CIVIL PROCEDURE

PART I

1. General Principles

1.1 Concept of Remedial Law

Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the methods of enforcing rights

and obligations created by substantive law in case of invasion of these rights.

Nature of Remedial Law:

Since they (remedial law) are promulgated by authority of law, they have the force and

effect of law if not in conflict with substantive law (Ateneo v. De La Rosa, G.R. No. L-286, March

28, 1946)

1.2 Substantive Law vis a vis Remedial Law

Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, or

which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action; that part of the law

which courts are established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law, which

prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtains redress for their invasion. (Bustos v.

Lucero, G.R. No. L-2086, March 8, 1949 Motion for Reconsideration Resolution)

Distitio etee eed ad ustatie right: The distinction between "remedy" and "substantive right" is incapable of exact

definition. The difference is somewhat a question of degree. It is difficult to draw a line in any

particular case beyond which legislative power over remedy and procedure can pass without

touching upon the substantive rights of parties affected, as it is impossible to fix that boundary

by general condition. This being so, it is inevitable that the Supreme Court in making rules

should step on substantive rights, and the Constitution must be presumed to tolerate if not to

expect such incursion as does not affect the accused in a harsh and arbitrary manner or deprive

him of a defense, but operates only in a limited and unsubstantial manner to his disadvantage.

For the Court's power is not merely to compile, revise or codify the rules of procedure existing

at the time of the Constitution's approval. This power is "to promulgate rules concerning

pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts," which is a power to adopt a general, complete

and comprehensive system of procedure, adding new and different rules without regard to

their source and discarding old ones. (Bustos v. Lucero, supra)

1.2.1 Meaning of Procedural Laws

According to De los Santos v. Vda. de Mangubat: Poedual la efes to the adjective law which prescribes rules and forms of procedure in order that courts may be able to

administer justice. Procedural laws do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive

law, or the general rule against the retroactive operation of statues the a e gie retroactive effect on actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and this

will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, insomuch as

there are no vested rights in rules of procedue. Priscilla Alma Jose, Vs. Ramon C. Javellana, Et Al., G.R. No. 158239, January 25, 2012)

1.2.2 Procedural rules applicable to actions pending at the time of promulgation

Statutes and rules regulating the procedure of courts are considered applicable to

actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage. Procedural laws and rules are

retroactive in that sense and to that extent. The effect of procedural statutes and rules on the

rights of a litigant may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. This

retroactive application does not violate any right of a person adversely affected. Neither is it

constitutionally objectionable. The reason is that, as a general rule, no vested right may attach

to or arise from procedural laws and rules. It has been held that "a person has no vested right in

any particular remedy, and a litigant cannot insist on the application to the trial of his case,

whether civil or criminal, of any other than the existing rules of procedure." More so when, as

in this case, petitioner admits that it was not able to pay the docket fees on time. Clearly, there

were no substantive rights to speak of when the RTC dismissed the Notice of Appeal. Panay

Railways Inc., Vs. Heva Management And Development Corporation, Pamplona Agro-Industrial

Corporation, And Spouses Candelaria Dayot And Edmundo Dayot, G. R. No. 154061, January 25,

2012)

1.2.3 Liberal construction or suspension of procedural rules

It should be emphasized that the resort to a liberal application, or suspension of the

application of procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the well-settled principle that

rules must be complied with for the orderly administration of justice. (Building Care

Corporation/Leopard Security & Investigation Agency And/Or Ruperto Protacio, Vs. Myrna

Macaraeg, G.R. No. 19835710 December 2012)

In Rural Bankers Association of the Philippines v. Tanghal-Salvaa, this Court held:

Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if the parties are to expect fair

results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on

the policy of liberal construction. Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the

adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules.

And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this

was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The

liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and

under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of

technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the

prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. (Mca-Mbf

Countdown Cards Philippines Inc., Amable R. Guiluz V, Amable C. Aguiluz Ix, Cielo C. Aguiluz,

Alberto L. Buenviaje, Vicente Acsay And Mca Holdings And Management Corporation, Vs. Mbf

Card International Limited And Mbf Discount Card Limited, G.R. No. 173586, March 14, 2012)

When liberal construction of the rules proper?

A liberal construction of the procedural rules is proper where the lapse in the literal

observance of a rule of procedure has not prejudiced the adverse party and has not deprived

the court of its authority. Indeed, Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the Rules

should be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and

inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Rules of procedure are tools designed

to facilitate the attainment of justice, and courts must avoid their strict and rigid application

which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial

justice. (Douglas F. Anama Vs. Philippine Savings Bank, G.R. No. 187021, January 25, 2012)

The liberal construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where there may be

some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not

subvert the essence of the proceeding and it at least connotes a reasonable attempt at

compliance with the rules. Besides, fundamental is the precept that rules of procedure are

meant not to thwart but to facilitate the attainment of justice; hence, their rigid application

may, for deserving reasons, be subordinated by the need for an apt dispensation of substantial

justice in the normal course. They ought to be relaxed when there is subsequent or even

substantial compliance, consistent with the policy of liberality espoused by Rule 1, Section 6.

Not being inflexible, the rule on verification allows for such liberality. (Felix Martos, Jimmy

Eclana, Rodel Pilones, et al. Vs. New San Jose Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 192650. October 24, 2012)

1.2.3.1 When liberal construction is not applicable?

The Court is aware of the exceptional cases where technicalities were liberally

construed. However, in these cases, outright dismissal is rendered unjust by the presence of a

satisfactory and persuasive explanation. The parties therein who prayed for liberal

interpretation were able to hurdle that heavy burden of proving that they deserve an

eeptioal teatet. It as ee the Couts itet "to foge a astio fo eig litigats to violate the rules with impunity."

This Court will not condone a cavalier attitude towards procedural rules. It is the duty of

every member of the bar to comply with these rules. They are not at liberty to seek exceptions

should they fail to observe these rules and rationalize their omission by harking on liberal

construction. (Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual, Vs. Spouses Marilyn Lim And George Lim And

The Registry Of Deeds Of Valenzuela City, G.R. No. 191837, September 19, 2012)

1.3 Rule-Making Power of Supreme Court

The upee Cout shall hae the folloig poe Poulgate ules oeig 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

under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the

speedy 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. (Article VIII,

Section 5(5), 1987 Phil. Constitution)

1.3.1 Limitations of Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court

1. The rules provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of

cases;

2. The rules shall be uniform (not different or varying) for all courts of the same grade;

3. The rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. (Article VIII,

Section 5(5), 1987 Phil. Constitution)

1.3.2 Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules

The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to except

a case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice

requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules

is discretionary upon the court (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Migrant Pagbilao

Corporation, G.R. No. 159593. October 12, 2006).

In fact, this Court has held that even if there was complete non-compliance with the rule

on certification against forum shopping, the Court may still proceed to decide the case on the

merits, pursuant to its inherent power to suspend its own rules on grounds, as stated above,

of substantial justice and apparent merit of the case. (SM Land, Inc. (Formerly Shoemart, Inc.)

and Watsons Personal Care Store, Phils., Inc. Vs. City of Manila, Liberty Toledo, in her official

capacity as the City Treasurer of Manila, et al. G.R. No. 197151. October 22, 2012)

1.3.3. Power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules carries with it the power to overturn

judicial precedents:

a) The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice and

procedure to amend or repeal the same necessarily carries with it the power to overturn

judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of

Court.(Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago, G.R No. 170354, June 30, 2006).

1.3.4. Power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules are means for the court to exercise

jurisdiction:

The Rules of Court does not define jurisdictional boundaries of the courts. In

promulgating the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court is circumscribed by the zone properly

denominated as the promulgation of rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all

courts; consequently, the Rules of Court can only determine the means, ways or manner in

which said jurisdiction, as fixed by the Constitution and acts of Congress, shall be exercised.

(Minerva A. Gomez-Castillo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 187231, June 22, 2011)

1.3.5. Rule on the Writ of Amparo an exercise of Rule-making Power

The writ of amparo was promulgated by the Court pursuant to its rulemaking powers in

response to the alarming rise in the number of cases of enforced disappearances and

extrajudicial killings. (In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor

of Lilibeth Ladaga Vs. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding General of the Philippine

Army's 10th Infantry Division, et al./In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of

Amparo in Favor of Angela A. Librado-Trinidad Vs. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu,

Commanding General of the Philippine Army's 10th Infantry Division, et al.In the Matter fo the

Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor of Carlos Isagani T. Zarate Vs. Major

General Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding General of the Philippine Army's 10th Infantry

Division, et al., G.R. No. 189689/G.R. No. 189690/G.R. No. 189691. November 13, 2012)

1.3.6 Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules

The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to except

a case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice

requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules

is discretionary upon the court (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Migrant Pagbilao

Corporation, G.R. No. 159593. October 12, 2006).

1.3.7. Primary objective of the suspension of the rules

In the interest of just and expeditious proceedings, the Supreme Court may suspend the

application of the Rules of Court and except a case from its operation because the Rules were

precisely adopted with the primary objective of enhancing fair trial and expeditious justice

(Republic v. CA, et al., L-31303-04, May 31, 1978).

1.4 Nature of Philippine Courts

1.4.1 What is a Court?

An organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function of which is

the application of the laws to controversies brought before it as well as the public

administration of justice Blacks, 5th Edition, 356).

A court is called upon and authorized to administer justice. Sometimes it refers to the

place where justice is administered (20 Am Jur 2d, Courts, 1, 1965; 21 C.J.S., Courts, 1).

It is a board or tribunal which decides a litigation or contest (Hidalgo v. Manglapus, 64

O.G. 3189)

1.4.2. Court distinguished as from Judge

1. A court is a tribunal officially assembled under authority of law; a judge is simply an

officer of such tribunal (Wagen Horst v. Philadelphia Insurance Company 358pa. 55, 55 82d

762).

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 an office while a judge is a public officer.

4. .The circumstances of the court are not affected by the circumstance that would

affect the judge. The continuity of a court and the efficacy of its proceeding are not affected by

the death, resignation, or cessation from the service of the judge presiding over it. In other

words the judge may resign, become incapacitated, or be disqualified to hold office but the

court remains.

The death of the judge does not mean the death of the court (Riano, Civil Procedure;

restatement for the bar 2009, p.45).

1.4.3 Classification of Philippine Courts

Constitutional Court - Those which owe their creation and existence to the Constitution. Its

existence as well as the deprivation of its jurisdiction and powers cannot be made a subject of

legislation. Example: The Supreme Court (Article VIII, Section 1(1), 1987 Phil. Constitution)

Note: Supreme Court is the only Constitutional Court in the Philippines. All others are

Statutory Courts.

Statutory Courts A court created by law whose jurisdiction is exclusively determined by legislation. It may be abolished by Congress by simply repealing the law which created them.

Example: Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan/Municipal Courts (created by BP

129), The Court of Tax Appeals (created by RA 1125) Fail Couts, haiah Distit Couts, haiah Ciuit Couts P.D. 83)

1.4.4. Nature of Philippine Courts: Law and Equity

a. Court of law decides a case according to the promulgated law

b. Court of Equity decides a case according to the common precepts of what is right and just without inquiring into the terms of the statutes.

Philippines courts, either original or appellate, exercise both the legal and equitable

jurisdictions (U.S. v. Tamparong, G.R. No. 9527, August 23, 1915).

1.4.5. What is jurisdiction?

Refers to the power and authority of the court to hear, determine controversies, and

decide a case (People v. Mariano, G.R. L-40527, June 30, 1976)

1. Kinds of jurisdiction:

a) Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

a) Original Jurisdiction power of the court to take cognizance of a case at its inception or commencement.

b) Appellate Jurisdiction power vested in a superior court to review and revise the judicial action of a lower court.

b) General and Special Jurisdiction

a) General Jurisdiction authority of the court to hear and determine all actions and suits.

Example: Regional Trial Court is a court of general jurisdiction:

b) Special or Limited Jurisdiction authority of the court to hear and determine particular cases only.

Example: MTC/MCTC can entertain petition for habeas corpus if there is no available

RTC judge:

1.4.6. Principle of Judicial Hierarchy:

Hierarchy of courts meant that while the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the

Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue original writs of certiorari,

prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus, such concurrence does not accord

litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of court to which filing thereof may be directed.

Petitions should be filed with the court of lower level unless the importance of the issue

involved deserves the action of a higher court. (Audi AG v. Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27,

2007; De los Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 138297, January 27, 2006)

General rule: A higher court will not entertain a direct resort to it UNLESS the redress cannot be

obtained in the appropriate lower court.

Exception: In cases of national interest and of serious implications, Supreme Court does not

hesitate to set aside the rule and proceed with the determination of the case (COMELEC v.

Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 151992, September 18, 2002).

Purposes of Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts; Exception

This Couts oigial juisditio to issue its of etioai is ot elusie. It is shaed this Court with Regional Trial Courts and with the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of

jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an

absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be

directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue

of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for

the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates

that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should

be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A

diet ioatio of the upee Couts oigial juisditio to issue these its should e allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically

set out in the petition. (United Claimants Association of NEA (Unican) Vs. National

Electrification Administration (NEA), G.R. No. 187107, January 31, 2012)

Doctrine of Transcendental Importance

Evidently, the instant petition should have been filed with the RTC. However, as an

exception to this general rule, the principle of hierarchy of courts may be set aside for special

and important reasons. Such reason exists in the instant case involving as it does the

employment of the entire plantilla of NEA, more than 700 employees all told, who were

effectively dismissed from employment in one swift stroke. This to the mind of the Court entails

its attention. (United Claimants Association of NEA (Unican) Vs. National Electrification

Administration (NEA), G.R. No. 187107, January 31, 2012)

The rule on hierarchy of courts does not prevent the Supreme Court from assuming

jurisdiction where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the resort to such remedy,

in which case, the Supreme Court exercises its primary jurisdiction (Agan vs. Philippine

International Air Terminal Co.,[PIATCO], G.R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003).

Doctrine of Non-interference or Judicial Stability

Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere or review with the orders of

each other. A court is barred from reviewing judgments of a co-equal court over which it has no

appellate jurisdiction nor power of review.

Doctrine of Non-interference applicable in administrative bodies:

The 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 rank and stature, and logically beyond the control of

the latter (Civil Procedure [A Restatement For The Bar], Riano, 2007 ed. Citing Sinter

Corporation and Phividec Industrial Authority v. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc., G.R.

No. 127371, 25 April 2002).

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

The court cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is

within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal prior to resolving the same, where the

question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge,

experience and services in determining technical or intricate matters of fact. (Omictin vs. Court

of Appeals, G.R. No. 148004, January 22, 2007)

Exceptions:

(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;

(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of

jurisdiction;

(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice

the complainant;

(d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and

oppressive;

(e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by

the courts of justice;

(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;

(g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage;

(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;

(i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered

moot;

(j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;

(k) when strong public interest is involved; and,

(l) in quo warranto proceedings.

(Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255)

Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction/Continuing Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction, once it attaches, cannot be ousted by the happening of subsequent events

even of such character which should have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first

istae. The rule of adherence of jurisdiction (exists) until a cause is finally resolved or adjudiated. (Abad, et. al. v. RTC of Manila, et. al. G.R. No. L-65505, October 12, 1987)

Exceptions:

When the change in jurisdiction is curative in character (Abad et. al. v. RTC of Manila et.

al., supra)

2.How jurisdiction is acquired?

2.1 Over the Plaintiff

The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a court acquires jurisdiction over the person

of the plaintiff by the filing of his complaint. (Dilweg v. Phillips, G.R. L-19596, October 30, 1964,

citing Manila Railroad Co. vs. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523)

2.1.2. Over the defendant:

In civil cases, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be acquired either by

service of summons or by the defedats oluta appeaae i out ad suissio to its

authority. (Optima Realty Corporation Vs. Hertz Phil., Exclusive, Inc. G.R. No. 183035. January 9,

2013)

Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or

the defedats oluta appeaae i out. (Afdal & Afdal v. Carlos, G.R. No. 173379, December 1, 2010)

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in an action in personam.

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is NOT a prerequisite in an action in rem and

quasi in rem (Gomez v. CA, 425 SCRA 98).

2.2 Over Subject Matter:

Meaning of Jurisdiction over Subject Matter

Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the

general class to which the proceedings in question belong (C. J. S., p. 36) and is conferred by the

sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers (Banco Espaol

Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921; Perkins vs. Dizon, 40 Off. Gaz. No. 7, 3d Sup. p. 216; Ng Si

Chok vs. Vera, G.R. No. 45674). (Reyes v. Diaz, G.R. No. L-48754, November 26, 1941). In other

terms, it is provided by law.

How is jurisdiction over the subject matter acquired?

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general

class to which the proceedings in question belong. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is

conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by

erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Basic is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject

matter is determined by the cause or causes of action as alleged in the complaint. (G.R. No.

178193, Danilo S. Ursua Vs. Republic of the Philippines)

How Jurisdiction is conferred and determined

It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction over the subject matter of

the case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective

of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. As

a necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the

defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of

jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant. What determines the

jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in

the complaint. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the

matters to be consulted. (Fe V. Rapsing, Tita C. Villanueva and Annie F. Aparejado, represented

by Edgar Aparejado Vs. Hon. Judge Maximino R. Ables, of RTC-Branch 47, Masbate City; SSGT.

Edison Rural, et al. G.R. No. 171855. October 15, 2012)

It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the

allegations in the complaint. It is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law. It

cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties, or acquired through or

waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of

the court. Well to emphasize, it is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard

the rule, this matter being legislative in character. (Mendoza v. Germino & Germino, G.R. No.

165676, November 22, 2010)

Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter a ground for annulment of judgment.

As this Court previously clarified in Republic of the Philippines v. "G" Holdings, Inc., "lack

of jurisdiction" as a ground for the annulment of judgments pertains to lack of jurisdiction over

the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. It does not

contemplate "grave abuse of discretion" considering that "jurisdiction" is different from the

exercise thereof. As ruled in Tolentino v. Judge Leviste: Jurisdiction is not the same as the

exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the

authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction

over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is

but an exercise of the jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise

of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal.

(Remedios Antonino, Vs. The Register Of Deeds Of Makati City And Tan Tian Su, G.R. No.

185663, June 20, 2012)

When to raise objections to jurisdiction over subject matter?

As a rule, an objection over subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time of the

proceedings. This is because jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties or vested by the

agreement of the parties. Jurisdiction is vested by law, which prevails at the time of the filing of

the complaint. (Lasmis v. Dong-E, G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010)

Effects of Estoppel on objections to jurisdiction

The defense of lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any stage of

the proceeding even on appeal since it is conferred by law (De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, 245

SCRA 166, 1995).

A party may be barred from raising the defense of lack of jurisdiction or jurisdiction may

be waived on the ground of estoppel by laches. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court

to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such

relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450,

April 15, 1968).

Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter vs. lack of jurisdiction over person of the petitioner

Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the judgment or final order

is either lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action, or lack of

jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The former is a matter of substantive law because

statutory law defines the jurisdiction of the courts over the subject matter or nature of the

action. The latter is a matter of procedural law, for it involves the service of summons or other

process on the petitioner. A judgment or final order issued by the trial court without jurisdiction

over the subject matter or nature of the action is always void, and, in the words of Justice

Street in Banco Espaol-Filipio . Palaa Phil [], i this sese it a e said to be a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever

ad heee it ehiits its head. But the defet of lak of jurisdiction over the person, being a matter of procedural law, may be waived by the party concerned either expressly or

impliedly. (Pinausukan Seafood House-Roxas Blvd., Inc. v. Far East Bank and Trust Cp., now Bank

of the Philippine Islands, et al., G.R. No. 159926, January 20, 2014.)

2.3 Over the Issues

This is determined and conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or by

their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation, or, at times by their implied consent as by

the failure of a party to object to evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as

provided in Sec. 5, Rule 10. (De Joya v. Marquez, et. al., G.R. No. 163416, January 31, 2006)

Note: An issue is a single, certain, and material point arising out of the allegations and

contentions of the parties; it is a matter affirmed on one side and denied on the other, and

when a fact is alleged in the complaint and denied in the answer, the matters is then put in issue

between the parties (Blacks, th Ed. Citing 35A C.J.S. Federal Civil Procedure Sec. 357, at 541).

2.4 Over the Res or Property Involved in Litigation

This is acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by the court of the thing in

question, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment or garnishment; or by provision of

law which recognizes in the court the power to deal with the property or subject matter within

its territorial jurisdiction, as in land registration proceedings or suits involving civil status or real

property in the Philippines of a non-resident defendant. (De Joya v. Marquez, et. al., supra)

2.5. Error of Jurisdiction as distinguished from Error of Judgment

Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that

cannot be remedied by certiorari. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in

the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was

issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which

is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the

extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court in its

appreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and

its conclusions of law. (First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of Court of Appeals et. al., G.R.

No. 171989, July 4, 2007)

2.6.. Jurisdiction versus the Exercise of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction should be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. The authority to

decide a case at all and not the decision rendered therein is what makes up jurisdiction. Where

there is jurisdiction of the person and the subject matter, the decision of all other question

arising in the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction. (Napa v. Weissenhagen, G.R. No. L-

9698, January 6, 1915)

2.7. Jurisdiction of different Courts:

JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN CIVIL CASES

2.5.1 Supreme Court (SC)

ORIGINAL

Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against CA,

COMELEC, COA, CTA and Sandiganbayan.

1. Exclusive

2. Concurrent

a. with the CA

1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against RTC,

Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals,

Other quasi-judicial agencies and NLRC

2. Petition for Writ of Kalikasan and continuing mandamus

pursuant to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

(A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, effective 29 April 2010)

b. with the CA,

SANDIGANBAYAN and

RTC

1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against courts

of the first level and other bodies; and

2. Petitions for Habeas Corpus and Quo Warranto

3. Petition for continuing mandamus pursuant to the Rules of

Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC,

effective 29 April 2010)

c. with RTC

Actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls

d. with CA, RTC and

Sandiganbayan

1. Petition for Writ of Amparo; and

2. Petition for a Writ of Habeas Data

APPELLATE

Petitions for Review on Certiorari against the CA, Sandiganbayan,

CTA en banc, Final judgment or order in a Writ of Amparo or

Habeas Data case and RTC in cases involving:

a. Constitutionality or validity of a treaty, international or

executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation,

order, instruction, ordinance or regulation

b. Legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or a penalty in

relation thereto

c. Jurisdiction of a lower court, and

d. Pure error or question of law.

2.5.2 Court of Appeals (CA)

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC

2. Concurrent

a. with the SC

1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus

against RTC, Civil Service Commission, Central Board

of Assessment Appeals, Other quasi-judicial

agencies & NLRC

2. Petition for Writ of Kalikasan and continuing

mandamus pursuant to the Rules of Procedure for

Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, effective

29 April 2010)

b. with SC, Sandiganbayan and

RTC

1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus

against courts of the first level and other bodies;

and

2. Petitions for Habeas Corpus and Quo Warranto

3. Petition for continuing mandamus pursuant to the

Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M.

No. 09-6-8-SC, effective 29 April 2010)

c. with SC,

Sandiganbayan and RTC

1. Petition for Writ of Amparo (Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ

of Amparo); and

2. Petition for a Writ of Habeas Data (Sec. 3, Rule on

the Writ of Habeas Data)

APPELLATE

1. Ordinary Appeals from RTC, except in cases

exclusively appealable to the SC, Family Courts and

Special Commercial Courts

2. Appeal by Petition for Review from Civil Service

Commission, SEC, Land Registration Authority, Social

Security Commission, Office of the President and

any other quasi-judicial agency, instrumentality,

board or commission in the exercise of its quasi-

judicial functions

3. Petitions for Review from RTC in cases appealed

thereto from the lower courts

2.5.3 Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

1. Over all criminal cases arising from violation of 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 than

P1M or where there is no specified amount claimed;

2. In tax collection cases involving final and executor assessments

of 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.

APPELLATE

1. In criminal offenses (1) over appeals from the judgments,

resolutions, or orders of the RTC in tax cases originally decided

by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction and (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;

2. In tax collection cases (1) over appeals from the judgments,

resolutions, or orders of the RTC in tax collection cases

originally decided by them, in their respective territorial

jurisdiction and (2) over petitions for review of the judgments,

resolutions or orders of the RTC in the the exercise of their

appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally

decided by the MeTCs, MTCs,and MCTCs in their respective

jurisdiction.

Exclusive original or

appellate to review by

appeal

1. Decisions of CIR in cases involving disputed assessment,

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 the BIR;

2. Inaction by the CIR in cases involving disputed assessment,

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 the BIR where the NIRC or

other applicable law provides s specified period of action, in

which case the inaction shall be deemed an implied denial;

3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local taxes

originally decided by them in the exercise of their original and

appellate jurisdiction;

4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs (1) in cases

involving liability for customs duties, fees or other charges,

seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines,

forfeiture, 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;

5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the

exercise of appellate jurisdiction over cases involving

assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by

the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;

6. Decision of the Secretary of Finance on custom cases elevated

to him automatically for review from the decisions of the

Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the

government under section 2315 of the TCC;

7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry I 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 of TCC and

safeguard measures under RA **)), where the party may

appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.

(RA 9282 and Rule 5, AM 05-11-07-CTA)

2.5.4. Sandiganbayan

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

Civil cases filed pursuant to E. O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A (PCGG

cases for recovery of ill-gotten wealth)

Three conditions:

1. What offenses: offenses must be cognizable by the

Sandiganbayan (Hannah Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

162059, January 22, 2008).

2. Offender: offender must be a public officer (Escobal vs.

Garchitorena, G.R. No. 124644, February 5, 2004).

3. How committed: it must be committed in relation to their

public office (Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096,

January 20, 1999).

2. Concurrent

a. with the 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

E.O.s 1, 2, 14, 14-A (PCGG cases for recovery of ill-gotten wealth)

b. with the SC, CA

Petition for writ of amparo and habeas data

APPELLATE

Final judgments, resolutions or orders of RTC whether in the

exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction (RA 8249) over

crimes and civil cases falling within the original exclusive

jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but which were committed by

public officers below SG 27

2.5.5. Regional Trial Court (RTC)

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

1. Actions in which the subject of litigation is incapable of

pecuniary estimation;

2. Actions involving title to or possession of real property or an

interest therein, where the assessed value of such property

exceeds P50,000 in Metro Manila, or P20,000 outside Metro

Manila, except forcible entry and unlawful detainer;

3. Actions involving marriage and marital relations;

4. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,

tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial

functions;

5. Other cases where the demand, exclusive of interest, damages,

attoe s fees, litigatio epeses ad osts, o the alue of the property exceeds P400,000 in Metro Manila, or P300,000

outside Metro Manila (SC Circular No. 09-94);

6. Actions for annulment of MTC judgments;

7. Actions for recognition and enforcement of arbitration

agreement, vacation or modification of arbitration award,

application for arbitration award and supervision (Sec. 47, ADR

Act of 2004);

8. Citizen suit (Sec. 41 of the Clean Air Act).

9. Admiralty and maritime cases where the demand or claim

exceeds P400,000 in Metro Manila, or P300,000 outside Metro

Maila, elusie of iteest, daages, attoe s fees, litigatio expenses, and costs (CLAID);

10. Probate proceedings, testate or intestate, where gross value of

estate exceeds P400,000 in Metro Manila, or P300,000 outside

Metro Manila

As a SPECIAL

COMMERCIAL COURT

1. Cases involving violations of Intellectual Property Rights;

2. Cases enumerated under Sec. 5, PD 902-A (Intra-corporate

disputes, fraud scheme cases, election cases, petitions for

suspension of payments and/or rehabilitation proceedings).

2. Concurrent

Actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.

2.5.6. Family Courts

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL

1. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus

in relation to the latter;

2. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;

3. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of

marriage and those relating to marital status and property

relations of husband and wife 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 brought under the provisions of

E.O. No. 209 or the Family Code;

6. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned,

dependent o neglected children, petitions for voluntary or

involuntary commitment of children; the suspension,

termination, or restoration of parental authority and other

cases cognizable under P.D. No. 603, E.O. No. 56, (Series of

1986), and other related laws;

a. with the SC

b. with the SC and CA

1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against

lower courts and bodies; and

2. Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto

3. Petition for continuing mandamus pursuant to the Rules of

Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC,

effective 29 April 2010)

c. with the SC, CA and

Sandiganbayan

Petition for writ of amparo and habeas data

d. With MeTC, MTCC,

MTC, & MTCC

APPELLATE

All

cases decided by the MTCs in their respective territorial

jurisdiction

7. Petitions for the constitution of the family home; and

8. Cases of domestic violence against women and children, as

defined in sec. 5(k), R.A. 8369, but which do not constitute

criminal offenses subject to criminal prosecution and penalties

9. Cases covered by Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344)

2.5.7. Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC)

and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC)

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

NOTE: The jurisdictional

amount was adjusted

pursuant to Sec. 5, RA

7691, now being the 2nd

5-year period from the

date of effectivity of said

act.

1. Actions involving personal property valued at not more than

P400,000 in Metro Manila and P300,000 outside Metro

Manila;

2. The following cases or actions where the value in consideration

does not exceed P400,000 in Metro Manila and P300,000

outside Metro Manila, in both cases, exclusive of interest,

daages, attoe s fees, litigatio epeses ad osts CLAID:

a. Actions demanding sums of money;

b. Demand or claim in admiralty and maritime

cases;

c. The estate value in probate proceedings,

interstate or estate;

3. Actions involving title or possession of real property where

the assessed value does not exceed P50,000 in Metro Manila,

or P20,000 outside Metro Manila, exclusive of interest,

daages, attoe s fees, litigatio epeses, ad osts (CLAID);

4. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, provided that in cases

where the defendant raises the question of ownership and the

question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding on

the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be

resolved only to determine the issue of possession;

2. Concurrent

a. with RTC

3. Delegated

Cadastral and land registration cases assigned by the SC where

there is a). no controversy or opposition, or b). where there is

controversy, the contested lot valued at not more than P100,000.

4. Special

Petition for habeas corpus or application for bail in criminal cases

in the absence of all RTC Judges in a province or city (BP 129, as

amended, Chapter III, Sec 35)

5. Summary Procedure

1. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the

amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered;

ut attoe s fees shall ot eeed P,;

2. All other cases, except probate proceedings, where total claim

does not exceed P200,000.00 in Metro Manila, or P100,000

outside Metro Manila, exclusive of interest and costs.

3. Small claims cases where the amount of the claim for payment

or reimbursement of money does not exceed P100,000.00

2.5.8. haria Court P.D. No. 83

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

NOTE: The haia Distit Courts are equivalent to

the RTC in rank which

were established in

certain provinces of

Mindanao where the

Code of Muslim Personal

Laws of the Philippines is

enforced.

(P.D. No. 1083)

1. All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, paternity

and filiation arising under PD No. 1083;

2. All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of

the estate of a deceased Muslim, probate of wills, issuance of

letters of administration or appointment of administrators or

executors regardless of the nature or the aggregate value of the

property;

3. Petitions for declaration of absence and death and for

cancellation and correction of entries in the Muslim Registries

mentioned in Title VI, Book Two of P.D. No. 1083;

4. All actions arising from customary contracts in which the

parties are Muslims, if they have not specified which law shall

govern their relations;

5. All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari,

habeas corpus, and all auxiliary writs and processes in aid of

its appellate jurisdiction (Art. 143[1]).

2. Concurrent with

EXISTING CIVIL COURTS

1. Petitions by Muslim for the constitution of the family home,

change of name and commitment of insane person to any

asylum;

2. All other personal and real 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 original jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Courts;

and

3. All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory relief

where the parties are Muslims or the property involved belong

exclusively to a Muslim (Art. 143[2]).

APPELLATE

All ases tied i the haia Ciuit Cout ithi thei teitoial jurisdiction.

NOTE: The haia Distit Cout shall deide ee ase appealed to it on the basis of the evidence and records transmitted as well

as such memoranda, briefs or oral arguments as the parties may

submit (Art. 144[2]).

NOTE: The deisios of the haia Distit Couts hethe o appeal fo the haia Ciuit Courts or not, shall be final. The Supreme Court shall, however, continue to exercise original

and appellate jurisdiction over certain issues as provided by the Constitution (Art. 145).

2.7. Jurisdiction over Small Claims cases:

Over all actions which are:

a. purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for

payment or reimbursement of sum of money, and

b. the civil aspect of criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action in

court, pursuant to Rule of 111.

Court which has jurisdiction.

To be tried before the Metropolitan trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,

Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts for payment of money where the value

of the claim does NOT exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) exclusive of

interest and costs.

These claims or demands may be:

a. For money owned under any of the following:

1) Contract of Lease;

2) Contract of Loan;

3) Contract of Services;

4) Contract of Sale; or

5) Contract of Mortgage.

b. For damages arising from any of the following:

1) Fault or negligence;

2) Quasi-contract; or

3) Contract.

Immediate execution of judgment in Small Claims cases.

Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases states that the decision shall

immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy

thereof forthwith served on the parties. (A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v. Emma Mondejar,

accompanied by her husband, Efren Mondejar,G.R. No. 200804. January 22, 2014.)

Rule on Summary Procedure

A. Civil Cases:

1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages

or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered; but attorney's fees shall not exceed

P20,000.00.

2. All other civil cases, EXCEPT probate proceedings, where the total amount of the

plaintiff's claim does not exceed P100, 000.00 or P200,000.00 in Metro Manila, exclusive

of interest and costs. (as amended by A.M. 02-11-09-SC, effective November 25, 2002)

Criminal Cases:

1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;

2. Violations of the rental law;

3. Violations of Municipal or city ordinances;

4. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is

imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding P1,000.00, or both,

irrespective of other imposable penalties,

5. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule shall

govern where the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.00

Note:

This ule shall NOT appl to a iil ase hee the plaitiffs ause of atio is pleaded i 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.

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer summary proceedings:

An action for forcible entry is filed in the municipal trial court and is a summary action,

while accion publiciana is a plenary action in the RTC. x x x Because they only resolve issues of

possession de facto, ejectment actions are summary in nature, while accion publiciana (for the

recovery of possession) and accion reivindicatoria (for the recovery of ownership) are plenary

actions.48 The purpose of allowing actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer to be

decided in summary proceedings is to provide for a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of

preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly taking and continuing his

possession during the long period it would take to properly resolve the issue of possession de

jure or ownership, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and order in the community;

otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession might take the law in his hands and seize

the property by force and violence. An ejectment case cannot be a substitute for a full blown

trial for the purpose of determining rights of possession or ownership. (Fiorello R. Jose Vs.

Roberto Alfuerto, et al. G.R. No. 69380. November 26, 2012)

Barangay Conciliation:

General rule:

The lupon tagapamayapa of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the

parties residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of ALL disputes

EXCEPT

a. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; however,

when it is only one of the contending parties, a confrontation should still be undertaken

among the other parties (Gegare v. CA, G.R. No. 83907. September 13, 1989)

b. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance

of his official functions;

c. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine exceeding P5,000;

d. Offenses where there is no private offended party;

e. 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;

f. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or

municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto

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

g. Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice

or upon the recommendation of the Sec. of Justice; and

h. Where one of the parties is a juridical entity (Sec. 408, R.A. 7160)

i. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

j. The submission of disputes before the Lupon prior to their filing with the court or other

government offices are not applicable to labor cases. (Montoya v. Escayo, G.R. No. 82211-

12 March 21, 1989)

k. An action for annulment of a compromise judgment which as a general rule is immediately

executory and accordingly, beyond the authority of the Barangay Court to change or

modify.(Sanchez v. Tupaz, G.R. No. 76690 February 29, 1988)

l. Proceedings where relief is sought under R.A. No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Women

and their Children Act (Sec. 33, R.A. No. 9262)

Other Instances where parties may go directly to court without the need of prior barangay

conciliation:

a. Where the accused is under detention

b. Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas

corpus proceedings;

c. Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction,

attachment, replevin and support pendent lite; and

d. Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. (Section 412,

LGC)

Barangay conciliation not required in case of juridical entity:

Referral of a dispute to the Lupon is required only in cases involving natural persons,

and not where any of the parties is a juridical person such as a corporation, partnership,

corporation sole, testate or intestate, estate, etc. (Vda. De Borromeo v. Pogoy, G.R. No. L-

63277. November 29, 1983)

Nature and effects of non-compliance with barangay conciliation:

As cited in the case Sanchez v. Tupaz, referral to the Lupon is compulsory (as ruled in

the cited case of Morato vs. Go, 125 SCRA 444), [1983] and non-compliance of the same could

affect the sufficiency of the cause of action and make the complaint vulnerable to dismissal on

the ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity (Peregrina vs. Panis, 133 SCRA 75).

Venue of barangay conciliation.

1. Disputes between or among persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be

brought for amicable settlement before the Lupon of said barangay.

2. Actual residents of different barangays within the same city or municipality shall be

brought in the barangay where the respondent or any of the respondents actually resides, at

the election of the complainant

3. All disputes which involved real property or any interest therein shall be brought in

the barangay where the real property or any part thereof is situated.

4. Disputes arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or at

the institution where the contending parties are enrolled to study, the barangay where such

workplace or institution is located. (Sec. 409, LGC).

Nature of Amicable Settlement

[A]n amicable settlement reached at the barangay conciliation proceedings, like the

Kasunduang Pag-aayos in this case, is binding between the contracting parties and, upon its

perfection, is immediately executory insofar as it is not contrary to law, good morals, good

customs, public order and public policy. This is in accord with the broad precept of Article 2037

of the Civil Code. (Crisanta Alcaraz Miguel vs. Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25,

2012)

Effect of amicable settlement:

Being a by-product of mutual concessions and good faith of the parties, an amicable

settlement has the force and effect of res judicata even if not judicially approved. It

transcends being a mere contract binding only upon the parties thereto, and is akin to a

judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules. (Crisanta Alcaraz Miguel vs.

Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012)

Remedy of Execution of settlement, when available?

Modes of execution of amicable settlement or arbitration award:

Thus, under Section 417 of the Local Government Code, such amicable settlement or

arbitration award may be enforced by

(1) Execution by the Barangay Lupon within six (6) months from the date of

settlement, or

(2) by filing an action to enforce such settlement in the appropriate city or municipal

court, if beyond the six-month period.

Execution before the barangay:

Under the first remedy, the proceedings are covered by the Local Government Code and

the Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Punong Barangay is

called upon during the hearing to determine solely the fact of non-compliance of the terms of

the settlement and to give the defaulting party another chance at voluntarily complying with

his obligation under the settlement.

Execution before the court:

Under the second remedy, the proceedings are governed by the Rules of Court, as

amended. The cause of action is the amicable settlement itself, which, by operation of law, has

the force and effect of a final judgment.

Execution is available only when there is no repudiation of the amicable settlement:

It must be emphasized, however, that enforcement by execution of the amicable

settlement, either under the first or the second remedy, is only applicable if the contracting

parties have not repudiated such settlement within ten (10) days from the date thereof in

accordance with Section 416 of the Local Government Code.

Remedies if a party repudiated the settlement

If the amicable settlement is repudiated by one party, either expressly or impliedly, the

other party has two options, namely, (1) to enforce the compromise in accordance with the

Local Government Code or Rules of Court as the case may be, or (2) to consider it rescinded

and insist upon his original demand. This is in accord with Article 2041 of the Civil Code, which

ualifies the oad appliatio of Atile , iz: If oe of the paties fails o efuses to aide by the compromise, the other party may either enforce the compromise or regard it as

esided ad isist upo his oigial dead.

In the case at bar, the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides for a two-tiered

mode of enforcement of an amicable settlement, to wit:

(a) by execution by the Punong Barangay which is quasi-judicial and summary in nature

on mere motion of the party entitled thereto; and

(b) an action in regular form, which remedy is judicial.

However, the mode of enforcement does not rule out the right of rescission under Art.

2041 of the Civil Code. The availability of the right of rescission is apparent from the wording of

Sec. 417 itself which provides that the amicable settlement "may" be enforced by execution by

the lupon within six (6) months from its date or by action in the appropriate city or municipal

court, if beyond that period. The use of the word "may" clearly makes the procedure provided

in the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law directory or merely optional in nature.

The CA took off on the wrong premise that enforcement of the Kasunduang Pag-aayos is

the proper remedy, and therefore erred in its conclusion that the case should be remanded to

the trial court. The fact that the petitioner opted to rescind the Kasunduang Pag-aayos means

that she is insisting upon the undertaking of the respondent under the original loan contract.

Thus, the CA should have decided the case on the merits, as an appeal before it, and not

prolong the determination of the issues by remanding it to the trial court. Pertinently, evidence

abounds that the respondent has failed to comply with his loan obligation. In fact, the

Kasunduang Pag-aaos is the ell igh iotoetile poof of the espodets idetedess

with the petitioner as it was executed precisely to give the respondent a second chance to

make good on his undertaking. And since the respondent still reneged in paying his

indebtedness, justice demands that he must be held answerable therefor. (Crisanta Alcaraz

Miguel vs. Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012)

2.8. Totality Rule

Where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different

parties embodied in the same 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 transactions.

The causes of action in favor of two or more plaintiffs or against two or more

defendants should arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and there should

be a common question of law or fact as provided in Sec. 6, Rule 3 (Flores v. Mallare-Philips, L-

66620, September 24, 1986).

3. Civil Procedure

3.1. Kinds of Actions:

3.1.1. Meaning of Ordinary Civil Actions

A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of

a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong (Rule 1, Section 3(a), Rules of Court). It is

governed by ordinary rules on action.

3.1.2. Meaning of Special Civil Actions

It is one which is also governed by the rules of ordinary civil actions, but subject to the

specific rules prescribed for such particular special civil action (Rule1, Sec. 3[a] 2nd par., Rule 1).

3.1.3. Meaning of Criminal Actions

It is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law.

(Sec. 3[b], Rule 1)

3.1.4. Civil Actions versus Special Proceedings

A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a

particular fact. It is distinguished from an ordinary civil action where a party sues another for

the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. To initiate a

special proceeding, a petition and not a complaint should be filed. (Ramon Ching and Po Wing

Corp. v. Rodriguez, et. al., G.R. No. 192828, November 28, 2011)

3.1.5. Real Actions and Personal Actions: Issue as to venue:

Real Actions are actions affecting title to or the recovery of possession of real property,

o a iteest theei, o foile et ad detaie atios. A eal atio is loal, i.e., its venue depends upon the location of the property involved in the litigation. (Riano).

Personal Actions are actions founded on privity of contract or for the enforcement or

resolution of a contract, or for recovery of personal property (Feria Noche, Civil Procedure

Annotated, Vol. I). A pesoal atio is tasito, i.e., its venue depends upon the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant at the option of the plaintiff (Riano).

Action to annul Sale and Title over a real property is a Real Action:

Civil Case No. 01-1567, being an action for Annulment of Sale and Titles resulting from

the extrajudicial foreclosure by Union Bank of the mortgaged real properties, is classified as a

real action. In Fortune Motors v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that a case seeking to annul a

foreclosure of a real estate mortgage is a real action, viz: An action to annul a real estate

mortgage foreclosure sale is no different from an action to annul a private sale of real property.

(Muoz v. Llamas, 87 Phil. 737, 1950). While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the

recovery of title or possession of the property in question, his action for annulment of sale and

his claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building which,

ude the la, is osideed ioale popet, the eoe of hih is petitioes pia objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of

real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of

the case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real action. (Paglaum Management &

Development Corp. And Health Marketing Technologies, Inc., Vs. Union Bank Of The Philippines,

Notary Public John Doe, And Register Of Deeds Of Cebu City And Cebu Province, $J. King & Sons

Co., Inc. Intervenor, G.R. No. 179018, June 18, 2012)

3.1.6. Local and Transitory Actions

Local Actions are actions which can only be instituted in a particular place. Transitory

Actions are actions where the venue of which is generally dependent upon the residence of the

parties regardless of where the cause of action arise.

3.1.7. Actions In Rem, In Personam, Quasi- in- Rem: Issue as to jurisdiction in relation to

service of summons (Rule 14):

In Rem:

One which is not directed against a particular person but on the thing or res itself and

the relief sought is binding upon the whole world.

The thing or res may be personal or real property or it may be a status, right, or a

particular fact (Primer-Reviewer on Remedial Law, Vol.I, Civil Procedure, Riguera, 1st ed., 2009).

The object is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make any objection against

the right sought to be enforced, hence the judgment therein is binding theoretically upon the

whole world, e.g., expropriation (Regalado).

In Personam

One which is directed against a particular person and the relief sought is binding upon

such person e.g., action for sum of money or for specific performance.

Service of summons in actions in personam

Where the action is in personam [footnote: An action in personam is one which seeks to

enforce personal rights and obligations against a defendant and is based on the jurisdiction of

the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific

property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of

the court. (See Belen v. Chavez , G.R. No. 175334, March 26, 2008, 549 SCRA 479, 481.)] and the

defendant is in the Philippines, service of summons may be made through personal service,

that is, summons shall be served by handing to the defendant in person a copy thereof, or if he

refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. If the defendant cannot be personally

served with summons within a reasonable time, it is then that substituted service may be

made. Personal service of summons should and always be the first option, and it is only when

the said summons cannot be served within a reasonable time can the process server resort to

substituted service. (Planters Development Bank, Vs. Julie Chandumal, G.R. No. 19561905

September 2012)

Quasi in Rem:

It is a proceeding where an individual is named as defendant, and the purpose of the

proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property

e.g., Quieting of Title where the object is in rem (real property) and the subject is in personam

(defendant). The judgment entered in this proceeding is conclusive only between the parties

(Feria Noche, Civil Procedure, Vol. I)

Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam or quasi in rem is determined by its

nature and purpose (Yu v. Pacleb, etc., G.R. No. 172172, 24 Feb. 2009).

3.1.8. Independent Civil Actions

Rules on independent civil actions: Nature:

In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,

the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed

independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no

case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission

charged in the criminal action. (Rule 111, Section 3)

Cases which are considered as an independent civil action:

Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly

obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following

(constitutional) ights ad lieties of aothe peso shall e liale to the latte fo daages x x x Article 32, Civil Code (in italics added for clarification)

In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely

separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil

action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a

preponderance of evidence. Article 33, Civil Code

When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or

protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be

primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible

therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings,

and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action. Article 34, Civil Code

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is

obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing

contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the

provisions of this Chapter. Article 2176, Civil Code

3.2. Cause of Action

3.2.1 Meaning of Cause of Action

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

A cause of action is defined in Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court as the act or omission

by which a party violates the right of another. (Goodland Company, Inc., vs. Asia United Bank,

Abraham Co, Atty. Joel T. Pelicano And The Register Of Deeds Of Makati City, G.R. No. 195561,

March 14, 2012)

Elements of Cause of Action:

1) A legal right of the plaintiff;

2) A correlative duty of the defedat to espet plaitiffs ight; ad 3) An act or omission of the defendant in violation of the plaitiffs ight ith

consequential injury or damage to the plaintiff for which he may maintain an action for

recovery or other relief (Relucio vs. Lopez, 373 SCRA 578, 2002).

Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as an act or omission by

which a party violates the right of another. A complaint states a cause of action when it

contains three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, namely:

1) the legal right of the plaintiff,

2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and

3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right (Juana Complex I

Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. vs. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., G.R. No. 152272, March 5, 2012)

3.2.2. Right of Action versus Cause of Action

Right of action is the right to commence and prosecute an action to obtain the relief

sought, while cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates the right of

another (Rule 2, Sec. 2).

Elements of Right of Action:

a) Existence of the cause of action;

b) Performance of all conditions precedent; and

c) The action must be instituted by the proper party.

3.2.3. Failure to State Cause of Action

Where there is failure to state a cause of action in a pleading, the remedy of the

defendant is to move for its dismissal on the ground that the pleading asserting the claim

states no cause of action. Rule 16, Sec 1 (g)

3.2.4. Test of Sufficiency of Action

Whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon

the same in accordance with the prayer in the complaint (Misamis Occidental II Cooperative,

Inc. v. David, 468 SCRA 63).

The question of whether the complaint states a cause of action is determined by its

averments regarding the acts committed by the defendant. Thus, it must contain a concise

stateet of the ultiate o essetial fats ostitutig the plaitiffs ause of atio. To e taken into account are only the material allegations in the complaint; extraneous facts and

circumstances or other matters aliunde are not considered.

The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of action

is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in

accordance with the prayer of said complaint. Stated differently, if the allegations in the

complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should

not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be asserted by the defendant. (Juana

Complex I Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. vs. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., G.R. No. 152272, March

5, 2012)

3.2.5. Splitting a Single Cause of Action and its Effects

Splitting a single cause of Action

The act of dividing a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts, and

bringing the suit for one of such parts only, intending to reserve the rest for another separate

action is the prohibited act of splitting a single cause of action (Regalado).

Effects

If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of

one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the

others (Rule 2, Sec. 4).

When a single cause of action is split, the remedy of the defendant is to move for its

dismissal under Rule 16 on the ground that:

1) There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or litis

pendentia (Sec. 1[e]); or

2) If the first action has already been finally terminated, on the ground of res judicata

(Sec. 1[f]).

The well-entrenched rule is that "a party cannot, by varying the form of action, or

adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that

one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated. This Court has laid down the test in determining whether or not the causes of action in the first and second cases are identical, to

wit: would the same evidence support and establish both the present and former cause of

action? If so, the former recovery is a bar; if otherwise, it does not stand in the way of the

former action. (Goodland Company, Inc., vs. Asia United Bank, Abraham Co, Atty. Joel T.

Pelicano And The Register Of Deeds Of Makati City, G.R. No. 195561, March 14, 2012)

What is litis pendentia?

Litis pendentia is a Latin term, which literally means "a pending suit" and is variously

referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant. As a ground for the

dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the

same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and

vexatious. It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits. (Philippine National Bank vs.

Gateway Property Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 181485, February 15, 2012)

3.2.6. Joinder and Mis-joinder of Causes of Action.

Joinder of Causes of Action:

The assertion, in the alternative or otherwise, of as many causes of action as a party

may have against another in one pleading alone is valid. (Rule 2, Section 5)

Requisites for joinder of parties:

a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of

parties;

b) The joinder shall NOT include special civil action or actions governed by special rules;

c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different

venues or jurisdiction, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided that:

1) one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC; and

2) the venue lies therein.

d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the

aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction (Totality Rule, Sec. 33[1], B.P. 129).

Elements for Joinder of Parties

a) There must be a right to relief in respect to or arising from the same transaction or

series of transaction;

b) There is a question of fact or law common to all the plaintiffs or defendants; and

c) Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction

and venue (Sec. 6, Rule 3).

Nature of joinder of causes of action:

The rule on joinder of causes of action is purely permissive and the plaintiff can always

file separate actions for each cause of action (Baldovir v. Sarte, 36 Phil. 550).

Conditions of causes of action:

The rule on permissive joinder of causes of action is subject to the rules regarding

jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties.

Note: When the joinder refers to joinder of indispensable parties, joinder is COMPULSORY (Sec.

7, Rule 3).

The provision allowing joinder of causes of action which pertains to different

jurisdictions under Section 5 (c) of Rule 2 applies only if the joinder is in the RTC.

Misjoinder of Causes of Action

Two or more causes of action are joined in one complaint when they should not have

been joined. (Rule 2, Section 6)

Misjoinder of causes of action is NOT a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined

cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and

proceeded with separately (Rule 2, Section 6)

3.3. Parties to Civil Actions:

3.3.1. Real parties-in-interest; indispensable parties; representatives as parties; necessary

parties; indigent parties; alternative defendants

Real Party in Interest (Rule 3, Sec. 2)

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.

General Rule: Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be

prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest.

Exception: An exception to the rule that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the

name of the real party in interest is in the case of representatives as parties (Rule 3, Section 3)

To be a real party-in-iteest, the iteest ust e eal, hih is a present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent subordinate or consequential

interest (Fortich v. Corona, 289 SCRA 624). It is an interest that is material and direct, as

distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question (Samaniego v. Aguila, 334 SCRA

438).

Meaig of iterest.

Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an interest

in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere

curiosity about the question involved. A real party in interest is the party who, by the

substantive law, has the right sought to be enforced.

Applying the foregoing rule, it is clear that Atty. Aceron is not a real party in interest in

the case below as he does not stand to be benefited or injured by any judgment therein. He

was merely appointed by the petitioners as their attorney-in-fact for the limited purpose of

filing and prosecuting the complaint against the respondents. Such appointment, however,

does not mean that he is subrogated into the rights of petitioners and ought to be considered

as a real party in interest. (Theodore And Nancy Ang, Represented By Eldrige Marvin B. Ceron,

Vs. Spouses Alan And Em Ang, Respondents. G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012)

Effect of Failure to include Real Party in Interest

Real party in interest applies both to the plaintiff and defendant. The suit may be

dismissed if neither of them is a Real party in interest

REMEDY where Real Party in Interest is NOT impleaded:

Amendment of the pleadings or the complaint may be deemed amended to include the

RPII.

If the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest, a motion to