Practice question
In an action properly within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, both parties expressly agree during trial to litigate an unpleaded payment defense. They present their evidence and fully argue it. The plaintiff later says no ruling is possible because no formal amended answer was filed. Which is correct?
- The payment defense must be ignored despite the express consent and full trial
- The court must restart the entire case
- The absence of an amended answer automatically nullifies all evidence
- The defense is treated as raised in the pleadings, and current Rule 10 section 5 makes a formal conforming amendment unnecessary
- The defendant automatically wins solely because the issue was tried
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html — current Rule 10, sections 3 and 5, and Rule 18, sections 2 and 7, issues tried by consent and controlling pre-trial order.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_162416_2006.html — De Joya v. Marquez, G.R. No. 162416, January 31, 2006, distinctions among jurisdiction over subject matter, issues and res.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.