You are on page 1of 4

CIVIL PROCEDURE

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Concept of Remedial Law


Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or
obtaining redress for their invasion

Substantive Law as Distinguished from Remedial Law


Substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights and duties regarding life, liberty or
property which when violated gives rise to a cause of action (Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil.
640).

Remedial law prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and obligations created
by substantive law by providing a procedural system for obtaining redress for the invasion
of rights and violations of duties and by prescribing rules as to how suits are filed, tried
and decided by the courts.

As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes
and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished from remedial law
which provides or regulates the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be
punished.

Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court


Section 5 (5), Art. VIII of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have
the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the
practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such
rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speed disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase,
or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

Limitations of the Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court


(1) The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases
(2) They shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade
(3) They shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights (Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII,
Constitution).
(4) The power to admit attorneys to the Bar is not an arbitrary and despotic one, to be
exercised at the pleasure of the court, or from passion, prejudice or personal hostility,
but is the duty of the court to exercise and regulate it by a sound and judicial
discretion. (Andres vs. Cabrera, 127 SCRA 802)

Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules


(1) When compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it. What
constitutes and good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is
discretionary upon courts. (CIR v. Migrant Pagbilao Corp., GR 159593, Oct. 12, 2006).
Reasons that would warrant the suspension of the Rules: (a) the existence of special or
compelling circumstances (b) merits of the case (c) cause not entirely attributable to the
fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of rules (d) a lack of ay showing
that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory (e) the other party will not be
unjustly prejudiced thereby (Sarmiento v. Zaratan, GR 167471, Feb. 5, 2007)
(2) To relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure and the mere invocation of substantial justice is not a magical
incantation that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules. (Cu-
Unjieng v. CA, 479 SCRA 594)
(3) Where substantial and important issues await resolution. (Pagbilao, supra)
(4) When transcendental matters of life, liberty or state security are involved.(Mindanao
Savings Loan Asso. V. Vicenta Vda. De Flores, 469 SCRA 416).
(5) The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice and
procedure necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on points
of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of Court (Pinga vs. Heirs of
Santiago, GR 170354, June 30, 2006).

Nature of Philippine Courts


Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity. Hence, both legal and equitable
jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal. (US v. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321)

What is a Court
(1) It is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function of
which is the application of the laws to the controversies brought before it as well as the
public administration of justice.
(2) It is a governmental body officially assembled under authority of law at the
appropriate time and place for the administration of justice through which the State
enforces its sovereign rights and powers (21 CJS 16).
(3) It is a board or tribunal which decides a litigation or contest (Hidalgo v. Manglapus,
64 OG 3189).

Court distinguished from Judge


(1) A court is a tribunal officially assembled under authority of law; a judge is simply an
officer of such tribunal;
(2) A court is an organ of the government with a personality separate and distinct from
the person or judge who sits on it;
(3) A court is a being in imagination comparable to a corporation, whereas a judge is a
physical person ;
(4) A court may be considered an office; a judge is a public officer; and
(5) The circumstances of the court are not affected by the circumstances that would
affect the judge.

Classification of Philippine Courts


(1) Regular courts engaged in the administration of justice are organized into four (4)
levels:
(a) First Level (MTCs, MeTCs, MCTCs) – which try and decide (1) criminal actions
involving violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction and offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
years irrespective of the amount of fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or
other penalties, and (2) civil actions including ejectment, recovery of personal property
with a value of not more than P300,000 outside MM or does not exceed P400,000 in MM;
(b) Second Level (RTCs, Family Courts) – courts of general jurisdiction; among the civil
actions assigned to them by law are those in which the subject of litigation is incapable
of pecuniary estimation, or involving title to or possession of real property where the
assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000 outside MM or exceeds P50,000 in MM,
except actions for ejectment (forcible entry and unlawful detainer), or where the demand
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and
cost, or the value of the personal property or controversy exceeds P300,000 outside MM
or exceeds P400,000 in MM. RTCs also exercise appellate jurisdiction, to review cases
appealed from courts of the first level;
(c) Third Level (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan) – CA is an appellate court, reviewing
cases appealed to it from the RTC, on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and
law. Appeals to it decided by the RTC in the exercise of original jurisdiction are a matter
of right; appeals with respect to cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction are a matter of discretion. Occasionally, CA may act as a trial court, as in
actions praying for the annulment of final and executor judgments of RTCs on the ground
of extrinsic fraud subsequently discovered, against which no other remedies lies.
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over all criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt
practices act, and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees
including those in GOCCs in relation to their office. It also has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of RTCs whether in the exercise
of their own original or appellate jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases committed by
public officers or employees including those in GOCCs in relation to their office.
(d) Fourth Level (Supreme Court)

Courts of Original and Appellate Jurisdiction


(1) A court is one with original jurisdiction when actions or proceedings are originally
filed with it. A court is one with appellate jurisdiction when it has the power of review
over the decisions or orders of a lower court
(2) MeTCs, MCTCs and MTCs are courts of original jurisdiction without appellate
jurisdiction. RTC is likewise a court of original jurisdiction with respect to cases originally
filed with it; and appellate court with respect to cases decided by MTCs within its territorial
jurisdiction. (Sec. 22, BP 129)
(3) CA is primarily a court of appellate jurisdiction with competence to review judgments
of the RTCs and specified quasi-judicial agencies (Sec. 9[3], BP 129). It is also a court of
original jurisdiction with respect to cases filed before it involving issuance of writs of
certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and prohibition. CA is a court of
original and exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of RTCs (Sec.
9 [1],[2], BP 129).
(4) The SC is fundamentally a court of appellate jurisdiction but it may also be a court
of original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls,
and in cases involving petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (Sec. 5[1], Art.
VIII, Constitution). The Supreme Court en banc is not an appellate court to which
decisions or resolutions of a division of the Supreme Court may be appealed.

Courts of General and Special Jurisdiction


(1) Courts of general jurisdiction are those with competence to decide on their own
jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all cases, civil and criminal, of a particular nature.
Courts of special (limited) jurisdiction are those which have only a 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.
(2) A court may also be considered ‘general’ if it has the competence to exercise
jurisdiction over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It is in the context that the RTC is
considered a court of general jurisdiction.

Constitutional and Statutory Courts


(1) A constitutional court is one created by a direct Constitutional provision. Example of
this court is the SC, which owes its creation from the Constitution itself. Only the SC is a
Constitutional court.
(2) A statutory court is one created by law other than the Constitution. All courts except
the SC are statutory courts. SB was not directly created by the Constitution but by law
pursuant to a constitutional mandate.

Principle of Judicial Hierarchy


(1) This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction,
beginning from the lowest, on to the next highest, and ultimately to the highest. This
hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of the
proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established policy necessary
to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better
devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further
clogging of the Court’s docket (Sec. 9[1], BP 129; Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII, Constitution of the
Philippines).
(2) A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts. The SC is a court of last resort. It cannot and should
not be burdened with the task of deciding cases in the first instances. Its jurisdiction to
issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where
serious and important reasons exist.
(3) Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be
filed with the RTC and those against the latter with the CA. a direct invocation of the SC’s
original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only where there are special
and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
(4) The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if warranted by the nature
and importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future
litigations, or in cases of national interest and of serious implications. Under the principle
of liberal interpretations, for example, it may take cognizance of a petition for certiorari
directly filed before it.

Doctrine of Non-interference or Doctrine of Judicial Stability


(1) Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s 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.
(2) This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law provides
for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the SC or CA, it means that
such body is co-equal with the RTC in terms of rand and stature, and logically beyond
the control of the latter.

You might also like