F1. Kinds of Pleadings

Question 1

COMPLAINT

Answer 1

Pleading alleging the plaintiff’s or claiming party’s cause or cause of action. (Sec. 3, Rule 6, ROC, as amended) NOTE: The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant, if known, must be stated.(Sec. 3, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)

Question 2

Evidentiary Facts

Answer 2

Those facts which are necessary for determination of the ultimate facts; they are the premises upon which conclusions of ultimate facts are based. (Tantuico v. Republic, G.R. No. 89114, 2 Dec. 1991)

Question 3

Ultimate Facts

Answer 3

It is the essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action insufficient. A pleading should state the ultimate facts essential to the rights of action or defense asserted, as distinguished from mere conclusion of fact, or conclusion of law. An allegation that a contract is valid, or void, as in the instant case, is a mere conclusion of law. (Remitere v. Yulo, G.R. No. L-19751, 28 Feb. 1966)

NOTE: The allegations of the complaint must be based on the ultimate facts, including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his claims or defenses which need to be attached to the complaint. (Sec. 1 Rule 8, ROC, as amended)

Question 4

ANSWER

Answer 4

It is the pleading in which the defending party sets forth his or her affirmative or negative defenses. (Sec. 4, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)

It may likewise be the response to a counterclaim or a crossclaim. It may be an answer to the complaint, an answer to a counterclaim, or an answer to a cross-claim. (Riano, 2019)

Question 5

NEGATIVE DEFENSES

Answer 5

The specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of action. (Sec. 5(a), Rule 6, ROC, as amended)

Question 6

Kinds of Specific Denials

1. Absolute denial

Answer 6

1. Absolute denial - the defendant specifies each material allegation of fact the truth of which he or she does not admit and, whenever practicable, sets forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial;

Question 7

2. Partial denial

Answer 7

2. Partial denial – the defendant denies only a part of the averment, whereby he or she specifies that part the truth of which he admits and denies only the remainder; and

Question 8

3. Denial by disavowal of knowledge

Answer 8

3. Denial by disavowal of knowledge - the defendant alleges that he or she is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint. (Sec. 10, Rule 8, ROC, as amended)

Question 9

Insufficient Denials or Denials amounting to an Admission

Answer 9

1. General denial - an admission of the material averments in a pleading asserting a claim or claims (Sec. 11, Rule 8, ROC, as amended); and
2. Denial in the form of a negative pregnant (Riano, 2019)

Question 10

Negative Pregnant

Answer 10

It is a negative implying also an affirmative and which, although is stated in negative form, really admits the allegations to which it relates. (Riano, 2019) It is a form of a negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. (Valdez v. Dabon, A.C. No. 7353, 16 Nov. 2015)

Example: An assertion of a defendant which questions the amount of money involved in a bank account but does not deny its existence, when such is the issue in the case, is said to have admitted the existence of such bank account. The denial of the amount of money deposited is pregnant with an admission of the existence of the bank account. (Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, 15 July 2003

Question 11

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Answer 11

It 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. (Sec. 5(b), Rule 6, ROC, as amended)

Question 12

Kinds of Affirmative Defenses

(FSR-PIES-FDC-Grounds)

Answer 12

A. Under Sec. 5(b), Rule 6, 2019 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure

1. Fraud;
2. Statute of Limitations;
3. Release;
4. Payment;
5. Illegality;
6. Statute of Frauds;
7. Estoppel;
8. Former Recovery;
9. Discharge of Bankruptcy;
10. Any other matter by way of confession or avoidance; and
11. Grounds for the dismissal of the complaint:
    a. The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;
    b. There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; or
    c. The action is barred by a prior judgment.

Question 13

Affirmative Defenses under the Under Sec. 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Revised
Rules on Civil Procedure

Answer 13

Under Sec. 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure (JV-LF-Cond)
1. The court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
2. The venue is improperly laid;
3. 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.

(Sec. 12(a), Rule 8, ROC, as amended

Question 14

COUNTERCLAIMS

Answer 14

It is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party. (Sec. 6, Rule 6, ROC, as amended) It partakes of a complaint by the defendant against the plaintiff. (Pro-Line Sports Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 118192, 23 Oct. 1997) (1999 BAR)

NOTE: A counterclaim is in itself a distinct an independent cause of action. When filed, there are two simultaneous actions between the same parties. (Riano, 2019, citing Padilla v. Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation, G.R. No. 207376, 06 Aug. 2014)

Question 15

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM v. PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM

1. Definition
2. Third parties
3. Barred
4. To be answered or not
5. Initiatory pldg
6. CFS

Answer 15

1. Definition
   CC: One which arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. (Sec. 7, Rule 6, ROC, as amended) (1999, 2004 BAR)

PC: It does not arise out of nor is it necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. There is an absence of a logical connection with the subject matter of the complaint.

2. Third parties
   CC:It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. (Sec. 4, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)

PC: It may require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

3. Barred

CC: GR: Barred if not set up in the same action. (Sec. 7, Rule 6; Sec. 2, Rule 9, ROC, as amended) XPN: Unless otherwise allowed by the Rules (Sec. 7, Rule 6, ROC, as amended): a. Counterclaim arising after answer (Sec. 9, Rule 11, ROC, as amended); and b. Omitted counterclaim. (Sec. 9, Rule 11, ROC, as amended

PC: Not barred even if not set up in the action.

4. To be answered or not
   CC: Need not be answered; No default (Gojo v. Goyala, G.R. No. L-26768, 30 Oct. 1970)
   PC: Must be answered; Otherwise, default (Sarmiento v. Juan, G.R. No. L-56605, 28 Jan. 1983)
5. Initiatory pldg
   CC: Not an initiatory pleading.
   PC: Initiatory pleading.
6. CAFS
   CC: Need not be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping and certificate to file action by the Lupong Tagapamayapa.

PC: Must be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping and whenever required by law, also a certificate to file action by the Lupong Tagapamayapa (Santo Tomas University v. Surla, G.R. No. 129718, 17 Aug. 1998

Question 16

Test to Determine whether the Counterclaim is Compulsory (I-R-E-L)

Answer 16

1. Issues - Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same?
2. Res judicata - Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on the defendant’s claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
3. Evidence - Will substantially the same evidence support or refute the plaintiff’s claim, as well as the defendant’s counterclaim?
4. Logical relation - Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim?

Question 17

Effect on Counterclaim when Complaint is
Dismissed

Answer 17

Notwithstanding the dismissal of the action, the counterclaim shall not be dismissed in the following instances:

1. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by the defendant prior to the service upon him or her of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Sec. 2, Rule 17, ROC, as amended); and
2. If the dismissal is due to the fault of the plaintiff. (Sec. 3, Rule 17, ROC, as amended)