Skip to main content

Understanding the "Last Pleading" in Litigation and Case Resolution

In legal proceedings, the "last pleading" determines when a case is ready for pre-trial and eventual resolution. The Supreme Court has consistently clarified its definition and significance in case timelines, ensuring efficient judicial processing and adherence to procedural rules.

Definition of the Last Pleading

📌 The last pleading varies depending on case developments:

✔ Ordinarily, it is the answer—unless a counterclaim or cross-claim is included. ✔ If the defendant files a counterclaim, the plaintiff’s answer to it becomes the last pleading. ✔ When a cross-claim exists, the answer to the cross-claim serves as the last pleading. ✔ If the plaintiff files a reply denying new defenses, the reply is the last pleading.

📌 Relevant Case: Peggy v. Tapucar (88 SCRA 785)

Judicial Requirements Following the Last Pleading

Once the last pleading is submitted, courts must schedule a pre-trial:

✔ Under Section 5, Rule 20 of the Revised Rules of Court, the clerk of court must place the case in the pre-trial calendar. ✔ Pre-trial ensures procedural efficiency, allows parties to negotiate, and identifies whether a case merits further litigation or summary judgment.

📌 Relevant Case: ITCHON v. BALIGOD (G.R. No. L-20962, May 27, 1966)

Judicial Interpretation and Deadlines for Case Resolution

Both the 1987 Constitution and the Supreme Court’s Internal Rules affirm that the 24-month deadline for resolving cases begins only after the last pleading has been filed.

✔ The Constitution states: > “A case is deemed submitted upon filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or the Court.”

✔ The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court reinforce: > “The 24-month period for deciding a case begins upon submission of the last required pleading.”

📌 Relevant Case: A.M. No. 18-11-09-SC

Pre-Trial and Judgment on the Pleadings

✔ If a plaintiff fails to move promptly for pre-trial, the court may consider summary judgment or dismissal. ✔ Even if a party neglects to request judgment on the pleadings, pre-trial remains mandatory, ensuring procedural integrity.

📌 Relevant Case: Sioland Development Corporation vs. Fair Distribution Center Corporation (G.R. No. 199539, August 9, 2023)

Legal Takeaways for Litigants and Case Management

✅ The last pleading determines case readiness – Courts only begin pre-trial after its submission.

✅ Deadlines for case resolution start upon the last pleading – The 24-month Supreme Court deadline runs after all pleadings are submitted.

✅ Pre-trial is mandatory – Failure to schedule it does not halt case progression, but may result in dismissal or summary judgment.

✅ Proper filing ensures efficient case resolution – Parties must submit all required pleadings timely to avoid delays.

Conclusion

Understanding the "last pleading" helps litigants navigate procedural deadlines, ensuring timely case resolution and proper court action. The Supreme Court’s rulings reinforce the importance of compliance with procedural rules, preventing unnecessary delays in litigation.

📌 For the full Supreme Court decision, check .

Popular posts from this blog

Mandamus and its Application in Judicial Proceedings

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy compelling a tribunal, corporation, board, or person to perform a duty expressly required by law . It applies when: 1️⃣ An entity unlawfully neglects the performance of a legal duty arising from an office or trust. 2️⃣ An entity unlawfully excludes another from a right or office to which they are entitled. 3️⃣ There is no other adequate or speedy legal remedy available. 📌 Relevant Case: De Leon v. Duterte (G.R. No. 252118, 2020) Essential Elements of a Mandamus Petition 📌 To successfully invoke mandamus, the petitioner must prove: ✔ Legal Right – The petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to compel the action. ✔ Correlative Obligation – The respondent must have a duty to respect that right . ✔ Violation by the Respondent – There must be an act or omission violating the petitioner’s right . ✔ Refusal to Comply – A failure to perform the duty , whether explicit or implied, triggers a cause of action. 📌 Relevant Case: Phi...
Read more

People vs. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331, G.R. No. 202124 April 5, 2016

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant. PONENTE:  PERALTA, J.:  Synopsis: In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, Irenneo Jugueta was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder along with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel. However, Roger San Miguel moved for reinvestigation of the case and was eventually dismissed, leaving Irenneo as the only defendant. The prosecution's witness, Norberto, testified that Irenneo and the two other men entered his family's nipa hut and fired shots, causing the death of one daughter and injury to another. Irenneo offered a defense of denial and alibi, but this was found to be weak by the trial court, which ruled that Irenneo conspired with the two other men to shoot the family of Norberto. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised in the appeal was the inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, but these were deemed to be trivial an...
Read more

Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 |March 20, 2013

Case Digest: Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 | March 20, 2013 Ponente: 📌 Topic: Applicability of Reserva Troncal – First cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth-degree relatives and cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios. Facts The disputed parcel of land was originally owned by Exequiel Mendoza, who inherited it from Placido and Dominga Mendoza through an oral partition. Upon Exequiel’s death, ownership was transferred to his spouse Leonor and their only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonor’s passing, Gregoria became the sole owner. Gregoria died intestate, and her aunt Victoria Pantaleon, Leonor’s sister, adjudicated the property to herself as the sole surviving heir. Petitioners (grandchildren of Placido and Dominga) argued that the property should have been reserved for them under Article 891 of the Civil Code on Reserva Troncal. They filed an action for Recovery of Possession, Cancellation of TCT, and Reconveyance, which the RTC granted. However, the Court of A...
Read more