Civil Procedure Part II (Rules 5, 6, 8, and 34)

We’re done with Rules 1-4 in our previous post, let’s continue with Rule 5.

But wait, before that, let’s have a bird’s eye view of the flow of ordinary civil actions for initiatory pleadings:
1. It starts with Rule 2: Cause of Action– Do you have a cause of action?
2. If you have a cause of action, the next thing to determine is Jurisdiction. Which Court has subject matter jurisdiction over your cause of action?
3. After determining which court has Jurisdiction, the next step is to determine which Venue (Rule 4) should you file your cause of action.
4. After determining the venue, you now have to meticulously plan the contents of your Pleading. How must the cause of action be alleged? What are your ultimate facts? What documents should you attach?
5. After you’re done with your pleading, the next thing to consider is how to file and serve it. Do not confuse Filing and Service (Rule 13) with the Service of Summons (Rule 14).

And this is just the first part. For the whole process, we have this:

(Finishing diagram)

UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS- RULE 5

SECTION 1. Uniform procedure.— The procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts shall be the same as in the Regional Trial Courts, except (a) where a particular provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either of said courts, or (b) in civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.

SEC. 2. Meaning of terms.— The term “Municipal Trial Courts” as used in these Rules shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

Rule 5 is pretty understandable. We’ll just discuss later on the two major cases under the jurisdiction of the MTC which have different procedure form the RTC:
1. Summary Procedure
2. Small Claims cases

PLEADINGS- RULES 6, 8, and 34

Our discussion here will exhaust Rules 6, 8 and 34. But of course, related provisions from other rules will also be included.

Further, most of the principles are in the provisions themselves so we have to read, read, read the provisions.

Let’s start with perhaps the most important amendment, Sec. 1 of Rule 8.

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 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.
-Rule 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

The addition of “including the evidence” and “cause of action” now makes it harder on the plaintiff. Aside from the ultimate facts, the evidence now has to be included. Gone are the days where lawyers can just make stuff up, put some falsities as the ultimate facts, and get away with it.

What is the effect if no evidence is included? Will it be a ground for failure to state a cause of action? Because this new provision has not yet been tested by jurisprudence, there are two possible answers:
1. No. Because as we already discussed last time, such affirmative defense can only be judged by the allegations in the pleadings and not by evidentiary matters.

“The test of sufficiency of a cause of action rests on whether, hypothetically admitting the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same, in accordance with the prayer in the complaint. This is the general rule.

However, this rule is subject to well-recognized exceptions, such that there is no hypothetical admission of the veracity of the allegations if:
1. the falsity of the allegations is subject to judicial notice;
2. such allegations are legally impossible;
3. the allegations refer to facts which are inadmissible in evidence;
4. by the record or document in the pleading, the allegations appear unfounded; or
5. there is evidence which has been presented to the court by stipulation of the parties or in the course of the hearings related to the case.”
–Heirs of Maramag v. Maramag, 2009

2. Yes. Because there is no evidence attached as required by Rule 8, Sec. 1, the ultimate facts alleged in the complaint are unsupported. In effect, there is no cause of action stated in the complaint. Thus, the Defendant can set up an affirmative defense for failure to state a cause of action.

I think either answer is okay, but the 1st one seems safer.

BUT THEN, there is also another option. If I were the defendant, and the plaintiff failed to include the evidence supporting his pleading, I would MOVE TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE.

Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his or her evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his or her action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his or her counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
-RULE 17
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS

“An action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute in any of the following instances: (1) if the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of trial; or (2) if he fails to prosecute the action for an unreasonable length of time; or (3) if he fails to comply with the Rules of Court or any order of the court.”
–Roasters Philippines v. Gaviola, 2015

Failure to attach evidence Under Rule 8, Sec. 1 is failure to comply with the Rules of Court. This may cause the dismissal of the complaint. Jurisprudence is not clear with this yet, but hey, we can try. It does sound logical.

Now what are ultimate facts?

Ultimate facts are the facts that constitute a cause of action.

In relation to Court pleadings, this is the relationship between ultimate facts alleged and evidentiary facts:
“This Court often discusses the difference between ultimate and evidentiary facts in relation to pleadings, and what must be alleged to establish a cause of action. Ultimate facts are the facts that constitute a cause of action. Thus, a pleading must contain allegations of ultimate facts, so that a court may ascertain whether, assuming the allegations to be true, a pleading states a cause of action. Of course, the veracity of the ultimate facts will be established during trial, generally through the presentation of evidence that will prove evidentiary facts.”
-Justice Leonen Dissenting Opinion, Lagman v. Pimentel III, 2018

Let’s move on.

We can relate this provision to Sec. 6 of Rule 7.

Section 6. Contents. — Every pleading stating a party’s claims or defenses shall, in addition to those mandated by Section 2, Rule 7 [THE BODY], 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.
-Rule 7
PARTS AND CONTENTS OF A PLEADING

This provision is entirely new and is corollary to Sec. 1 of Rule 8.

Every pleading here refers to all types of pleadings that states a party’s claim or defense: complaint, answer, reply (if instances allowed), rejoinder (if allowed), etc.

Summary of Rule 7 Sec. 6:
1. Name of witnesses to be presented
2. Judicial affidavits of the witnesses
3. Summary of the witnesses’ testimonies provided in the JAs
4. Only witnesses whose JAs are attached shall be presented during Trial. Except if there are meritorious reasons presented by the party seeking admission of additional witnesses or affidavits.
5. Documentary and object evidence in support of the allegations contained in the pleading.

In connection with Sec. 6(b) of rule 7 and the #4 point above, we have Rule 18 Sec. 2(g)(iv).

iv. Reserve evidence not available at the pre-trial, but only in the following manner:
1. For testimonial evidence, by giving the name or position and the nature of the testimony of the proposed witness;
2. 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.
-Rule 18, Sec. 2(g)
PRE-TRIAL

Of course, we need to have MERITORIOUS REASONS before we can avail this.

Let’s now go to the definition of pleadings.

Section 1. Pleadings defined.— Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.
-Rule 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS

The pleadings allowed are listed in Sec. 2.

Section 2. Pleadings allowed. — The claims of a party are asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention.

The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the pleading asserting a claim against him or her.

An answer may be responded to by a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable document to the answer.
-Rule 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS

What’s interesting here is that a reply now has a condition precedent and that is if THERE IS AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT attached to the answer.

Pleadings are also categorized into two:
1. Initiatory pleading- complaint, permissive counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party complaint, complaint-in-intervention
2. Responsive pleading- answer, reply, rejoinder

Their difference is that, for initiatory pleadings, two things are required, (1) a certificate of non-forum shopping along with (2) the payment of filing fees.

We will learn later on that a compulsory counterclaim is not an initiatory pleading which requires the two items mentioned.

In Rule 6, we have the two main pleadings: Complaint and Answer.

Section 3. Complaint. — The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiffs or claiming party’s cause or causes of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.
-Rule 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS

Section. 4. Answer.— An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses. 
-Rule 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS

As to the counterclaim, the plaintiff is the defendant and the defendant is the plaintiff of the original complaint.

Section 6. Counterclaim.— A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party.
-Rule 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS

Section 8. Cross-claim. — A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may cover all or part of the original claim.
-Rule 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS

We also have a compulsory counterclaim.

Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. — A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof, except that in an original action before the Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount. A compulsory counterclaim not raised in the same action is barred, unless otherwise allowed by these Rules.
-Rule 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS

Now, what is the distinction between a permissive and a compulsory counterclaim? This topic was asked in the previous bar exam and Justice Singh noticed that a lot of examinees had wrong answers.

Compulsory counterclaim:
1. A counterclaim that arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim
2. It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
3. Is barred if not set up in action
4. Need not be answered. No default may arise if not answered.
5. Not an initiatory pleading
6. No need for filing fees
7. No need for a Certification against Forum Shopping

Permissive counterclaim:
1. A counterclaim that does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim; essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another case
2. Is not barred if not set up in action
3. Default may arise if not answered
4. Initiatory pleading
5. Requires filing fees
6. Requires a Certification against Forum Shopping

This is the test of whether or not a counterclaim is compulsory:
“Unlike permissive counterclaims, compulsory counterclaims should be set up in the same action; otherwise, they would be barred forever. NAMARCO v. Federation of United Namarco Distributors laid down the following criteria to determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive:
1) Are issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim largely the same?
2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claim, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as defendant’s counterclaim?
4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim?

A positive answer to all four questions would indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory.”
–Lafarge Cement v. Continental Cement, 2004

Here is a sample application:
“Tested against the above-mentioned criteria, the Court agrees with the CA that PAIR’S counterclaim for the recovery of the amount of unpaid rentals is permissive. 
First, the issues of fact and law governing the main action, i.e., collection of sum of money for unremitted amount of shares in the revenue, is entirely different from the issues of fact and law governing the counterclaim, i.e. unpaid rentals. 
Second, the decision in the instant case is not tantamount to res judicata on the claims of PAIR. 
Third, the submission of different sets of evidence is necessary to adjudicate the main action and the counterclaim filed by PAIR. 
Lastly, there is no logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim because they pertain to two different causes of action.”
–Lafarge Cement v. Continental Cement, 2004

Check the 2019 Bar Question on counterclaim. I think the facts are taken from here.

Moving on..

To reiterate, a compulsory counterclaim not raised in the same action will be barred. The same goes with a cross-claim.

SEC.2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up barred. — A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up shall be barred.
-Rule 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD

What Rule 9, Sec. 2 means is that an answer should contain a compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim if available. Otherwise, they will be barred. The provision should be read with Rule 11, Sec. 8.

Section 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. — A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending party has at the time he files his answer shall be contained therein.
-Rule 11
WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

Do you have a remedy in case you forgot to comply? Yes. The remedy is in Rule 11 Sec. 10. A compulsory counterclaim inadvertently not raised or omitted may be included as an amendment to the answer before judgment with leave of court.

Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim.— When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he may, by leave of court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment.
-Rule 11
WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

Keywords: oversight, inadvertence, excusable neglect, when justice requires, leave of court.

This can be related to Sec. 3 of Rule 10 on substantial amendments.

Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. — Except as provided in the next preceding Section, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave shall be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay or confer jurisdiction on the court, or the pleading stated no cause of action from the beginning which could be amended. Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this Section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard.
-Rule 10
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

Now, what if the compulsory counterclaim MATURE AFTER we filed our answer? Then to SUPPLEMENT is our remedy:

SEC. 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer.— A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either matured or was acquired by a party after serving his pleading may, with the permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by supplemental pleading before judgment. 
-Rule 11
WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

Let’s now go to defenses.

Section 5. Defenses. — Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.

(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his cause or causes of action.

(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of, a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him or her. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.

Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint, specifically, that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.
-Rule 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS

A defense may either be negative or affirmative.

Let’s start with negative defense.

NEGATIVE DEFENSE

A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his cause or causes of action.

As opposed to a mere specific denial in Rule 8, Sec. 10, the negative defense specifically denies THE ULTIMATE FACTS. In other words, negative defense is a narrower type of specific denial limited to specifically denying the ultimate facts.

Section 10. Specific denial.— A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. Where defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.
-Rule 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

Rule 8, Sec. 10 also speaks of 3 kinds of specific denials:
1. Absolute denial- “A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial.”
2. Partial denial- “Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder.”
3. Denial through lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof-“Where defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.”

Now, what if the denial goes something like this:
Allegation: Paragraph X- Defendant failed to pay the money he owed me in 2016
Denial: Defendant specifically denies Paragraph X.

This sort of denial is, in effect, an admission as a NEGATIVE PREGANT.

The definition of a negative pregnant is as follows:
“‘Where a fact is alleged with some qualifying or modifying language, and the denial is conjunctive, a ‘negative pregnant’ exists, and only the qualification or modification is denied, while the fact itself is admitted.’ ‘A denial in the form of a negative pregnant is an ambiguous pleading, since it cannot be ascertained whether it is the fact or only the qualification that is intended to be denied.'”
–Venzon v. Rural Bank of Buenavista, 2013

In our example, it is a conjunctive sentence that is ambiguous as to what it specifically denies.

First off, what do we mean by conjunctive? It means that there are two or more ideas in the sentence. So? Why is that wrong? It’s wrong because it becomes ambiguous as to which fact the denial pertains to. Is the defendant denying that he owes Plaintiff money? Or is he denying that he failed to pay the money owed? Or the date?

The effect of this kind of denial is an admission:
“If an allegation is not specifically denied or the denial is a negative pregnant, the allegation is deemed admitted.”
–Venzon v. Rural Bank of Buenavista, 2013

Strangely, a negative pregnant is also viewed not in the lens of a conjunctive sentence but rather merely as “a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party”:
“Evidently, this particular denial had the earmark of what is called in the law on pleadings as a negative pregnant, that is, a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of the averments it was directed at. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading.”
–Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 2003

Just to be safe, the above definition is okay too. Such was used in the 2019 Bar exams.

Another thing to look out for is the use of the third type of specific denial: lack of knowledge. Its use has limits:
“It is true that one of the modes of specific denial under the rules is a denial through a statement that the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material averment in the complaint. The question, however, is whether the kind of denial in respondents’ answer qualifies as the specific denial called for by the rules. We do not think so. In Morales vs. Court of Appeals, this Court ruled that if an allegation directly and specifically charges a party with having done, performed or committed a particular act which the latter did not in fact do, perform or commit, a categorical and express denial must be made.”
–Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 2003

The excerpt above is from the Marcos Swiss Deposits case. An example of the misuse is when the allegation against them is that they created Swiss Accounts to use as a way to stash ill-gotten wealth and, instead of specifically denying, they simply used “lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment.” It’s wrong because how can you lack knowledge when the allegation is something that YOU DID. It’s only either you did or didn’t do it. It’s a matter that is PATENTLY WITHIN THE PLEADER’S KNOWLEDGE.

Thus:
“Profession of ignorance about a fact which is patently and necessarily within the pleader’s knowledge, or means of knowing as ineffectual, is no denial at all.”
–Venzon v. Rural Bank of Buenavista, 2013

Anyway, enough about specific denials, let’s go to the second kind of defense, the affirmative defense.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

An affirmative defense is an allegation of, a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him or her. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.

That’s already a pretty understandable definition. Memorize the underlined part.

Here are the affirmative defenses under Rule 6, Sec. 5(b):
1. Fraud
2. Statute of limitations (prescription)
3. Release
4. Payment
5. Illegality
6. Statute of frauds
7. Estoppel
8. Former recovery
9. Discharge in bankruptcy
10. Any other matter by way of confession and avoidance

Are these the only affirmative defense? No! Rule 6, Sec. 5(b) has a second paragraph which include the remaining three grounds for a motion to dismiss (prescription already included in the first paragraph):
Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint, specifically, that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.

Why are these separated? We’ll know later on why Rule 6, Sec. 5(b), first paragraph is special.

So, are these it? No! There’s also a last batch found of affirmative defenses in Rule 8, Sec. 12, as well as other rules related to affirmative defenses.

Section 12. Affirmative defenses. — (a) A defendant shall raise his affirmative defenses in his answer, which shall be limited to the reasons set forth under Section 5(b), Rule 6, and the following grounds:
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
2. That venue is improperly laid;
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.

(b) Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver thereof.

(c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the above affirmative defenses within thirty (30) calendar days from the filing of the answer.

(d) As to the other affirmative defenses under the first paragraph of Section 5(b), Rule 6, the court may conduct a summary hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days from the filing of the answer. Such affirmative defenses shall be resolved by the court within thirty (30) calendar days from the termination of the summary hearing.

(e) Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be the subject of a motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, but may be among the matters to be raised on appeal after a judgment on the merits.
-Rule 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

Now why separate affirmative defenses in Rule 6, Sec. 5(b) and Rule 8, Sec. 12? Well, it’s because the affirmative defenses in Rule 8, Sec. 12(a) CAN BE RESOLVED BY MERELY LOOKING AT THE PLEADINGS.

That’s why we have Rule 8, Sec. 12(d):
As to the other affirmative defenses under the first paragraph of Section 5(b), Rule 6, the court may conduct a summary hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days from the filing of the answer. Such affirmative defenses shall be resolved by the court within thirty (30) calendar days from the termination of the summary hearing.

This means that the affirmative defenses in Rule 6, Sec. 5(b), first paragraph may require a hearing to be resolved while those under Rule 8, Sec. 12 and the second paragraph of Rule 6, Sec. 5(b) does not.

To illustrate:

Oh no it’s too small. Here’s an imgur link where it can be zoomed in.

Letter (e) of Rule 8, Sec. 12 should also be remembered. There is no remedy as to the denial of the affirmative defense! But, such matters may be raised on appeal later on. This is to prevent delays.

BUT WAIT, what if the affirmative defense is granted? Are MRs, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus still not available? Rule 8, Sec. 12 only speaks of denial, but (!) Rule 15, Sec. 12 says that Motions for Reconsideration are not allowed.

Section. 12. Prohibited motions. — The following motions shall not be allowed:
x x x x
(c) Motion for reconsideration of the court’s action on the affirmative defenses;
x x x
-Rule 15
MOTIONS

What about certiorari, mandamus, prohibition? Probably they’re allowed as they’re not disallowed.

If there is then a grant of the affirmative defense, what happens next is of course the dismissal of the case. After the dismissal, it is now sure that the Plaintiff can seek for appellate remedies.

Now that we’re done with defenses, what happens if the Defendant fails to put up a defense? Or if he/she did, the defense is not valid (may be negative pregnant, not a specific denial, not a ground under affirmative defense, etc.)?

Well, that may be detrimental to the Defendant because the Plaintiff can move for the Judgment on the Pleadings.

Section 1. 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.
-Rule 34
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

What does “failing to tender an issue” mean? It just basically means that the answer does not deny the material allegations.
Proof:
“When the Answer fails to tender any issue, that is, if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by admitting the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all, a judgment on the pleadings is appropriate.”
–Basbas v. Sayson, 2011

And even if the material allegations are denied, but such denial does not comply with the rules on specific denial, the same is treated as “failing to tender an issue”:
“The answer would fail to tender an issue, of course, if it does not comply with the requirements for a specific denial set out in Section 10 (or Section 8) of Rule 8; and it would admit the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings not only where it expressly confesses the truthfulness thereof but also if it omits to deal with them at all.”
–Asian Construction & Development Corporation v. Sannaedle, 2014

The tricky part of Rule 34, Judgment on the Pleadings, is Section 2.

Section 2. Action on motion for judgment on the pleadings. — The court may motu proprio or on motion render judgment on the pleadings if it is apparent that the answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. Otherwise, the motion shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 15 of these Rules.

Any action of the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings shall not be subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus. 
-Rule 34
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Here are the steps in Rule 34:
Scenario 1: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

1. If the Plaintiff thinks that the answer fails to tender an issue or admits the material allegations of the complaint, he/she may file a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
2. The rules on this Motion are found in Rule 15, Sec. 5 (Litigious Motions)
“x x x
(b) All motions shall be served by personal service, accredited private courier or 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 fifteen (15) calendar days from its receipt of the opposition thereto, or upon expiration of the period to file such opposition.”
3. If the Court agrees with the Plaintiff, it will grant the Motion. Will such grant mean the rendering of judgment already? No!

If the Court does not agree with the Plaintiff, the Motion will be denied and the case will proceed to Pre-Trial via the issuance of a Pre-Trial Notice.

What the last paragraph “Any action of the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings shall not be subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus” means is that such GRANT or DENIAL of the Motion is not subject to appeal, certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition. IT DOES NOT MEAN that the JUDGMENT itself is not subject to appeal, certiorari, etc.

It seems that the new Rules are hell-bent on preventing delays. 🙂

4. If the Court denies the Motion, the case will continue. If the Court grants the motion, it will issue an order that it will resolve the Judgment on the Pleadings
5. The final Step is when the Court renders judgment.

Now, this can go either way, but most likely it will be a ruling in favor of the Plaintiff.

In any event, this judgment is APPEALABLE. This is not treated as “Any action of the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings shall not be subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus”

Scenario 2: IT IS APPARENT TO THE COURT that the answer fails to tender and issue or admits the material allegations of the complaint
1. If it is apparent, the Court can just motu proprio, render a judgment on the pleadings.

It will issue an order that it will rule on the pleadings. No hearing necessary.

Such order will also probably (we say “probably” because this is a new provision and some lectures vary as to the interpretation) not be subject to an appeal, certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus. But on the other hand, it still may be subject to appeal, certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus because of the phrase “Any action of the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings” which only limits the action to those on the Plaintiff’s motion excluding the court’s motu proprio action.

2. The Court will render a judgment

This judgment can then be subject to appeal.

That’s it. It’s just like Rule 9 Sec. 1 (Court can motu proprio dismiss the case if it is apparent that at least one of the 4 grounds for dismissal is there), but only against the Defendant.

Okay let’s move on.

The next question that comes to mind is, as Plaintiff, should you file a Reply?

It depends.

Section 10. Reply. — All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable document to his or her answer.

A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document.

In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is based solely on an actionable document.
-Rule 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS

First, if there are new matters raised by the Answer, a Reply is not the immediate action of the Plaintiff. A mere amended or supplemental complaint will suffice (Rule 6, Sec. 10). However, this will most likely require leave of court because such is a substantial amendment:

Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. — Except as provided in the next preceding Section, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave shall be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay or confer jurisdiction on the court, or the pleading stated no cause of action from the beginning which could be amended. Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this Section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard.
-Rule 10
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

Second, a Reply is ONLY allowed if the Defendant attaches an actionable document to the Answer. The same rule applies with a modification for a Rejoinder: if the Reply is based SOLELY on an actionable document.

Third, if there are both new matters presented AND an actionable document separate from the new matters, perhaps both and Amended Complaint and a Reply are allowed if the Plaintiff wishes to.

Now, what is an actionable document?

An actionable document is a written instrument or document upon which an action or defense is based.

Section 7. Action or defense based on document. — Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading.
-Rule 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

Section 8. How to contest such documents.— When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.
-Rule 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

Now, its very important that the adverse party SPECIFICALLY DENIES UNDER OATH an actionable document if he is a party to a document.

Otherwise, the genuineness and due execution thereof will be deemed admitted. What does this mean? This actually ha a pretty big implication. For example, if the adverse party fails to specifically deny under oath the actionable document, it will be deemed admitted, AND THE PARTY WITH THE ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT NEED NOT OFFER PROOF OF EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICITY. Why? Because there was already an admission! So why present more proof? This is what happened in Solidbank v. Del Monte Motor Works (2005).

If the adverse party is not a party to the actionable document or when he is refused from inspecting the original document, the specific denial need not be under oath.

Now what do we mean by under oath? If there is a verification, that is already under oath. If you want to be sure, attach an affidavit under oath.

How do we allege an actionable document? We simply set forth the substance of the document and attach an original or a copy of such document.

Now, going back to denial, the rules on specific denial we discussed earlier also apply here.

But, the SC already provided for ways to deny an actionable document-
(1) Declare that the party did not sign the document or
(2) Declare that the document is false or fabricated:
“In the early case of Songco vs. Sellner, the Court expounded on how to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document, viz.:

. . . This means that the defendant must declare under oath that he did not sign the document or that it is otherwise false or fabricated. Neither does the statement of the answer to the effect that the instrument was procured by fraudulent representation raise any issue as to its genuineness or due execution. On the contrary such a plea is an admission both of the genuineness and due execution thereof, since it seeks to avoid the instrument upon a ground not affecting either.”
–Solidbank v. Del Monte Motor Works, 2005

Let’s provide a sample case. The denial was supposedly that the signature was forged. But, the Defendant cited lack of knowledge. Thus, the denial is not a proper denial because the matter should be patently known by her:
“In substance, ECI’s allegations, supported by the attached documents, are that Mrs. Capistrano applied through Mrs. Redulla for a credit card and that the former used it to purchase goods on credit yet Mrs. Capistrano refused to pay ECI for them. On the other hand, Mrs. Capistrano denied these allegations “for lack of knowledge” as to their truth. This mode of denial is by itself obviously ineffectual since a person must surely know if he applied for a credit card or not, like a person must know if he is married or not. He must also know if he used the card and if he did not pay the card company for his purchases. A person’s denial for lack of knowledge of things that by their nature he ought to know is not an acceptable denial.”
–Equitable Cardnetwork v. Capistrano, 2012

What is the effect if the denial is invalid? The document is admitted as to the genuineness and due execution thereof. Thus, no evidence can be presented pertaining to discrediting such document.

But luckily, in the case, she had another allegation which specifically denies that she applied for a credit card. Thus, such is enough to cure the defect in the invalid “lack of knowledge” denial.
Further, Mrs. Capistrano’s special and affirmative defenses read as follows:
10. Defendant repleads by reference all the foregoing allegations which are relevant and material hereto.
11. Defendant denies having applied for membership with the Equitable Cardnetwork, Inc. as a widow of a deceased member of the Manila Yacht Club.

What she actually meant by lack of knowledge was that if there were indeed transactions, these were not within her knowledge. In other words, these were done behind her back. These were done through forgery.

Interesting case.

Moving on.

Next, we have third party complaints.

Section 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. — A third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent’s claim.

The third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be denied admission, and the court shall require the defendant to institute a separate action, where:
(a) the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant cannot be located within thirty (30) calendar days from the grant of such leave;
(b) matters extraneous to the issue in the principal case are raised; or
(c) the effect would be to introduce a new and separate controversy into the action.
-Rule 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS

The requisites of a third-party complaint are:
1. The party to be impleaded must not yet be a party to the action
2. The claim against the third-party defendant must belong to the original defendant
3. The claim of the original defendant against the third-party defendant must be based upon the plaintiffs claim against the original defendant
4. The defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability asserted against him by the original plaintiff
–Philtranco v. Paras, 2012

One important requisite is that it should be WITH LEAVE OF COURT.

The second paragraph is new and should be a point of emphasis:
1. Cannot be located within 30 days from grant of leave
2. Extraneous matters
3. Matters that introduce a new and separate controversy

To wrap up Rule 8:

Section 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses.— A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of action or defense or in separate causes of action or defenses. When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements.

Section 3. Conditions precedent.— In any pleading a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient.

Section 4. Capacity.— Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, must be averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge.

Section 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind.— In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge or other condition of the mind of a person may be averred generally.

Section 6. Judgment. — In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it. An authenticated copy of the judgment or decision shall be attached to the pleading.

The last section of Rule 8 is interesting. It allows for a striking out of matters in a pleading, either upon motion or upon the court’s initiative.

Section 13. Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein. — Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these Rules, upon motion made by a party within twenty (20) calendar days after the service of the pleading upon him or her, or upon the court’s own initiative at any time, the court may order any pleading to be stricken out or that any sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be stricken out therefrom.

The matters are rather limited though and the decision to strike them out is within the discretion of the Court. The Court determines whether it is indeed false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.

That’s it, let’s go to Rule 7 and others next time.