Outline: Rule 12 Bill of Particulars CIVIL PROCEDURE

m meikimouse

Lesson for September 16, 2014,

Motion for bill of particulars - Rule 12

a) Purpose and when applied for - Sec. 1

- Go Occo v. De la Costa, G.R. No. 45116, September 17, 1936

- Virata v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 106527, April 6, 1993

b) Actions of the court - Sec. 2

c) Compliance with the order and effect of noncompliance - Secs. 3 & 4

- Santos v. Liwag, G.R. No. 24238, November 28, 1980

d) Effect on the period to file a responsive pleading - Secs. 5 & 6

- Filipinas Fabricators v. Magsino, G.R. No. L-47574, January 29, 1988

Case Digest: Rule 12 Bill of Particulars CIVIL PROCEDURE

m meikimouse

Purpose and when applied for - Sec. 1

GO OCCO vs DE LA COSTA

G.R. No. 45116, September 17, 1936

Facts:

Go Occo & Co. filed an action with the justice of

the peace court of Cebu to recover the amount of

P467.25 against People's Bazar representing the purchase

price of goods taken on credit.

A writ of preliminary attachment was issued on

the same against the defendant, and same was levied

upon merchandise belonging to the defendant and taken

possession of by the provincial sheriff of Cebu.

The estate of Laureana Antonio, through its

administrator Alejandro S. Reyes, filed an intervention

complaint claiming the sum of P1,380 representing unpaid

rent of a house occupied by the defendant's in Cebu.

Over the verbal objection of the plaintiff to the

admission of the intervenor's intervention complaint on

the ground that intervention complaint cannot be led in

the justice of the peace of court and that intervenor's

intervention complaint the amount of P1,380 which was

beyond the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court of

Cebu tried the case and rendered judgment declaring

plaintiff's claim preferred to that of intervenor's.

The defendant judge entered an order declaring

the plaintiff Go Occo & Co., in default on the intervenor's

intervention complaint that the said defendant judge

entered a judgment declaring that the said defendant

People's Bazar was in debt to the said intervenor's estate

in the amount of P1,380 and that the said intervenor

estate's claim was superior to any other credit.

Upon being notified of the order of default and

of the judgment, plaintiff Go Occo & Co. filed a motion

asking for the reinstatement of the case and for the

dismissal of the intervenor's appeal.

That, the defendant judge entered an order

denying the motion for reconsideration and ordering the

execution of the judgment.

That, there is no appeal nor any other plain,

speedy and adequate remedy for the plaintiff.

Issue:

Whether or not the petition is vague and

indefinite so as for the Court to take cognizance of it.

Held:

YES. The court below issued various orders in the

civil case entitled "Go Occo & Co., plaintiff, vs. People's

Bazar, defendant, versus Alejandro S. Reyes,

administrator of the estate of the deceased, Laureana

Antonio, intervenor."

The petition does not state which of these orders

is assailed or was issued by the inferior court in excess or

extra imitation of its jurisdiction or with manifest abuse of

its discretion. That, the petition does not even contain a

general averment that the Court of First Instance of Cebu

in taking cognizance of the civil case aforementioned

acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. It simply

alleges that "there is no appeal nor any other plain,

speedy and adequate remedy for the plaintiff."

The petition in this case is vague and indefinite.

While pleadings should be liberally construed with a view

to substantial justice between the parties, courts should

not be left to conjectures in the determination of issues

submitted by the parties litigant or their attorneys.

Where, therefore, the pleading is, as in the case, vague,

and uncertain, courts will not allow themselves to be led

to the commission of error or injustice by exploring in the

midst of uncertainty and divining the intention of the

parties of their counsel.

Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed with

costs against the petitioner.

Purpose and when applied for - Sec. 1

VIRATA vs SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 106527, April 6, 1993

Facts:

Petitioner is among the forty-four (44) co-

defendants of Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez in a

complaint filed by the Republic of the Philippines with the

respondent Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the said case, insofar

as he is concerned, on various grounds including the

failure of the expanded Second Amended Complaint to

state a cause of action. The motion was denied and so

was his bid to have such denial reconsidered. He then

came to this Court via a special civil action for certiorari

imputing upon the respondent Sandiganbayan the

commission of grave abuse 'of discretion in finding that

the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action against

him. In Our Decision of 15 October 1991, We overruled

the said contention. However, the Court found a maze of

unnecessary literary embellishments may indeed raise

some doubts on the sufficiency of the statement of

material operative facts to flesh out the causes of action.

Case Digest: Rule 12 Bill of Particulars CIVIL PROCEDURE

m meikimouse

Petitioner was thus compelled to go back to the

Sandiganbayan. However, insisting that he "could not

prepare an intelligent and adequate pleading in view of

the general and sweeping allegations against him in the

Second Amended Complaint as expanded,"

Then, Petitioner filed a Motion For a Bill of

Particulars. He alleges therein that on the basis of the

general and sweeping allegations in the Second Amended

Complaint.

Petitioner claims, however, that insofar as he is

concerned, the allegations and the purported illegal acts

imputed to them as well as the alleged causes of actions

are vague and ambiguous. They are not averred with

sufficient definiteness or particularity as would enable

defendant Virata to properly prepare his answer or

responsive pleading." He therefore prays that "in

accordance with Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, plaintiff be

directed to submit a more definite statement or a bill of

particulars on the matters which are not averred with

sufficient definiteness or particularity."

In its Comment, the plaintiff Republic of the

Philippines opposed the motion.

In its Resolution , the respondent Sandiganbayan

(Second Division) partially granted the Motion for a Bill of

Particulars. Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ordered to

submit to the Court and furnish defendant-movant with a

bill of particulars of the facts prayed for by the latter,

pertaining some paragraphs of the Expanded Complaint,

within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof. That, of the

four (4) actionable wrongs enumerated in the Motion for

a Bill of Particulars, the Sandiganbayan favorably acted

only with respect to the fourth.

Not satisfied with the partial grant of the motion,

petitioner filed the instant petition under Rule 65 of the

Revised Rules of Court contending that the

Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of its discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not totally

granting his Motion for a Bill of Particulars.

Issue:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in not

totally granting petitioners Motion for Bill of Particulars.

Held:

YES. We have carefully, scrutinized the

paragraphs of the expanded Second Amended Complaint

subject of the petitioner's motion for a bill of particulars

and find the same to be couched in general terms and

wanting in definiteness or particularity.

"SEC. 1. Motion for bill of particulars. Before

responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is

permitted by these rules, within ten (10) days after

service of the pleading upon him, a party may move for a

more definite statement or for a bill of particulars of any

matter which is not averred with sufficient definiteness or

particularity to enable him properly to prepare his

responsive pleading or to prepare for trial. Such motion

shall point out the defects complained of and the details,

desired."

It is the office or function, as well as the object or

purpose, of a bill of particulars to amplify or limit a

pleading, specify more minutely and particularly a claim

or defense set up and pleaded in general terms, give

information, not contained in the pleading, to the

opposite party and the court as to the precise nature,

character, scope, and extent of the cause of action or

defense relied on by the pleader, and apprise the

opposite party of the case which he has to meet, to the

end that the proof at the trial may be limited to the

matters specified, and in order that surprise at, and

needless preparation for, the trial may be avoided, and

that the opposite party may be aided in framing his

answering pleading and preparing for trial.

It is the function or purpose of a bill of

particulars to define, clarify, particularize, and limit or

circumscribe the issues in the case, to expedite the trial,

and assist the court. It is to prevent injustice or do justice

in the case when that cannot be accomplished without the

aid of such a bill.

It is not the office of a bill of particulars to supply

material allegations necessary to the validity of a

pleading, or to change a cause of action or defense stated

in the pleading, or to state a cause of action or defense

other than the one stated. Also it is not the office or

function, or a proper object, of a bill of particulars to set

forth the pleader's theory of his cause of action or a rule

of evidence on which he intends to rely, or to furnish

evidential information whether such information consists

of evidence which the pleader proposes to introduce or of

facts which constitute a defense or offset for the other

party or which will enable the opposite party to establish

an affirmative defense not yet pleaded.

Case Digest: Rule 12 Bill of Particulars CIVIL PROCEDURE

m meikimouse

Compliance with the order and effect of

noncompliance - Secs. 3 & 4

SANTOS vs LIWAG

G.R. No. 24238, November 28, 1980

Facts:

Appellant -Jose Santos filed a complaint against

Lorenzo J. Liwag with the Court of First Instance of Manila

seeking the annulment of certain documents, attached to

the complaint as having been executed by means of

misrepresentations, machination, false pretenses, threats,

and other fraudulent means, as well as for damages and

costs.

Claiming that the allegations in the complaint are

indefinite and uncertain, as well as conflicting, the

defendant filed a motion asking the trial court that the

plaintiff be ordered to submit a more definite statement

or bill of particulars on certain allegations of the

complaint, as well as the facts constituting the

misrepresentations, machinations, and frauds employed

by the defendant in the execution of the documents in

question in order that he could be well informed of the

charges filed against him, for him to prepare an intelligent

and proper pleading necessary and appropriate in the

premises.

The plaintiff opposed the motion saying that the

allegations in his complaint are sufficient and contain

ultimate facts con- constituting his causes of action and

that the subject of the defendant's motion is evidentiary

in nature.

The trial court, however, granted the motion and

directed the plaintiff to submit a bill of particulars.

When the plaintiff failed to comply with the

order, the court dismissed the complaint with costs

against the plaintiff.

Issue:

Whether or not the lower court erred in

dismissing the complaint on the ground of failure of the

plaintiff to file a Bill of Particular.

Held:

NO. The allowance of a motion for a more

definite statement or bill of particulars rests within the

sound judicial discretion of the court and, as usual in

matters of a discretionary nature, the ruling of the trial

court in that regard will not be reversed unless there has

been a palpable abuse of discretion or a clearly erroneous

order.

In the instant case, the complaint is without

doubt imperfectly drawn and suffers from vagueness and

generalization to enable the defendant properly to

prepare a responsive pleading and to clarify issues and aid

the court in an orderly and expeditious disposition of the

case.

The present action is one for the annulment of

documents which have been allegedly executed by reason

of deceit, machination, false pretenses,

misrepresentation, threats, and other fraudulent means.

Deceit, machination, false pretenses, misrepresentation,

and threats, however, are largely conclusions of law and

mere allegations thereof without a statement of the facts

to which such terms have reference are not sufficient.

In his complaint, the appellant merely averred

that all the documents sought to be annulled were all

executed through the use of deceits, machination, false

pretenses, misrepresentations, threats, and other

fraudulent means without the particular-facts on which

alleged fraud, deceit, machination, or misrepresentations

are predicated.

Hence, it was proper for the trial court to grant

the defendant's motion for a bill of particulars, and when

the plaintiff failed to comply with the order.

Effect on the period to file a responsive pleading

- Secs. 5 & 6

FILIPINAS FABRICATORS vs MAGSINO

G.R. No. L-47574, January 29, 1988

Background:

Filipinas had a dealership agreement with Atlas,

to which they purchased several products on credit, which

accumulated to P620,266.70. To settle that account,

Filipinas, with Pestano and Unchuan as sureties, entered

into an agreement with Atlas, assigning with recourse in

favor of the latter, some of its accounts receivables from

personal debtors amounting to P361,745.98, to be

deducted from their outstanding balance. They further

agreed to settle the balance in equal monthly instalments

and the total outstanding balance will earn 14% interest

per annum, plus attorneys fees, expenses and costs in

case of litigation.

Facts:

Atlas commenced a collection suit against

Filipinas and its sureties for failure to pay the outstanding

balance of P139,295.95.

Filipinas and Pestano were duly served with

summons WHILE that issued to Unchuan were returned

UNSERVED.

Case Digest: Rule 12 Bill of Particulars CIVIL PROCEDURE

m meikimouse

Counsel for Filipinas, et al. requested a 10-day

extension to file Answer. However, before the CFI could

act on said motion, the petitioners filed a motion for bill

of particulars alleging insufficiency of the complaint and

requested for a more precise statement of the matters

alleged therein.

On March 15, 1977, the lower court issued an

order granting the 10-day extension period to file answer

(until March 14, 1977).

Another order was issued on April 6, 1977,

requiring the petitioners to set the motion for bill of

particulars for hearing with notice to adverse party,

otherwise said motion will be treated as a mere scrap of

paper.

On April 21, 1977, summons was served to

Unchuan, and on the same day, Atlas filed an ex-parte

motion to declare Filipinas and Pestano in default, with

prayer to present its evidence ex-parte.

The petitioners filed a Manifestation in

compliance with the order, setting the hearing of the

motion for bill of particulars on May 15, 1977 (a Sunday).

The court held in abeyance the resolution of

Atas ex-parte motion pending expiration of Unchuans

period to file answer.

Another ex-parte motion was filed by Atlas to

declare all defendants in default since Unchuans period

had already expired.

The trial court issued an omnibus order denying

the motion for bill of particulars for lack of merit,

considering that the matters sought to be alleged in the

complaint are evidentiary in nature which may be

presented in the trial; and declaring all petitioners in

default, authorizing Atlas to present evidence ex-parte.

The petitioners subsequent motion to set aside

the omnibus order was denied by the trial court, holding

that when the defendants (Filipinas, et al) attempted to

cure their motion for bill of particulars by setting said

motion for hearing, Atlas had already filed a motion to

declare them in default, and the period granted to them

to file their responsive pleading had already expired on

March 14, 1977 without them having filed any

responsive pleading, the court denies the aforesaid

motion to set aside the order of default for lack of merit.

Hence, the present petition seeking to set aside

and annul both orders.

Issue:

Whether or not the filing of the motion for bill of

particulars suspended the period within which to file their

answer

Held:

YES. Section 1 (b) Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of

Court provides: Stay of period to file responsive pleading.-

After service of the bill of particulars or of a more definite

pleading, or after notice of denial of his motion, the

moving party shall have the same time to serve his

responsive pleading, if any is permitted by these rules, as

that to which he was entitled at the time of serving his

motion, but not less than five (5) days in any event.

We agree with the petitioners' premise that a

filed motion for bill of particulars renders the running of

the reglementary period to answer, suspended. This

statement is, of course, accurate only if the filed motion

is sufficient in form and substance, meaning, it complies

with the general requirements of motions under Sections

4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, which

explicitly require a motion to accompanied by a notice of

hearing, to be served by the movant on the adverse

parties concerned at least three (3) days before the

hearing, and to state therein the exact time and place of

hearing. Section 6 of the same Rule further commands

that "no motion shall be acted upon by the court, without

proof of service of the notice thereof except when the

court is satisfied that the rights of the adverse party or

parties are not affected." These requirements under Rule

15, as we have often held, are mandatory, and the failure

of the movant to comply with them renders his motion

fatal.

Significantly, the fact that the court had taken

cognizance of the defective motion first, by requiring the

parties to set it for hearing and second, when it denied

the same for lack of merit in its omnibus motion, did not

cure the defect nor alter the nature of the defective

motion. In Andrada v. Court of Appeals (60 SCRA 379,

382), we held: "[T]he subsequent action of the court

hereon does not cure the flaw, for a motion with a notice

fatally defective is a "useless piece of paper."

Even on the assumption that the respondent

court's omnibus order was irregular for denying the

petitioners' defective motion and at the same time

declaring them in default, still, we find the default order

valid. The petitioners, who admit in paragraph 6 of their

petition that a copy of the omnibus order denying the

motion for bill of particulars was received on August 30,

1977, again failed to file their answer within five (5) days

from receipt thereof.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for

certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The

questioned orders are AFFIRMED.