same action.”
- Dismissal by Plaintiff, Section 1 Rule 17; Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff;
Effect of dismissal of the complaint upon the counterclaim, Section 2 Rule 17

PRE-TRIAL

- Purpose of Pre-Trial

(a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to alternative modes of dispute

resolution;
(b)The simplification of the issues;
(c) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid
unnecessary proof;
(d)The limitation of the number and identification of witnesses and the setting of trial dates;
(e) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner;
(f) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing
the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist;
(g)The requirement for the parties to:
1. Mark their respective evidence if not yet marked in the judicial affidavits of their
witnesses;
 2. Examine and make comparisons of the adverse parties' evidence vis- a-vis the
copies to be marked;
3. Manifest for the record stipulations regarding the faithfulness of the reproductions and
the genuineness and due execution of the adverse parties' evidence;
4. Reserve evidence not available at the pre-trial, but only in the following manner:
i. For testimonial evidence, by giving the name or position and the nature of the
testimony of the proposed witness;
ii. For documentary evidence and other object evidence, by giving a particular
description of the evidence. No reservation shall be allowed if not made in the manner
described above.
(h) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.

- What are the matters that must be considered during Pre-Trial?

(a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to alternative modes of dispute

resolution;
(b) The simplification of the issues;
(c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;
(d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid
unnecessary proof;
(e) The limitation of the number of witnesses;
(f) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner;
(g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of
dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist;
(h) The advisability or necessity of suspending the proceedings; and
(i) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.

- What is the effect of a party and counsels’ failure to appear before

Pre-Trial? Sections 2 and 5 Rule 18

The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding section
shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless
otherwise ordered by the court.
A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his
evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof (Section 5, Rule 18).

- Pre-Trial Brief,

Sec. 6. Pre-trial brief. The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, in such
manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3) calendar days before the date of
the pre-trial, their respective pre- trial briefs which shall contain, among others:
(a) A concise statement of the case and the reliefs prayed for;
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;
(c) The main factual and legal issues to be tried or resolved;
(d) The propriety of referral of factual issues to commissioners;
(e) The documents or other object evidence to be marked, stating the purpose thereof;
(f) The names of the witnesses, and the summary of their respective testimonies; and
(g) A brief statement of points of law and citation of authorities. Failure to file the pre-trial brief
shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pretrial
Pre-Trial Order,

JDR,
Section 9. Judicial Dispute Resolution. — Only if the judge of the court to which the case was
originally raffled is convinced that settlement is still possible, the case may be referred to
another court for judicial dispute resolution. The judicial dispute resolution shall be conducted
within a nonextendible period of fifteen (15) calendar days from notice of failure of the
courtannexed mediation.
If judicial dispute resolution fails, trial before the original court shall proceed on the dates agreed
upon.
All proceedings during the court-annexed mediation and the judicial dispute resolution shall be
confidential. (n)

Court Annexed Mediation

Court-Annexed Mediation. — After pre-trial and, after issues are joined, the court shall refer the
parties for mandatory court-annexed mediation.
The period for court-annexed mediation shall not exceed thirty (30) calendar days without
further extension. (n)

- Judgement after pre-trial Section 10 Rule 18; Rule 34 and Rule 35,
Summary Judgement and Judgement on the Pleadings

MODES OF DISCOVERY

- Rule 23 Depositions pending action

- Rule 24 Depositions before action or pending appeal

- Rule 25 Interrogatories to parties

- Rule 26 Admission by adverse party

- Rule 27 Production or Inspection of documents

 - Rule 28 Physical or mental examination of persons

TRIAL

- Continuous trial

-CONTINOUS- i.e. one day examination rule

• Under this system, the parties are enjoined to follow strictly the schedule of trials agreed upon
in the pre-trial order.
• The initial presentation of plaintiff’s evidence shall be set not later than thirty (30) calendar
days after the termination of the pre-trial conference.

- Period to present evidence

• Plaintiff shall present evidence within a period of three (3) months or ninety (90) calendar days,
which shall include the date of the judicial dispute resolution, if necessary;
• The defendant shall present evidence within a period of three (3) months or ninety (90)
calendar days;
• The period for the presentation of evidence on the third (fourth, etc.) – party claim,
counterclaim or cross-claim shall be determined by the court, the total of which shall in no case
exceed ninety (90) calendar days; and
• If deemed necessary, the court shall set the presentation of the parties’ respective rebuttal
evidence, which shall be completed within a period of thirty (30) calendar days.
• The trial dates may be shortened depending on the number of witnesses to be presented,
provided that the presentation of evidence of all parties shall be terminated within a period of ten
(10) months or three hundred (300) calendar days. If there are no third (fourth, etc.)-party claim,
counterclaim or cross-claim, the presentation of evidence shall be terminated within a period of
six (6) months or one hundred eighty (180) calendar days.- 90 for plaintiff and 90 for defendant
• The court shall decide and serve copies of its decision to the parties within a period not
exceeding ninety (90) calendar days from the submission of the case for resolution, with or
without memoranda. =ante dating is not allowed

- Period to decide the case

- Adjournment and postponements

A court may adjourn a trial from day to day, and to any stated time, as the expeditious and
convenient transaction of business may require, but shall have no power to adjourn a trial for a
longer period than one month for each adjournment, nor more than three months in all, except
when authorized in writing by the Court Administrator, Supreme Court.
The party who caused the postponement is warned that the presentation of its evidence must
still be terminated on the remaining dates previously agreed upon.

- Order of Trial

- Oral offer of Exhibits

The offer of evidence, the comment or objection thereto, and the court ruling shall be made
orally in accordance with Sections 34 to 40 of Rule 132. (n

- Agreed statement of facts

The parties to any action may agree in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and
submit the case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence.
If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial shall be held as to the disputed
facts in such order as the court shall prescribe

- Suspension of actions

The suspension of actions shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code and other laws.
(8a

- Judge to receive evidence, delegation to clerk of court

The judge of the court where the case is pending shall personally receive the evidence to be
adduced by the parties. However, in default or ex parte hearings, and in any case where the
parties agree in writing, the court may delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of court
who is a member of the bar. The clerk of court shall have no power to rule on objections to any
question or to the admission of exhibits, which objections shall be resolved by the court upon
submission of his or her report and the transcripts within ten (10) calendar days from termination
of the hearing. (9a)

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

- When is the proper time to file demurrer to evidence?

After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for
dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.

- What is the effect if motion is denied? Or if granted but is revered

on appeal?

If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but
on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed, he shall be deemed to have waived the right to
present evidence.

- Ground for Demurrer. Republic vs Tuvera 516 SCRA 113

On the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief (Sec. 1,
Rule 33).
◦ This is equivalent to insufficiency of evidence
◦ Thus, res judicata is not a proper ground for demurrer

- Effect of denial of demurrer, Katigbak vs. Sandiganbayan 404

SCRA 558.

1. Defendant will present evidence.

2. The denial of demurrer is not a final order; it is an interlocutory order
3. Therefore, the remedy is not to appeal the Order, but to file Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65, if there is grave abuse of discretion.

- Effect of grant of demurrer, Radiowealth Finance Corp vs. Del

Rosario 335 SCRA 288

1. The case is dismissed.

2. If the order is reversed in the appellate court, the defendant loses his right to present
evidence.
3. It is not correct for the appellate court to remand the case for further proceedings. The correct
procedure is for the appellate court to render judgment based on the pieces of evidence
presented by the plaintiff

- Motion to dismiss vs demurrer to evidence

- Civil demurrer vs. criminal demurrer

JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER

- What is judgment Macahilig vs. Heirs of Gracia Magalit 344 SCRA

838, 848

-It is the final ruling by the court of competent jurisdiction regarding the rights or other matters
submitted to it in an action or proceeding (Macahilig vs. Heirs of Gracia M. Magalit, 344 SCRA
838, 848).
-A judgment is the court’s official and final consideration and determination of the respective
rights and obligations of the parties.

- Requisites of a valid judgment

1. Court must have jurisdiction over the case

2. Court must have jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter
3. Parties must be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in their behalf.
4. Evidence must have been considered.
5. In writing personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based, signed by him.

- How to resolve the conflict between the body and the dispositive
portion? So vs. Food Fest Land Inc. 642 SCRA 592; People vs. Cilot
October 19, 2016

GR: The dispositive portion of the decision shall prevail.

BUT: If the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear that there was a mere
mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision shall prevail

- What is Judgment upon compromise? Diamond Builders

Conglomerations vs. Country Bankers Corp. 540 SCRA 194; Domingo
vs. CA 255 SCRA 189

-This is a judgment render by the court on the basis of a compromise agreement entered
between the parties to the action (Diamond Builder’s Conglomeration vs. Country Bankers
Corp., 540 SCRA 194)
-Once approved by the court, a judicial compromise is not appealable and it thereby becomes
immediately executory (Domingo vs. CA, 255 SCRA 189).

- What is the doctrine of the law of the case? RCPI vs. CA 488
SCRA 306; Yap vs. Siao June 1, 2016; Mercury Group vs. HDMF 541
SCRA 211

-Whatever is once irrevocably established as controlling legal rule or decision between the
same parties in the case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general
principles or not, so long as the fact on which such decision was predicated continue to be the
facts before the court

- What is the doctrine of immutability of judgment? Tabalno vs.

DIngal Sr. October 5, 2015; Pinero vs. NLRC 427 SCRA 112, 117;
Borlongan vs. Buenaventura 483 SCRA 405

- Under the doctrine of immutability of judgments, a judgment that has attained finality can no
longer be disturbed. Thus, issues actually and directly resolved in the former suit cannot again
be raised in any future case between the same parties.
-The doctrine prohibits any alteration, modification, or correction of final and executory
judgments as what remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the
judgment

- What is a judgment nunc pro tunc? Briones Vasquez vs. CA 450

SCRA 482, 491-492

The office of a judgment nunc pro tunc is to record some act of the court done at a former time
which was not then carried into the record, and the power of a court to make such entries is
restricted to placing upon the record evidence of judicial action which has been actually taken. It
may be used to make the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it did not speak
but ought to have spoken

- Final Order and Interlocutory order, Spouses Teves vs. Integrated

Credit and Corporate services April 4, 2018.
The first disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or
action, leaving nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has
determined, but the latter does not completely dispose of the case but leaves something else to
be decided upon.

An interlocutory order deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held
and the judgment rendered. The test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is
interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave something to be done in the trial court
with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the order or judgment is interlocutory;
otherwise, it is final.‘

- Remedy in interlocutory order? Silverio Jr. vs. Filipino Business

Consultants 466 SCRA 584, 594

The proper remedy to question an improvident interlocutory order is a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 on ground of GAOJ, not rule 45.
A petition for review under Rule 45 is the proper mode of redress to question only final
judgments

- Judgment on the pleadings?

Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the
adverse party's pleading, the court may; on motion of that party, direct judgment on such
pleading. However, in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal
separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved. (1a, R19)

When do we say that an answer fails to tender an issue?

If it does not comply with the requirements of specific denial under Sections 8 and 10 of Rule 8.

- Comglasco Corp. vs. Santos Car Check Center March 25, 2015

Petitioner entered into 5 year lease contract with respondent. Petitioner, after one year,
pre-terminated the contract. Respondent filed answer interposes the defense of 1.) rebus sic
stantibus under Article 1267 of the civil code invoking the Asian Financial crisis; 2) legal
impossibility of performance under Article 1266. Because of these defenses, the respondent
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Should the motion be granted?
A: YES. As there was no issue of fact, the Court should grant the motion. By interposing such
defenses, the defendant admitted the material allegation in the complaint. Hence, judgment on
the pleading may be availed.

- When may a motion for summary judgment be availed of? Yap vs.
Siao June 1, 2016
-It may be availed when a responsive pleading has been filed, however, the same did not
establish a genuine issue.
-What triggers a summary judgment is the absence of genuine issue of fact

- Who may file a motion for summary judgment

SECTION 1. Summary Judgment for Claimant. — A party seeking to recover upon a claim,
counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading
in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions
for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof.

SECTION 2. Summary Judgment for Defending Party. — A party against whom a claim,
counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move
with supporting affidavits depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor as to
all or any part thereof.