UST Golden Notes - Civil Procedure ( Remedial Law General Principles Included)

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1

ACADEMICS CHAIR: LESTER JAY ALAN E. FLORES II VICE CHAIRS FOR ACADEMICS: KAREN JOY G. SABUGO & JOHN HENRY C. MENDOZA VICE CHAIR FOR MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE: JEANELLE C. LEE VICE CHAIRS FOR LAY-OUT AND DESIGN: EARL LOUIE M. MASACAYAN & THEENA C. MARTINEZ

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S

F a c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o C i v i l

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A. CONCEPT OF REMEDIAL LAW Q: What is the concept of remedial law? A: It is a branch of public law, which prescribes the procedural rules to be observed in litigations, whether civil, criminal, or administrative, and in special proceedings, as well as the remedies or reliefs available in each case. (2006 Bar Question) Q: What is the importance of remedial law? A: It plays a vital role in the administration of justice. It lies at the very core of procedural due process, which means a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial, and contemplates an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered (Herrera, Vol. I, p. 1, 2007 ed.)

B. SUBSTANTIVE LAW AS DISTINGUISHED FROM REMEDIAL LAW

Q: Distinguish substantive and remedial law A:

Substantive Law Remedial Law Part of the law which

creates, defines or regulates rights concerning life, liberty or property or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of public

affairs.

Refers to the legislation providing means or

methods whereby causes of action may be

effectuated, wrongs redressed and relief

obtained (also known as Adjective Law).

Creates vested rights. Does not create vested

rights

Prospective in application. Retroactive in

application

Cannot be enacted by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is expressly empowered to promulgate procedural

rules. (2006 Bar Question)

Q: What are the principal sources of remedial law? A:

1. Constitution 2. Different laws creating the judiciary,

defining and allocating jurisdiction to courts of different levels

3. Procedural laws and rules promulgated by the Supreme Court

4. Circulars 5. Administrative orders 6. Internal rules

7. Court decisions (Herrera, Vol. I, p. 2, 2007 ed.)

Q: What is procedural rule? A: Procedural rule is the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for their disregard or infraction. Note: If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of implementing an existing right, then the rule deals merely with procedure (Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, Sept. 16, 1998).

Q: How are remedial laws implemented in our system of government? A: They are implemented through the judicial system, including the prosecutory service of courts and quasi-judicial agencies. (2006 Bar Question) C. RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT 1. LIMITATIONS ON THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF

THE SUPREME COURT Q: What are the limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court? A:

1. It shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases.

2. The rules must be uniform for all the courts of the same grade.

3. The rules must not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p. 281, 2002 ed.)

2. POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO AMEND

AND SUSPEND PROCEDURAL RULES Q: May the Supreme Court suspend the

application of the Rules of Court and exempt a case from its operation?

A: Yes. In the interest of just and expeditious proceedings, the Supreme Court may do so because the Rules were precisely adopted with the primary objective of enhancing fair trial and expeditious justice. (Republic v. CA, G.R. No. L-31303, May 31, 1978)

UST GOLDEN NOTES 2011

2 REMEDIAL LAW TEAM: ADVISER: JUDGE MYRA B. QUIAMBAO, JUSTICE OSCAR C. HERRERA, JR., JUSTICE JAIME M. LANTIN, JUDGE CESAR D. STAMARIA, SR.;

SUBJECT HEAD: ANGELI P. ALBAA; ASST. SUBJECT HEADS: DARRELL L. BAGANG, DIANE CAMILLA R. BORJA, YRIZ TAMIE A. MARIANO, MA. KATRINA NADINE G. JUANENGO; MEMBERS: AKEMI B. AIDA, TERESE RAY-ANNE O. AQUINO, GRETCHEN C. SY, RHONDEE E. DUMLAO, KRISTINE P. MIJARES, DONNA GRAGASIN, EDELISE D. PINEDA, SHERY PAIGE A. LIM, MARA KHRISNA CHARMINA F. MENDOZA, UNICA AMOR R. MANANQUIL, MICHAEL ANGELO V. FLORES; CONTRIBUTORS: VICENTE JAN O. PLATON III, RONN ROBBY D. ROSALES

D. NATURE OF PHILIPPINE COURTS 1. MEANING OF A COURT

Q: What is a court? A: It is an organ of the government, belonging to the judicial department, whose function is the application of laws to controversies brought before it and the public administration of justice. (Blacks Law Dictionary)

2. COURT AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A JUDGE Q: Distinguish court from a judge

Court Judge

Entire body in which the judicial power is vested

Only an officer or member of the court

May exist without a present judge

There may be a judge without a court

Disqualification of a judge does not affect

the court May be disqualified

3. CLASSIFICATION OF PHILIPPINE COURTS

Q: What are the classifications of Philippine courts? A:

1. Regular courts (Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts , Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)

2. Special courts (Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appels, Shari'a District Courts, Shari'a Circuit Courts)

3. Quasi-courts or Quasi-judicial agencies (e.g Civil Service Commission)

4. COURTS OF ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE

JURISDICTION Q: Distinguish Courts of original jurisdiction from Courts of appellate jurisdiction. A:

Courts of Original jurisdiction

Courts of Appellate jurisdiction

Courts exercising jurisdiction in the first instance

Superior Courts reviewing and deciding cases

previously decided by a lower court

5. COURTS OF GENERAL AND SPECIAL JURISDICTION

Q: Distinguish Courts of general jurisdiction from special jurisdiction. A:

Courts of General jurisdiction

Courts of Special jurisdiction

Takes cognizance of all cases , civil or criminal,

of a particular nature, or courts whose judgment

is conclusive until modified or reversed on direct attack, and who

are competent to decide on their own jurisdiction

Takes cognizance of special jurisdiction for a

particular purpose, or are clothed with special

powers for the performance of specified

duties, beyond which they have no authority of

any kind

6. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY COURTS

Q: Distinguish constitutional court from statutory court. A:

Constitutional Court Statutory Court

Created by the constitution Created by law

e.g. SC e.g. CTA

Cannot be abolished by Congress without amending

the Constitution

May be abolished by Congress by just simply

repealing the law which created those

courts

7. COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY

Q: Distinguish Courts of law from equity. A:

Courts of Law Courts of Equity

Any tribunal duly administering the laws of the land

Any tribunal administering justice outside the law, being ethical rather than jural and belonging to the sphere of morals rather than of law. It is grounded on the precepts of conscience and not on any sanction of positive law, for equity finds no room for application where there is law. (Herrera, Vol. I, p. 18, 2007 ed.)

Decides a case according to what the promulgated law is

Adjudicates a controversy according to the common

precepts of what is right and just without inquiring into the

terms of the statutes

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

3




Q: What are courts of record? A: These are courts whose proceedings are enrolled and which are bound to keep written records of all trials and proceedings handled by them. R.A. No. 6031 mandates all Municipal Trial Courts to be courts of record.

8. PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY Q: What is the policy of Judicial Hierarchy or hierarchy of courts? A: A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts. The Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform assigned to it. (1996 Bar Question)

9. DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR

DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY Q: What is Doctrine of Non-Interference or Judicial Stability? A: Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each others orders. Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another RTC. The principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review. Note: GR: No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction or to pass upon or scrutinize and much less declare as unjust a judgment of another court. XPN: The doctrine does not apply where a third party claimant is involved (Santos v. Bayhon, G.R. No. 88643, July 23, 1991).




II. JURISDICTION Q: What is jurisdiction? A: It is the power and authority of a court to try, hear, and decide a case and to carry its judgments into effect (Latin: juris and dico, which literally means I speak of the law). Q: Is the statement that Jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law accurate? A: No, because only jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by substantive law. Jurisdiction over the parties, issues and res is governed by procedural laws.

A. JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES

1. HOW JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAINTIFF IS ACQUIRED

Q: How is jurisdiction over the plaintiff acquired? A: It is acquired from the moment of filing the complaint, petition or initiatory pleading.

2. HOW JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT IS ACQUIRED

Q: How is jurisdiction over the defendant acquired? A: It is acquired either:

a. By his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority

b. By service of summons c. Other coercive process upon him

Note: Jurisdiction over the defendant is not essential in actions in rem or quasi in rem as long as the court has jurisdiction over the res (Herrera, Vol. I, p. 114, 2007 ed.)

B. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

1. MEANING OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT

MATTER Q: What is jurisdiction over the subject matter? A: It is the power to deal with the general subject involved in the action, and means not simply jurisdiction of the particular case then occupying the attention of the court but jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular case belongs. It is the power or authority to hear and determine cases to which the proceeding in question belongs.

Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter from jurisdiction over the person. A: Jurisdiction Over the Subject

Matter Jurisdiction Over the

Person

Determined by the allegations of the complaint (Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for

the Bar, p. 144, 2009 ed.)

XPN: Where the real issues are evident from the record of the case, jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be made to depend on how the parties word or phrase their

pleadings (Herrera, Vol. I, p. 2, 2007 ed.) e.g. in ejectment

cases in which the defendant averred the defense of the

existence of tenancy relationship between the

parties (Ibid p.148)

Note: Tenancy relationship is not presumed and it is not enough that it is alleged. There must be evidence to prove that it exists and that all its elements are established (Salmorin v. Zaldivar, G.R. No. 169691, July 23, 2008).

Acquired by the filing of the petition in case of the plaintiff or by arrest (Rule 113), by valid service of summons or voluntary submission to the courts authority in case of the defendant (Ibid. p. 158)

Conferred by law which may be either the Constitution or

a statute (Ibid. p. 143)

It is sometimes made to depend, indirectly

at least, on the partys volition

Cannot be conferred by the agreement of the parties, by contract or by parties silence or acquiescence Ibid. p. 144)

GR: The appearance of the defendant in whatever form is submission to the jurisdiction of the court XPN: If the appearance is to object or question the courts jurisdiction (Ibid. p. 161) Note: In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the accused is always required

JURISDICTION

5




2. JURISDICTION VERSUS THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Q: Distinguish jurisdiction from exercise of jurisdiction. A: Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and decide cases. On the other hand, exercise of jurisdiction is any act of the court pursuant to such authority, which includes making decisions.

3. ERROR OF JURISDICTION AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ERROR OF JUDGMENT

Q: Distinguish error of jurisdiction from error of judgment. A:

Error of Jurisdiction Error of Judgment

One where the court, officer or quasi-judicial body acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or

with grave abuse of discretion

One that the court may commit in the exercise of

jurisdiction; it includes errors of procedure or mistakes in the courts

findings

Renders a judgment void or at least voidable

Does not make the courts decision void

Correctible by certiorari Correctible by appeal

There is an exercise of jurisdiction in the

absence of jurisdiction

The court acted with jurisdiction but

committed procedural errors in the appreciation

of the facts or the law (1989 Bar Question)

4. HOW JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED AND

DETERMINED Note: discussion on how jurisdiction is conferred is on page 4.

Q: What are the instances in which jurisdiction cannot be conferred? A:

1. By the administrative policy of any court; 2. A courts unilateral assumption of

jurisdiction; 3. An erroneous belief by the court that it

has jurisdiction; 4. By the parties through a stipulation e.g.

contract; 5. The agreement of the parties acquired

through, or waived, enlarged or diminished by, any act or omission of the parties;

6. Parties silence, acquiescence or consent (Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 143, 11th ed.).

5. DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

Q: What is Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction? A: Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge and experience of said tribunal in determining technical and intricate matters of fact (Villaflor v. CA, G.R. No. 95694, Oct. 9, 1997). Q: What is Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction? A: It involves the inherent or implied powers of the court to determine issues incidental to the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. Note: Under its ancillary jurisdiction, a court may determine all questions relative to the matters brought before it, regulate the manner in which a trial shall be conducted, determine the hours at which the witnesses and lawyers may be heard, and grant an injunction, attachment or garnishment.

6. DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE TO JURISDICTION

Q: What is Doctrine of Adherence to Jurisdiction or Continuity of Jurisdiction? A:

GR: Jurisdiction, once attached, cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, and the court retains jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case. XPNs:

1. Where a subsequent statute expressly prohibits the continued exercise of jurisdiction;

2. Where the law penalizing an act which is punishable is repealed by a subsequent law;

3. When accused is deprived of his constitutional right such as where the court fails to provide counsel for the accused who is unable to obtain one and does not intelligently waive his constitutional right;

4. Where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactment;




5. When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned or declared void;

6. Once appeal has been perfected; 7. Curative statutes (Herrera, Vol. I, p. 106,

2007 ed.).

Q: Does retroactivity of a law affect jurisdiction? A: No. Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines jurisdiction. (Herrera, Vol. I, p. 105, 2007 ed.)

7. OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Q: What is the effect of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter? A: When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the same. (Sec. 1, Rule 9). The court may on its own initiative object to an erroneous jurisdiction and may ex mero motu take cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the case and has a clearly recognized right to determine its own jurisdiction (Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 154, 2009 ed.). Q: May jurisdiction of the court be raised or questioned at any time? A:

GR: Yes. The prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings (Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 154, 2009 ed.).

Note: Jurisdiction can be questioned even for the first time on appeal (Herrera, Vol. I, p. 91, 2007 ed.)

XPNs:

1. Estoppel by laches. SC barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised only after an adverse decision was rendered by the court against the party raising the issue of jurisdiction and after seeking affirmative relief from the court and after participating in all stages of the proceedings(Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, Apr. 15, 1968).

2. Public policy One cannot question the jurisdiction which he invoked, not because the decision is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but

because it cannot be tolerated by reason of public policy (Filipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Dumlao, G.R. No. L-44888, Feb. 7, 1992).

3. A party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief against his opponents cannot repudiate or question the same after failing to obtain such relief (Tajonera v. Lamaroza, G.R. No. L-48907, 49035, Jan. 19, 1982).

Note: Under the Omnibus Motion Rule, a motion attacking a pleading like a motion to dismiss shall include all grounds then available and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived. The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is however, a defense not barred by the failure to invoke the same in a motion to dismiss already filed. Even if a motion to dismiss was filed and the issue of jurisdiction was not raised therein, a party may, when he files an answer, raise the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because this defense is not barred under the omnibus motion rule.

Q: Will the failure to exhaust administrative remedies affect the jurisdiction of the court? A:

GR: No. It is not jurisdictional but the case will be dismissed on the ground of lack of cause of action. It only renders the action premature. (Carale v. Abarintos, G.R. No. 120704, March 3, 1997; Pestanas v. Dyogi, 81 SCRA 574)

XPN: Before a party may be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts, he is expected to have exhausted all means of administrative redress (Herrera, Vol. I, p. 267, 2007 ed.). XPNS TO THE XPN:

1. Question raised is purely legal; 2. When the administrative body is in

estoppels; 3. When the act complained of is patently

illegal; 4. When there is need for judicial

intervention; 5. When the respondent acted in disregard

of due process; 6. When the respondent is the alter-ego of

the President, bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter;

7. When irreparable damage will be suffered;

8. When there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;

JURISDICTION

7




9. When strong public interest is involved; and

10. In quo warranto proceedings (Herrera, Vol. I, p. 268, 2007 ed.)

Note: The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies and doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only when the administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function (Associate Communications and Wireless Services v. Dumalao, G.R. 136762, Nov. 21, 2002).

8. EFFECT OF ESTOPPEL ON OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION

Q: What is the effect of estoppel by failure to object lack of jurisdiction? A: The active participation of a party in a case is tantamount to recognition of that courts jurisdiction and will bar a party from impugning the courts jurisdiction. This only applies to exceptional circumstances. (Francel Realty Corp. v. Sycip, 469 SCRA 424; Concepcion v. Regalado, GR 167988, Feb. 6, 2007).

C. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES Q: What is jurisdiction over the issues? A: It is the power of the court to try and decide issues raised in the pleadings of the parties or by their agreement in a pre-trial order or those tried by the implied consent of the parties. It may also be conferred by waiver or failure to object to the presentation of evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings

D. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES OR PROPERTY IN LITIGATION

Q: How is jurisdiction over the res acquired? A: It is acquired either by:

1. The seizure of the property under legal process.

2. As a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective. (Banco Espaol Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291).

3. The court by placing the property of thing under its custody (custodia legis). Example: attachment of property.

4. The court through statutory authority conferring upon it the power to deal with the property or thing within the courts territorial jurisdiction. Example: suits

involving the status of the parties or suits involving the property in the Philippines of non-resident defendants.

E. JURISDICTION OF COURTS

Q: Which court has jurisdiction over the following? A:

1. Boundary dispute between municipalities RTCs are courts of general jurisdiction. Since there is no legal provision specifically governing jurisdiction over boundary disputes between a municipality and an independent component city of the same province, it follows that RTCs have the power and authority to hear and determine such controversy (Municipality of Kananga v. Madrona, G.R. No. 141375, Apr. 30, 2003). 2. Expropriation It is within the jurisdiction of the RTC because it is incapable of pecuniary estimation. It does not involve the recovery of sum of money. Rather, it deals with the exercise by the government of its authority and right to take property for public use. 3. Labor dispute An action for damages for abuse of right as an incident to dismissal is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. But the labor arbiter has no jurisdiction for claims of damages based on quasi-delict which has no reasonable connection with the employer-employee relations claims under the Labor Code (Ocheda v. CA, G.R. No. 85517, Oct. 16, 1992). Note: Where no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties and no issue involved may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the regular courts that has jurisdiction (Jaguar Security Investigation Agency v. Sales, G.R. No. 162420, Apr. 22, 2008).

4. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer The MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction. In such cases, when the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the question of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. All ejectment cases are covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure and are within the jurisdiction of the inferior courts regardless of whether they involve questions of ownership.




The courts in ejectment cases may determine questions of ownership whenever necessary to decide the question of possession (Gayoso v. Twenty-Two Realty Development Corp., G.R. No. 147874, July 17, 2006; Santiago v. Pilar Development Corp., G.R. No. 153628, July 20, 2006).

5. Authority to conduct administrative

investigations over local elective officials and to impose preventive suspension over elective provincial or city officials

It is entrusted to the Secretary of Local Government and concurrent with the Ombudsman upon enactment of R.A. 6770. There is nothing in the Local Government Code of 1991 to indicate that it has repealed, whether expressly or impliedly, the pertinent provisions of the Ombudsman Act (Hagad v. Dadole, G.R. No. 108072, Dec. 12, 1995). 6. Appeals involving orders arising from administrative disciplinary cases originating from the Office of the Ombudsman It may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within 10 days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion

for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Sec. 27, R.A. 6770). 7. Public school teachers Generally, the Ombudsman must yield to the Division School Superintendent in the investigation of administrative charges against public school teachers (Ombudsman v. Galicia, G.R. No. 167711, Oct. 10, 2008).

8. Enforcement of a money claim against a local government unit Commission on Audit (COA) has the primary jurisdiction to pass upon the money claim. It is within the COA's domain to pass upon money claims against the government or any subdivision thereof as provided for under Section 26 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines. Courts may raise the issue of primary jurisdiction sua sponte (on its own will or motion; means to act spontaneously without prompting from another party) and its invocation cannot be waived by the failure of the parties to argue it as the doctrine exists for the proper distribution of power between judicial and administrative bodies and not for the convenience of the parties (Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil., Inc. v. Province of Batangas, G.R. No. 148106, July 17, 2006).

1. SUPREME COURT

Civil Cases Criminal Cases

Exclusive Original

Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the following: 1. Court of Appeals 2. Commission on Elections En Banc 3. Commission on Audit 4. Sandiganbayan

Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the following: 1. Court of Appeals 2. Sandiganbayan

Appellate

1. Appeal by petition for review on certiorari: a. Appeals from the CA; b. Appeals from the CTA; c. Appeals from RTC exercising original jurisdiction in

the following cases: i. If no question of fact is involved and the case

involves: a) Constitutionality or validity of treaty,

international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation

b) Legality of tax, impost, assessments, or toll, or penalty in relation thereto

c) Cases in which jurisdiction of lower court is in issue

ii. All cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved.

2. Special civil action of certiorari filed within 30 days against the COMELEC / COA

1. In all criminal cases involving offenses from which the penalty is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and those involving other offenses, which although not so punished arose out of the same occurrence or which may have been committed by the accused on the same occasion

Note: In criminal cases, when the penalty imposed is life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, appeal is automatic to the CA. (A.M. No. 04-9-05-SC; People v. Mateo y Garcia, G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004)

2. Criminal cases in which the death penalty is

imposed by the Sandiganbayan 3. Appeals from the CA; 4. Appeals from the Sandiganbayan; 5. Appeals from RTC in which only errors or

questions of law are involved.

JURISDICTION

9




Concurrent

With CA

1. Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the following: a. NLRC under the Labor Code.

Note: The petitions must first be filed with the CA, otherwise, they shall be dismissed. (St. Martin Funeral Home v. CA, G.R. No. 130866, Sept. 16, 1998).

b. Civil Service Commission c. Quasi-judicial agencies (file with the CA first) d. RTC and lower courts;

2. Petitions for issuance of writ of kalikasan (Sec. 3, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).

Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the RTC and lower courts.

With CA and RTC

1. Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto; and 2. Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and

mandamus against the lower courts or other bodies

Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the lower courts or bodies.

With CA, SB and RTC

1. Petitions for the issuance of writ of amparo 2. Petition for writ of habeas data, where the action involves

public data or government office

Petitions for the issuance of writ of amparo and writ of habeas data

With RTC With Sandiganbayan

Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls

Petitions for mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, injunctions and ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction including quo warranto arising or that may arise in in cases filed under EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A

Note:

1. The following cases must be decided by the SC en banc: a. All cases involving the constitutionality

of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law;

b. Cases involving the constitutionality, application or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances and other regulations;

c. A case where the required number of vote in a division is not obtained;

d. A doctrine or principle laid down in a decision rendered en banc or by division is modified, or reversed;

e. All other cases required to be heard en banc under the Rules of Court (Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).

2. Environmental laws and regulations covered by the writ of kalikasan includes but not limited to the following: a. Act No. 3572 - Prohibition Against

Cutting of Tindalo,Akli, and Molave Trees;

b. P.D. No. 705 - Revised Forestry Code; c. P.D. No. 856 - Sanitation Code; d. P.D. No. 979 - Marine Pollution Decree; e. P.D. No. 1067 - Water Code; f. P.D. No. 1151 - Philippine

Environmental Policy of 1977;

g. P.D. No. 1433 - Plant Quarantine Law of 1978;

h. P.D. No. 1586 - Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System Including Other Environmental Management Related Measures and for Other Purposes;

i. R.A. 3571 - Prohibition Against the Cutting, Destroying or Injuring of Planted or Growing Trees, Flowering Plants and Shrubs or Plants of Scenic Value along Public Roads, in Plazas, Parks, School Premises or in any Other Public Ground;

j. R.A. 4850 - Laguna Lake Development Authority Act;

k. R.A. 6969 - Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Act;

l. R.A. 7076 - Peoples Small-Scale Mining Act;

m. R.A. 7586 - National Integrated Protected Areas System Act including all laws, decrees, orders, proclamations and issuances establishing protected areas;

n. R.A. 7611 - Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act;

o. R.A. 7942 - Philippine Mining Act; p. R.A. 8371 - Indigenous Peoples Rights

Act; q. R.A. 8550 - Philippine Fisheries Code;




r. R.A. 8749 - Clean Air Act; s. R.A. 9003 - Ecological Solid Waste

Management Act; t. R.A. 9072 - National Caves and Cave

Resource Management Act; u. R.A. 9147 - Wildlife Conservation and

Protection Act; v. R.A. 9175 - Chainsaw Act; w. R.A. 9275 - Clean Water Act; x. R.A. 9483 - Oil Spill Compensation Act

of 2007; y. Provisions in CA No. 141, The Public

Land Act; R.A. 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988; R.A. 7160, Local Government Code of 1991; R.A. 7161, Tax Laws Incorporated in the Revised Forestry Code and Other Environmental Laws (Amending the NIRC); R.A. 7308, Seed Industry Development Act of 1992; R.A. 7900, High-Value Crops Development Act; R.A. 8048, Coconut Preservation Act; R.A. 8435, Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997; R.A. 9522, The Philippine Archipelagic Baselines Law; R.A. 9593, Renewable Energy Act of 2008; R.A. 9637, Philippine Biofuels Act; and

z. Other existing laws that relate to the conservation, development, preservation, protection and utilization of the environment and natural resources (Sec. 2, Rule 1, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).

3. The following are intra-corporate controversies within the jurisdiction of the RTC: a. Cases involving devises or schemes

employed by or any acts, of the board

of directors, business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting fraud or misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or the stockholders, partners, members of the associations or organizations registered with the Security and Exchange Commission;

b. Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and among stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or association and the state in so far as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity;

c. Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or managers of such corporation, partnerships or associations; and

d. Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in the state of suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership or association posses sufficient property to cover all its debts but foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation, partnership or association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities but is under the management of a Rehabilitation Receiver or Management Committee (Sec. 5.2, SRC).

2. COURT OF APPEALS


Exclusive Original

Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC based upon extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction (Sec. 9 B.P. 129).

1. Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC (Sec. 9 B.P. 129).

2. Crimes of Terrorism under the Human Security Act of 2007 or R.A. 9372

Appellate

1. Final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, awards of: a. RTC

i. In the exercise of its original jurisdiction; ii. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction;

b. Family Courts; c. RTC on the questions of constitutionality,

validity of tax, jurisdiction involving questions of fact, which should be appealed first to the CA;

d. Appeals from RTC in cases appealed from MTCs which are not a matter of right.

2. Appeal from MTC in the exercise of its delegated

Judgments or decisions of RTC (except those appealable to the SC or SB):

a. exercising its original jurisdiction; b. exercising its appellate jurisdiction; and c. where the imposable penalty is:

i. life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua; ii. a lesser penalty for offenses committed on

the same occasion or which arose from the same occurrence that gave rise to the offense punishable reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (Sec. 3, Rule 122).

iii. Death (Sec. 10, Rule 122).

JURISDICTION

11




jurisdiction (R.A. 7691). 3. Appeals from Civil Service Commission; 4. Appeals from quasi-judicial agencies under Rule 43; 5. Appeals from the National Commission on

Indigenous Peoples (NCIP); and 6. Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in

administrative disciplinary cases (Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 149148, Apr. 5, 2002).

Concurrent

With SC

1. Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the following: a. NLRC under the Labor Code. b. Civil Service Commission c. Quasi-judicial agencies d. RTCs and other lower courts. 2. Petitions for issuance of writ of kalikasan (Sec. 3, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).

Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the RTCs and lower courts.

With SC and RTC

1. Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto; and 2. Petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari,

prohibition and mandamus against the lower courts

Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the lower courts or bodies.

With SC, SB and RTC

1. Petitions for the issuance of writ of amparo 2. Petition for writ of habeas data, where the action

involves public data or government office


3. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

Tax Cases Criminal Cases

Exclusive Original

In tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is less than P1M tried by the proper MTC, MeTC and RTC.

All criminal cases arising from violation of the NIRC of the TCC and other laws, part of laws, or special laws administered by the BIR or the BOC where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is less that P1M or where there is no specified amount claimed (the offenses or penalties shall be tried by the regular courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate)

Appellate

In tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is less than P1M tried by the proper MTC, MeTC and RTC.

1. Over appeals from the judgment, resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction,

2. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs in their respective jurisdiction

Concurrent

With CIR

1. Decisions in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by BIR;

2. Inaction by CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of IR taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by BIR, where the NIRC or other applicable law provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed an implied denial;

With RTC

Decisions, orders or resolutions of the in local taxes originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;




With Commissioner of Customs

1. Decisions in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or

2. Other matters arising under the Customs law or other laws, part of laws or special laws administered by BOC;

With Central Board of Assessment Appeals

Decisions in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;

With Secretary of Finance

Decision on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the government under Sec. 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;

With Secretary of Trade and Industry and the Secretary of Agriculture

Decisions of Secretary of Trade and Industry in the case of non-agricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping duties and counterveiling duties under Secs. 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under RA 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.

4. SANDIGANBAYAN


Exclusive Original

Cases involving violations of: a. EO No. 1 (Creating the PCGG); b. EO No. 2 (Illegal Acquisition and

Misappropriations of Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos their close relatives, subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents or nominees);

c. EO No. 14 [Cases involving the ill-gotten wealth of the immediately mentioned persons (Marcos and dummies)]; and

d. EO No. 14-A (amendments to EO No. 14) (Sec. 2, R.A. 7975 as amended by R.A. 8294).

1. Violation of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in permanent. Acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: a. Officials occupying a position classified as Grade 27

or higher of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (R.A. 6758) in the: i. Executive branch including those occupying

the position of regional director; and ii. All other national or local officials.

b. Members of Congress c. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the

Constitution; and d. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional

Commissions without prejudice to the Constitution. 2. Felonies or offenses, whether simple or complexed with

other crimes committed by the public officials and employees above mentioned in relation to their office; and

3. Cases filed pursuant to EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A (Sec. 2, R.A. 7975 as amended by R.A. 8249).

Appellate

Appeals from final judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC, whether in the exercise of their original or appellate

jurisdiction, in cases involving public officials or employees not otherwise mentioned in the preceding enumeration.

Concurrent

With SC

Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, including quo warranto arising in cases falling under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.

Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, including quo warranto arising in cases falling under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.

With SC, CA and RTC

Petitions for the issuance of writ of amparo and writ of habeas data.

Petitions for the issuance of writ of amparo and writ of habeas data.

Q: Governor Charles of Tarlac was charged with indirect bribery before the Sandiganbayan for

accepting a car in exchange for the award of a series of contracts for medical supplies. The

JURISDICTION

13




Sandiganbayan, after going over the information, found the same to be valid and ordered the suspension of Charles. The latter contested the suspension claiming that under the law (Sec. 13, R.A. 3019), his suspension is not automatic upon the filing of the information and his suspension under Sec. 13, R.A. 3019 is in conflict with Sec. 5 of the Decentralization Act of 1967 (R.A. 5185). The Sandiganbayan overruled Charles contention stating that the suspension under the circumstances is mandatory. Is the court's ruling correct?

A: Yes. Charles suspension is mandatory, although not automatic. It is mandatory after the determination of the validity of the information in a pre-suspension hearing. The purpose of the suspension is to prevent the accused public officer from frustrating or hampering his prosecution by intimidating or influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence or from committing further acts of malfeasance while in office. (2001 Bar Question)

5. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS


Exclusive Original

1. Actions in which the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;

2. Actions involving title to or possession of real property or any interest therein where the assessed value exceeds P20,000 or P50,000 in Metro Manila, except forcible entry and unlawful detainer;

3. Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where demand or claim exceeds P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro Manila;

4. Matters of probate, testate or intestate, where gross value of estate exceeds P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro Manila;

5. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function;

6. Civil actions and special proceedings falling within exclusive original jurisdiction of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and Court of Agrarian Reforms;

7. Other cases where the demand, exclusive of interest, damages, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs, or value of property in controversy exceeds P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro Manila (Sec. 19, BP 129 as amended by R.A. 7691); and

8. Intra-corporate controversies under Sec. 5.2 of the Securities and Regulation Code.

1. Criminal cases not within exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body (Sec. 20, BP 129). a. Includes criminal cases where the penalty

provided by law exceeds 6 years imprisonment irrespective of the fine (R.A. 7691).

b. Includes criminal cases not falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan where the imposable penalty is imprisonment more than 6 years and none of the accused is occupying positions classified as Grade 27 and higher (Sec. 4, P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249).

2. Cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine exceeding P4,000;

3. Other laws which specifically lodge jurisdiction in the RTC: a. Law on written defamation or libel; b. Decree on Intellectual Property; c. Violations of Dangerous Drugs Act regardless

of the imposable penalty except when the offender is under 16 and there are Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in the province.

4. Cases falling under the Family Courts in areas where there are no Family Courts (Sec.24, B.P. 129).

5. Election offenses (Omnibus election code) even if committed by an official with salary grade of 27 or higher

Concurrent

With SC, SB and CA

1. Writ of amparo 2. Writ of habeas data


With SC

Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls [Sec. 21 (2) of BP 129]

With SC and CA

1. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and bodies;

2. Habeas corpus and quo warranto;

With MTC

Cases involving enforcement or violations of environmental and other related laws, rules and regulations (Sec. 2, Rule 1, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).

Special




SC may designate certain branches of RTC to try exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any quasi-judicial body and other special

cases in the interest of justice (Sec. 23, BP 129).

Appellate GR: All cases decided by lower courts (MTC etc.) in their respective territorial jurisdictions.

XPN: Decisions of lower courts in the exercise of delegated jurisdiction.

Q: What is the test to determine whether an action is capable of pecuniary estimation? A: The criterion is the nature of the principal action or the remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the MTCs or in the RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim.

However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought like specific performance suits and in actions for support, or for annulment of a judgment or foreclosure of mortgage, such actions are incapable of pecuniary estimation, and are cognizable exclusively by the RTCs (Barangay Piapi v. Talip, G.R. No. 138248, Sept. 7, 2005).

6. FAMILY COURTS


Exclusive Original

1. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to minor;

2. Petitions for adoption of children and its revocation; 3. Complaints for annulment and declaration of nullity of

marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of spouses or those living together under different status and agreements; and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;

4. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment; 5. Summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code

of the Philippines; 6. Petitions for declaration of status of children as

abandoned, dependent or neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children, the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under PD 603, EO 56 (Series of 1986) and other related laws; and

7. Petitions for the constitution of the family home 8. (rendered unnecessary by Art. 153, Family Code) (Sec.

5, R.A. 8369).

1. Where one or more of the accused is/are below 18 years of age but not less than 9 years of age;

2. When one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense (R.A. 8369, Act establishing the family courts);

3. Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended; and

4. Violations of R.A. 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, as amended by R.A. 7658; and

5. Cases of domestic violence against: a. Women involving acts of gender-based violence

that result, or likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a womans personhood, integrity and freedom of movement;

b. Children which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development (Sec. 5, R.A. 8369)

7. METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS/MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS


Exclusive Original

1. Actions involving personal property where the value of the property does not exceed P300,000 or, in Metro Manila P400,000;

2. Actions for claim of money where the demand does not exceed P300,000 or, in Metro Manila P400,000;

3. Probate proceedings, testate or intestate, where the value of the estate does not exceed P300,000 or, in Metro Manila P400,000;

Note: In the foregoing, claim must be exclusive of interest,

damages, attorneys fees, litigation expense, and costs (Sec. 33, BP 129 as amended by R.A. 7691).

1. All offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years irrespective of the amount of fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties;

2. In offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000 (Sec. 32, BP 129 as amended by R.A. 7691);

3. Where the only penalty provided by law is a fine not exceeding P4,000 (Admin. Circular No. 09-94, June 14, 1994); and

4. Those covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure, i.e.

JURISDICTION

15




4. Actions involving title to or possession of real property or any interest therein where the value or amount does not exceed P20,000 or, in Metro Manila P50,000 exclusive of interest damages, attorneys fees, litigation expense, and costs; (2008 Bar Question)

5. Maritime claims where the demand or claim does not exceed P300,000 or, in Metro Manila P400,000 (Sec. 33, BP 129 as amended by R.A. 7691);

6. Inclusion or exclusion of voters (Sec. 138, BP 881); 7. Those covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure: a. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer; b. Other civil cases except probate where the total amount of

the plaintiffs claims does not exceed P100,000 or, in Metro Manila P200,000 exclusive interest and costs (as amended by A.M. No. 02-11-09-SC).

8. Those covered by the Rules on Small Claims, i.e. actions for payment of money where the claim does not exceed P100,000 exclusive of interest and costs.

a. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;

b. Violations of the rental law; c. Violations of municipal or city ordinances; d. Violations of BP 22 (A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC); e. All other criminal cases where the penalty

is imprisonment not exceeding 6 months and/or a fine of P 1,000 irrespective of other penalties or civil liabilities arising therefrom.

5. All offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and by private individuals charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories, punishable with imprisonment not more than 6 years or where none of the accused holds a position classified as Grade 27 and higher (Sec. 4, P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249).

Delegated

Cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where: a. There is no controversy or opposition; b. Contested but the value does not exceed P100,000 (Sec.

34, BP 129 as amended by R.A. 7691).

Note: The value shall be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or agreement of the respective claimants (Sec. 34, BP 129 as amended by R.A. 7691).

Special

Petition for habeas corpus in the absence of all RTC judges in the province or city (Sec. 35, BP 129).

Application for bail in the absence of all RTC judges in the province or city.

Concurrent

With RTC

Cases involving enforcement or violations of environmental and other related laws, rules and regulations (Sec. 2, Rule 1,

A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).

8. SHARIAH COURTS

Exclusive Original

1. All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, paternity and filiation arising under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws;

2. All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of estate of deceased Muslims, probate of wills, issuance of letters of administration or appointment of administrators or executors regardless of the nature or aggregate value of the property;

3. Petitions for the declaration of absence and death for the cancellation or correction of entries in the Muslim Registries mentioned in Title VI, Book Two of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws;

4. All actions arising from the customary contracts in which the parties are Muslims, if they have not specified which law shall govern their relations; and

5. All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus, and all other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

Concurrent

With all civil courts 1. Petitions by Muslim for the constitution of a family home, change of name and commitment of an insane person to an

asylum; 2. All other personal and legal actions not mentioned in paragraph 1 (d) wherein the parties involved are Muslims except

those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Court; and

3. All special civic actions for interpleader or declaratory relief wherein the parties are Muslims or the property involved belongs exclusively to Muslims.




F. JURISDICTION OVER SMALL CLAIMS, CASES COVERED BY THE RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE AND BARANGAY CONCILIATION

Katarungang Pambarangay Law Rule on Small Claims Cases Rules on Summary Procedure

Purpose / Object

To effect an amicable settlement of disputes among family and barangay members at the barangay level without judicial recourse and consequently help relieve the courts of docket congestion. (Preamble of P.D. 1508) (1999 Bar Qestion)

To provide a simpler and more inexpensive and expeditious means of settling disputes involving purely money claims than the regular civil process

To achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of the cases defined to be governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure

Where to file

1. For disputes between residents of the same barangay: the dispute must be brought for settlement in the said barangay.

2. For disputes between residents of different but adjoining barangays and the parties agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement: within the same city or municipality where any of the respondents reside at the election of the complainant.

3. For disputes involving real property or any interest when the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon therein shall be brought in the barangay where the real property or larger portion thereof is situated.

4. For disputes arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study shall be brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is located.

1. Metropolitan Trial Courts 2. Municipal Trial Courts in Cities 3. Municipal Trial Courts 4. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

1. Metropolitan Trial Courts 2. Municipal Trial Courts in Cities 3. Municipal Trial Courts 4. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Cases Covered

Civil Cases

All disputes involving parties who actually reside in the same city or municipality may be the subject of the proceedings for amicable settlement in the barangay.

Small claims cases civil claims which are exclusively for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money not exceeding P100,000 exclusive of interest and costs, either 1. Purely civil in nature where

the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement of sum of money, or

2. The civil aspect of criminal actions, either filed before the institution of the criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered. Where attorneys fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed P20,000; and

2. All other civil cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of plaintiffs claim does not exceed P100,000 or does not exceed P200,000 in Metro Manila, exclusive of interests and costs (A.M. No. 02-11-09-SC, Nov. 25, 2005).

JURISDICTION

17




These claims or demands may be: 1. For money owed under any of

the following: a. Contract of Lease b. Contract of Loan c. Contract of Services d. Contract of Sale e. Contract of Mortgage

2. For damages arising from any of the following: a. Fault or negligence b. Quasi-contract c. Contract

3. The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving a money claim covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417

Criminal Cases

When punishable by imprisonment of not more than 1 year or fine of not more than 5,000. (Sec. 408, LGC)

1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;

2. Violations of the rental law; 3. Violations of municipal or city

ordinances; 4. Violations of B.P. 22 or the

Bouncing Checks Law (A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC, Apr. 15, 2003);

5. All other criminal cases where the penalty is imprisonment not exceeding 6 months and/or a fine of P 1,000 irrespective of other penalties or civil liabilities arising therefrom; and

6. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where the imposable fine is not exceeding P10,000.

Cases excluded

1. Where one party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;

3. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine exceeding P5,000.00;

4. Offenses where there is no private offended party;

5. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;

6. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties

1. Criminal actions are excluded pursuant to certain Constitutional limitations granting the accused in all criminal prosecutions the right to be heard by himself and counsel (Sec. 14[2], Bill of Rights). An example is a case for libel or slander. However, the civil aspect of a criminal action which seeks recovery of money as damages may be heard as a small claim if reserved or instituted separately prior to the filing of the criminal case.

2. Some civil cases regardless of how little the amount involved cannot be filed as small claims. Examples are a suit to force a person to fix a damaged good or a demand for the fulfillment of an

This Rule shall not apply to a civil case where the plaintiff's cause of action is pleaded in the same complaint with another cause of action subject to the ordinary procedure; nor to a criminal case where the offense charged is necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the ordinary procedure.




thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;

7. Such other classes of disputes which the President of the Philippines may determine in the interest of justice; and

8. Violations of R.A. 9262, VAWC Act.

obligation which is not purely for money.

G. TOTALITY RULE

Q: What is the Aggregate or Totality Rule? A: Where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties embodied in one complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all causes of action irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transaction (Rule 2, Sec.5 [d]).

CIVIL PROCEDURE

19




III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

A. ACTIONS

1. MEANING OF ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS Q: What is an ordinary civil action? A: It is a formal demand of ones legal rights in a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by law. It is governed by ordinary rules.

2. MEANING OF SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS Q: What is a special civil action? A: It has special features not found in ordinary civil actions. It is governed by ordinary rules but subject to specific rules prescribed Rules 62-71.

3. MEANING OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS Q: What is a criminal action? A: It is one by which the state prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law (Sec.3 (b), Rule1).

4. CIVIL ACTIONS VERSUS SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Q: Distinguish action from special proceeding. A:

Action Special Proceeding

Purpose

Civil action: 1. To protect a right 2. Prevent or redress a

wrong. Criminal action: Prosecute a person for an act or omission punishable by law (Sec. 3, Rule 1)

To establish a status, a right or a particular fact (Sec. 3 Rule 1). Specific kinds of special proceedings are found in rule 72 rule 109

E.g. settlement of estate, escheat, guardianship, etc. (Riano, Civil Procedure: A

Restatement for the Bar, p. 121, 2009 ed.)

Application

Where a party litigant seeks to recover property from another, his remedy is to file an action.

Where his purpose is to seek the appointment of a guardian for an insane person, his remedy is a special proceeding to establish the fact or status of insanity calling for an appointment of guardianship. (Herrera, Vol. I, p. 370, 2007 ed.)

Governing Law

Ordinary rules supplemented by special rules

Special rules supplemented by ordinary rules

Court

Heard by courts of general jurisdiction

Heard by courts of limited jurisdiction

Procedure

Initiated by a pleading and parties respond through an answer

Initiated by a petition and parties respond through an opposition

5. REAL ACTIONS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS

Q: Distinguish real actions from personal actions. A:

Real Action Personal Action

Scope

When it affects title to or possession of a real property, or an interest therein (Sec. 1, rule 4)

Personal property is sought to be recovered or where damages for breach of contract are sought

Basis

When it is founded upon the privity of a real estate. That means that realty or interest therein is the subject matter of the action. Note: It is important that the matter in litigation must also involve any of the following issue: 1. Title to 2. Ownership 3. Possession 4. Partition 5. Foreclosure of mortgage

6. Any interest in real property.

Founded on privity of contract such as damages, claims of money, etc.

Venue

Venue of action shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof is situated. (Rule 4, sec 1)

Venue of action is the place where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides or any of the defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff (Rule 2 sec 2)

Example

An action to recover possession of real property plus damages Note: An action to annul or rescind a sale of real property has as its fundamental and prime objective the recovery of real property (Emergency Loan Pawnshop, Inc. vs. Court of appeals, 353 SCRA 89; Riano, p. 122, 2009 ed.)

Action for a sum of money




6. LOCAL AND TRANSITORY ACTIONS Q: Distinguish local action from transitory actions. A:

Local Action Transitory Action

Venue

Must be brought in a particular plac where the subject property is located, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

Dependent on the place where the party resides regardless of where the cause of action arose. Subject to Sec. 4, Rule 4

Privity of contract

No privity of contract and the action is founded on privity of estate only

Founded on privity of contract between the parties whether debt or covenant (Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines v. Samson, G.R. No. L-30175, Nov. 28, 1975).

Example

Action to recover real property

Action to recover sum of money

7. ACTIONS IN REM, IN PERSONAM AND QUASI IN REM

Q: Distinguish actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem A:

Action In Rem Action In Personam Action Quasi In Rem

Nature

A proceeding to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed.

A proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person

A proceeding to subject the property of the named defendant or his interests therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.

Purpose

A proceeding to determine the state or condition of a thing

An action to impose a responsibility or liability upon a person directly

Deals with the stauts, ownership or liability of a particular property but

which are intended to operate on these questions only as between the particular

parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut-off the rights or

interests of all possible claimants. (Domagas vs. Jensen, 448 SCRA 663)

Scope

Directed against the thing itself Directed against the whole world

Directed against particular persons

Directed against particular persons

Required jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required.

Jusrisdiction over the RES is required through publication in a newspaper

of general circulation.

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required as long as jurisdiction over the res is acquired

Effect of judgment

Judgment is binding upon the whole world.

Judgment is binding only upon parties impleaded or their successors-in-interest

Judgment will be binding only upon the litigants, privies, successor in interest but the judgment shall be executed

against a particular property. The RES involve will answer the judgment.

Example

1. Probate proceeding 2. Cadastral proceeding 3. Land registration proceeding

1. Action for specific performance

2. Action for breach of contract

3. Action for ejectment 4. Action for a sum of money;

for damages (Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar,p.130, 2009 ed.)

1. Action for partition 2. Action to foreclose real estate

mortgage attachment

CIVIL PROCEDURE

21




B. CAUSE OF ACTION

1. MEANING OF CAUSE OF ACTION Q: What is a cause of action? A: It is the act or omission by which a party violates a rights of another (Sec. 2, Rule 2).

2. CAUSE OF ACTION VERSUS RIGHT OF ACTION Q: Distinguish cause of action from right of action A:

Note: The rule is There is no right of action where there is no cause of action. (Ibid p.4)

3. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION Q: Distinguish failure to state cause of action from absence or lack of cause of action A:

4. TEST OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF A CAUSE OF

ACTION Q: What is the test of sufficiency of the statement of a cause of action? A:

1. Whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of the complaint (Misamis Occidental II Coop., Inc. vs. David, 468 SCRA 63; Riano, p. 92, 2009 ed.)

2. The sufficiency of the statement of cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint and its existence is only determined by the allegations of the complaint (Viewmaster Construction Corp. vs. Roxas, 335 SCRA 540; Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 93, 2009 ed)

Note: The truth or falsity of the allegations is beside the point because the allegations in the complaint are hypothetically admitted. Thus a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action, hypothetically admits the matters alleged in the complaint (Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, p92, 2009 ed.)

Cause of Action Right of Action

It is the act or omission by which a party violates the rights of another ( Sec. 2, Rule 2)

Remedial right or right to relief granted by law to a

party to institute an action against a person who has

committed a delict or wrong against him

Requisites

1. The existence of a legal right of the plaintiff

2. A correlative duty of the defendant to respect ones right

3. An act or omission of the defendant in violation of the plaintiffs right.

1. There must be a good cause (existence of a cause of action)

2. A compliance with all the conditions precedent to the bringing of the action

3. The action must be instituted by the proper party.

Nature

It is actually predicated on substantive law or on quasi delicts under NCC.

It is procedural in character is the

consequence of the violation of the right of the

plaintiff (Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar , p. 4, 2009 ed.)

Basis

Based on the allegations of the plaintiff in the

complaint

Basis is the plaintiffs cause of action

Effect of Affirmative defense

Not affected by affirmative defenses (fraud, prescription,

estoppel, etc.)

Affected by affirmative defenses

Failure to state cause of action

Lack of cause of action

Insufficiency in the allegations of the complaint

Failure to prove or establish by evidence ones stated cause of

action

As a ground for dismissal

Raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 before a responsive pleading is filed

Raised in a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 after the plaintiff has rested his case

Determination

Determined only from the allegations of the pleading and not from

evidentiary matters

Resolved only on the basis of the evidence he has presented in support of his claim




5. SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND ITS EFFECTS

Q: What is splitting a cause of action? A: It is the act of instituting two or more suits on the basis of the same cause of action (Sec. 4, Rule 2). It is the act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and bringing several actions thereon. It is a ground for the dismissal of others. The rule against splitting of a cause of action aims to avoid multiplicity of suits, conflicting decisions and unnecessary vexation and harassment of defendants. It applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims and cross-claims. (1999 Bar Question) Note: An action for forcible entry should include not only the plea for restoration of possession but also claims for damages arising out of the forcible entry (Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. CA, 301 SCRA 637; Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 108, 2009 ed.)

Q: What are the rules on splitting a single cause of action? A:

1. Prohibited by the Rules of Court. A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. (Sec.3, Rule 2)

2. The rule against splitting a single cause of action applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims and cross-claims. (Mariscal vs. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 51)

6. JOINDER AND MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF

ACTION Q: What is a joinder of causes of action? A: It is the assertion of as many causes of action a party may have against another in one pleading alone (Sec. 5, Rule 2). Note: Joinder of causes of action must be subject to the following conditions:

1. The party shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;

2. The joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules;

3. Where causes of action pertain to different venues, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and venue lies therein

4. Where claims in all causes of action are for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test for jurisdiction. (Sec 5, Rule 2)

Note: When the causes of action accrue in favor of the same plaintiff and against the same defendant, it is not necessary to ask whether or not the causes of action arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions. Also a joinder of causes of action is only permissive not compulsory, hence a party may desire to file a single suit for each of his claims.

Q: Is misjoinder of causes of action a ground for dismissal? A: No. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately (Sec. 6 Rule 2). Q: The complaint filed before the RTC states two causes of actions, one for rescission of contract and other for the recovery of 100, 000.00 both of which arose out of the same transaction. Is the joinder of the two causes of action proper? A: Yes. Both are ordinary civil actions and thus, neither requires special rules. Since the action for rescission falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC, the joinder may be made in said court provided the venue lies therein (Sec. 5, Rule 2; 1996 Bar Question; Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, p.120, 2009 ed.)

C. PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

1. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST; INDISPENSABLE PARTIES; REPRESENTATIVES AS PARTIES; NECESSARY PARTIES; INDIGENT PARTIES;

ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS

Q: What are the kinds of parties in a civil action? A:

1. Real parties in interest 2. Indispensable parties 3. Representatives as parties 4. Necessary parties 5. Indigent parties 6. Pro-forma parties

Q: Who is a real party in interest? A: He is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit (Sec. 2 Rule 3). Q: Distinguish an indispensable party from a necessary party. A: Indispensable Parties Necessary Parties

Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be

A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a

CIVIL PROCEDURE

23

ACADEMICS CHAIR: LESTER JAY ALAN E

Documents

UST Golden Notes - Civil Procedure ( Remedial Law General Principles Included)