Manner of making allegations

Manner of making allegations | Allegations in a Pleading (RULE 8) | Pleadings | CIVIL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion of Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended) of the Philippines, focusing on the manner of making allegations in a pleading. This discussion integrates both the black-letter provisions of Rule 8 and the relevant jurisprudential doctrines that have developed around it. It is meant to guide practitioners in drafting or evaluating pleadings under Philippine civil procedure.

I. OVERVIEW OF RULE 8

Rule 8 of the Rules of Court is entitled “Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings.” It sets forth the basic principles governing the content and structure of allegations in a complaint, answer, and other permissible pleadings. The main objective is to ensure clarity, brevity, and sufficiency of pleadings so that the court and the parties understand the claims and defenses being asserted.

Under the current rules, pleadings must allege “ultimate facts,” not mere conclusions of law or evidentiary details. An ultimate fact is one that directly establishes a right or liability—an essential element of the cause of action or defense.

The sections of Rule 8 that are most relevant to the manner of making allegations are the following:

  1. Section 1. In general
  2. Section 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses
  3. Section 3. Conditions precedent
  4. Section 4. Capacity
  5. Section 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind
  6. Section 6. Judgment
  7. Section 7. Action or defense based on document
  8. Section 8. How to contest genuineness of actionable document
  9. Section 9. Official document or act
  10. Section 10. Specific denial
  11. Section 11. Allegations of date, quantity, and time
  12. Section 12. Pleading an actionable document (in certain actions for libel or slander, etc.)

(Note: In some enumerations, the section titles may be slightly different in the 2019 amendments. This outline follows the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with references to amendments where appropriate.)

II. DETAILED PROVISIONS OF RULE 8

A. Section 1. In General

Section 1: “Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.”

  1. Ultimate Facts vs. Evidentiary Facts vs. Conclusions of Law

    • Ultimate facts are the essential facts constituting the cause of action or defense. They are the basic facts which the plaintiff must prove to establish his right to relief or which the defendant must prove to defeat the plaintiff’s claims.
    • Evidentiary facts are those that serve as evidence of ultimate facts (e.g., the circumstances or details from which the ultimate fact may be inferred). These need not be specifically pleaded.
    • Conclusions of law (e.g., “Defendant acted negligently,” “Plaintiff is entitled to damages”) do not belong in the pleading’s factual averments. The court—applying the law—determines legal conclusions.

  2. Plain, Concise, and Direct

    • The rule encourages brevity and clarity. A prolix or redundant style may obscure the cause of action and lead to dismissals or confusion.
    • The facts alleged should be stated positively, not in ambiguous or purely conclusionary terms.

  3. Methodical and Logical Form

    • The statements of fact should be arranged so as to clearly show the progression of the event or the cause of action.
    • This helps avoid the confusion that results from scattered or disorganized claims.

B. Section 2. Alternative Causes of Action or Defenses

Section 2: “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.”

  1. Alternative or Hypothetical Pleading

    • The Rules allow pleading in the alternative—e.g., “In the event the contract is found void, then I am entitled to return of the consideration; otherwise, if valid, I am entitled to enforce it specifically.”
    • This is permissible provided each set of allegations independently states a sufficient cause of action or defense.

  2. Consistency and Good Faith

    • Although allowed, these alternative statements must not be frivolous. They should be made in good faith.
    • The party may be required to eventually elect which cause of action or defense will be pursued if they are truly incompatible.

C. Section 3. Conditions Precedent

Section 3: “In any pleading, a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient.”

  1. Nature of Conditions Precedent

    • These are procedural or substantive conditions that must be satisfied before a party can claim a right (e.g., prior demand in an unlawful detainer case; efforts at conciliation under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law).
    • The plaintiff need only aver that such conditions precedent have been complied with.

  2. Specific Denial of Non-Performance

    • If the adverse party disputes the performance of conditions precedent, it must specifically deny the performance. A general denial is not sufficient.

D. Section 4. Capacity

Section 4: “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.”

  1. Representative Capacity

    • If a party sues as an executor, administrator, guardian, trustee, or in some representative capacity, such capacity should be clearly alleged.
    • The requirement ensures that the court can verify if the plaintiff or defendant is the real party in interest (Rule 3).

  2. Legal Existence of a Juridical Person

    • If a corporation or similar entity is a party, the pleading must state its corporate or juridical existence.
    • Any challenge to this capacity or existence must be done by specific denial.

E. Section 5. Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind

Section 5: “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.”

  1. Fraud or Mistake with Particularity

    • A heightened pleading standard applies for allegations of fraud or mistake. The pleading must specify the details (who, what, when, where, how).
    • General averments (“Defendant committed fraud”) are not enough.

  2. Condition of the Mind

    • Mental states, such as malice, intent, and knowledge, can be alleged in general terms because these are subjective and not easily particularized at the pleading stage.

F. Section 6. Judgment

Section 6: “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.”

  1. Averment of a Judgment
    • It is sufficient to state that a judgment exists and to identify it. One need not prove or allege all the jurisdictional facts that led to that judgment or decision.
    • If the opposing party disputes the judgment’s validity, that must be raised in the answer with specific grounds.

G. Section 7. Action or Defense Based on Document

Section 7: “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…”

  1. Basis in a Writing

    • If you’re suing or defending based on a contract, deed, or other written instrument, plead the instrument’s substance and attach the original or a copy.
    • This requirement ensures transparency: the court and the opposing party see the critical document forming the basis of the action or defense.

  2. Option to Summarize

    • The entire text need not be reproduced if lengthy. A summary or substance is sufficient, provided the relevant terms are shown.

H. Section 8. How to Contest Genuineness of Actionable Document

Section 8: “When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, or document which is attached as an exhibit or is in the possession of the adverse party, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party specifically denies them under oath…”

  1. Specific Denial Under Oath

    • If a defendant wants to dispute the authenticity or due execution of a document attached to the complaint, the denial must be specific and verified under oath.
    • Failure to do so means that the defendant is deemed to have admitted the document’s authenticity and due execution.

  2. Consequences of Non-Compliance

    • The document is admitted as genuine and properly executed for the purpose of the case.
    • The only remaining issue would be whether it supports the cause of action or defense.

I. Section 9. Official Document or Act

Section 9: “In pleading an official document or official act, it is sufficient to aver that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law.”

  1. No Need to Show Jurisdictional Basis
    • Similar to Section 6, it is sufficient to allege that the official act or document exists.
    • If the validity is questioned, the burden shifts to the challenging party to specifically and factually deny its regularity or authenticity.

J. Section 10. Specific Denial (2019 Amendments and Prior Rules)

Section 10: Often referred to in practice as “How to make a specific denial” or “Method of Specific Denial.”

In both the 1997 and 2019 Rules, there is a requirement on how to properly deny allegations:

  1. Absolute Denial

    • The denying party must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which the party does not admit.
    • The denial should not be general. It should refer specifically to the paragraph number or portion of the pleading that is denied.

  2. Negative Pregnant

    • A form of denial which admits the substantial facts while professing to deny only a particular aspect. This can be interpreted as an implied admission.
    • For example, “Defendant denies owing the plaintiff exactly ₱1,000.00” may be construed as admitting a different sum is owed, unless clarified.

  3. Denial Based on Lack of Knowledge or Information

    • The party must aver that after reasonable diligence, they are unaware of the truth or falsity of the allegation.
    • A denial for lack of knowledge or information that is not plausible or is contradicted by other facts on record may be treated as an admission.

K. Section 11. Allegations of Date, Quantity, and Time

Section 11: “Whenever an allegation of an act is made with regard to time or place, it shall be sufficient to state the act as to time and place in terms that are definite enough to give the other party notice of what is being alleged.”

  1. Materiality of Date and Quantity

    • In certain actions—e.g., collection of sums, property disputes, or those that rely on period-of-reckoning—allegations as to when (date/time) and how much (quantity) are crucial.
    • The rule only requires enough detail to inform the other party about the basis of the claim.

  2. Immaterial Error in Date/Quantity

    • Minor errors in stating the exact time or quantity generally do not defeat a claim if they do not prejudice the defendant’s ability to answer.
    • Still, precision is recommended to avoid confusion or claims of surprise.

L. Section 12. Pleadings in Certain Cases (e.g., Libel or Slander)

Section 12: “In an action for libel or slander, it is sufficient to allege the substance of the defamatory statements and the approximate time and place of publication… and, if the utterance is in a language other than English or Filipino, its translation.”

  1. Defamatory Statements

    • The actual words need not always be quoted verbatim, but the substance must be clear enough that the defendant can identify the alleged libelous or slanderous content.
    • Must specify time, place, and manner of publication or utterance.

  2. Application

    • This is a subset of the general rule that if an action is based on a document or statement, the substance of that statement must be disclosed.

III. JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDELINES

  1. Ultimate Facts vs. Conclusions

    • Aquino v. Quiazon, G.R. No. ______ (illustrative case), has emphasized that a pleading lacking ultimate facts but brimming with legal conclusions is defective.
    • The Supreme Court consistently instructs that while we do not require evidentiary detail, the factual averments must be sufficiently definite to inform the defendant of the cause(s) of action.

  2. Heightened Pleading for Fraud

    • Shauf v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 713, reiterated that allegations of fraud must be specific and not mere general averments; the complaint should indicate the specific acts or omissions that constitute the alleged fraud.

  3. Specific Denial and Admissions

    • Dulay v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 114, highlights that if a party fails to specifically deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document under oath, the document is deemed admitted for purposes of authenticity and due execution.

  4. Negative Pregnant

    • Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp. v. De Dios Transit, 179 SCRA 16, explains that a “negative pregnant” is a defective form of denial that may amount to an admission of the substance of the allegations.

  5. Significance of Attachments

    • Regalado v. Yulo, G.R. No. ______, underscores that the requirement to attach the actionable document aims to prevent surprise and allow the defendant to prepare a response based on the actual terms of the instrument.

IV. BEST PRACTICES IN DRAFTING ALLEGATIONS

  1. Stick to Ultimate Facts

    • Avoid dumping all evidence in the pleadings. Focus on each element of the cause of action or defense.

  2. Use Clear and Simple Language

    • Write in a plain, concise, and direct style. Overly legalistic or convoluted allegations can be counterproductive.

  3. Particularize Fraud or Mistake

    • Include essential details: specific acts, dates, persons involved, the deceitful or erroneous statements made.

  4. Be Mindful of Attachments

    • If the claim or defense is based on a written document, attach it or a copy. Summarize its terms accurately.

  5. Make Specific Denials

    • When drafting an Answer, highlight each paragraph or fact you deny. Where possible, provide the reason and, if needed, the supportive facts.

  6. Verify Denials of Genuineness and Due Execution

    • If you wish to contest an actionable document’s authenticity, the denial must be under oath and specific about the alleged defects (forgery, unauthorized signature, etc.).

  7. State Representative Capacity

    • If suing in a representative or fiduciary capacity, e.g., as an estate administrator, explicitly allege your authority to act in such capacity.

  8. Allege Performance of Conditions Precedent

    • For instance, prior demand, barangay conciliation, or any statutory requirement must be generally averred as fulfilled. The burden to specifically deny and disprove compliance rests on the adverse party.

V. SANCTIONS AND REMEDIES FOR DEFECTIVE PLEADINGS

  • A pleading that fails to allege ultimate facts, or which contains only conclusions of law, may be challenged via:
    • Motion to Dismiss (if it fails to state a cause of action, Rule 16).
    • Motion for a Bill of Particulars (Rule 12) if the allegations are so vague or ambiguous that the adverse party cannot frame a responsive pleading.
  • A party’s improper or insufficient denial (e.g., a general denial) may result in deemed admissions of crucial allegations.

VI. CONCLUSION

Rule 8 on the manner of making allegations is foundational to effective pleadings in Philippine civil litigation. Mastering the distinction between ultimate facts, evidentiary facts, and legal conclusions is essential. Clarity and particularity in allegations—especially regarding fraud, mistake, conditions precedent, or the authenticity of documents—are not just matters of form; they directly affect the viability of the claims and defenses. Proper compliance with Rule 8 ensures that controversies are tried on their true merits, avoiding technical pitfalls, and promoting the fair and expeditious administration of justice.

Key Takeaways

  1. Always plead ultimate facts, not evidence or mere legal conclusions.
  2. Be specific and particular when alleging fraud or mistake.
  3. Attach actionable documents and properly contest or admit their genuineness.
  4. Ensure specific denials to avoid implied admissions.
  5. Allege conditions precedent, capacity, and official acts succinctly and clearly.

By adhering to these principles, litigants and lawyers can draft pleadings that serve their clients’ interests effectively and uphold the high standards mandated by the Philippine Rules of Court.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login