F3 Manner of Making Allegations (Rule 8)

Question 1

MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS

Answer 1

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

If a cause of action or defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to him or her shall be clearly and concisely stated. (Sec. 1, Rule 8, ROC, as amended)

Question 2

Action or Defense Based on Document

Answer 2

Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document:

1. The substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading; and
2. 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. (Sec. 7, Rule 8, ROC, as amended)

NOTE: A variance in the substance of the document set forth in the pleading and the document annexed thereto does not warrant the dismissal of the action. (Convets, Inc. v. National Development Co., G.R. No. L10232, 28 Feb. 1958) However, the contents of the document annexed are controlling.

Question 3

Specific Denial- Effect of Failure to make Specific Denials

Answer 3

GR: Material averments not specifically denied are deemed admitted.

NOTE: If the allegations are deemed admitted, there is no more triable issue between the parties and if the admissions appear in the answer of the defendant, the plaintiff may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34. (Riano, 2019

XPN: Allegations as to the amount of unliquidated damages, when not specifically denied, are not deemed admitted.

NOTE: The mere statement in the Answer, i.e., that they “specifically deny” the pertinent allegations of the Complaint “for being self-serving and pure conclusions intended to suit plaintiff’s purposes,” does not constitute an effective specific denial as contemplated by law. Verily, a denial is not specific simply because it is so qualified by the defendant. Stated otherwise, a general denial does not become specific by the use of the word “specifically.” Neither does it become so by the simple expedient of coupling the same with a broad conclusion of law that the allegations contested are “self-serving” or are intended “to suit plaintiff’s purposes.” (Go Tong Electrical Supply Co., Inc. and Go v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 187487, 29 June 2015)

Question 4

When a Specific Denial requires an Oath

Answer 4

GR: A denial of due execution and genuineness of an actionable document attached. (Sec. 8, Rule 8, ROC, as amended) (2000 BAR)

XPNs: The requirement of an oath does not apply:

a. When the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument; or
b. When compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.

NOTE: An answer raising a specific denial based on the above grounds is deemed to be under oath if it contains verification.

Question 5

Forms of Denials amounting to Negative
Defenses

Answer 5

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;
2. Partial denial – The defendant denies only a part of an averment; and
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 (Riano, 2019, citing Sec. 10, Rule 8, ROC, as amended; and Philippine Bank and Communications v. Go, G.R. No. 175514, 14 Feb. 2011) (2004, 2005 BAR)

NOTE: If such matters are plainly and necessarily within the defendant’s knowledge, a claim of “ignorance of information will not be considered a specific denial.” (Aquintey v. Tibong, G.R. No. 166704, 20 Dec. 2006)

Question 6

Affirmative Defenses

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

Answer 6

a. Fraud
b. Statute of Limitations;
c. Release;
d. Payment;
e. Illegality;
f. Statute of Frauds;
g. Estoppel;
h. Former Recovery;
i. Discharge of Bankruptcy;
j. Any other matter by way of confession or avoidance; and
k. Grounds for the dismissal of the complaint:
i. The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;
ii. There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; iii. The action is barred by a prior judgment.

Question 7

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

Answer 7

a. The court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
b. The venue is improperly laid;
c. The plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
d. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
e. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with. (Sec. 5[b], Rule 6, ROC, as amended)

Question 8

Action of the Court on the Affirmative Defenses

Answer 8

The court shall motu proprio resolve the above affirmative defenses under Section 12 within thirty (30) calendar days from the filing of the answer. (Section 12 (c), Rule 8, ROC, as amended)

It is not necessary for the Court to conduct a hearing before it can resolve these grounds.

Question 9

Waiver of Affirmative Defenses

Answer 9

Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the
earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver
thereof. (Sec. 12[b], Rule 8, ROC, as amended)

Question 10

Summary Hearing for the Resolution of the Affirmative Defense

Answer 10

The court may conduct a summary hearing within 15 calendar days from the filing of the answer regarding the following affirmative defenses:
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; and
10. Any other matter by way of confession or avoidance. (First paragraph, Sec. 12(b), Rule 8, ROC, as amended)

Such affirmative defenses shall be resolved by the court within 30 calendar days from the termination of the summary hearing. (Sec. 12[d], Rule 8, 2019 ROC, as amended)

Question 11

Denial of Affirmative Defenses; Prohibitions

Answer 11

Denial of affirmative defenses shall not be the subject of:

1. Motion for reconsideration;
2. Petition for Certiorari;
3. Petition for Prohibition; and
4. Petition for Mandamus.

NOTE: The order of denial of affirmative defense is an interlocutory order

Question 12

Remedy on Denial of Affirmative Defenses

Answer 12

Assign the order of denial as among the matters to be raised on appeal after a judgment on the merits.