NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE
Based on the lectures of Atty. Lielanie Espejo
First Exam - Jurisdiction to Rule 2
A.Y. 2020-2021
Transcription and notes prepared by
2-Manresa A.Y. 2020-2021
BASIC PRINCIPLES
INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS LAW?
It is a rule of human conduct, just and obligatory
promulgated by legitimate authority for common
observance and benefit.
LAW CAN EITHER BE SUBSTANTIVE OR REMEDIAL
Substantive law is that branch of law which
creates, defines, and regulates rights.
It is a rule of human conduct because if there are no
rules, it will be chaos everywhere. It is just since it is
for the benefit of everyone and it must be fair. It is
obligatory because you cannot just say that now you
want to comply with the law but later you will not.
One is not allowed to deviate from the express
provisions of the law. It is promulgated by legitimate
authority because it is done by the legislators for
common observance and benefit.
Substantive Law
●
Branch of law which creates, defines, and
regulates rights.
By reason of substantive law, we have rights and we
are able to enforce such rights.
For example, it is substantive law which provides
for the creation of obligations and contracts. A
enters into a contract of sale with B. A has the
right to be paid by B. This is a right created by
substantive law. Let us suppose that B breached
the contract by not paying the purchase price. A,
under the Civil Code, is an unpaid seller who may
compel B to pay the price. The next question is
how does he do that? This is when remedial law
comes in. A would have to look at Remedial Laws
and find out how to compel B to pay the price.
Remedial or adjective law is that branch of law
which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or
obtaining redress for their invasion. [Bustos vs.
Lucero, 81 Phil. 640]
In this example, A has the right to be paid by B, this is
a right created by substantive law and it can be found
under the New Civil Code under the law on Sales and
under Obligations & Contracts. B also has the right to
be delivered the property subject of the sale as soon
as he pays or depending on the tenor of their
contract. If A does not deliver and B pays, and
despite such payment, there is no delivery, there is a
violation of B’s right.
If A delivers but B refuses to pay, there is a violation
of A’s right. As mentioned, A has the right to be paid.
Granting he has such right, what if gahi’g ulo si B, di
mubayad si B. Unsaon man nato na pag compel kay B
to pay? There we have remedial law.
Remedial Law.
●
Branch of law which prescribes the method
of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for
their invasion.
So kung dili mubayad si B, dili ta pwede na mu-adto
kay B, abrehan nimo imong wallet kwaun nimo iyang
kwarta, or if naa siyay mga gamit kay birahon nato
sa iya.
We cannot do that, we cannot take the law in our
hands. We have a method prescribed by law, by
which we can enforce our right incase of violation. So
what do we do, so in that case, if residence sila in the
same place, they to go to the process of barangay
reconciliation first, and then if there is now a
certification to file action. A will now file a case in
court. Unsangun man pagfile sa case in court if you
are the lawyer hired by A to represent him. So how
do you do that? You have to know what are the rules.
And this rules are the prescribe in Remedial Law.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 1
It is not enough that we know substantive law, but
we also have to know remedial law. Kay useless if
you know what are the laws but you do not know
how to enforce them.
Aspect of Remedial Law
There are two aspects of remedial law:
1. Public – affords remedies (a) to the State against
an individual (ex. Criminal Procedure) or (b) by an
individual against the State (ex. Habeas Corpus or
Writ of Amparo)
2. Private – affords a remedy to an individual
against another individual (ex. Civil Procedure)
In State against Individual, here, if a crime is
committed, although there are private parties who
are affected but the crime is really against the state,
the private party is just a witness of the state. We
also have an individual against the State, like habeas
corpus, or writ of amparo. For example nay nag
disappear, wala ka kabalo asa sila pero kabalo ka na
elements of the state ang nagkuha sa ila. You could
file a petition for habeas corpus or writ of amparo.
In Private, for example, A against B. We have Civil
Procedure there.
Branches of Philippine Remedial Law
1. Civil Procedure – the body of law that sets out
the rules and standards that courts follow when
adjudicating civil law suits (Rules 1 to 56; Special
Civil Actions – 62 to 71)
2. Provisional Remedies – included in Civil
Procedure; governs remedies to preserve the
status quo until final disposition of a matter can
occur. (57-61); SCA (62-71)
3. Special Proceedings – miscellaneous
proceedings dealing on specific issues (72-109)
1. Civil Procedure
Actually, Civil Procedure, this is what we have to
study.
2. Provisional Remedies
We have also Provisional Remedies. This is included
in Civil Procedure, and governs remedies to preserve
the status quo until final disposition of a matter can
occur. These are the remedies you undertake for the
meantime while waiting for a case to be adjudicated,
like for example attachment.
For example, you have a creditor and debtor, so the
creditor filed a case against the debtor for collection,
but in the meantime the debtor is in danger of
escaping, he will be going abroad to escape his
liabilities. The creditor need not to wait for the final
disposition of the case for you to collect, because it
may take for many years and by that time the assets
of the debtor had already decapitated so here the
creditor can ask for the attachment of the properties
of the debtor, not to sell them but to preserve them.
The properties will be placed in the custody of the
court and in case the creditor wins the assets would
be utilized to satisfy the judgment obligation.
3. Special Proceedings are miscellaneous
proceedings dealing on specific issues (72-109)
This is not actually adversarial. You're not filing a case
to enforce your right against another. There is no
violation of the right that has happened. But here
you just file a petition to establish a status on right
or a particular fact like for example you want to
adopt A, so by adopting A you want to give A the
status of your legitimate child so you file a petition
for adoption so that is a special proceeding.
Guardianship is also a special proceeding. Settlement
of the estate when a person has died - how do you
divide his estate if the heirs cannot agree or if he left
a will, what do we do, how do we partition. So this is
the rule that we follow, the rule on special
proceedings, which is also another type of a branch
of remedial law.
4. Criminal Procedure is the legal process for
adjudicating claims that someone has violated
criminal law (110-127).
When you commit a crime, so for example you are
the offended party and you are the victim of theft,
rape, physical injuries, etc. so you're filing a case
against the offender. The process of filing the case,
the procedures that you need to observe so that
you will secure the conviction of the person
accused, that would be a criminal procedure.
5. Evidence is the means sanctioned by the Rules of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact. (128-133)
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 2
This is how you prove your case, how you present
your evidence, whether it is testimonial evidence,
whether it is object evidence, whether it is
documentary evidence. So how do you prove your
case? Actually, the Rules on Evidence would apply
both to Civil Procedure - civil cases, in criminal
procedure - criminal cases, special proceedings
because in all these cases, in all these instances or
matters you need to prove your case.
applicable. - These Rules shall apply in all the
courts, except as otherwise provided by the
Supreme Court.
Where is Remedial Law applied?
Remedial Law is applied by and before the Judiciary
or the courts of justice.
6. Jurisdiction is deemed included in all branches of
remedial law, but the main law is BP Blg. 129 as
amended.
Rule 1, Section 2. In what courts applicable. – These
Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise
provided by the Supreme Court. (n)
We will be discussing in Civil Procedure jurisdiction
first. After we discuss all these principles, we will
discuss the law on jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is included
in all branches, whether it is Civil Procedure, criminal
procedure because you have to know which court
has jurisdiction.
The general applicability of the Rules is pursuant to
Article 5(5) of the Constitution which mandates that
the procedural rules to be promulgated by the
Supreme Court “shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade.”
●
When you file a case like in that example I gave you,
A, the seller, is filing a case against B, the buyer, for
breach of contract. So, it would be for specific
performance for the payment of the amount or
maybe rescission whatever. So, ang question, asa
man ni file aning case or to be more precise, ikaw na
lawyer ni A, asa nimo i-file ang case? Is it to be filed in
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) or the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) or Supreme Court (SC) para mas kuyaw.
The law on jurisdiction tells us which court has
jurisdiction and therefore where do we file these
cases.
The case filed by the parties will therefore be
governed by the rules promulgated for these
different branches of Remedial Law.
Where is remedial law applied?
Meaning, when do we use the rules which we will be
discussing, for example the Rules on Civil Procedure,
criminal procedure, special proceedings asa mana
korte nato gamiton?
“In all courts” means regular courts
How about the NLRC, HLURB, DRAB, are we going to
apply the rules on civil procedure, criminal
procedure, special proceedings? NO, as a general
rule. They have their own rules/procedures. The
Rules of Court are just for the regular courts.
The general applicability of the Rules is pursuant to
Article 5(5) of the Constitution which mandates that
the procedural rules to be promulgated by the
Supreme Court “shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade.”
Meaning if it is a Municipal Trial Court, bisag as aka
pa na MTC – sa davao, digos, cebu or manila, you
follow the same rule. Sa RTC naman, again, the same.
If you are all RTCs, you follow the same rule.
There are also rules that are applicable in all courts
whether MTC, RTC, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court.
But in general if same level lang mo, you follow the
same rules.
WHAT IS A COURT?
Remedial law is applied by and before the Judiciary
or the courts of justice. Meaning, as a general rule,
the regular courts consisting of the municipal trial
courts, when you say municipal trial court, it could be
municipal circuit trial court, municipal trial court in
cities.
Rule 1, Section 2. Rules of Court. In what courts
The word “court” comes from the Latin “cortem”,
“cors” or “cohors” which means an “enclosed yard”
or those assembled in such places (co “together” +
hortus “garden or yard”). Its legal meaning
developed when, in the late 13th century, historians
observed that assemblies for justice where overseen
by the sovereign personally, together with his
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 3
entourage (or cohorts) in the same type of enclosed
yards or spaces.
When you say court, it is the one vested with judicial
power.
A court is a judicial tribunal duly constituted for the
hearing and determination of cases. A court is an
entity vested with a portion of judicial power.
Is a court similar to a judge? When you say judge
and court, are they synonymous?
When you say court you are not actually limited to
the physical building because kung muingon kag
court ang nasa isip nato is kanang sa hall of justice
but it is actually the tribunal which is constituted to
hear and determine cases. It has judicial power. Of
course, we cannot prevent others from having a
different perception of what is a court.
THE COURT AND THE JUDGE
A court is an entity vested with a portion of judicial
power.
NO. A judge is the person. He is a public officer
authorized to hear and decide cases in accordance
with law; a magistrate charged with the
administration of justice. A judge is the officer
presiding over a court.
When you say court, it is the tribunal constituted. It
exercises judicial power. But of course, the tribunal
does not have a physical existence; it has to have a
person who will dispense this duty, who will exercise
this power. That is the judge. The judge presides over
a court.
Between a court and a judge, there is a distinction.
Why a portion only? The answer to this can be found
in Article VII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.
The answer to this can be found inArticle VIII Section 1
1987 Constitution
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.
1st Paragraph
So it’s actually shared by the courts in existence, this
judicial power. We only have one Supreme Court and
in such lower courts — the Court of Appeals, the
Regional Trial Court, and the Municipal Trial Courts
which are created by law, as distinguished from the
Supreme Court which is created by the Constitution.
2nd Paragraph
By judicial power, the courts can settle controversies.
A court is a creation of law. With the exception of the
Supreme Court which is a constitutional court, all
other courts are statutory creations.
A judge is human person; a creation of nature. Dili
created by law ang judge. Of course, it is the law that
creates the position of the judge, but the judge
himself as a person is created by nature. He is an
individual with civil personality but imbued with
special personal qualifications that allow him to
discharge the functions conferred upon him by law.
While a judge is a physical being, the court has no
physical existence. A judge may be separated from
the court by his retirement, resignation, removal, and
death. A court, on the other hand, exists
continuously, despite the retirement, resignation,
removal, or death of a judge. The court can also
cease to exist, or in other words, it dies, when it is
abolished by statute. There is a law which should
provide for that na “this court is already abolished”.
Unless there is a law which provides for the abolition
of a court, a court remains in perpetuity or eternal
existence, kung wala sya gi-abolish.
Can there be a court without a judge?
Well, as we have already discussed, the existence of a
court is not affected by the removal, death, or
resignation of a presiding judge. So technically, there
can be a court without a judge, but the court can only
exercise its main functions through a judge.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 4
When you don't have a physical person who
physically presides over the court, what occurs is
merely a temporary hiatus in service. When a new
judge is appointed to preside over the same court,
the judge continues the proceedings already
instituted in the court. He does not begin cases
anew. There is no trial de novo (new trial).
There is none, the judge who will subsequently be
appointed to a court which is vacant because of the
removal or death of the presiding judge, he will just
continue the proceedings.
CAN THERE BE A JUDGE WITHOUT A COURT?
It is also fine that there could not be a judge without
a court because technically speaking, an officer is a
judge only when he has a court to preside over. So,
you must have a court for you to be called a judge.
But I guess, there are judge who are appointed as
(ma’am forgot the name) na wala pa silay sala, they
can be transferred from one court to another. So
well, you can say that they don’t have a court yet but
they are judges.
CAN A JUDGE PRESIDE OVER MORE THAN ONE
COURT?
YES. There are instances where a judge may preside
over multiple courts in the following instances:
1. When a judge is appointed to preside over
another court in a pairing or assisting capacity; and
So, he has his own Sala, he has his own court but he
is also assigned to another court in case the judge of
another court is in vacation, get sick, or becomes
incapacitated. So that judge can preside over the
court. This is to prevent vacancies, for example
something happened in a court or those instances
mentioned above. It is not allowed that a proceeding
in the said court will be suspended because a judge is
absent so there is a pairing or assisting judge.
2. In a limited sense, when a judge is appointed to
preside over a Municipal Circuit Trial Court or MCTC.
A circuit court is one which comprises such cities and
or municipalities are as group together pursuant to a
law. Actually, there is only 1 court in reality or
technicality, it is the circuit court. However, a judge
may find himself in a situation where he presides in a
multiple court. For example we have the Municipal
Trial Court of Hagonoy-Matanao, technically
speaking, it is only one circuit court of Hagonoy-
Matano, but there are two buildings, one for
Matanao and the other one is for Hagonoy. The same
judge will decide over these courts, but, he or she
will have to transfer location, whenever he or she will
preside over Matanao whenever she is Matanao or
Hagonoy for Hagonoy. The is also the same with
other circuit courts.
CLASSIFICATION OF COURTS
1. Superior and Inferior Courts: Superior courts are
those exercising supervisory authority over lower
courts, while inferior courts are those whose
decisions are subject to review by higher tribunals.
So when you say Municipal Trial Court, it is an
inferior court as compared to the RTC. The RTC has
the supervisory authority over the MTC. In the Level
of Hierarchy, from the lowest to the highest, we have
the MTC, RTC, CA, SC.
2. Courts of general and courts of special
jurisdiction: Courts of general jurisdiction are those
that take cognizance of all cases of a particular
nature, while courts of special jurisdiction are those
taking cognizance only of a few specified matters.
A Regional Trial Court is a court of General
Jurisdiction. Meaning, it hears and decides several
kinds of cases, such as criminal case, civil cases,
special proceedings. Whereas, a Family Court
Whereas, Family Court, Probate Court, Small Claims
Court, they’re courts of special jurisdiction. Like
Family Courts, they deal only with matters pertaining
to family related issues, children, spouses. Probate
Court, this court deals only with matters relating to
the Probate of the will, when this person dies with
the last will and testament. Small Claims Court, they
are courts which deal only with matters within their
jurisdiction, like in outside Metro Manila, kung
imohang claim in general does not exceed 300k
pesos, then that would be within the jurisdiction of
the Small Claims Court. Kung sa Metro Manila
naman, up to 400k. But take note hah, here in the
Philippines, even if we say Family Court, kani siya na
court only hears cases related to family issues. Or
Probate Court, related to those cases related to
probate matters.
In reality, ang atuang mga RTC are also acting as
courts of general jurisdiction but are also handling
probate matters or family courts. So for example
muadto ka sa korte, makitan nimo na this is a family
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 5
court because you are attending, for example, a
declaration of nullity of marriage. But, matingala ka
sa dockets, for example, sa mga cases assigned for
that day, naa pud diay mga civil cases. Naa pud diay
mga criminal cases. So kaning special jurisdiction, naa
lang certain courts. Like, branch 8 in Davao City RTC
is a family court, but it does not mean its only limited
to family court issues. Naa pud na siyay mga cases na
civil cases, criminal cases. Ingana because limited
lang man gud atuang courts. But in theory, mao ni
siya naay courts of general jurisdiction, but there’s
also courts of special jurisdiction.
civil aspect because there is no private offended
party, like gambling, illegal possession of firearms,
drug cases, there are no private parties offended
here. So an RTC acting as a drugs court is acting as a
criminal court. It hears only the criminal aspect of the
case since there is no civil aspect.
3. Original and appellate. Original courts are those
where cases are commenced, while appellate courts
are those where cases are reviewed.
5. Courts of Law and Courts of Equity. Courts of law
are tribunals deciding cases by applying the law
(Legal provisions, Civil Law, Revised Penal Code,
Transportation Law, Corporation Code, basically all
the codified provisions of our laws)
So, MTC, for example, it is purely an original court, it
is not an appellate court. Ngano man? Siya man ang
pinaka ubos na level. The MTC decision is subject to
review by the RTC. The RTC decision is subject to
review by the CA. The CA decision subject to review
by the SC.
But there are also instances na ang RTC can also act
as an original court, meaning diha ka magfile ug case
in the first instance originally. In jurisdiction, we will
discuss what cases fall within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the RTC. Cases falling the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the CA. Cases falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the SC. So kaning
MTC, wala gud tay mabuhat, original ra dyud ni siya.
It is not an appellate court. But when we say RTC, CA,
SC, they could be appellate courts, but they could
also be courts of original jurisdiction when you are
referring to cases falling within their original
jurisdiction.
4. Criminal and Civil Courts. Criminal courts are
those which decide purely criminal cases, while civil
courts are those which decide only civil cases.
An example of a purely criminal court is the so-called
drugs court which I mentioned already. Or the RTC
specially designated to hear cases related to
dangerous drugs. In dangerous drugs man gud, there
is no civil aspect in that cases. Diba there are cases na
you have learned in your criminal law na as a general
rule, every person criminally liable for a crime is also
civilly liable.
You have learned in your criminal law, that as a
general rule, a person criminally liable is also civilly
liable. But there are certain cases that don’t have a
Example of a purely civil court is an MTC acting as a
small claims court. Because a Small Claims Court does
not determine the guilt or innocence or hear the
public aspect of criminal cases under the Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases.
Courts of equity are tribunal proceeding according to
the precepts of equity and fairness. There are certain
principles in law, that although it is not covered by
the codified provision, but by common law principle,
they are also applied. For example, laches, wala nay
codal provision relating to laches. Laches is different
from prescription as discussed in Obligations and
Contracts. When you say prescription, it is a matter of
statutory application, naa nay provision sa civil code
on prescription. Pero walay provision under the new
civil code on laches.
But still, our courts apply the principle of laches in
some cases because our courts in the Philippines are
Courts of Law and Equity. Our courts apply the
principles of equity and justice. So there is no such
thing as purely court of law and purely court of
equity in the Philippines.
6. Constitutional Court and Statutory Court.
Constitutional courts are those created by the
Constitution itself such as Supreme Court, while
statutory courts are created by legislature (Court of
Appeals, Regional Trial Court and Municipal Trial
Courts)
INHERENT POWERS OF A COURT (Rule
135, Sec. 5)
Sec. 5. Inherent Powers of Courts. – Every court
shall have power:
a.
To preserve and enforce order in its
immediate presence;
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 6
If you are attending for example a court hearing, and
you are unruly, pwede ka pahawaon sa court or
ikulong sa court. In fact, you should put your
cellphones in silent mode when you are in court. You
should not talk loudly when you are in court.
b.
To enforce order in proceeding before
a person or persons empowered to
conduct a judicial investigation under
its authority;
Not only before it, but for example, the court
authorized a group or may be a commissioner to
conduct a judicial investigation under authority of the
court. so that body or that person empowered can
also enforce order in its proceeding under authority
of the court.
c. To compel obedience of judgment,
orders, and process and to the lawful
order of the judge out in a court pending
therein.
So kung nay order ang court tapos nay judgment
tapos dili ka motoo you can also be cited for indirect
contempt na even you are not in the present of the
court kung naa ka sa immediate presence of the
court and then you are exhibiting unruly behavior
under letter a you can be cited for direct contempt.
Kung wala ka sa court naa kay order to appear before
the court maybe to testify tapos wala ka so then you
can be cited for indirect contempt.
d. To control, in furtherance of justice, the
conduct of its ministerial officers, and of
all other persons in any manner
connected with a case before it, in every
manner appertaining thereto;
To control, furtherance of its administerial officers
and all other persons in any manner connected in its
case it its every manner appertaining thereto so kina
iyang mga staff, observers, sheriffs etc. the court can
control their acts the court can discipline them for
example they do not act in the manner to which is
expected to them.
e. To compel the attendance of persons
who testify in the case pending therein.
You can be subpoenaed to appear before the court
whether to testify or to provide documents so
subpoenaed duces tecum and subpoenaed ad
testificandum.
f. To administer or cause to be
administered oaths in a case pending
therein, and in all other cases where it
may be necessary in the exercise of its
powers.
Administer oath for example you are going to testify
in the court before you start testifying you are asked
to make an oath the court will administer that. What
is the relevance of that so that in case you are lying in
your testimony you can be held liable for false
testimony that is a criminal case.
g. To amend and control its process and
orders so as to make them conformable
to law and justice.
So it is within the inherent power of the court to
amend and control its process and orders. So for
example there is an order and there's something
there which is not in accordance with law the court
can on its own or through a motion filed by a party
amend its orders.
h. To authorize a copy of a lost or
destroyed pleading or other paper to be
filed and used instead of the original, and
to restore, and supply deficiencies in its
records and proceedings.
So kung for example na wala ang original the court
can authorize that instead a photocopy or a certified
true copy can be filed the court can actually allow the
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 7
use of photocopies, carbon copies, Xerox copies
reproductions in lieu of the originals as long as it
complies to the rules that is required on the rules on
evidence for you to present substitutionary evidence
or meaning not the original one.
its jurisdiction, to fully implement its
decisions.
Remedial Law - How we file cases, defend cases in
court, the procedures we have to follow.
And let's not forget:
Reyes vs. Lim
Section 6 of Rule 135. Means to carry jurisdiction
into effect. – When by law jurisdiction is conferred
on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs,
processes and other means necessary to carry it
into effect may be employed by such court or
officer; and if the procedure to be followed in the
exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically
pointed out by law or by these Rules, any suitable
process or mode of proceeding may be adopted
which appears conformable to the spirit of said
law.
So meaning if the court has jurisdiction over a certain
case then it has jurisdiction to continue with the case
and to carry into effect all its orders, writs and
processes and relation to the case because if you
have jurisdiction its is not only that you can hear and
decide the case but it can also implement your
decision you can make them effective and you can
follow the procedure provide for by the Rules of
Court so as to make the exercise of your jurisdiction
effective or if there is no procedure provided for it
can adopt such procedure in which you believed if
you are judge for example is reasonable and
conformable with respect with the spirit of the law or
the rules.
JURISDICTION IN GENERAL
LACK OF JURISDICTION VS.
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
November 25 - ZOOM LECTURE
RECAP:
●
We discussed yesterday the inherent power
of the court as discussed in Section 5 of Rule
135 of the Rules of Court.
●
As long as the courts have jurisdiction it has
all the means to carry into effect that
jurisdiction. It may exercise such powers as
are necessary for the court to fully exercise
Reyes entered into a Contract to Sell with Lim
whereby Reyes agreed to sell to Lim a parcel of
land under the following terms:
●
Total purchase price is P28 million
●
The down payment is P10 million, paid to
Reyes upon signing of the contract; and
●
The balance of P18 million shall be paid on
or before March 8, 1995 but only if the
tenants or occupants of the property have
vacated the same.
Reyes claimed that he had difficulty in ousting the
tenants such that, on March 9, 1995, Reyes offered
to return the P10 million down payment to Lim,
which Lim rejected. Upon verification, Lim found
out that Reyes had already sold the property to
Line One Foods Corporation on March 1, 1995 for
P16,782,840.
Discussion: This is an example of the court’s inherent
power under Sec. 5 and Sec 6 na when it has
jurisdiction it can exercise such power as are
necessary to carry into effect that jurisdiction.
Here, there was a contract to sell entered into
between Reyes and Lim. Reyes is the seller, Lim is the
buyer.
Their agreement was that the purchase price would
be P28 million and then down payment P10 million.
Lim paid P10 million to Reyes.
The balance was to be paid on or before March 8,
1995 subject to a condition that the tenants would
have vacated the premises.
Reyes claimed he had difficulty ousting the tenants.
He offered to return the 10 million. But Lim found
out that it was sold to a different company - Line One
Foods Corp for P16 million +.
Lim refused the offer of Reyes. Reyes filed for a
complaint for annulment of contract. Sya pa
nakasala, sya pa nag-file sa case. Gusto nya iinvalidate ang Contract to Sell with Lim.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 8
Lim requested in open court that Reyes be ordered to
deposit the P10 million down payment with the
cashier of the RTC. The Court granted Lim’s motion.
Reyes questioned the order requiring the deposit of
the P10 million. Because if you read the Rules of
Court (NOTE: we are not yet in Provisional Remedies)
under that law, requiring the plaintiff to deposit is
not among the provisional remedies available under
the Rules of Court.
Reyes stresses the enumeration in the Rules is
exclusive. Not one of the provisional remedies in the
Rules applies to this case. Reyes argues that a court
cannot apply equity and require deposit if the law
already prescribes the specific provisional remedies
which do not include deposit.
ISSUE: Whether the deposit of the P10 million
down payment was proper. - YES
RULING: The instant case is precisely one where
there is a hiatus in the law and in the Rules of
Court. If left alone, the hiatus will result in unjust
enrichment to Reyes at the expense of Lim. The
hiatus may also imperil restitution, which is a
precondition to the rescission of the Contract to
Sell that Reyes himself seeks. This is not a case of
equity overruling a positive provision of law or
judicial rule for there is none that governs this
particular case. This is a case of silence or
insufficiency of the law and the Rules of Court. In
this case, Art. 9 of the Civil Code expressly
mandates the courts to make a ruling despite the
“silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.”
This calls for the application of equity, which “fills
the open spaces in the law.”
Thus, the trial court in the exercise of its equity
jurisdiction may validly order the deposit of the
P10 million down payment in court. The purpose
of the exercise of equity jurisdiction in this case is
to prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure
restitution.
There is also no plausible or justifiable reason for
Reyes to object the deposit of the P10 million
down payment in court. The Contract to Sell can
no longer be enforced because Reyes himself
subsequently sold the property to Line One.
Contract to Sell, he cannot refuse to deposit the
P10 million down payment in court. Such deposit
will ensure restitution of the P10 million to its
rightful owner.
There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly
retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a
person retains money or property of another
against the fundamental principles of justice,
equity and good conscience.
In this case, it was just, equitable and proper for
the trial court to order the deposit of the P10
million down payment to prevent unjust
enrichment by Reyes at the expense of Lim.
DISCUSSION: The SC said, in this case, there is
precisely a hiatus in the rules of court because there
is nothing in the enumeration of the provisional
remedies that would allow a deposit pending the
proceedings. Mao na and nature sa provisional
remedies: before the case is finally decided but for
the protection of the party who sought for the
provisional remedy, pwede ihatag sa court, like
injunction, attachment, etc. samtang nagadagan ang
kaso i-grant na sya sa court for the preservation, for
example, of the thing under litigation.
It would be better for him to deposit. This is not a
case of equity overruling a positive provision of law
or judicial law for there is none that governs this
particular case. You are not overriding a positive
provision of law. There is nothing which contradicts
this kind of situation or remedy because in the first
place nothing is found in the Rules of Court that
would provide for a remedy in this specific kind of
situation. So this is a case of insufficiency of the law
and the Rules of Court.
In this case, Article 9 of the Civil Code, expressly
mandates the courts to make a ruling despite the
silence, obscurity, or insufficiency of the law. This
calls for the application of equity, which fills the open
spaces in the law. We discussed before the concept
of equity jurisdiction, or we will discuss it later.
But here, so the Supreme Court discussed the
doctrine of the exercise of equity jurisdiction, we will
discuss this also in jurisdiction.
Thus, since Reyes is demanding to rescind the
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 9
The Supreme Court said, there is no plausible or
justifiable reason for Reyes to object to the deposit
of the downpayment in court because it was Reyes
himself who sought for the annulment or rescission
of the contract to sell. The contract to sell can no
longer be enforced because Reyes already sold the
property to Line One. He cannot refuse to deposit the
10 million.
This was cited in the more recent case of Lorenzo
Shipping Corporation vs. Villarin
Lorenzo Shipping Corporation vs. Villarin
In LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION versus
VILLARIN, ET AL., G.R. No. 175727, March 06,
2019, the Supreme Court stated that, based on
jurisprudence, a deposit order is an extraordinary
provisional remedy whereby money or other
property is placed in custodia legis to ensure
restitution to whichever party is declared entitled
thereto after court proceedings. It is extraordinary
because its basis is not found in Rules 57 to 61 of
the Rules of Court on Provisional Remedies but
rather, under Sections 5(g) and 6 of Rule 135 of the
same Rules pertaining to the inherent power of
every court "[t]o amend and control its process
and orders so as to make them conformable to law
and justice;" as well as to issue "all auxiliary writs,
processes and other means necessary" to carry its
jurisdiction into effect.
Again, although this extraordinary remedy of deposit
is not provided for under the Rules on Provisional
Remedies, the court nonetheless can exercise this
under its inherent powers under Section 5 and 6 of
Rule 135.
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction, as discussed, is also part of the branches
of remedial law. It is very important for us to know
the law on jurisdiction. Why?
For example, you have a client who has a complaint
for the collection of a sum of money. It is clear there
is a debt owed and that it has not yet been paid and
has not yet prescribed. So, definitely, your client has
a cause of action and a right of action (these two will
be distinguished later on).
It will depend on the amount you are claiming. For
example, your client’s claim is not more than
P300,000 outside of Metro Manila (for P250,000 here
in Davao), where do you file that case? Before the
Supreme Court? Court of Appeals? MTC?
Why it is important to understand jurisdiction
It is important for you to know which court because if
you file in the wrong court, even if you would have
won had you filed in the correct court, the case will
be dismissed by the court where you wrongfully filed
it. For instance, you filed with the Regional Trial
Court, that would be erroneous because your claim is
only for P250,000, which is outside the jurisdiction of
the RTC. In fact, your case would fail under small
claims court. So, the RTC will have to dismiss it. And
what is more painful is, although you can refile
before the MTC, you can no longer get back the
docket fee that your client paid to the RTC. Your
client suffers just because he had the misfortune of
hiring you as a lawyer who has little knowledge on
the law on jurisdiction.
Thus, you have to know the basic concepts in
jurisdiction with which courts are vested for
administering justice for hearing and deciding the
case. If a court has no power to hear and decide a
case, then all the proceedings before that court are
NULL and VOID.
So, even if, like in my example, when you file it
before the RTC when supposedly the jurisdiction is
with the MTC, and then your opponent did not even
bother to oppose, kay wala pud siya naka hinumdum
sa law and jurisdiction, pati ang judge wala pud. So,
the case proceeded. (This is possible.) When the case
ended, you won.
But, actually the proceedings in that court are null
and void. Later on, unless there is estoppel, unless
raising the issue of jurisdiction is barred by estoppel
which is very rare also. Because as a general rule,
jurisdiction cannot be subject to estoppel, it cannot
be subject to an agreement.
So, na-realize sa new lawyer sa pikas na wala’y
jurisdiction, he raised it. Ma-dismiss (ang case). So,
for 10 years, you litigated in the RTC and then you
won but all you have is an empty victory because it is
actually a null and void decision.
In the first place the court (RTC) has no authority to
hear and decide the case.
Where should you file this case?
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 10
All proceedings in a court which has no jurisdiction
are null and void.
manner. Also, applying again the inherent power of
the court.
Definition of Jurisdiction
Now, I assigned to you the case of Naga Telephone
Company v. Court of Appeals.
Now, the term “jurisdiction” comes from the Latin
word ‘juris” which means “law” and “dicere” which
means “to speak”. So, jurisdiction, literally means to
speak the law.
What happened in the case of NATELCO VS CA?
Two meanings of jurisdiction
1. The authority to hear and decide a case.
It could be denoted as the authority; it is the
general meaning of jurisdiction.
2. Defined area of responsibility
But it can also be understood as the area of
responsibility.
So, what court has jurisdiction? This is more relevant
in criminal law. You have discussed before criminal
procedure, when you say jurisdiction in criminal
cases, you are also talking of the venue – the place
where the crime is committed. Because it's that court
in that place which has the jurisdiction.
So again, the authority to hear and decide as well as
the defined area of responsibility, the territory itself.
Equity of Jurisdiction
I mentioned before equity jurisdiction. Now, what do
you mean by the principle of exercise of equity
jurisdiction?
It is a situation where the court is called upon to
decide a particular situation and release the parties
from their correlative obligations. But if that would
result in adverse consequences to the parties and to
the public, the court would go beyond its power to
avoid negative consequences in the release of the
parties.
If we go back to the case of Reyes, which we have
just discussed. Equity jurisdiction in that case, even if
again there is no specific provision in the law or in
the rules of court which would give us that kind of
remedy, but under the principle of the exercise of
equity jurisdiction, as not to cause prejudice the
court will have the power to decide in this particular
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 11
Naga Telephone Co., Inc. vs. CA
G.R. 107112, 24 February 1994
FACTS: In this case NATELCO and CASURECO II
entered into a contract whereby NATELCO agrees
to install free of charge, ten (10) telephone
connections as consideration for the use by
NATELCO in the operation of its telephone service,
the electric light posts of CASURECO II. The terms
included that the duration of the contract would
be as long as NATELCO would have need of the
electric light posts or unless they are forced to stop
or abandon its operation as a public service.
Overtime, the so many, people had their
phonelines installed and CASURECO’s posts where
already overburdened. CASURECO assails the
contract 10 years after, stating that it is too one
sided in favor of plaintiffs arguing that it is not in
conformity with the guidelines of the National
Electrification Administration (NEA) which directs
the reasonable compensation for the use of the
posts and prays for reformation of the contract.
CASURECO invoked Article 1267: When the service
has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond
the contemplation of the parties, the obligor may
also be released therefrom, in whole or in part.
(Doctrine of Unforeseen Events) This is said to be
based on the discredited theory of rebus sic
stantibus in public international law; under this
theory, the parties stipulate in the light of certain
prevailing conditions, and once these conditions
cease to exist the contract also ceases to exist.
Considering practical needs and the demands of
equity and good faith, the disappearance of the
basis of a contract gives rise to a right to relief in
favor of the party prejudiced.
HELD: Technically, if Article 1267 was applied, it
would release CASURECO from the contract. But
the SC said this would cause an inconvenience to
the public. Reformation was the remedy granted
instead. The court granted the prayer for
reformation of the contract on the ground of
equity, stating that “while the contract appeared
to be fair to both parties when it was entered into
by them during the first year of private
respondent's operation and when its Board of
Directors did not yet have any experience in that
business, it had become disadvantageous and
unfair to private respondent because of
subsequent events and conditions, particularly the
increase in the volume of the subscribers of
petitioners for more than ten (10) years without
the corresponding increase in the number of
telephone connections to private respondent free
of charge. The trial court concluded that while in
an action for reformation of contract, it cannot
make another contract for the parties, it can,
however, for reasons of justice and equity, order
that the contract be reformed to abolish the
inequities therein.” “equity demands a certain
economic equilibrium between the prestation and
the counter-prestation and does not permit the
unlimited impoverishment of one party for the
benefit of the other by the excessive rigidity of the
principle of the obligatory force of contracts.”
QUESTIONS:
1. Why did CASURECO and NATELCO enter this
contract?
2. What was the reason why NATELCO agreed
to give 10 telephone units for free to
CASURECO? Was it because NATELCO was
just feeling generous? Was it just wanted to
give telephones to CASURECO?
So, in the long run, there were already many
connections rendered on the part of CASURECO, and
there was increasing difficulty to handle the influx of
connections. So, they filed a case to release itself
from that contract where it invoked Article 1267,
where when the service becomes so difficult for
them to handle that it becomes beyond the
contemplation of the parties.
Atty. Yang-Yang: So, under Article 1267 of the New
Civil Code, what does it say?
Student #2: When the service becomes so difficult as
it is already beyond the contemplation of the parties,
the court may authorize the release of the other
party.
Atty. Yang-Yang: So, if you would apply that to the
relief asked by DASURECO, what will happen?
Student #2: The parties will be released from the
contract and CASURECO will be prejudiced by such
cancellation of the contract. So, the Supreme Court
held that equity jurisdiction should be applied.
Atty. Yang-Yang: So, how will the Supreme Court
apply its equity jurisdiction?
Student #2: Here, the Supreme Court said that it
would be more equitable that NATELCO would be
required to pay 10 pesos for every post connected by
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 12
its telephone. CASURECO would pay to NATELCO in
the same manner that the public is paying NATELCO.
DISCUSSION: Here, the Supreme Court did not
literally apply the consequences envisioned in Article
1267. Although, it is still a release from the contract
because CASURECO is no longer under that situation
where it is burdened by the telephone connections of
NATELCO in exchange of those 10 telephone lines.
But there is now a limitation on NATELCO because it
has to pay. Dili na siya pwede magpa tuyang og gamit
sa electrical posts.
Here, the remedy given by the Supreme Court is
actually not literally what is provided for under
Article 1267. Again, there is a release but the
Supreme Court took into account the prejudice that
would be caused to the general public. Hence, the
doctrine of equity jurisdiction.
Will it affect the proceedings? Will it nullify the
proceedings if the court committed an error of
judgment?
Like katong case na 250k ang claim. Kung i-file sya sa
RTC and the court entertains the case, the court
commits an error in jurisdiction.
If the case for collection was filed in the MTC but the
judge dismissed the case because according to him,
the right of action of the creditor already prescribed This is wrong because 1 year palang ang naglipas
from the time of default. What is the effect of that
wrong decision? Error in judgement.
When there is an error in judgement, the
proceedings in that court are not affected but that
erroneous judgment can be elevated on appeal.
Jurisdiction as distinguished from the
Exercise of Jurisdiction
Pwede pud ka mag motion for reconsideration sa
judge and then if denied, you appeal - that’s the
remedy of there is an error in judgment.
When we say jurisdiction, we are referring to the
authority of the court to hear and decide a case. How
do we know if a court has jurisdiction? It will be
determined based on the law creating the courts and
enumerating what cases fall within the jurisdiction of
the said court.
But in lack of jurisdiction (for example, the court
entertained the case despite having no jurisdiction),
it is correctable by a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 when there is GADALEJ and there is no
appeal or other plain and speedy remedy in the
ordinary course of law.
But when you say exercise of jurisdiction, it means
that the court already has jurisdiction based on the
provision of the law - B.P. 129 (Gen. law on
jurisdiction).
NOTE: Even if there is an error in judgement for as
long as the court has jurisdiction, the court will not
be divested of jurisdiction - the proceedings will still
be valid.
So, naa na syay jurisdiction and then he did
something in the exercise of such jurisdiction.
Kung halimbawa, walay nag appeal in that case - it
became final and executory - wala na, bound naka by
the principle of res judicata. For example, there was
an error in judgment where the judge erroneously
said that the right of action of the creditor already
prescribed. But at the same time, there was no
appeal because the plaintiff’s lawyer was being
careless. Thus, the decision has become final and
binding.
If the court acts over a certain subject matter when in
the first place, the court has no jurisdiction based on
law, there is what we call, error in jurisdiction. Here,
the court acted without jurisdiction. As a
consequence, all the proceedings in that court are
null and void because in the first place, the court has
no authority to hear and decide the case.
Error in jurisdiction = the court acted without
jurisdiction
However, if the court has jurisdiction based on law,
but in the exercise of it the court committed an error,
that is what we call an error of judgement.
However, for example there was lack of jurisdiction
such that the RTC entertained a case even though it
was within the jurisdiction of the MTC, even if the
RTC rendered a decision and there was no appeal,
the decision can still be assailed because in the first
place, the RTC had no jurisdiction.
Obviously, mali ang judge. He decided not in
accordance with law. But what is the effect of that
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 13
wrong decision? It is not an error of jurisdiction. It is
just an error in judgment.
When there is an error in judgment, dili affected ang
proceedings in that court. But that erroneous
judgment can be elevated on appeal. You can also file
a Motion for Reconsideration with the judge and if it
is denied, you can appeal. That’s the remedy if there
is an error in judgment.
But for lack of jurisdiction, for example the court
entertained the case despite it not having
jurisdiction, it is correctible by what we call a petition
for certiorari, under Rule 65, when there is grave
abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or other plain and
speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law.
So again, even if there is error in judgment, for as
long as the court has jurisdiction, the court will not
be divested of jurisdiction. The proceedings will still
be valid.
If for example, no one appealed in that case, and it
became final and executory. Wala na, bound na ka by
the principle of res judicata. Kay katong naa’y error in
judgment na niingon siya prescribed na daw ang debt
pero in the first place wala pa diay, pero wala pu’y
appeal na nahitabo because maybe nag tinanga pud
ang lawyer ni plaintiff, valid na to siya na finding.
Pero katong nag entertain si RTC ug case na
supposedly within the jurisdiction of the MTC, even if
nahuman siya unya wala’y nag appeal or ang
question, it can be assailed because the court in the
first place has no jurisdiction.
Okay I already discussed this. Error of jurisdiction as
distinguished from error in judgment, which is also a
consequence of our discussion on jurisdiction and
exercise of jurisdiction.
Equitable PCI Bank v. Apurillo
G.R. 168746, November 5, 2009.
Again the SC here just explained what is the
consequence and what are the distinctions when
there is lack of jurisdiction vis-à-vis excess of
jurisdiction.
According to the case of Equitable PCI Bank v.
Apurillo:
“Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from
absence of jurisdiction means that an act,
though within the general power of a tribunal,
board or officer is not authorized, and invalid
with respect to the particular proceeding,
because the conditions which alone authorize
the exercise of the general power in respect of
it are wanting. Without jurisdiction means lack
or want of legal power, right or authority to
hear and determine a cause or causes,
considered either in general or with reference
to a particular matter. It means lack of power
to exercise authority.”
So balik na pud ta. Example of lack of jurisdiction,
katong si MTC na 250,0000, supposedly sa MTC na
jurisdiction but they filed it with the RTC. If you filed
before the RTC, the RTC has no jurisdiction. If it was
filed with the MTC, naa’y jurisdiction si MTC to
decide that case. However, the MTC, for example ha,
gi-file nimo ang claim nimo 250,000 before the MTC,
and then during the presentation of the evidence.
The evidence of the plaintiff shows that entitled diay
siya sa P500,000 and not only P250,000. So, the MTC
awarded 500,000 in favor of the plaintiff.
Q: Can that be allowed? Is that a valid decision?
A: Here, insofar as the award of the 500,000 is
concerned, that is already in excess of the jurisdiction
of MTC. Although, initially the MTC has jurisdiction
because the claim is based on 250,000.
As we will discuss later on, to determine which court
has jurisdiction, as a general rule, we will only base
on the allegations in the complaint.
So, based on the allegation in the complaint, there is
jurisdiction. However, based on the trial, the creditor
proved that the claim is 500,000. But the MTC cannot
award the 500,000 because it is already beyond the
jurisdiction.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 14
Although again, initially at the inception, the court
had jurisdiction. So that would be an example.
Types or Classes of Jurisdiction
Please remember because when we will discuss the
different kinds of courts and jurisdictions, you will
also go back to these concepts.
1.
2.
General Jurisdiction - the power to
adjudicate all controversies except those
expressly withheld from the plenary powers
of the court. So, when the court has general
jurisdiction, it can try several cases which
jurisdiction is not confined, limited or special
cases. The RTC is a court of general
jurisdiction.
Special or Limited Jurisdiction - it restricts
the courts jurisdiction only to particular
cases and subject to such limitations may be
provided by governing law.
I discussed this yesterday. There are certain courts
which have limited jurisdiction.
EXAMPLES
●
Family Courts - their jurisdiction is only
limited to those cases specifically
enumerated by law
●
Drugs Courts - they handle drug cases
●
Probate Courts - they handle matters
relating to wills and succession
Their jurisdiction is limited. When they act in that
capacity like for example, a court acts as a probate
court when the court acts as a probate court in that
proceeding it only has a limited jurisdiction. It cannot
decide and it cannot determine matters which are
already beyond that jurisdiction.
When you go to 3rd year in succession, for example,
pag probate, ang ginadiscuss lang gyud ana kay in
general ha, katong will kung in form valid ba siya ug
katong nagexecute sa will naa ba siyay sound mind
unya katong will mao ba na siya ang giexecute gud sa
katong namatay when he was still alive. You cannot
go beyond that. You cannot resolve questions
relating to ownership for example of the property
which are the subject/included in the last will and
testament. So, limited lang gyud ang jurisdiction.
So that is the meaning of limited or special
jurisdiction but again, as I mentioned also at my last
lecture in reality ang atoang mga korte you cannot
say si Branch 16 kuwaon lang gyud na siya. For
example si Branch 8 family court lang gyud na siya. Si
Branch 13 kay drugs court lang gyud na siya. DILI. Ang
court nagahear sila different cases, daghan sila.
Although, gi designate ka as a family court but
actually nagahandle gihapon sila ug other cases. IN
REALITY HA.
So, wala gyud ta matawag dira pa sa Philippines, I
don’t know, sa Davao City. Even in the other places
na purely criminal court lang gyud na siya, purely
probate court lang gyud siya, purely family court,
WALAY INGANA. Although when the court acts as a
probate court, when the court acts as a family court
then iyang idecide kato lang pud matters within the
jurisdiction of a family court, a drugs court or probate
court.
Original Jurisdiction as Distinguished From
Appellate Jurisdiction
Original Jurisdiction - the power of the court to take
judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial
action for the first time under conditions provided by
law
Appellate Jurisdiction - where it is the authority of
the court higher in rank, to re-examine the final order
or judgement of a lower court which tried the case
now elevated for judicial review.
So kanang mga municipal courts mao na sila
pinakaubos. So when you say original meaning naa
silay authority nga maghear and to decide a case
which is filed before it for the first time and then
gikan sa RTC nanaman wala na pud sila ganahi pwede
na pud sila musaka sa CA. Ug di na pud sila ganahan
gihapon then to the SC which is the last in the
hierarchy, the highest.
So ang MTC naa na silay original jurisdiction, RTC naa
pud na siyay original jurisdiction. Nay mga cases,
didto namo ifile for the 1st time sa rtc. How abt CA?
naa pud mga kaso for the first time didto nimo ifile sa
CA. how about sa supreme court? naa bay original
jurisdiction ang SC. Naa pud. Like determine the
factual basis of the declaration nof marial law diha
nimo siya ifile sa SC so inthat case nay original
jurisdiction a ng SC. Appellate kay katong mga
review.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 15
All courts except the MTC are appellate courts. Again
the RTC, CA and the SC, they are appellate courts.
They can review the decisions of the lower courts.
Exclusive as distinguished from concurrent,
confluent or coordinate
Exclusive — meaning the power to adjudicate a case
or proceeding to the exclusion of all other courts at
that stage. Siya lang jud ang nay authority to hear
and decide a particular matter.
Concurrent — meaning shared nila with all other
courts to hear and decide that particular matter. I
believe as sige ninyog binasa ug kaso kaila na jud mo
kay certiorari.
Certiorari
It’s under Rule 65. Again, it is resorted to when the
court acts with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Here, it happens
when the court acts in an arbitrary or whimsical
manner na in effect, it acted without jurisdiction or in
excess of his jurisdiction.
Certiorari is an original action. Dili ni siya appeal ha
ang certiorari. Although basig naa pa moy makita na
appeal on certiorari under rule 45, it is a different
concept. A petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 is an appeal. It’s different from an original
action for certiorari under Rule 65 it is an original
action.
Rule 65 on certiorari pwede nimo na siya ifile sa RTC,
CA ug SC as an original action. Pwede na siya. Ang
jurisdiction ni RTC, CA ug SC is what we call
concurrent jurisdiction. However, following the
principle of hierarchy of courts which we will also
discuss, dili nimo pwede na muderecho ka, “ay gusto
nako na ifile ang certiorari sa Supreme Court”. You
have to observe Doctrine on Hierarchy of courts. So if
you are questioning the decision of the MTC, una sa
ka didto mufile ug certiorari under Rule 65 sa RTC di
ka muskip, di ka muderecho sa CA, di ka muderecho
sa SC as a general rule.
We look at the law which confers jurisdiction kung
asa na court naay jurisdiction.
How will the court acquire jurisdiction over the
subject matter?
“The court acquires jurisdiction over the subject
matter by looking at the allegations in the complaint
to determine which law to apply and to see what
court should it be filed with.”
How about the parties? How is jurisdiction acquired
over the parties?
“Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired from the
time he files his complaint and jurisdiction over the
defendant is acquired by their voluntary appearance
in court and submission to its authority or by
coercive court processes or summons”
How about jurisdiction over the issues? How is it
acquired?
“Jurisdiction over the issues is determined and
acquired through the pleadings filed by the parties.
Such as complaints or answers.”
How about jurisdiction over the res?
“Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by the actual or
constructive seizure by the court of the thing in
question or by provisions of law. Like land
registration cases. ”
Distinction Between Jurisdiction Over the Res
& Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter
“In jurisdiction over subject matter, here are the
cases of the general class while over the res,
primarily deals with property. Like in subject matter,
examples would be money claims. In res, the court
acquires jurisdiction in cases for attachment or
garnishment.
Recit questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
How is jurisdiction over the issues acquired?
When you say pleadings filed by the parties
what is this?
How about jurisdiction over the res.
Provisions of law? Example?
What do you mean by jurisdiction over the
res?
How do you distinguish jurisdiction over the
res from jurisdiction over the subject
matter?
We already discussed what are the elements of
Jurisdiction. These are necessary for the court to
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 16
validly proceed, to hear and decide the case.
Although in some instances there might be cases na
bisag wala properly na confer, the court which
exercises jurisdiction can still be valid. If you're
talking about jurisdiction over the subject matter and
the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
the proceedings are null and void and cannot be
cured by silence, agreement nor laches.
Now if no jurisdiction over the person or the parties,
the proceedings in the case are also null and void.
Bisag pag nagdecide na si court in that case, dili
gihapon siya binding sa defendant. So, the
proceedings can be assailed because of lack of
jurisdiction, specifically over the person of the
parties. But this type of jurisdiction can actually be
cured kung walay jurisdiction, there could be
estoppel here if for example, the defendant
appeared in the case, he sought relief in the case, so
when we go to Rule 14 Service of Summons, I will not
elaborate much here, later on in the jurisdiction issue
pa because mas masabtan ninyo when we go to the
Rules on Summons under Rule 14. But basically, lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the parties is pwede
siya macure, dili ni siya grabe sa lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
(Types of Jurisdiction; continued)
3. Jurisdiction over the res
answers, then the issues are already joined. Here,
those are the issues in a case. Basically, kanang duha
lang because when we go to pleadings also, in
general, ang mang reply is already not required.
So, issues raised in the case, ang consequence if the
court has no jurisdiction over the issue supposedly
the court cannot decide on that particular issue kung
wala siya na raise because it never acquired
jurisdiction but there are cases pud na even if the
issue is not raised in the pleadings but during trial,
one of the parties presented evidence over an issue
which is not raised in the pleading and there is no
objection on the other party, the court can also rule
on that.
Just read this case of Platinum Tours and Travel. I
would like to discuss more the case of Gejoya, mas
klaro ni siya although it's an older case.
What are the requisites for the exercise of
jurisdiction?
Ok so we already discussed jurisdiction over again
before we go to that over the subject matter. How do
we know kung naa bay jurisdiction si court over the
subject matter? We go to BP Blg. 129 and examine
kung kaning court ba naay jurisdiction over this
subject matter? Kaning for example, a sum of money,
foreclosure of mortgage, recovery of possession,
rescission of contract. Kinsa may court ang nay
jurisdiction, tan-awa nato ang law. It is the law which
tells which court has jurisdiction.
It is the jurisdiction of the court over the property or
the status or the right which is involved in the
litigation, like for example foreclosure of mortgage.
So, the property, which is covered by the mortgage,
that is the res.
How does the court acquire jurisdiction? Of course,
kung nakita na nato sa law nga sa RTC ang
jurisdiction…
When you say subject matter, it is the nature of the
case like foreclosure of mortgage, so foreclosure of
mortgage that is the nature of the action and that's
the subject matter. Which court has jurisdiction over
an action for foreclosure of mortgage? We're talking
here about the subject matter but the property
which is mortgage itself we're talking here of the res,
one which is to be seized by the court, to be put
under custodia legis or under the custody of the
court.
By that the court already acquires jurisdiction over
the issues and again as I said even if wala sa pre-trial
brief, wala gi-raise sa complaint and wala gi-raise sa
answer but during trial plaintiff presented evidence
for another issue. Kung ikaw si defendant dapat muobject ka because the court has no jurisdiction over
the issue so he cannot present evidence also on that
particular issue pero kung nakalimot pud ka sa imong
civil procedure and you didn’t object, in that case
there’s already an implied consent to that issue.
Hence, the court can also rule on that because the
court has also acquired jurisdiction over that issue.
4. Jurisdiction over the issues
It is basically confirmed by the pleadings. So, when
the complaint is filed, the plaintiff here raises issues
in his complaint and then when the defendant
Jurisdiction over the res – it is acquired by the actual
or constructive seizure by the court of the thing in
question.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 17
Actually meaning, ang property gi-seized gyud ang
gidala sa court under the custody of the court or
constructive seizure lang like there’s a writ of seizure,
or writ of preliminary attachment, or writ of
possession even if wala sa ang actual possession of
court ang thing but because of that writ
constructively that thing is already in the possession
of the court. So it is acquired by the filing of the case
and by the issuance of the court of that writ by
seizure whether actual or constructive.
DE VILLA VS. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 87416, April 8, 1991
This involves a criminal case. So jurisdiction in
criminal cases depends also on the place where the
crime was committed. For example, if a crime was
committed in then it should be the Davao City Court
that has jurisdiction depending on what crime
whether falling under the MTC or RTC so long as it is
within Davao City.
The jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by the statute in force at the time of the
commence of the action.
For example, pag-file nimo at that time all claims for
sum of money not exceeding P100,000.00 falls within
the original exclusive jurisdiction of the municipal
trial court. Then later on while your case is pending
during trial there’s an amendment to the law
increasing the jurisdiction of the MTC to
P200,000.00. Is the court already ousted of
jurisdiction? For example, sa RTC you filed a case for
collection of sum of money P150,000.00 because at
that time when you filed the case the jurisdiction of
the MTC is P100,00.00 below so anything beyond is
RTC.
But during the trial of the case, as I said, nag increase
to P200,000 ang MTC. So katong imong case na
P150,000 pending before the RTC, kug tan awun nato
karon, dapat sa MTC siya.
QUESTION: Is the RTC ousted of its jurisdiction over
the case?
A: As a general rule, NO, because what determines
whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter is the law in force at the time of the
commencement of the action. Although, there are
some cases where the law would also say, “All
pending cases in the RTC involving this amount shall
be transferred.” But if the law is silent and does not
mention anything to that effect, jurisdiction remains
with the court. That is the principle of Continuing
Jurisdiction. We will also discuss this.
We also mentioned before, how do we know if the
court really has jurisdiction? We examine the
allegations in the complaint because it is the
allegations in the complaint that says which court has
jurisdiction. So, if your allegation says you are
claiming P500,000 against the defendant, then
jurisdiction is with the RTC. If it is outside Metro
Manila, the RTC’s jurisdiction is any claim exceeding
P300,000. If within Metro Manila, it is any claim
exceeding P400,000.
If your case is for rescission of a contract, for
example, under the law when we discuss specific
jurisdictions, that is an action which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation (no amount involved), and thus
it is with the RTC.
If your complaint seeks ejectment where you are
alleging that there was a lease contract but it has
already expired. Despite the expiration of the
contract and demand against the lessee, the lessee
did not vacate the property, then we now have a
case for unlawful detainer. This falls within the
original exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial
Court.
So, it is the allegation in the complaint which
determines jurisdiction. Based also on the law which
says that it is this court that has jurisdiction.
QUESTION: How about if your claim is P500,000 sum
of money? You filed a case against the debtor in the
RTC. Then in his Answer, the debtor said, “My debt is
only P100,000. The excess was actually donation, not
debt. So since it was only P100,000 that is the basis,
then the case is supposed to be filed before the MTC.
Since the jurisdiction of the RTC is over P300,000.”
Will the court say that the case should be
transferred to the MTC since its only P100,000? NO.
A: The rule is that whether or not the court has
jurisdiction will be determined based on the
allegation in the complaint, regardless of any defense
that the defendant interposes in his answer or in the
motion to dismiss. Otherwise, if you were allowed to
follow the allegation of the defendant, then you
would not be able to settle the issue of jurisdiction
because lahi ang giingon ni plaintiff and lahi pud
giingon ni defendant.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 18
So, we are only limited to what is mentioned and
what the statements are alleged or set out in the
complaint.
There are several cases relating to this, just read the
cases of Heirs of Juanita Padilla v Dominador
Magdua. Again, irrespective of whether the party is
entitled to all or some of the claims. Even if the
plaintiff is not entitled to what he or she alleged in
the complaint, but again, if he stated P500,000, then
that will be the basis in determining whether or not
the court has jurisdiction. Even if after the hearing, it
was proved that the debt of the defendant was only
P100,000.
Q: So are we saying now that the proceeding is null
and void because the debt was only P100,000, hence,
RTC has no jurisdiction?
A: Again, the rule is that, in determining the
jurisdiction, we just read the four corners of the
complaint. That is the general rule. Why am I saying
that? It is the general rule, is there an exception?
Read this case of Serrano v Munoz:
Nor may the jurisdiction of the court be
made to depend upon the defenses set up in
the answer or upon the motion to dismiss,
for, were we to be governed by such rule,
the question of jurisdiction would depend
almost entirely upon the defendant.
Remember this very important rule.
Q: Is there an exception to that rule?
A: Yes. The application of Republic Act 9700 (THE
CARP LAW), when it took effect in 2009. It says in
section 19:
SECTION 19. Section 50 of Republic Act No.
6657, as amended, is hereby further
amended by adding Section 50-A to read as
follows:
“SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian
Dispute. — No court or prosecutor’s office
shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to
the implementation of the CARP except those
provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No.
6657, as amended. If there is an allegation
from any of the parties that the case is
agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a
farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall
be automatically referred by the judge or the
prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine
and certify within fifteen (15) days from
referral whether an agrarian dispute exists:
Provided, That from the determination of the
DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial
recourse. In cases referred by the municipal
trial court and the prosecutor’s office, the
appeal shall be with the proper regional trial
court, and in cases referred by the regional
trial court, the appeal shall be to the Court of
Appeals.
“In cases where regular courts or quasijudicial bodies have competent jurisdiction,
agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified
beneficiaries and/or their associations shall
have legal standing and interest to intervene
concerning their individual or collective rights
and/or interests under the CARP.
“The fact of non-registration of such
associations with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, or Cooperative Development
Authority, or any concerned government
agency shall not be used against them to
deny the existence of their legal standing and
interest in a case filed before such courts and
quasi-judicial bodies.”
No court, or prosecutors’ office, shall take cognizance
of cases pertaining to the implementation of the
CARP except those provided under Sec. 57 of RA No.
6657 as amended.
TAKE NOTE: If there is an allegation from any of the
parties that the case is agrarian in nature, and one of
the parties is a farmer, farmworker or tenant, the
case shall be automatically referred by the judge or
the prosecutor to the DAR xxx Shall within 15 days
from referral, when an agrarian dispute exists.
Agrarian dispute man gud, agrarian law
implementation cases , when we go to the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction, these cases fall within the
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Didto na sila i-hear. Ang DAR, naa pud na silay quasijudicial tribunal. Naa silay DARAB or what we call the
Department of Agrarian Adjudication Board. There’s
also DAR itself, over agrarian law implementation
cases. You will realize the importance of that when
you go to practice. Daghan kaayo cases involving
lands na within the jurisdiction of the DAR. So, okay
pud nang mga land cases actually.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 19
So here, it says basically na, even if the complaint
says na its for the recovery of possession. Ang
allegation tanan sa complaint does not mention at all
any agrarian implementation case, any agrarian
dispute, does not mention that defendant is a
farmer, farmworker or tenant, nothing. Pero, pag
answer ni defendant or maybe in the motion to
dismiss filed by the defendant, iyang gi-allege na
there is an agrarian dispute, and that he is a farmer,
farmworker, or tenant. The law says na automatically
na i-refer nato sa DAR. Dili pa i-dismiss hah, i-refer pa
ni court whether kung didto siya gi… kung criminal
case siya, naa man uban cases na nagfile ka theft, gi
file nimo sa theft na nangawat sila lubi, then muingon
dayun tung tenant na “hoy, tenant ko. Wala ko
nangawat, because I took the coconuts under a claim
of ownership.”
That is actually a defense. Pagkakita sa prosecutor,
dapat i-refer na niya sa DAR, or if it is the MTC nagfile
ka ng forcible entry or unlawful detainer, ejectment
cases, then magingon tung si defendant na “actually,
this is an agrarian dispute, I’m a tenant” So i-refer na
ni court didto sa DAR. Dili pa na i-dismiss. For the
DAR to make its own investigation, and maghatag na
siya certification, saying whether or not this is an
agrarian dispute. If the DAR says this is an agrarian
dispute, the court or the prosecutor’s office will
dismiss the case because it has to be filed with the
DAR. Ang jurisdiction is not with the regular courts.
Pero kung mag-ingon si DAR na “this is not an
agrarian dispute”, so the court may proceed. So in
effect, nahimo siya exception to the general rule na
when we determine whether or not the court has
jurisdiction. Supposedly, we’re just looking at the
allegations of the complaint. Wala ta pakeelam sa
kung unsa iingon ni defendant in his answer, but then
again agrarian dispute diay na siya, i-refer sa DAR.
I’ll just discuss this case na lang para dali. We have
this case of Chailese Development Company vs.
Dizon.
On the application of Sec. 50-A, RA No. 9700, as
embodied in Sec. 19 which we have discussed. So
here, there was a complaint for recovery of
possession. At that time pud, wala pa pud nag take
effect ang RA 9700. Now, so ang complainant in its
complaint, wala siya gi-mention at all na it is an
agrarian dispute. So it just says na it is a corporation,
and a registered owner of a parcel of land, and that
the land is illegally occupied by the defendants. So
there is nothing there about an agrarian dispute, na
farmer, tenant, wala. Now, so here the lands were
actually subjected to conversion. You know what’s
conversion? Supposedly pag agricultural land,
agricultural dyud na siya. You cannot own more than
5 hectares of agricultural land, anything beyond that
will be taken by the State and be distributed to
qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries. So that’s the
rule actually. Pero kung gi-convert na na siya to
industrial, commercial, so it ceases to become
agricultural. So here, there was a conversion order
actually. And later on, but before that, the plaintiffs
said na wala pud dayun na introduce ug
improvements, because again the defendants refuse
to vacate the land.
Pero kung giconvert na siya into industrial or
commercial, so it ceases to be agricultural. Here,
there was a conversion order actually. But before
that, the plaintiff said na wala pud dayon
nakaintroduce ug improvements because the
defendants refused to vacate the place.
Now in their answer, in their counterclaim, the
respondents alleged that the court has no jurisdiction
over the case because it is an agrarian reform case,
jurisdiction should be with the Department of
Agrarian Reform. According to them, they are
tenants of the land holding and there is an agrarian
dispute here because we are tenants.
Under the Republic Act No. 8844, you cannot just be
ousted from the land. You have what you call
Security of Tenure over the land. Even if you die, you
will be succeeded by your heirs. Not all of them
though, but the land owner will have to choose
among the heirs who will succeed in the tenancy.
Even if you sell the land, continue gihapon ang
tenancy. Kung kelangan jud sila muhawa, you have
to pay them disturbance compensation.
So here, there is an agrarian dispute, then RA 9700
took effect. So, here, the court initially dismissed the
case because there was no jurisdiction. And later on,
reinstated. So now, it reached Supreme Court
because the defendants are saying that:
a.
We are tenants, this is an agrarian
dispute, so the Court should not
have proceeded with the case and
instead should have automatically
referred the case to the DAR for
determination whether or not this
involves an agrarian dispute.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 20
b.
And because of the application of
RA 9700.
So there are two issues here in so far as our
discussion is concerned.
1.
At the time when the case was filed,
wala pa ang RA 9700. It only took effect
in 2009 and the case was filed in 2004.
So here, can RA 9700 be applied
retroactively? Meaning, didto naka sa
tunga sa case and it took effect, does
the court have the duty to automatically
refer the case to the DAR?
The Supreme Court said YES. RA 9700
can be applied retroactively. It merely
highlights the exclusive jurisdiction of
the DAR to rule on agrarian cases by
adding a clause which mandates the
automatic referral of the cases upon the
existence of the requisites therein. The
requisites are:
a.
There is an allegation that there is
an agrarian dispute;
b.
The defendants are farmers, farm
workers or tenants.
The Supreme Court said that RA 9700
does not deviate but merely reinforce
the jurisdiction of the DAR set forth in
the earlier law RA 6657 or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
Ra 9700 is the subsequent law.
Moreover, because the SC said that this
is merely procedural In nature. When it
is procedural in nature, it is deemed to
apply to all actions pending and
undetermined at the time of its passing.
So it still applies. For example, the
amendments on Rules of Court, even if
it took effect last May 1, 2020, and you
filed a case way back in 2000, affected
siya kay ginaapply sa courts karon ang
amended rules na. So procedural.
-Lahi pud tong jurisdiction, it is
substantive. If you are to say which
court has jurisdiction, it is determined
by the law at the time of filing of the
complaint. Regardless of the change in
the law on jurisdiction subsequent to
the filing.
R.A 9700 can be applied retroactively; it merely
highlights the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR to rule
on agrarian cases by adding a clause which mandates
the automatic referral of the cases upon the
existence of the requisites therein.
REQUISITES
1. There is an agrarian dispute.
2. The defendants are farmers, farmworkers or
tenants.
The requisites again number one there is an
allegation that there is an agrarian dispute and then
number two the defendants are farmers,
farmworkers or tenants. The Supreme Court said that
RA 9700 is not deviate but merely reinforces the
jurisdiction of the DAR set forth in the earlier law
which is the RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law.
RA 9700 ikaduha nani siya in 2009 moreover because
the Supreme Court said that this is merely procedural
in nature when it is procedural in nature it is deemed
to apply in all actions pending and undetermined at
the time of its passage. So mag apply gihapon siya
like now kitong amendments sa ROC even it took
effect only last May 1, 2020 but you filed the case
way back, let say 2000 affected gihapon siya kay
ginaaply gihapon siya sa mga courts karun ang mga
amended rules na, so procedural okay. Lahi pud tong
jurisdiction kay kitong jurisdiction ha it is substantive
that is why when you say which court has jurisdiction
it is determined based on the law at the time of the
filing of the complaint regardless of the change in the
law in jurisdiction subsequent to the filing. But here
since it is procedural even at the filing of the
complaint wala pa ni siya na rule pero naabtan ka
while the case is pending it still applies to you
because it is procedural.
Now is it referral in the DAR automatic?
TAKE NOTE: The SC scrutinized the provisions of the
Section 19 of RA 9700 mao ni sila ang requisites
before the prosecutor or the judge is obligated to
automatically refer the cases pending before the DAR
number one is at allegation from anyone or both of
the parties to the case is agrarian in nature and
number two one of the parties is a farmer,
farmworkers or tenant now take note ha of these
requisites.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 21
Allegation na it is agrarian in nature by the mere
allegation in the answer of the defendant in this case
satisfied the requisite number one because number
one says allegation when there is an allegation that
there is an agrarian dispute so kaning number one
again it is satisfied by the mere fact of alleging okay.
However number two the SC said it is not connected
to number one kaning letter a because of those use
of the word “and'' it refers to the allegation that the
case is agrarian in nature the allegation does not
extend to the second requisite that a party is a
farmer, farmworker, tenant otherwise the law should
have said there is allegation that the case is an
agrarian dispute and one of the parties is a farmer,
farmworker or tenant.
So again kaning allegation it only applies to the first
requisite as the second requisite mere allegation is
not sufficient to the second requisite you have to
prove that you are a farmer, farmworker or tenant so
the second requisite required proof the first requisite
again allegation lang. So for the automatic referral to
apply both requisites must be present. So the SC said
anent the second requisite the defendants failed to
prove that they are farmers, farmworkers or
agricultural tenants. So here the SC said that for the
automatic referral to the DAR to apply again there
must be an allegation that it is an agrarian dispute
and proof that the parties or any of the parties are
farmers, farmworkers or tenants. It is not enough
that the elements are alleged self-service statements
in the pleading are inadequate. So this is the ruling
here but if na prove nimo na tenant ka then dapat irefer nani court kay DAR ang case. So ma apply na
nato ang exception to the general rule na jurisdiction
is determine only based on the allegations in the
complaint kani siya if it is agrarian dispute and it is
alleged that this an agrarian dispute and it is prove
that the parties are farmers, farmworkers or tenants
automatic na ang referral to the DAR.
December 1, 2020RECAP:
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
This is the power of the court to render judgment
which will bind parties to the case.
Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is
acquired from the time he files his complaint;
while jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
is acquired by his voluntary appearance in court
and his submission to its authority, or by the
coercive power of legal processes exerted over his
person.
Jurisdiction over the person is subject to waiver,
unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter which is
conferred by law and cannot therefore be waived.
Remember, whether or not the court has jurisdiction:
1.
We have to look into the law which provides
for the various jurisdiction of the several
courts
2.
Jurisdiction is acquired by the court when
the case is filed
3.
Jurisdiction is also determined based on the
allegations in the complaint
JURISDICTION OVER THE
PERSON
Usually there are two parties in a case:
1.
2.
Plaintiff or complainant
Defendant
Who is the petitioner?
Usually in administrative cases, special proceedings,
they are called petitioner and respondent.
If it is a civil action, they are referred to as plaintiff or
complainant and defendant
Later we will learn that there could be intervenor - he
could be the plaintiff-intervenor meaning he is siding
with the plaintiff, or defendant-intervenor, but he is
not an original party to the case so he will file a
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 22
motion with the court to allow him to intervene. Naa
pud third, 4th, 5th parties.
HOW IS JURISDICTION
ACQUIRED?
OVER
THE
PERSON
This is the power of the court to render judgment
which will bind parties to the case.
summons. So, nagfile si plaintiff og motion to declare
the defendant in default. As a consequence, the
defendant is not anymore entitled to participate in
the proceedings.
What can the defendant do? Because there was
improper summons, the defendant over whose
person the court did not acquire jurisdiction, the
proceedings are entirely null and void.
On the part of the plaintiff or complainant
Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff or
complainant is acquired from the time he files his
complaint.
CARSON REALTY & MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION VS. RED ROBIN SECURITY
AGENCY
On the part of the defendant
It depends, it could be:
●
●
By service of summons upon the defendant
(coercive power of legal processes exerted
over his person)
By his voluntary appearance in court
(submission to court’s authority )
■
Jurisdiction over the person is subject to waiver,
unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter which is
conferred by law and cannot therefore be waived.
How?
▸
When he files his answer in
the case
▸
When he files a motion to
dismiss and includes OTHER
GROUNDS
▸
When he asks for relief from
the court.
While jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
acquired by his voluntary appearance in court and his
submission to its authority, or by the coercive power
of legal processes exerted over his person.
NOTE: Jurisdiction over the person is REQUIRED for
the court to acquire authority over a case.
Even if the court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the case is within the jurisdiction of the
court, but the defendant was not properly
summoned, no jurisdiction over his person was
acquired. The decision of the court can be assailed as
null and void.
Ex: Nagfile og case si plaintiff, nagsummon sila sa
defendant. Kaya lang improper ang service sa
G.R. No. 225035, February 8, 2017.
The RTC acquired jurisdiction over Carson
In any event, event if we concede the invalidity of the
substituted service, such is of little significance in view of
the fact that the RTC had already acquired jurisdiction
over Carson early on due to its voluntary submission to
the jurisdiction of the court.
Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the
filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction
over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either
through the service of summons upon them or through
their voluntary appearance in court and their submission
to its authority, as provided in Section 20, rule 14 of the
Rules of Court.
GUIDE QUESTIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What if the lawyer who filed the notice of
appearance was not really authorized by the
client?
What were the circumstances considered by
the Court?
Who received the summons?
What were the allegations of the parties?
What did the lawyer file? Did the lawyer file
an answer?
This case was decided before the amendment to the
Rules of Court. Even with the amendment of the
ROC, lahi na ang mga persons who can receive for
and in behalf of the corporation. Sa una mas limited
to sila. Karon daghan na. Dili lang necessarily na
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 23
officer of the corporation, even the secretary or
security guard can receive.
jurisdiction over the res for there to be a complete
determination of the case.
Important consideration that you need to remember
is that, assuming there was really improper improper
service of summons, but there are two ways by
which the court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant:
1.
2.
Summons
Voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of
the court.
Here, from the moment that the lawyer filed a notice
of appearance and asked for extension to file an
answer (relief), the court already acquired
jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION OVER THE
RES
JURISDICTION OVER THE RES
Jurisdiction over the “res” or the “thing” in dispute
may be acquired by seizure. It applies generally to
actions involving the personal status of plaintiff
and property within the Philippines.
NOTE: Jurisdiction over the res may be acquired by
filing of the complaint or by seizure of the thing. By
then, the thing is already placed under custodia legis
or the custody of the court..
This is discussed in Rule 14, how we acquire
jurisdiction over the res. When you say the res, we
are not referring to the personal liability of the
defendant but to the thing which is the subject
matter of the action or the status.
In special proceedings, in order for the court to
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the parties,
ang need lang diha is publication. Like, what do you
mean by the res, the status? Like, your status as an
adopted child - that is the res. Declaration of the
nullity of marriage- so the validity of the marriage is
the res.
In property, like foreclosure of the mortgage, so we
are referring to the property which is the subject of
the mortgage. The court should also acquire
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 24
BIACO VS. PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL
BANK
FACTS: Ernesto Biaco, husband of petitioner Ma.
Teresa Biaco, obtained several loans from
Philippine Countryside Rural Bank as branch
manager. He executed a real estate mortgage in
favor of the bank over a parcel of land. The REM
bore signatures of the spouses.
When Ernesto failed to settle the loans on its due
date, the bank through counsel sent him a written
demand on September 28, 1999. The amount due
as of Sept. 30, 19999 had reached 1,080,676.50.
The written demand, proved futile. The bank filed
a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage against
the spouses. Summons was served to Ernesto’s
Office. Ernesto received summons but he failed to
file an answer. The spouses were declared in
default and the bank presented its evidence ex
parte. The Court decided against the Spouses.
In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court
provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over
the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either:
1.
2.
Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the
defendant not for the purpose of vesting the
court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying
the due process requirements.
GUIDE QUESTIONS:
1.
A creditor files a case of foreclosure of
mortgage against the debtor, but the debtor
was either not served with summons or
there was improper service of summons.
The Court proceeded with the foreclosure of
the property. Is it valid?
2.
What do you call the portion of the decision
where, example: the proceeds of the
foreclosure are not sufficient to pay off the
debt, then the debtors are liable for the
balance?
Teresa argued that the judgment should be
annulled because she was deprived of due process
because she did not receive the summons. She
said the court did not acquire jurisdiction over her
person.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over
the res and in relation to that, if it failed to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of Teresa.
RULING: The question of whether the trial court
has jurisdiction depends on the nature of the
action, i.e. whether the action is in personam, in
rem, or quasi in rem. The rules on service of
summons under Rule 14 of the ROC likewise apply
according to the nature of the action. An action in
personam is an action against a person on the
basis of his personal liability.
An action in rem is an action against the thing itself
instead of against the person.
An action quasi in rem is one wherein 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. In an
action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is necessary for the court to validly
try and decide the case.
By seizure of the property under legal
process, whereby it is brought into actual
custody of the law;
Or as a result of the institution of legal
proceedings, in which the power of the
court is recognized and made effective.
A: Deficiency judgment. When you foreclose, it is
possible that the proceeds will not be sufficient to
pay off the entire obligation. But it does not mean
that the debtor is already free of the obligation. In
that case, there is also a need for a deficiency
judgment. The court will order the debtors to pay the
balance after deducting the proceeds of foreclosure.
DISCUSSION: Whatever is the case whether it is in
personam, in rem, or quasi in rem, there is a need to
serve summons upon the defendant. Although when
we go to Rule 14, lahi lahi ang procedure for the
service of summons. If you did not comply, before
you can resort with any other mode, you must
comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court.
Otherwise, dili valid imong service of summons.
Even if you say nga naay jurisdiction over the res,
still, you have to comply with the rules on summons
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 25
so as to observe due process. Non-observance of due
process will oust the court of its jurisdiction, pwede
nimo i-contest ang proceedings sa court. You can
contest nga naay lack of jurisdiction kung wala ka
nag-observe og due process.
You have to follow the procedure, especially nga
naay deficiency judgment sa case. When there is a
deficiency judgment, you are asking for personal
liability of the debtors. In that sense- the deficiency
judgment, it becomes in personam. It imposes
personal liabilities upon the defendants and you
cannot do that without acquiring jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant. That is the rule.
Kung naay defect, you can contest that maybe on the
ground of lack of due process, not because no
jurisdiction was acquired by the court. Again, naa nay
jurisdiction over the res, but still there was no
observance of due process. We will discuss this again
when we go to Rule 14.
ACTION IN REM
Ex: registration of title. It is over the property itself.
When you apply for registration over a land, the
whole world may oppose your application for
registration. Any judgment rendered by the court in
that proceeding is binding against the whole world.
Usually, pag in rem, because you cannot summon a
specific person, in in rem proceedings publication ang
requirement to acquire jurisdiction.The publication
serves as the notice to the whole world. Usahay
posting.
ACTION QUASI IN REM
Ex: foreclosure. There is a defendant who is named
because he is the owner of the property. The
purpose is to subject his interest in the property to
the obligation or lien burdening that property. In a
foreclosure, it is now the property which is made to
answer for the obligation. If kulang, pwede pa ka
maningil sa debtor. But that is IN PERSONAM katong sa deficiency nga portion.
ACTION IN PERSONAM
Ex: Action for collection. You are seeking to recover
from a definite person so that is adversarial. It is also
required na jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is acquired. Although, in an action in
personam the decision is not binding against those
who are not parties. Ex: Recovery of possession. Naay
person nisulod sa akong property by force,
intimidation, threat, stealth - grounds for forcible
entry, nagfile ko forcible entry kay gusto nako sya
pahWhat if there awaon. Such action is an action in
personam. It is directed against the person. You want
him to be ejected. Dili sya action involving the
property because the property is already yours.
What if there are persons who are not not assignees,
not successors-in-interest, not heirs - totally a
stranger, will they be binded by the decision of the
court? No. in the forcible entry case you filed, only
person A is your defendant.the action is only binding
as to him.
NOTE: By filing pleadings, the Court will be able to
hear your side and the defect of lack of due process
will be cured.
JURISDICTION OVER THE
ISSUE
JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUE
This is the authority of the court to try and decide
the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties.
This is acquired by the court after the defendant
files his answer or, in procedural parlance, when
the “issues are joined” unlike subject matter
jurisdiction which is acquired upon filing.
DISCUSSION: Mao ni ang complaint ni plaintiff, mao
ni ang answer ni defendant, the issues are now
joined. Should we wait for the reply?
A: No. Under the new rules, the filing of a reply is not
allowed. There are just specific circumstances na
pwede ka magreply. Once you filed the answer,
joined na.
SCENARIO: A case for a specific performance is filed.
B, the plaintiff said A sold to him a 1-hectare parcel of
land covered by a TCT for 1 million. When B was
ready to pay, A refused to honor the agreement. The
sale was verbal. A said his consent was vitiated and
there was lesion because the price was inadequate.
The issue is whether or not the sale between A and B
is voidable or rescissible.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 26
The Court cannot decide the case based on other
reality which were not based on the pleadings of the
party. What happens if during the proceeding, A says
the contract is unenforceable because it is covered
by the Statute of Frauds. It has to be in writing. But
that was not raised in his answer. So the court did
not acquire jurisdiction on the issue whether or not
the contract of sale is unenforceable.
However, if the lawyer of A failed to object, waived
na ang defense. Dili pwede maingon sa plaintiff na
dili sya covered sa issues sa case.
Even if as a general rule, jurisdiction over the issues is
conferred by the pleadings of the parties and the
court cannot take cognizance of an issue not raised in
the pleadings of the parties, if the trial a party
without objection is able to raise that issue which is
otherwise not raised in the pleadings, the court can
still rule on that issue.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 27
December 4, 2020 - RECORDED LECTURE
DOCTRINE OF CONTINUITY
OF JURISDICTION
Adherence of Jurisdiction
MARIÑO, JR., ET AL. vs. GAMILLA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 132400 January 31, 2007.
It is a settled rule that jurisdiction, once acquired,
continues until the case is finally terminated. It
cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or
events. Although a character which should have
prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first
instance
DISCUSSION: It cannot be ousted by subsequent
happenings or events. Although a character which
should have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in
the first instance Ex: In year 2000 you filed a case for a sum of money.
Assuming that at that time, the law enforces that any
amount exceeding 100,000 shall be within the
jurisdiction of the RTC and your claim is 250,000
which falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Subsequently, the jurisdiction of the MTC regarding
money claims is increased to 300,000 - nahitabo gyud
ni sya under RA 7691 - what happens to your case in
the RTC? Has it lost jurisdiction? Again, we go back to
the doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction. Because
jurisdiction properly attached to the RTC when the
complaint was filed, that jurisdiction continues.
The Court, notwithstanding any amendments in the
law, retains that authority and power to hear and
decide the case. Unless, the law will say na it should
be transferred. Again, we go back to the General
Rule. The Doctrine of Continuity of jurisdiction or
adherence of jurisdiction. The case continues with
the court until final judgment.
principle also means that once jurisdiction has
attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent
happenings or events, although of a character which
would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in
the first instance.
The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired,
retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the
case (Bantua vs. Mercader, 350 SCRA 86; Aruego, Jr.
vs. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 711; San Miguel
Corporation vs. Sandiganbayan, 340 SCRA 289;
Bernarte vs. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 323; Bokingo
vs. Court of Appeals, 489 SCRA 521; De la Rosa vs.
Roldan, 501 SCRA34).
As a consequence of this principle, jurisdiction is not
affected by a new law placing a proceeding under the
jurisdiction of another tribunal except when
otherwise provided in the statute or if the statute is
clearly intended to apply to actions pending even
before its enactment (People vs. Cawaling, 293 SCRA
267)
TAKE NOTE OF THIS CASE: ASMALA VS COMELEC
If the court has jurisdiction to act on a motion at the
time it was filed, that jurisdiction to resolve the
motion continues until the matter is resolved and is
not lost by the subsequent filing of a notice of appeal
(Asmala vs. COMELEC,289 SCRA 746).
DISCUSSION: So magpadayon gihapon, as long as the
court has not resolved the motion. It continues to
have that authority to resolve the motion.
In the cases of FLORES VS SUMALJAG and VICTORY VS
BELOSILLO:
These
cases
actually
involved
administrative cases against judges.
Q: Will the fact that the judge ceased to be in office
and the case filed against him was in relation to his
performance in the office make the court lose
jurisdiction over the case?
Jurisdiction is referred to as "continuing" in view of
the general principle that once a court has acquired
jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court
has done all that it can do in the exercise of that
jurisdiction (20 Am Jur 2d, Courts § 147). This
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 28
Flores vs. Sumaljag
Nature: In Flores, there was a case filed against a
judge because he issued warrants of of arrest. The
judge eventually retired while the case against him
was pending.
HELD: The trial court did not lose jurisdiction over
the case involving a public official by the mere fact
that said official ceased to be in office during the
pendency of the case (Flores vs. Sumaljag, 290
SCRA 568).
Victory Liner vs. Belosillo
Nature: The judge here failed to act on a motion.
Later on, the judge resigned.
HELD: The jurisdiction that the court had at the
time of the filing of the complaint is not lost by the
mere fact that the respondent judge ceased to be
in office during the pendency of the case (Victory
Liner vs. Belosillo, 425 SCRA 79).
The court retains its jurisdiction either to
pronounce the respondent official innocent of the
charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary
rule would be fraught with injustices and pregnant
with harmful and dangerous implications. If
innocent, the respondent official merits vindication
of his name and integrity as he leaves the
government which he has served well and
faithfully. If guilty, he deserves to receive the
corresponding censure and penalty proper and
impossible under the situation.
If you say jurisdiction is lost just because the public
official ceases to be in office, it would be very easy to
evade responsibility over your non-performance or
irregularities in the performance by the simple
expedient of ceasing to be in office either by
resignation, retirement, death, etc.
Discussion: When a case is finally decided and
appealed or the judgment becomes final and
executory:
1. When final and executory - the court has already
lost jurisdiction over the case
But what do we mean by the court has lost
jurisdiction over the case? It simply means that the
Court has lost the power to alter, amend or modify
the decision. The court still retains the power to
implement or enforce the judgment - basically, the
court still retains jurisdiction even after final
judgment, although again, it cannot modify, amend,
or change the decision.
2. When the case was appealed - The Court has
already decided on a case, then the case was on
appeal, ex: The case was originally filed in the RTC
and decided by the RTC and then the party appealed
to the CA, what is the effect?
When you go to Rules 41 and 42 of the Rules of
Court, the RTC loses jurisdiction over the case
because it is now with the CA. However, under Rules
41 and 42, the RTC still retains some power, can still
issue orders in relation to the case. But that is only
with respect to what we call its residual jurisdiction.
We will go there later- when the court does not
totally lose its jurisdiction over the case.
INSTANCES WHEN A COURT MAY LOSE
JURISDICTION EVEN IF IT HAS BEEN
ATTACHED TO IT
These are the exceptions to the general rule on the
doctrine of the continuity of jurisdiction or adherence
of jurisdiction:
1. When a subsequent law provides a prohibition for
the continued exercise of jurisdiction
TAKE NOTE: In Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice-Even the finality of the judgment does not totally
deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. What
the court loses is the power to amend, modify or
alter the judgment. Even after the judgment has
become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce
and execute it (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice,
301 SCRA 96; Republic vs. Atlas Farms, 345 SCRA
296).
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 29
Vda. De Ballesteros vs. Rural Bank Of Canaman Inc.
G.R. No. 176260, November 24, 2010
Nature: Here, there was a complaint for the
judicial partition, deed of mortgage and damages,
etc, against RBCI before the RTC of Iriga. During
the pendency of the case, RBCI became insolvent
and was closed. Later on, RBCI through PDIC, filed
a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Iriga
RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the action.
According to RBCI, pursuant to Section 30 of RA 7653,
New Central Bank Act, the Makati City RTC which was
already constituted as the liquidation court will assist
PDIC in undertaking the liquidation of the bank of
RBCI. So they should fall within the jurisdiction of the
Liquidation Court.
The plaintiff cited the doctrine of the adherence of
jurisdiction or continuity of jurisdiction. At the time
when the case was filed, the RTC of Iriga had
jurisdiction over the case and pursuant to the
doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction, the RTC Iriga
should continue to exercise powers and authority
During the pre-trial conference, the counsel for RBCI
informed the court that PDIC would now handle the
case because of closure and receivership of the bank.
HELD: This Court is not unmindful nor unaware of
the doctrine on the adherence of jurisdiction.
However, the rule on adherence of jurisdiction is
not absolute and has exceptions. One of the
exceptions is that when the change in jurisdiction
is curative in character.
For sure, Section 30, R.A. 7653 is curative in
character when it declared that the liquidation
court shall have jurisdiction in the same
proceedings to assist in the adjudication of the
disputed claims against the Bank. The
interpretation of this Section (formerly Section 29,
R.A. 265) becomes more obvious in the light of its
intent.
The requirement that all claims against the bank
be pursued in the liquidation proceedings filed by
the Central Bank is intended to prevent multiplicity
of actions against the insolvent bank and designed
to establish due process and orderliness in the
liquidation of the bank, to obviate the proliferation
of litigations and to avoid injustice and
arbitrariness (citing Ong v. CA, 253 SCRA 105
[1996]). The lawmaking body contemplated that
for convenience, only one court, if possible, should
pass upon the claims against the insolvent bank
and that the liquidation court should assist the
Superintendents of Banks and regulate his
operations.
Discussion: Here, there was now a prohibition for the
continued exercise of jurisdiction, the RTC of Iriga
should now yield to the jurisdiction of the liquidation
court.
2. Where the law penalizing an act which is
punishable is repealed by a subsequent law. The
reason is that, the State loses the power to
prosecute when the law is repealed, hence,the court
has no more power to decide [People vs. Pastor, 77
Phil. 1000].
FACTS: Here, there was a prosecution under the
Commonwealth Act No. 503, they are allegedly liable
for the payment of the privilege tax. So it’s a tax
evasion case. Subsequently, under the National
Revenue Code, only the manufacturer, producer, or
importer is liable for the payment of the privilege tax.
The accused here were merchants.
If you notice under the NIRC, merchants are no
longer mentioned - what is the effect of that
enactment? - Because the NIRC was intended to
repeal CA No. 503.
HELD: In accordance with this doctrine, where the
repealing law wholly fails to penalize the acts which
constituted the offense defined and penalized in the
repealed law, the repeal carries with it the
deprivation of the courts of jurisdiction to try,
convict, and sentence persons charged with
violations of the old law prior to the repeal.
This is our case, since, as already seen, the National
Internal Revenue Code, and for that matter even
Commonwealth Act No. 503, wholly fails to penalize
the acts imputed upon the herein defendants.
Additional discussion: If you remember Criminal Law,
an act can only be considered as a crime when it is
defined and penalized under the RPC. So, even if the
act is reprehensible, but it is not among those
defined by the RPC or by special laws, you cannot be
punished for such act. Also, you have learned that
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 30
penal laws shall be construed strictly against the
State and liberally in favor of the accused.
If an act is decriminalized, even if there is a pending
case for that particular act, but because the State has
already withdrawn the punishment for such an act ,
then, that act no longer becomes criminal. There is
no longer use to prosecute the criminal when the act
has ceased to be an offense / criminal.
There is also a retroactive effect. Ex: If the legislature
passes a law which is in favor of the accused, it also
affects those which are committed even before the
passage of the law.
Here, the court loses jurisdiction. This is an exception
to the general rule of continuity of jurisdiction.
Because the law has already withheld from the State
the power to prosecute the defendants, the law has
already been repealed, therefore, the Court is
deprived of jurisdiction to continue trying that case.
3. When accused is deprived of his constitutional
right such as where the court fails to provide
counsel for the accused who is unable to obtain one
and does not intelligently waive his constitutional
right [Chavez vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663].
Discussion: You learned this before in Constitutional
Law - the accused is entitled to be heard by himself
or counsel. So, in the case, if the accused cannot
afford the services of counsel, the court should
provide counsel for the accused. If for example the
proceedings in the court will continue despite the
fact that the accused is not assisted by counsel, or
without a competent counsel, the court loses
jurisdiction so the proceedings can be assailed on the
said ground. Read the case of Chavez vs CA.
4. When the proceedings in the court acquiring
jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned or declared
void [Seven vs. Pichay, 108 Phil. 419].
One question of law was raised in this appeal, thus:
Had the court below jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action?
Defendant-appellant claims that the Court of First
Instance of Quezon City, which appointed defendant
as guardian, still retains exclusive jurisdiction over
the guardianship proceedings and no other court can
validly interfere with its continuing jurisdiction.
HELD: This argument cannot be sustained. The
jurisdiction of a court in a guardianship proceeding
and all incidents thereof exists as long as the case
is pending in that court. But when the case is
terminated, by dismissal or otherwise, the court
ceases to exercise the power and authority to try
said case or any incidental matters thereof.
DISCUSSION: Here, there was a guardianship
proceeding but it was already terminated.
Subsequently, there was a petition for accounting
filed in the Court where the Guardianship proceeding
was pending.
But, the SC said because the guardianship proceeding
was already terminated, that petition for accounting
can no longer be filed in the same case, but must be
filed as a separate case in the same court or any
court of competent jurisdiction.
"After final judgment or decree has been rendered
and the parties dismissed, in general, the jurisdiction
of the court is exhausted . . ." (21 C.J.S. 147.)
After termination, by dismissal or otherwise, of
litigation in one court . . . any exclusive jurisdiction or
freedom from interference it may have possessed is
at an end; and another court may deal with the
property or subject matter which, by the former suit,
was not withdrawn forever from subsequent
litigation." (Id., p. 816.)
A petition for accounting, etc., which is an incident of
a guardianship proceeding, should be filed in the
court where the guardianship proceedings are
pending. But once the guardianship proceeding is
terminated, said petition can no longer be filed in the
same case, but must be filed as a separate case, in
the same court, or in any other court of competent
jurisdiction.
GENERAL RULE: "The general rule that the authority
of the court first acquiring jurisdiction must prevail is
subject to the exception that where the proceeding
in the court first acquiring jurisdiction is terminated,
abandoned, or void, then another court of
concurrent jurisdiction may take jurisdiction of the
same subject matter." (14 Am. Jur. 445.)
Ex: There are several courts or concurrent courts
which have jurisdiction over a specific matter, so you
can file this with any of them. But once you file the
case with one of them, the jurisdiction is already
concentrated in that court which first acquired
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 31
jurisdiction. It must exercise jurisdiction to the
exclusion of all other courts. That is the general rule.
EXCEPTION: The exception is, if the proceedings in
that court first acquiring jurisdiction have already
been terminated, or abandoned or void, then
another court of concurrent jurisdiction may take
jurisdiction over the same subject matter.
It does not mean that once you acquire jurisdiction,
forever na gyud kang naay jurisdiction. That will only
be true if wala pa nahuman ang proceedings in your
court, once naa nay decision or closed na, wala na.
The petition must be filed in another court. You
cannot reopen that proceedings in the court already
terminated.
"An action for accounting may be brought in a court
of law whenever the guardianship for any reason
terminates without any prior settlement in the
court." (39 C.J.S. 253.)
5. When the statute expressly provides, or is
construed to the effect that it intended to operate
as to actions pending before its enactment
[Bengzon vs. Inciong, 91 SCRA 284].
FACTS: This is a labor case. In the case at bar,
petitioner's complaint for actual and moral damages
as a result of the arbitrary dismissal, of employee was
filed directly with the Regional Office of the Ministry
of Labor where the case was heard and decided.
Here, because the jurisdiction to hear and decide
claims for damages - moral and other damages
arising from ER -EE relationship was within the
jurisdiction of the Regional Office of the Ministry of
Labor, so the case was filed there.
The case was finally decided and there was a motion
for reconsideration. Pending the motion for
reconsideration, PD 1367 was enacted. PD 1367, said
na jurisdiction over these cases- moral damages, etc
arising from ER-EE relationship, are now within the
jurisdiction of the regular courts. (NOTE: At present
ang jurisdicition over that is with the labor arbiters of
the NLRC.)
Although this decision was later reconsidered, the
reconsideration was based on the fact that the case
could not be refiled with the Labor Court, since the
latter had already been deprived of any jurisdiction
to hear claims for moral damages by Presidential
Decree No. 1367.
ISSUE: Should we transfer the case to the RTC? Is
the Regional Office of the Ministry of Labor now
deprived of its jurisdiction to decide on the motion
for reconsideration because of the enactment of
PD 1367?
HELD: The rule is that where a court has already
obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a
controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final
determination of the cause is not affected by new
legislation placing jurisdiction over such
proceedings in another tribunal. The exception to
the rule is where the statute expressly provides, or
is construed to the effect that it is intended to
operate as to actions pending before its
enactment. Where a statute changing the
jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, it
cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior
to the enactment of the statute.
We find the principles applicable to the case at
bar. To require petitioner to file a separate suit for
damages in the regular courts would be to
"sanction split jurisdiction, which is prejudicial to
the orderly administration of justice.
TAKE NOTE: There is an exception to that. The
exception is where the statute expressly provides or
is construed to the effect that it is intended to
operate as to actions pending before its enactment.
But, where statute changing the jurisdiction of the
court has no retroactive effect, it cannot be applied
to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of
the statute.
6. Once appeal has been perfected [Alma vs. Abbas,
18 SCRA 836].
Discussion: Once appeal is filed in court and that
court under the law and based on the complaint of
the plaintiff has jurisdiction, the court continues to
exercise its jurisdiction over the case until it is
decided.
Once there is already an appeal, the effect of the
appeal is that the court loses jurisdiction over the
case.
We can no longer invoke the doctrine of continuity of
jurisdiction because the court has already decided
the case, although it is not yet final because it is an
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 32
appeal, but the principle of that appeal is that the
court loses jurisdiction.
Exception - Unless, we are talking of the principle of
residual jurisdiction, which I mentioned before in
Rules 41 and 42 of the Rules of Court.
Ex: Even if the RTC has already decided the case and
then the aggrieved party has perfected an appeal to
the CA, technically, the RTC has lost jurisdiction over
the case. However, prior to the transmittal of the
original record or the record on appeal, the RTC may
still issue orders for the protection and preservation
on the rights of the parties which do not involve any
matter litigated by the appeal, approved
compromises, remit appeals of indigent litigants,
order execution pending an appeal, and allow
withdrawal of the appeal.
the regional directors as well as by the Labor
Arbiters, so dili na daw sa ilahang jurisdiction. Didto
na daw sila I-file sa regular courts. Then, kini nga case
didto man gyud sya nakafiile sa regular court. Should
the court dismiss the case because at the time the
case was filed before it, the court had no jurisdiction?
HELD: The lack of jurisdiction was cured by the
issuance of the amendatory decree which is in the
nature of a curative statute with retrospective
application to a pending proceeding, like Civil Case
No. 9657 (See 82 C.J.S. 1004).
Discussion: So, ipadayon lang nimo ang trial, the
court continues to have jurisdiction even if in the
beginning it had none.
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY
This is what we call the exercise of the court’s
residual jurisdiction. Katong mga nabilin na lang,
remnants of the jurisdiction after it has lost
jurisdiction because of the perfection of an appeal.
In the hierarchy of courts, we have courts of equal
jurisdiction.
7. When the law is curative
Example: There are several municipal trial courts in
one city. These are co-equal courts (all MTCCs, all
RTCs)
Garcia vs. Martinez
90 SCRA 331
FACTS: A complaint for moral damages was filed
allegedly arising from the employee’s dismissal as
manager of a radio station.
At the time of filing: court was not clothed with
such jurisdiction (moral or other form of damages).
Subsequently, a law was enacted, PD 1367 which
granted the court jurisdiction.
At the time this case was decided the lower court
had jurisdiction over Velasco's complaint.
It was ruled that the complaint should have been
filed with the NLRC because the jurisdiction of the
labor arbiters under Art. 217 of the Labor Code
includes claims for damages resulting from the
unjustified dismissal from an employee.
The employee filed a motion for reconsideration of
that decision. Pending the second motion for
reconsideration, there was PD 1367 which took effect
May 1, 1978.
Unsay nakabutang didto? Na cases involving moral or
other forms of damages will not be entertained by
Under the doctrine of judicial stability, for example if you are both RTCs of different branches - being coequal with the other RTC, you cannot interfere with
the judgments or processes of the other court. Like
RTC branch 8 cannot annul, alter, modify, interfere
with RTC branch 16.
NOTE: Should one branch be permitted to equally
assert, assume, or retain jurisdiction over a case in
controversy over which another coordinate or coequal branch has already assumed jurisdiction, then
that would be sanctioning undue interference by one
branch over another. With that, judicial stability
would be meaningless precept in a well-ordered
administration of justice [Parcon vs. CA, 111 SCRA
262].
CASE: BARROSO vs. HON. JUDGE OMELIO
G.R. No. 194767, October 14, 2015
FACTS: This is a Davao case. RTC Branch 14 is
presided by Judge Omelio and RTC branch 16 is
presided by Judge Balindong.
In 2007, there was a case filed with the RTC Branch
16 for sum of money against Dennis Lee. The
complaint included a prayer for the issuance of a writ
of preliminary attachment. Dennis Lee filed his
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 33
answer. RTC Branch 16 granted the application for
writ of attachment and approved the corresponding
bond- so when you say writ of attachment, meaning,
properties of Dennis Lee will be placed under custody
of courts, will be attached so that in case the plaintiff
wins in the case, those properties will be held to
answer for the liability.
But here, Dennis Lee filed a counter attachment bond
- para madissolve ang attachment. It was issued by
Traveller’s Insurance and Surety Corp. During the
case, there was a compromise agreement entered
into between the plaintiff and Dennis Lee.
In Cabili, the RTC of Iligan City issued a writ of
execution, but the judgment debtor, instead of
complying with said writ, filed a separate petition for
prohibition and mandamus with application for
issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or
preliminary injunction with the RTC of Marawi City.
After the hearing, the Presiding Judge of the RTC of
Marawi City issued the TRO restraining the sheriff
from enforcing the writ of execution issued by the
RTC of Iligan City.
In the aforementioned case, the Court struck down
such action of the RTC of Marawi City, ruling thus:
In a compromise agreement, both parties enter into
reciprocal concessions and they both agreed to
terminate or end the pending case. However, it is the
essence of a compromise agreement that if the party
who is bound to comply fails to do so, the aggrieved
party can move for execution, without any other
hearing.
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference
in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal
court is an elementary principle in the
administration of justice: no court can interfere by
injunction with the judgments or orders of another
court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to
grant the relief sought by the injunction.
Here, in the compromise agreement, Dennis Lee
promised to pay a sum of money. The court
approved the compromise agreement. Once
approved by courts, that compromise agreement
becomes the judgment of the court.
The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept
of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over
the case and renders judgment therein has
jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all
other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all
its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice,
the conduct of ministerial officers acting in
connection with this judgment.
Dennis Lee failed to pay so the plaintiff filed a motion
for execution. RTC Branch 16 issued a writ of
execution solely against Dennis Lee. When it was
returned unsatisfied, meaning wala nibayad si Dennis
Lee, the plaintiff filed a motion for execution of
judgment upon the counterbond. This is against the
counterbond filed by Travellers Insurance Surety
Corp.
Subsequently, Travellers filed a separate case which
was raffled to RTC Branch 14 for declaration of
nullity, prohibition, injunction, with prayer for writ of
preliminary injunction and TRO and damages. The
RTC Branch 14 issued an injunction against the writ of
execution issued by RTC Branch 16.
According to Judge Omelio, wala daw sya nag-TRO or
nag enjoin against RTC Branch 16, ang iyang gi-enjoin
lang kay ang sheriff of RTC Branch 16.
ISSUE: Is the issuance of the RTC Branch 14 of an
injunction against the writ of execution issued by RTC
Branch 16 considering that both are co-equal courts?
HELD: The SC made reference to the case of Atty.
Cabili v. Judge Balindong.
Q: What if erroneous an issuance by the court of the
writ of execution? What if erroneous diay tong
issuance sa RTC Branch 16 of the writ of execution?
What is the remedy of the aggrieved party?
A: First, you can file a motion for reconsideration
before the same court a court which issued a writ of
execution has the inherent power for the
advancement of justice to correct errors of its
ministerial officers and to control its own processes.
SC: Thus, we have repeatedly held that a case where
an execution order has been issued is considered as
still pending, so that all the proceedings on the
execution are still proceedings in the suit. A court
which issued a writ of execution has the inherent
power, for the advancement of justice, to correct
errors of its ministerial officers and to control its own
processes. To hold otherwise would be to divide the
jurisdiction of the appropriate forum in the
resolution of incidents arising in execution
proceedings-splitting of jurisdiction is obnoxious to
the orderly administration of justice.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 34
Katong case na gi-file pending sa RTC Branch 16, ang
jurisdiction ato pertains to the entire RTC giraffle lang
sya sa RTC Branch 16. Under the doctrine that when
a court exercises jurisdiction over the case and it is
the first which exercised that jurisdiction, it exercises
the said jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other
concurrent courts. Kung kato na case raffled sa
Branch 16- Branch 16 should exercise jurisdiction
over that case until its final judgment and all
incidents in relation to that case should still be
resolved by RTC Branch 16. In the execution stage,
which is again, part of the execution of the
jurisdiction of RTC Branch 16 - tanang questions in
relation to that should be within the jurisdiction of
RTC Branch 16.
stage dili na sya pwede I-appeal. Pag naa nay writ of
execution, meaning final and executory na ang
decision, it is no longer subject for an appeal. The
other available remedy is a petition for certiorari. We
will discuss that later.
Kung ginaquestion nimo ang alias writ of execution
because it included the counterbond against
travelers, then didto ka mag-file og motion for
reconsideration with RTC Branch 16. Dili ka magfile
og another case which is raffled before RTC Branch
14. Again, the latter is not a superior court over the
other. They are just co-equal courts.
As already mentioned above, the appropriate action
is to assail the implementation of the writ before the
issuing court in whose behalf the sheriff acts, and,
upon failure, to seek redress through a higher judicial
body, xxx.
Kung naay mali, si Branch 16 mismo dapat ang mag
correct dili another court of the same level.
Q: What if, despite the motion of reconsideration
the RTC Branch 16 will not modify, will not reverse
or reconsider its ruling? What is the remedy for the
aggrieved party?
A: You can appeal to a higher court, you can resort to
another remedy. But not within the same-level court.
You file the appropriate relief before the CA.
SC: To be sure, the law and the rules are not unaware
that an issuing court may violate the law in issuing a
writ of execution and have recognized that there
should be a remedy against this violation. The
remedy, however, is not the resort to another coequal body but to a higher court with authority to
nullify the action of the issuing court. This is precisely
the judicial power that the 1987 Constitution, under
Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2, speaks of and
which this Court has operationalized through a
petition for certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.
Discussion: So you can question that determination
by RTC Branch 16 by way of a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Nganong
Certiorari man nganong dili appeal? As we will
discuss under Rule 39, proceedings during execution
Q: How about the contention of Judge Omelio that
the TRO was not against Branch 16 but against the
sheriff?
SC: It is not a viable legal position to claim that a TRO
against a writ of execution is issued against an erring
sheriff, not against the issuing Judge. A TRO enjoining
the enforceability of a writ addresses the writ itself,
not merely the executing sheriff x x x
Applying the foregoing ruling, it is quite clear that, in
this case, the issuance of the subject writ of
preliminary injunction was improper and, thus,
correctible by certiorari. Herein respondent judge
does not have jurisdiction to hinder the enforcement
of an order of a co-equal court. He must be aware
that said co-equal court had the exclusive jurisdiction
or authority to correct its own issuances if ever there
was, indeed, a mistake. There is no question,
therefore, that subject writ of preliminary injunction
is null and void .
HIERARCHY OF COURTS
A. Regular Courts
SUPREME COURT
↓
Court of Appeals
↓
Regional Trial Court
↓
----------------------------------------------------------MTC MTCC MetTC MCTC
When you say hierarchy mao ni ang level from lowest
to highest.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 35
In the PH, the highest court is the SC, it's a
constitutional creation, all others are created by
statute.
Ang generic sa MTC MTCC MetTC MCTC is MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT.
B. Special Courts
appeal. The RTC, CA, and SC have original jurisdiction
for a petition for certiorari, kini sila naay concurrent
original jurisdiction over an original action for
certiorari.
Q: Asa nato i-file?
A: theoretically, when we say they have concurrent
original jurisdiction pwede ra gyud ta unta mo-file sa
SC diretso or CA. Pero, because of the principle of
judicial hierarchy of courts, didto nato siya I-file sa
next na level court. Ex if nasa MTC ang action subject
of certiorari, didto sa RTC I-file.
1. Court of Tax Appeals
2. Sandiganbayan
3. Sharia District Courts /Sharia Circuit Courts
These courts are limited only to the specific matters
lodged upon them by law.
As a designation, naa pud RTCs designated to also
hear specific cases like the RTC acting as a family
court the RTC as a drugs court, etc.
[Designations - Family Courts, Drugs, Heinous
Crimes, Intellectual Property, Corporate Cases,
Forestry, Just Compensation]
Dili nato ibother si SC sa mga questions nga dili kaayo
of transcendental and paramount importance kay
precious ang time sa SC.
Then again, this is NOT ABSOLUTE as there are
exceptions.
EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE
ON HIERARCHY OF COURTS
BARROSO vs. HON. JUDGE OMELIO
G.R. No. 194767, October 14, 2015
THE PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL
HIERARCHY OF COURTS
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).
This is relevant:
1.
2.
In determining where to appeal
In the matter of extraordinary writs
ex. Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus - these are
extraordinary writs - kani sila nga cases, these are
cases within the concurrent jurisdiction of several
courts. Ex: Under Rule 65 certiorari, prohibtiion,
mandamus original actions ni sila, gi-institute nimo ni
sila for the first time in the court, this is not an
This deals with the Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court praying that the Order
datedJuly 29, 2009, and the Order dated September
15,2010, both of the Regional Trial Court of Davao
City,Branch 14 (RTC-Br. 14), be reversed and set
aside.
Hence, the instant petition was filed with this
Court (directly), alleging that respondent judge
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and gross ignorance
of the law by (1) acting on respondent Travellers'
petition despite the lack of jurisdiction of RTC-Br. 14;
(2) issuing the writ of preliminary injunction without
requiring Travellers to put up an injunction bond; and
(3) assuming jurisdiction over the action for
prohibition and injunction against the executive
sheriff of a coequal court.
Here, nagfile si plaintiff og peition for certiorari under
Rule 65 directly sa SC. Diba dapat sa CA under the
hierarchy of courts.
ISSUE: Is it correct?
RULING: In its ruling the SC explained what is the rule
of the hierarchy of courts.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 36
It must first be emphasized that trifling with the rule
on hierarchy of courts is looked upon with disfavor by
the Court. Said rule is an important component of the
orderly administration of justice and not imposed
merely for whimsical and arbitrary reasons. This
doctrine was exhaustively explained in The Diocese
of Bacolod, represented by the Most Rev. Bishop
Vicente M. Navarra and the Bishop Himself in His
Personal Capacity v. Commission on Elections and the
Election Officer of Bacolod City, Atty. Mavil V.
Majarucon in this wise:
x x x we explained the necessity of the application of
the hierarchy of courts:
The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy
on the hierarchy of courts, and now affirms that the
policy is not to be ignored without serious
consequences. The strictness of the policy is designed
to shield the Court from having to deal with causes
that are also well within the competence of the lower
courts, and thus leave time for the Court to deal with
the more fundamental and more essential tasks that
the Constitution has assigned to it. The Court may act
on petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely
necessary or when serious and important reasons
exist to justify an exception to the policy.
The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy
of courts was created by this court to ensure that
every level of the judiciary performs its designated
roles in an effective and efficient manner.
Trial courts do not only determine the facts from the
evaluation of the evidence presented before them.
They are likewise competent to determine issues of
law which may include the validity of an ordinance,
statute, or even an executive issuance in relation to
the Constitution. To effectively perform these
functions, they are territorially organized into regions
and then into branches. Their writs generally reach
within those territorial boundaries.
Necessarily, they mostly perform the all-important
task of inferring the facts from the evidence as these
are physically presented before them. In many
instances, the facts occur within their territorial
jurisdiction, which properly present the "actual case"
that makes ripe a determination of the
constitutionality of such action. The consequences, of
course, would be national in scope. There are,
however, some cases where resort to courts at their
level would not be practical considering their
decisions could still be appealed before the higher
courts, such as the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an
appellate court that reviews the determination of
facts and law made by the trial courts. It is collegiate
in nature. This nature ensures more standpoints in
the review of the actions of the trial court. But the
Court of Appeals also has original jurisdiction over
most special civil actions. Unlike the trial courts, its
writs can have a nationwide scope. It is competent to
determine facts and, ideally, should act on
constitutional issues that may not necessarily be
novel unless there are factual questions to
determine.
This court (the SC), on the other hand, leads the
judiciary by breaking new ground or further
reiterating - in the light of new circumstances or in
the light of some confusion of bench or bar - existing
precedents. Rather than a court of first instance or as
a repetition of the actions of the Court of Appeals,
this court promulgates these doctrinal devices in
order that it truly performs that role.
NOTE: They do not dwell on merely questions of
facts. Questions of facts are determined by the RTC
because again the RTC has territorial jurisdiction over
the place where the elements of the cause of action
occurred. The witnesses are physically presented to
you, the pieces of evidence are brought to you for
physical examination. Mao na siya ang sa RTC..
Whereas in the Court of Appeals, they also
determine question of facts, they review the
proceedings of the RTC and lower courts. But in the
Supreme Court, it is doctrinal devices. They make
new pronouncements, they determine issues which
are novel, important, transcendentally important, of
paramount importance, and etc.
That's why the Supreme Court will not directly review
the orders or actions of lower courts, such as the
MTC or RTC. If it is MTC, you have to go through the
RTC for review. If the case is from RTC, your actions
are under the supervision of the Court of Appeals.
However, in the same case, it was acknowledged that
for exceptionally compelling reasons, the Supreme
Court may exercise its discretion to act on special civil
actions for certiorari filed directly with it.
Examples of cases that present compelling reasons
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 37
(1) those involving genuine issues of
constitutionality that must be addressed at
the most immediate time;
(2) those where the issues are of
transcendental importance, and the threat
to fundamental constitutional rights are so
great as to outweigh the necessity for
prudence;
(3) cases of first impression, where no
jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the
lower courts on such issues;
(4) where the constitutional issues raised are
better decided after a thorough deliberation
by a collegiate body and with the
concurrence of the majority of those who
participated in its discussion;
(5) where time is of the essence;
(6) where the act being questioned was that of
a constitutional body;
(7) where there is no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law that could free petitioner from the
injurious effects of respondents' acts in
violation of their constitutional rights; and
(8) the issues involve public welfare, the
advancement of public policy, the broader
interest of justice, or where the orders
complained of are patent nullities, or where
appeal can be considered as clearly an
inappropriate remedy.
The Supreme Court said that the issues in this case
could have been competently resolved by the CA,
thus, the Court was initially inclined to reject taking
cognizance of this case. However, we cannot close
our eyes to the unbecoming conduct exhibited by
respondent judge in obstinately issuing an injunction
against the orders of a co-equal court despite this
Court's consistent reiteration of the time-honored
principle that "no court has the power to interfere by
injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court
of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. The various
trial courts of a province or city, having the same or
equal authority, should not, cannot, and are not
permitted to interfere with their respective cases,
much less with their orders or judgments." The issue
raised in this case, therefore, falls under one of the
exceptions to the rule on hierarchy of courts, i.e.,
where the order complained of is a patent nullity.
The issuance of the subject writ of preliminary
injunction was improper and, thus, correctible by
certiorari. Herein respondent judge does not have
jurisdiction to hinder the enforcement of an order of
a co-equal court. He must be aware that said coequal court had the exclusive jurisdiction or authority
to correct its own issuances if ever there was, indeed,
a mistake. There is no question, therefore, that
subject writ of preliminary injunction is null and void.
Further, had Judge Omelio not been dismissed from
the service in 2013 for gross ignorance of the law and
violation of judicial conduct, he could have been
subjected to an investigation again for gross
ignorance due to his unprecedented acts in the case
at bar.
GIOS-SAMAR, INC. vs. DOTC
(Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts)
On December 15, 2014, the Department of
Transportation and Communication (DOTC) and its
attached agency, the Civil Aviation Authority of the
Philippines (CAAP), posted an Invitation to Pre-qualify
and Bid (Invitation) on the airport development,
operations, and maintenance of the Bacolod-Silay,
Davao, Iloilo, Laguindingan, New Bohol (Panglao),
and Puerto Princesa Airports (collectively, Projects).
The total cost of the Projects is P116.23 Billion.
The Invitation stated that the Projects aim to improve
services and enhance the airside and landside
facilities of the key regional airports through
concession agreements with the private sector. The
Projects will be awarded through competitive
bidding, following the procurement rules and
procedure prescribed under Republic Act (RA) No.
6957, as amended by RA No. 7718 (BOT Law), and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations. The concession
period would be for 30 years.
On March 10, 2015, the DOTC and the CAAP issued
the Instructions to Prospective Bidders (ITPB), which
provided that prospective bidders are to pre-qualify
and bid for the development, operations, and
maintenance of the airports, which are now bundled
into two groups (collectively, the Bundled Projects).
On March 27, 2015, petitioner GIOS-SAMAR, Inc.,
represented by its Chairperson Gerardo M. Malinao
(petitioner), suing as a taxpayer and invoking the
transcendental importance of the issue, filed the
present petition for prohibition.
> This is under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. This is an
extraordinary remedy, such as certiorari and
mandamus.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 38
It assails the constitutionality of the bundling of the
Projects and seeks to enjoin the DOTC and the CAAP
from proceeding with the bidding of the same.
The main issue brought to the Supreme Court for
resolution is whether the bundling of the Projects is
constitutional. Petitioner argues that the bundling of
the Projects is unconstitutional because it will: (i)
create a monopoly; (ii) allow the creation and
operation of a combination in restraint of trade; (iii)
violate anti-dummy laws and statutes giving citizens
the opportunity to invest in public utilities; and (iv)
enable companies with shaky financial backgrounds
to participate in the Projects.
> Take note here that the petition for prohibition was
filed directly with the Supreme Court. For the purpose
of our discussion, we will just focus on the issue, is it
valid for the petitioner to directly file the petition
for prohibition before the Supreme Court on the
ground of the constitutionality of the bundling of
the projects?
While petitioner asserts that the foregoing
arguments involve legal (as opposed to factual)
issues, our examination of the petition shows
otherwise. As will be demonstrated shortly,
petitioner's arguments against the constitutionality
of the bundling of the Projects are inextricably
intertwined with underlying questions of fact, the
determination of which require the reception of
evidence. The Supreme Court Court, however, is not
a trier of fact. The Supreme Court cannot resolve
these factual issues at the first instance. For this
reason, the petition is DISMISSED.
While this Court has original and concurrent
jurisdiction with the RTC and the CA in the issuance
of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus (extraordinary writs),
direct recourse to this Court is proper only to seek
resolution of questions of law. Save for the single
specific instance provided by the Constitution under
Section 18, Article VII, cases the resolution of which
depends on the determination of questions of fact
cannot be brought directly before the Court because
we are not a trier of facts. We are not equipped,
either by structure or rule, to receive and evaluate
evidence in the first instance; these are the primary
functions of the lower courts or regulatory agencies.
This is the raison d'etre behind the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts. It operates as a constitutional
filtering mechanism designed to enable this Court to
focus on the more fundamental tasks assigned to it
by the Constitution. It is a bright-line rule which
cannot be brushed aside by an invocation of the
transcendental
importance
or
constitutional
dimension of the issue or cause raised.
TAKE NOTE that the extraordinary remedies of
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, are within the
original and concurrent jurisdiction of the RTC, CA,
and the SC. But under the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts, we cannot file the petition directly with the
Supreme Court. There are limitations that we need to
observe.
For a better understanding of our ruling today, we
review below, in light of the Supreme Court's
fundamental constitutional tasks, the constitutional
and statutory evolution of the Supreme Court's
original and concurrent jurisdiction, and its interplay
with related doctrines, pronouncements, and even
the Court's own rules, as follows:
(a) The Court's
jurisdiction;
original
and
concurrent
(b) Direct recourse to the Court under the
Angara model;
(c) The transcendental importance doctrine;
(d) The Court is not a trier of facts;
(e) The doctrine of hierarchy of courts;
(f)
The Court's expanded jurisdiction, social
rights, and the Court's constitutional rulemaking power under the 1987 Constitution;
(g) Exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts: The case of The Diocese of Bacolod
v. Commission on Elections;
(h) Hierarchy of courts as a constitutional
imperative; and
(i) Hierarchy of courts as a filtering mechanism.
The Supreme Court's original and concurrent jurisdiction
The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over
petitions for extraordinary writs predates the 1935
Constitution.
Where the 1935 Constitution only referred to the
original jurisdiction which the Supreme Court
possessed at the time of its adoption, the 1973
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 39
Constitution expressly provided for the Supreme
Court's original jurisdiction over petitions for the
issuance of extraordinary writs.
In 1981, this Court's original jurisdiction over
extraordinary writs became concurrent with the CA,
pursuant to Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (BP 129) or
The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. BP 129
repealed RA No. 296 and granted the CA with
"original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether
or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction."
In addition, Section 21(2) of BP 129 bestowed the
RTCs (formerly the CFIs) with original (and
consequently, concurrent with the Supreme Court)
jurisdiction over actions affecting ambassadors and
other public ministers and consuls.
Seven years after the enactment of BP 129, the
Philippines ratified the 1987 Constitution; Article VII,
Section 5(1) of which provides the original
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which is an exact
reproduction of Section 5(1), Article X of the 1973
Constitution.
Direct recourse to the Court under the Angara model
Direct invocation of the Court's original jurisdiction
over the issuance of extraordinary writs started in
1936 with Angara v. Electoral Commission. Angara is
the first case directly filed before the Court after the
1935 Constitution took effect on November 15, 1935.
It is the quintessential example of a valid direct
recourse to this Court on constitutional questions.
Angara was an original petition for prohibition
seeking to restrain the Electoral Commission from
taking further cognizance of an election contest led
against an elected (and confirmed) member of the
National Assembly. The main issue before the Court
involved the question of whether the Supreme Court
had jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and
the subject matter of the controversy.
In Angara, there was no dispute as to the facts.
Petitioner was allowed to file the petition for
prohibition directly before us because what was
considered was the nature of the issue involved in
the case: a legal controversy between two agencies
of the government that called for the exercise of the
power of judicial review by the final arbiter of the
Constitution, the Supreme Court.
The Angara model of direct recourse would be
followed and allowed by the Court in Bengzon Jr. v.
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, Francisco, Jr. v.
Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga
Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc. Province of North
Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the
Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP),
Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, Belgica
v. Ochoa, Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., Araullo v. Aquino III,
Saguisag v. Ochoa, Jr., Padilla v. Congress of the
Philippines, to name a few. To stress, the common
denominator of all these cases is that the threshold
questions presented before us are ones of law.
The transcendental importance doctrine
In 1949, the Court introduced a legal concept that
will later underpin most of the cases filed directly
before us - the doctrine of transcendental
importance. Although this doctrine was originally
used to relax the rules on locus standi or legal
standing, its application would later be loosely
extended as an independent justification for direct
recourse to this Court.
We first used the term "transcendental importance"
in Araneta v. Dinglasan. Araneta involved five
consolidated petitions before the Court assailing the
validity of the President's orders issued pursuant to
Commonwealth Act No. 671. The main issues for
resolution in Araneta were: (1) whether
Commonwealth Act No. 671 was still in force; and
relatedly, (2) whether the executive orders issued
pursuant thereto were valid. Specifically, the Court
had to resolve the issue of whether Commonwealth
Act No. 671 (and the President's Emergency Powers)
continued to be effective after the opening of the
regular session of Congress.
In overruling the objection to the personality or
sufficiency of the interest of petitioners in bringing
the actions as taxpayers, this Court declared that the
transcendental importance to the public of these
cases demands that they be settled promptly and
definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of
procedure." Thus, and similar with Angara, direct
recourse to the Court in Araneta is justified because
the issue to be resolved there was one of law; there
was no dispute as to any underlying fact.
> In that case of Araneta, the transcendental doctrine
was used to set aside questions pertaining to locus
standi or legal standing.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 40
It was in Chavez v. Public Estates Authority when, for
the first time, it appeared that the transcendental
importance doctrine could, apart from its original
purpose to overcome objections to standing, stand as
a justification for disregarding the proscription
against direct recourse to the Court. Chavez is an
original action for mandamus filed before the Court
against the Public Estates Authority (PEA). There, the
petition sought, among others, to compel the PEA to
disclose all facts on the PEA's then on-going
renegotiations to reclaim portions of Manila Bay. On
the issue of whether the non-observance of the
hierarchy of courts merits the dismissal of the
petition, we ruled that:
x x x The principle of hierarchy of courts applies
generally to cases involving factual questions. As it is
not a trier of facts, the Supreme Court cannot
entertain cases involving factual issues. The instant
case, however, raises constitutional issues of
transcendental importance to the public. The
Supreme Court can resolve this case without
determining any factual issue related to the case.
Also, the instant case is a petition for mandamus
which falls under the original jurisdiction of the Court
under Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution. We
resolve to exercise primary jurisdiction over the
instant case.
> The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, please
remember that.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts
In 1973, the dictum that the Supreme Court is not
trier of facts first appeared in jurisprudence through
the concurring opinion of then Chief Justice Querube
Makalintal in Chemplex (Philippines) Inc. v. Pamatian.
Chemplex involved a petition for certiorari against an
order recognizing the validity and legitimacy of the
election of directors on the board of a private
corporation.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and it is
beyond its function to make its own findings of
certain vital facts different from those of the trial
court, especially on the basis of the conflicting
claims of the parties and without the evidence being
properly before it. For the Supreme Court to make
such factual conclusions is entirely unjustified - first,
because if material facts are controverted, as in this
case, and they are issues being litigated before the
lower court, the petition for certiorari would not be
in aid of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court; and, secondly, because it preempts the
primary function of the lower court, namely, to try
the case on the merits, receive all the evidence to
be presented by the parties, and only then come to
a definite decision, including either the maintenance
or the discharge of the preliminary injunction it has
issued.
> In a certiorari and prohibition case under Rule 65,
these cases can be filed if the court or tribunal acted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, and as we said, these cases are
with the concurrent original jurisdiction of the SC, CA,
and RTC.
> If you are filing the petition for certiorari before the
Supreme Court, grave abuse of discretion, but the SC
is only interested in questions of law. It is not a trier
of facts. How can you resolve a certiorari and
prohibition case without going to the facts? The SC
said:
In a certiorari and prohibition case, like the instant
case, only legal issues affecting the jurisdiction of
the tribunal, board or officer involved may be
resolved on the basis of undisputed facts. Sections
1, 2 and 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court require that
in the verified petition for certiorari, mandamus and
prohibition the petitioner should allege "facts with
certainty".
> Facts must not be controverted. The facts must be
admitted. On the basis of that, the SC will determine
whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. That is
only a legal question.
In this case, the facts have become uncertain.
Controversial evidentiary facts have been alleged.
What is certain and indubitable is that a notarized
peddling contract was executed.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It would be
difficult, if not anomalous, to decide the jurisdictional
issue on the basis of the parties contradictory factual
submissions. The record has become voluminous
because of their efforts to persuade this Court to
accept their discordant factual statements.
Even as we apply the exceptions to the general rule
under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, we have to
follow the hierarchy, the levels. We cannot have a
direct resort to the Supreme Court. But there should
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 41
be no questions of facts involved. There should only
be questions of law to invoke the exceptional
circumstances.
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts
As a matter of policy, such a direct recourse to this
Court should not be allowed. The Supreme Court is a
court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to
satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by
the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition.
It cannot and should not be burdened with the task
of dealing with causes in the first instance. Its original
jurisdiction to issue the so-called extraordinary writs
should be exercised only where absolutely necessary
or where serious and important reasons exist
therefor. Where the issuance of an extraordinary
writ is also within the competence of the Court of
Appeals or a Regional Trial Court, it is in either of
these courts that the specific action for the writ's
procurement must be presented. This is and should
continue to be the policy in this regard, a policy that
courts and lawyers must strictly observe.
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 should also serve 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 direct invocation
of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue
these writs should be allowed only when there are
special and important reasons therefor, clearly and
specifically set out in the petition. This is established
policy. x x x
This doctrine of hierarchy of courts guides litigants as
to the proper venue of appeals and/or the
appropriate forum for the issuance of extraordinary
writs. Thus, although this Court, the CA, and the RTC
have concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
and habeas corpus, parties are directed, as a rule, to
file their petitions before the lower-ranked court.
Failure to comply is sufficient cause for the dismissal
of the petition.
This Court has interchangeably referred to the
hierarchy of courts as a "principle,” a "rule," and a
"doctrine.” For purposes for this discussion, however,
we shall refer to it as a doctrine.
Exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
Aside from the special civil actions over which it has
original Jurisdiction, the Court, through the years, has
allowed litigants to seek direct relief from it upon
allegation of "serious and important reasons." The
Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections
(Diocese) summarized these circumstances.
A careful examination of the jurisprudential bases of
the foregoing exceptions would reveal a common
denominator - the issues for resolution of the Court
are purely legal. Similarly, the Court in Diocese
decided to allow direct recourse in said case because,
just like Angara, what was involved was the
resolution of a question of law, namely, whether the
limitation on the size of the tarpaulin in question
violated the right to free speech of the Bacolod
Bishop.
> Even if we examine these specific exceptions, there
is a common denominator. The issues for resolution
of the Supreme Court are purely legal. Even if you fall
within the exceptions, but the case will require the
Supreme Court to determine factual questions, that
that is not allowed.
The presence of one or more of the so-called
"special and important reasons" is not the decisive
factor considered by the Supreme Court in deciding
whether to permit the invocation, at the first
instance, of its original jurisdiction over the issuance
of extraordinary writs. Rather, it is the nature of the
question raised by the parties in those "exceptions"
that enabled us to allow the direct action before us.
To be clear, the transcendental importance doctrine
does not clothe us with the power to tackle factual
questions and play the role of a trial court. The only
circumstance when we may take cognizance of a case
in the first instance, despite the presence of factual
issues, is in the exercise of our constitutionallyexpressed task to review the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the President's proclamation of martial law
under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
The case before us does not fall under this exception.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 42
Hierarchy of courts is a constitutional imperative
Strict observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts should not be a matter of mere policy. It is a
constitutional imperative given
(1) the structure of our judicial system and
(2) the requirements of due process.
First. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts recognizes
the various levels of courts in the country as they
are established under the Constitution and by law,
their ranking and effect of their rulings in relation
with one another, and how these different levels of
court interact with one another. It determines the
venues of appeals and the appropriate forum for the
Issuance of extraordinary writs.
Second. Strict adherence to the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts also proceeds from considerations of due
process. While the term "due process of law" evades
exact and concrete definition, the Supreme Court, in
one of its earliest decisions, referred to it as a law
which hears before it condemns which proceeds
upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. It
means that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty,
property, and immunities under the protection of the
general rules which govern society. Under the
present Rules of Court, which governs our judicial
proceedings, warring factual allegations of parties are
settled through presentation of evidence. Evidence is
the means of ascertaining, in a judicial proceeding,
the truth respecting a matter of fact: As earlier
demonstrated, the Court cannot accept evidence in
the first instance. By directly filing a case before the
Court, litigants necessarily deprive themselves of
the opportunity to completely pursue or defend
their causes of actions. Their right to due process is
effectively undermined by their own doing.
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts as a filtering
mechanism
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts operates to:
(1) prevent inordinate demands upon the
Court's time and attention which are better
devoted to those matters within its exclusive
jurisdiction;
(2) prevent further overcrowding of the Court's
docket; and
(3) prevent the inevitable and resultant delay,
intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of
cases which often have to be remanded or
referred to the lower court as the proper
forum under the rules of procedure, or as
the court better equipped to resolve factual
questions.
Strict adherence to the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts is an effective mechanism to filter the cases
which reach the Court.
> In effect, we are limiting the time of the SC, the
effort and resources, to cases which are more
important. When it comes to cases with decided
jurisprudence, not novel, which would require factual
determinations. This should be within the jurisdiction
of the lower courts. You should filter.
> I remember before, I have a case, a client asked me
why we wouldn't just file the case with the Supreme
Court so that it will be immediately finished.
However, the case could just be settled with the
barangay. It's not a matter of choice nor prestige. As
much as possible we must adhere to this doctrine and
we should filter the cases as a way to prevent the
inordinate demands upon the Supreme Court, the
overcrowding of the course docket, etc.
TAKE NOTE: Accordingly, for the guidance of the
bench and the bar, we reiterate that when a
question before the Supreme Court involves
determination of a factual issue indispensable to
the resolution of the legal issue, the Supreme Court
will refuse to resolve the question regardless of the
allegation or invocation of compelling reasons, such
as the transcendental or paramount importance of
the case. Such question must first be brought before
the proper trial courts or the CA, both of which are
specially equipped to try and resolve factual
questions.
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY
JURISDICTION
Courts will not determine a controversy involving a
question within the jurisdiction of the administrative
tribunal, when the question demands the exercise of
sound administrative discretion requiring specialized
knowledge and expertise of said administrative
tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters
of fact. Baviera v. Paglinawan, 515 SCRA 171 (2007)
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 43
> There are several cases dealing on this. It simply
means that there are certain issues and questions
that are within the expertise or knowledge of a
specialized agency. For example, agrarian matters, so
the determination of these matters falls with the
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Whether it's in the DAR proper, the Secretary of the
DAR, or the DARAB. We have labor issues under the
Labor Arbiters, NLRC. We have housing (before it was
HLURB) but now it is HUDCC. There are several
agencies. It shall be filed with those agencies, not
regular courts, as much as possible. The power of
review shall be with the regular courts. It only comes
during the appeal process. But primarily, it should be
with the competence of these administrative bodies.
SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES, INC. vs. BF HOMES, INC.
G.R. No. 169343, August 5, 2015
BF Homes, Inc. (BF Homes) is the owner of several
parcels of land located in the northern portion of BF
Homes Parañaque Subdivision, particularly identified
as Italia II lots. BF Homes, represented by Florencio B.
Orendain (Orendain), as rehabilitation receiver
appointed by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC); and SMPI, represented by
Federico C. Gonzales, President, entered into three
successive Deeds of Absolute Sale whereby the
former sold to the latter a total of 130 Italia II lots
with a combined area of 44,345 square meters for
the aggregate consideration of P106,247,701.00.
SMPI completed the payments for the 130 Italia II
lots in December 1995. In compliance with Section 3
of all the three Deeds of Absolute Sale, BF Homes
delivered the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) to
SMPI but only for 110 of the 130 Italia II lots
purchased by SMPI.
SMPI, thru counsel, sent BF Homes a letter on May
20, 1996 demanding the delivery of the remaining 20
TCTs.
Despite receipt of the afore-mentioned letter, BF
Homes failed or refused to heed the demand of
SMPI. Consequently, SMPI filed a Complaint for
specific performance with damages before the
HLURB on August 24, 2000 to compel BF Homes to
deliver the remaining 20 TCTs to SMPI. The case was
docketed as HLURB Case No. REM-082400-11183.
In its Answer (With Counterclaim), BF Homes alleged
that the Deeds of Absolute Sale executed in 1992 to
1993 were entered into by Orendain in his personal
capacity and without authority, as his appointment
as rehabilitation receiver was revoked by the SEC in
an Order dated May 17, 1989. In support of its
counterclaims, BF Homes averred that the
consideration paid by SMPI for the 130 Italia II lots
was grossly inadequate and disadvantageous to BF
Homes; and that the Deeds of Absolute Sale were
undated and not notarized.
SMPI, in its Reply (Answer with Counterclaim dated
October 16, 2000), countered that the validity of the
three Deeds of Absolute Sale was already upheld by
the SEC in its Omnibus Order dated November 7,
1994, and the motion for reconsideration of BF
Homes of said Omnibus Order was denied by the SEC
in its subsequent Order dated August 22, 1995. Both
Orders were deemed final, executory, and
unappealable by the SEC in another Omnibus Order
dated July 31, 1996. As a result, the Deeds of
Absolute Sale were binding on BF Homes.
SMPI further maintained that Orendain was
authorized to sign the Deeds of Absolute Sale for and
in behalf of FBO Networks Management, Inc. - the
receiver which the SEC appointed to replace
Orendain, upon the latter's motion to convert his
involvement in the receivership from an individual to
a corporate capacity. SMPI additionally asserted that
absent substantiation, the allegation of BF Homes of
inadequate consideration for the sale of the Italia II
lots was self-serving; and that despite being undated
and not notarized, the Deeds of Absolute Sale were
valid since they contained the essential elements of a
contract. And even assuming that the Deeds of
Absolute Sale may be rescinded, SMPI argued that
BF Homes did not offer and was not prepared to
return the consideration paid by SMPI, plus interest.
Housing and Land Use Arbiter Rowena C. Balasolla
(Arbiter Balasolla) issued an Order dated January
22, 2001 directing the parties to submit their
respective position papers and supporting evidence,
as well as their draft decisions. Thereafter, the case
was deemed submitted for resolution. In her Decision
dated January 25, 2002, Arbiter Balasolla suspended
the proceedings in HLURB Case No. REM-08240011183 for the following reasons:
“As the peculiar background of this case would tell, it
is inevitable that the resolution of the issues raised in
the instant complaint would be largely influenced by
the outcome of the cases pending in other tribunals
which are directly and ineluctably related to the
issues brought before this Board.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 44
This Board is cognizant of the fact that respondent
had questioned the action of its rehabilitation
receiver before the SEC, raising several issues against
him, including but not limited, to his authority to sell
the subject lots to the complainant the resolution of
which is still pending the said body.
Thus, while this Board may have jurisdiction over the
instant complaint, the issue on whether or not Mr.
Orendain has overstepped his authority which is
pending resolution by the SEC, is to our mind a
condition sine qua non, the final resolution of which
by said body is a logical antecedent to the issue
involved in the instant complaint and which only the
SEC has exclusive jurisdiction to decide.
Under the circumstances, we are inclined to suspend
the proceedings before the Board until the SEC shall
have resolved with finality on the issue of the
authority
of
Mr.
Orendain/FBO
Networks
Management to enter into such transactions on
behalf of [BF Homes].”
SMPI filed a Petition for Review (Re: Decision dated
January 25, 2002) with the HLURB Board of
Commissioners. The HLURB Board of Commissioners
denied the petition for review. SMPI appealed
before the Office of the President. The OP, in its
Decision dated January 27, 2004, adjudged that the
HLURB should have resolved HLURB Case No. REM082400-11183. The OP ordered BF Homes, Inc., to
deliver to San Miguel Properties, Inc., the
corresponding titles to the lots subject of the instant
case, free from all liens and encumbrances, except to
the subdivision restrictions referred to in the
conveying deed of sale, and to pay the latter the sum
of P100,000.00 as and by way of attorneys' fees.
BF Homes filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it
was denied by the OP. Aggrieved, BF Homes sought
recourse from the Court of Appeals by way of a
Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Revised
Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals agreed with the
OP that the HLURB had the primary and exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve the complaint for specific
performance and damages of SMPI and should not
have suspended the proceedings until the SEC had
ruled with finality on the issue of Orendain's
authority to sell the 130 Italia II lots to SMPI. SMPI
filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re:
Decision dated January 31, 2005) insofar as the Court
of Appeals remanded the case to the HLURB for
further proceedings. The appellate court denied said
Motion. SMPI appealed to the Supreme Court.
RULING:
The Petition is meritorious.
Presidential Decree No. 957 conferred exclusive
jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and
business upon the National Housing Authority (NHA).
Presidential Decree No. 1344 dated April 2, 1978
expanded the quasi-judicial powers of NHA by
providing as follows:
Section 1. In the exercise of its functions to
regulate the real estate trade and business and in
addition to its powers provided for in Presidential
Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
cases of the following nature:
A. Unsound real estate business practices;
B. Claims involving refund and any other claims
filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer
against the project owner, developer, dealer,
broker or salesman; and
C. Cases involving specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations filed by
buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit
against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or
salesman." (Emphases ours.)
Under the Executive Order creating it, the HLURB has
exclusive jurisdiction to "hear and decide cases of
unsound real estate business practices; claims
involving refund filed against project owners,
developers, dealers, brokers, or salesmen; and cases
of specific performance." Accordingly, in United
Housing Corporation v. Dayrit, we ruled that it is the
HLURB, not the trial court, which has jurisdiction over
complaints for specific performance filed against
subdivision developers to compel the latter to
execute deeds of absolute sale and to deliver the
certificates of title to buyers.
In fact, in the instant case, the HLURB did exercise
jurisdiction over and did take cognizance of the
complaint of SMPI. Arbiter Balasolla received
pleadings and evidences from the parties, and after
the period for filing position papers and draft
decisions by the parties had lapsed, deemed the case
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 45
submitted for decision. However, at this stage,
Arbiter Balasolla demurred, and instead of deciding
the case, suspended the proceedings until the SEC
ruled on the issue of whether or not Orendain, the
receiver of BF Homes, had authority to execute the
Deeds of Absolute Sale over the 130 Italia II lots in
favor of SMPI. On appeal, the HLURB Board of
Commissioners affirmed the suspension of
proceedings.
(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, x x x.
(Emphases supplied.)
When the case was appealed to the OP by SMPI, and
then to the Court of Appeals by BF Homes, both the
OP and the Court of Appeals sustained the
jurisdiction of HLURB over the complaint for specific
performance filed by SMPI, the only difference being
that the OP proceeded to resolve the case on the
merits based on the evidence on record while the
appellate court remanded the case to the HLURB for
further proceedings.
> Under the doctrine of administrative remedies
Nonetheless, the Court disagrees with the Court of
Appeals and finds no more need to remand the case
to the HLURB.
Pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,
"the courts cannot or will not determine a
controversy involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, where the
question demands the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring the special
knowledge, experience, and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and
intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is
essential to comply with the purposes of the
regulatory statute administered." However, said
doctrine is not an absolute or inflexible rule. The
Court recognized several exceptions in Republic v.
Lacap, viz.:
[T]he doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy
and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules.
There are many accepted exceptions, such as:
(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;
The contractual relationship between BF Homes as
owner and SMPI as buyer of subdivision lots is
governed by Presidential Decree No. 957 and is
undeniably imbued with public interest. Hence, it is
crucial that the dispute between them be resolved as
swiftly as possible. In Spouses Chua v. Ang, the Court
declared that "public interest and welfare are
involved in subdivision and condominium
development, as the terms of Presidential Decree
Nos. 957 and 1344 expressly reflect, x x x Shelter is a
basic human need whose fulfillment cannot afford
any kind of delay."
Even if the case is no longer remanded, BF Homes
cannot claim denial of due process. "The essence of
due process is to be heard, and, as applied to
administrative proceedings, this means a fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or
ruling complained of. Administrative due process
cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict
judicial sense, for in the former a formal or trial-type
hearing is not always necessary, and technical rules
of procedure are not strictly applied.” In the instant
case, SMPI and BF Homes were afforded the
opportunity to present and address each other's
arguments through an exchange of pleadings, as well
as to submit their respective evidence before Arbiter
Balasolla. To recall, the case was already submitted
for decision before Arbiter Balasolla, meaning, there
is nothing more left for the parties to submit or do.
To remand the case and repeat the entire process
once again before the HLURB Arbiter will not only be
impractical, but also unreasonable and oppressive for
SMPI.
[T]he Supreme Court may, on certain exceptional
instances, resolve the merits of a case on the basis of
the records and other evidence before it, most
especially when the resolution of these issues would
best serve the ends of justice and promote the
speedy disposition of cases.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 46
BF Homes cannot insist on the lack of authority of
Orendain as receiver to sign the Deeds of Absolute
Sale for the 130 Italia II lots. While it is true the SEC
revoked the appointment of Orendain as
rehabilitation receiver of BF Homes in 1989, the SEC
thereafter immediately appointed FBO Networks
Management, Inc., in replacement as receiver.
Orendain was the Chairman of FBO Networks
Management, Inc. Hence, when Orendain signed the
Deeds of Absolute Sale for the 130 Italia II lots, he did
so as Chairman of FBO Networks Management, Inc.,
the appointed receiver of BF Homes.
As the OP observed, BF Homes ratified the Deeds of
Absolute Sale with SMPI by accepting full payment
from SMPI of the purchase price for the 130 Italia II
lots, and fully implementing the transaction covered
by the first two Deeds and partially implementing the
third by delivering the TCTs for 110 of the 130 lots.
Receiving full payment for the 130 Italia II lots from
SMPI also estops BF Homes from denying the
authority of Orendain/FBO Networks Management,
Inc. to enter into the Deeds of Absolute Sale.
December 7, 2020 - ZOOM
xxx
What does “judicial power” mean?
Article VIII, Section 1(2):
xxx “Judicial power means "the duty of the court to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government. (Sec 1(2), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution).
DISCUSSION: It does not only involve private individuals,
but also the acts of the different agencies, different courts
or instrumentalities of the government, if there is grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
Two kinds of remedies subsumed under "judicial power"
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court is the only court created by the
Constitution, the basis of which is Section 1, Article VIII of
the 1987 Constitution.
As to the other courts, namely, the Court of Appeals,
Sandiganbayan, etc., are all STATUTORY creations (created
by Congress by way of a law).
Section 1(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution:
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be established by law.”
1. Ordinary remedies — Contained in the phrase
“To settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable.” This pertains to the ordinary
remedies; when there are conflicting rights
in the law of the case, the courts will
determine/settle actual controversies.
2. Extraordinary remedies (e.g. certiorari) —
Contained in the phrase “To determine
whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch
or
instrumentality
of
the
Government.” These involve acts not only
involving private individuals, or the State
against the individual, but also acts of the
different agencies/courts/ instrumentalities
of the Governments if there is grave abuse
of jurisdiction amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
Composition of the Supreme Court
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 47
Article VIII, Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be
composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate
Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division
of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be
filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.”
xxx
There are 15 justices. 1 Chief Justice and 14 associate
justices. The Supreme Court may sit en banc or in divisions
of 4, 5, or 7 members. Normally, cases are heard in
division. But there are cases, which are required in the
Constitution to be heard en banc (so, here all Justices are
involved unless, of course, if anyone is absent. Even if a
Justice is absent, the Court is still considered to be “en
banc").
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case
and voted thereon, and in no case without the
concurrence of at least three of such Members. When
the required number is not obtained, the case shall be
decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle
of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en
banc or in division may be modified or reversed except
by the court sitting en banc.
Only SC en banc can overturn previous en banc decisions.
The principles or doctrines in the cases you have been
reading since First Year, you can see that these are
sometimes decided by the SC en banc or in division. But if it
is a doctrine decided en banc, such doctrine cannot be
overturned by a division. The only way to overturn it is by
way of a decision by the SC en banc.
Any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from the
occurrence thereof.
Sometimes, you read cases with different decisions. But
take note that only SC en banc can actually overturn an en
banc decision.
What cases shall be heard by the SC en banc?
Article VIII, Section 4. (2) All cases involving the
constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme
Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules
of Court are required to be heard en banc, including
those involving the constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be
decided with the concurrence of a majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on
the issues in the case and voted thereon.
What cases shall be heard by the SC in division?
Article VIII, Section 4. (3) Cases or matters heard by a
division shall be decided or resolved with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually
For example, the Aguinaldo doctrine has already been
overturned by the SC en banc. This means that the previous
cases applying the Aguinaldo doctrine [are no longer
prevailing]. Under the Aguinaldo doctrine, when there is an
administrative case against an officer but then the ceases in
office, then the case is no more. This was used for so many
years, but now it has already been overturned and no
longer applies.
What cases does the SC have jurisdiction over?
Article VIII, Section 2. The Congress shall have the
power to define, prescribe, and apportion the
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive
the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases
enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
NOTE: Congress cannot by law reduce the jurisdiction of
the SC because the SC is created by the Constitution and its
jurisdiction is provided for under the Constitution.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 48
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
Powers of The Supreme Court
Article VIII, Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
(5) 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 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.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in
accordance with the Civil Service Law.
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
Overview of Section 5:
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court
is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other
stations as public interest may require. Such temporary
assignment shall not exceed six months without the
consent of the judge concerned.
"(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus."
Original jurisdiction pertains to cases filed for the first time
before the SC. It does not involve a case coming from the
MTC then elevated to the RTC then to the CA.
There are two kinds of original jurisdiction (exclusive or
concurrent):
1) Exclusive original jurisdiction - The SC is the
only court with which you can file a certain
case. You cannot file it in any other court.
2) Concurrent original jurisdiction - You can file
the case originally before the RTC, CA or SC.
Concurrent means “shared.”
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 49
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
"(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts…"
"Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm” pertains to
appellate jurisdiction, not an original case. The case was
elevated to the SC by way of review.
***
Article VIII, Section 5. (3) Assign temporarily judges of
lower courts to other stations as public interest may
require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six
months without the consent of the judge concerned.
The following are the cases that are subject to the
appellate jurisdiction of the SC based on the Constitution:
If the judge consents to more than 6 months, then it would
be allowed.
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
- If the case comes from the RTC, the SC can
directly review when there is a question on
whether or not a law is constitutional or
valid.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
- The SC has appellate jurisdiction over the
legality of tax laws and tax ordinances.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue.
Article VIII, Section 5. (4) Order a change of venue or
place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
DISCUSSION:
When we go to the rule on venue, depending on the case,
there are venues provided for under the rules. If it is a civil
case, for example, a personal action, you can choose the
venue - whether in your residence or in the place where
any of the defendants is a resident. It is your option, as
plaintiff.
If it is a real action (actions involving real properties), you
have to file the case in the place where the property is
located. For example,the property is located in Davao City,
although you are a resident of Digos and the defendant is a
resident of Tagum but the property is located in Davao, the
case must be filed in Davao because it is where the subject
property is located, unless it falls under the exceptions to
venue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
In criminal cases, jurisdiction is synonymous to venue. But
in civil cases, jurisdiction is not synonymous to venue.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 50
When we say jurisdiction, we are referring to whether or
not the court has authority to hear and decide the
particular case. When we say venue, where the case is
filed.
But in criminal cases, kung asa ang venue sa crime, mao
pud na ang court na may jurisdiction.
You cannot really decide kung asa ang venue, it depends on
what the law says. But in some cases, the SC can order a
change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of
justice. For example, you are filing a case against a very
influential and powerful public officer. If you follow the law
on venue, the case should be filed kung asa sya naga hold
ug office. But in that case, he can control the witnesses, he
can terrorize, intimidate possible people involved in the
case. So favorable saiya ange venue but not to you - so
here, you can apply to the SC for a change of venue to
avoid a miscarrigae of justice.
the writ of amparo, writ of habeas corpus, writ of habeas
data, writ of kalikasan, and writ of continuing mandamus,
the rules here are promulgated by the SC mismo pursuant
to its power under (5) of Art. VIII, Sec. 5 of the Constitution.
“ 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.”
The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure and uniform for all courts of the same grade. So
MTC, RTC, all of them, the same ang procedure whether
you are in Davao, or in any other place as long as they are
in the same grade.
Note: RoC is a remedial law, a procedural law as
distinguished from substantive law.
When you say substantive law, it refers to those laws which
create and define the rights.
Article VIII, Section 5. (5) 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 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.
DISCUSSION:
“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.”
The SC can promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights. If you are aware of
On the other hand, procedural laws provide for the manner
by which the substantive rights are enforced or remedied
in case of violation. Procedural laws do not impair,
diminish, or increase substantive rights - they just regulate
the enforcement of these rights.
Between procedural rights and substantive rights, rights
provided under substantive law shall prevail because they
are really created by law/Congress. That is why, the SC
said, dili pwede i-amend, impair, diminish, or increase
substantive rights.
“ Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.”
How about the rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies? Daghan man ni sila. For example,
HLURB - they have their own rules of procedure and so
with the DARAB, SEC, NLRC, and many others. Those rules
promulgated by them are still effective unless disapproved
by the SC.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 51
DISCUSSION:
In most cases, ang rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies are more liberal than the RoC because
dili man gud kaayo formal ang proceedings in those bodies
and the RoC, in case of silence in the provisions on the
rules of procedures of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies, the RoC applies in a suppletory manner.
For example, in DOLE, there is a rule that within 10 days,
you should file an appeal from a decision in a complaint
inspection. But what if the 10th day is a Saturday? Under
Rule 22 of the RoC, if the last day falls on a Saturday,
Sunday, or a holiday, the reglementary period will not run
until the next working day. So in this case, dili pwede na
Friday pa lang, i-compel naka to file an appeal. The law says
you have 10 days. Here, we apply RoC in a suppletory
manner.
Article VIII, Section 5. (6) Appoint all officials and
employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil
Service Law.
When we say exclusive original, you have no choice - you
should file with the SC. There is no other court that has
jurisdiction over that.
If you say concurrent original, the jurisdiction is shared
with some other courts but usually, as a general rule, this is
still subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts - even if
the jurisdiction is shared, you should first file before the
lower court.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
● This refers to cases in which the Supreme
Court has original jurisdiction, as
opposed to appellate jurisdiction. This
means that parties file these cases
directly with the Supreme Court as if it
were regular trial court. However, there
is no presentation of evidence similar to
the procedure in Rule 132. Verily, the
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
DISCUSSION:
This, again, is one of the powers of the SC.
Based on those provisions:
● Supreme Court has:
○ Original jurisdiction, and
DISCUSSION:
Even if we talk about original jurisdiction of the SC,
whether concurrent or exclusive, as a GR, the SC is not a
trier of facts. Even if it is, for example, an original action for
certiorari citing GADALEJ but because the SC is not a trier of
facts, there is no presentation of evidence that will happen
in the SC unlike in the lower courts na mupresent pa ka ug
evidence. It presupposes na there is no issue as to the
facts. The SC, based on the admitted facts, will only
determine WON there is indeed a GADALEJ. Or maybe,
based on the facts, if it is not an extraordinary remedy,
WON there is error with the application of law - which is a
pure question of law.
○ Appellate jurisdiction
● Regarding original jurisdiction, it could be:
NOTE: MEMORIZE THESE CASES!!!
○ Exclusive original, or
○ Concurrent original
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
(Can only be filed with the Supreme Court)
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 52
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in petitions
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the:
●
Court of Appeals
(Judiciary Act of
1948, Sec. 17)
●
Commission
Elections (Art.
Sec. 7)
on
IX,
*You have no choice kay wala naman lain na mas taas pa sa
CA, SC lang.
Commission on Elections
1987 Constitution, Article IX, Section 7. x x x Unless
otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a
copy thereof.
● Commission on Audit
(Art. IX, Sec. 7)
●
Sandiganbayan
10660)
(RA
● Court of Tax Appeals
(PD No. 1125, as
amended)
● Ombudsman in criminal
cases*
*with the exception of the Ombudsman, all the
enumerated tribunals are collegiate in character
Under Article IX, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution, it
provides that it's only the Supreme Court, because the
COMELEC is a constitutional body. The Court of Appeals
cannot review the COMELEC. We're talking about
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, and you want to
assail or annul the acts of the different bodies here because
there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
You cannot have a COMELEC decision annulled before the
Court of Appeals because they are of the same level.
Actually, COMELEC is a constitutional body, while the Court
of Appeals is a creation of law. So the review of COMELEC's
decisions should be with the Supreme Court.
Commission on Audit
DISCUSSION:
You can only file these cases before the SC.
Court of Appeals
1987 Constitution, Article IX, Section 7. x x x Unless
otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a
copy thereof.
In cases of petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus, wala kay laing choice but to file with the SC.
Unsa man ni sya? Administrative bodies, CA. If you are
assailing the judgement, order, or act of the CA because
there is GADALEJ, you are filing a petition for certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus, these are original actions
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the SC.
Under Article IX, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution. It is
the Supreme Court that can review its decisions. There are
no other entities which can review the acts of COA, or
annul its decisions, since we're talking about original
actions involving the acts of COA and not just an appeal.
Sandiganbayan
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 53
What is Sandiganbayan? It's a collegiate court composed of
three justices. If there is a hearing in the Sandiganbayan,
you will not only face one judge but three. There are three
who will question, and rule on the case. Sandiganbayan is
at the same level as Court of Appeals. The Sandiganbayan
has jurisdiction over cases filed against public officers that
are Salary Grade 27 or higher. If you're assailing the acts of
the Sandiganbayan, you have no other way but to go to the
Supreme Court.
Court of Tax Appeals under Republic Act No. 1125
RA 1125, Section 18. Appeal to the Supreme Court — x
x x Any party adversely affected by any ruling, order or
decision of the Court of tax Appeals may appeal
therefrom to the Supreme Court by filing with the said
Court a notice of appeal and with the Supreme Court a
petition for review, within thirty days from the date he
receives notice of said ruling, order or decision. If,
within the aforesaid period, he fails to perfect his
appeal, the said ruling, order or decision shall become
final and conclusive against him.
Also directly to the Supreme Court. You cannot go to the
Court of Appeals because it is the same level as the Court
of Tax Appeals. You have to go to the Supreme Court.
The Ombudsman after resolving such cases, usually two, in
administrative and criminal cases. In an administrative
case, that's a resolution or decision of the Ombudsman. It
can be appealed before the Court of Appeals by way of
petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Please remember that.
But in criminal cases, the decision of the Office of the
Ombudsman is final and executory, meaning it cannot be
appealed because it is final and executory. Does it mean
that we cannot have the act of the Ombudsman
challenged? For example, what if the finding of the
Ombudsman on probable cause for violation of Republic
Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) is not
correct? What is the remedy? There remedy if there is
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, you go to the Supreme Court by way of
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
With the exception of the Ombudsman, all these other
courts are collegiate courts. Meaning, there are many who
preside over these courts, not just one justice. In the
Ombudsman, the one who resolves the cases is just the
assigned officer in the Office of the Ombudsman. It is their
head [who signs], but it's not a collegiate court.
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction in election contests
involving the position of President and Vice-President
under Article VII Section 4, last paragraph, of the 1987
Constitution
Ombudsman
Please remember this, because many people are confused
about the Ombudsman. If you want to have an
investigation or you want to file administrative or criminal
cases against public officers, regardless of the Salary Grade,
where do you file? If it's ordinary criminal cases, you file it
with the fiscal. But if it involves public officers, you file that
with before the Office of the Ombudsman. The
Ombudsman, it's acting in two capacities. If you file a case
before the Ombudsman, it may have an administrative
aspect, or criminal aspect. Administrative cases such as
[oppression], dishonesty. Criminal cases such as Anti-Graft,
violation of RA 3019.
1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 4. x x x The
Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge
of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the President or Vice- President, and
may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
You cannot file that before the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal or et cetera. It should only be filed with
the Supreme Court. You cannot file that with the COMELEC
also, if it is a contest involving the position of President and
Vice-President.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 54
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in cases questioning the
factual basis for the declaration of Martial Law and the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
the extension thereof, under Article VII, Section 18, third
paragraph of the 1987 Constitution
1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 18. x x x The
Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon
within thirty days from its filing. x x x
ANECDOTE: I don't know if you have encountered this but
there are fake lawyers. The ID they show are PRC IDs. That
in itself means that the person is not a real lawyer. Naa
pajud nakabutang "CPA Lawyer". Naa pa jud "international
lawyer" but that is not a real lawyer. Peke na sya. Walay
PRC ID ang lawyer. Ang ID sa lawyer is from the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines which is also sad kay dili siya usually
recognized sa mga ordinary people. Naa ko na-encounter
nga pagtuo nila, di daw sila naga dawat ug ID sa mga bar.
Pagtuo nila kay bar na imnanan. (lol)
We are under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
There's a disciplinary action, although it goes through the
IBP first, but it is the Supreme Court which ultimately
decides under Rule 56-A.
(5) Injunction in agrarian cases and other specified by law
You've discussed this in your Constitutional Law. The
factual basis for the declaration of Martial Law as well as
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
you can have that reviewed by the Supreme Court. It's
exclusive, so only the Supreme Court.
(4) Exclusive original jurisdiction over disciplinary
proceedings against members of the judiciary and
attorneys
Rules of Court, Rule 56-A, Section 1. Original cases
cognizable. — Only petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, disciplinary
proceedings against members of the judiciary and
attorneys, and cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls may be filed originally in
the Supreme Court.
You can only file that before the Supreme Court.
Members of the judiciary such as judges, justices, and
lawyers, attorneys. Lawyers are not under the jurisdiction
of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). Lawyers
are under the Supreme Court.
If you're talking about agrarian cases, even if you file a
petition before the Court of Appeals, and it involves
In agrarian cases, under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, you have to file that before the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), or before
the Regional Director, but eventually, after all remedies are
exhausted, in relation to the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, for example from the regional level, then you
go to the DARAB, which is the national level in Manila.
After that, you go to the Court of Appeals, under Rule 43,
petition for review.
For example, you want to ask for an injunction, because if
you file with the court, it's possible that there is a
provisional remedy of injunction. While the case is pending,
the farmers want to enter the land even though their right
to become beneficiaries of the land is still under question,
so you would like them to be enjoined and to stop them
from entering the land, you cannot pray that before the
Court of Appeals, even if the case is filed in the Court of
Appeals. You should seek injunction before the Supreme
Court and that's an original action, an action for injunction
before the Supreme Court.
Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus
Slide:
Regarding
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 55
certiorari,
prohibition,
and
mandamus (Rule 65 petitions) per se, jurisdiction
can be exclusive or concurrent, depending on the
tribunal, board, or officer involved.
QUESTION: I said before that certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus is within the concurrent jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Regional
Trial Court. But why did we mention before in the
first number, that the Supreme Court has exclusive
original jurisdiction?
ANSWER, TAKE NOTE: They are talking of specific
bodies, such as the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax
Appeals, the COMELEC, the COA, Ombudsman, and
the Sandiganbayan. It is specific to those bodies. You
have no choice but to go to the Supreme Court. They
are not concurrent with the CA and RTC. Thus, it
depends on the tribunal, court, or officer involved.
KEY TO REMEMBERING WHICH:
Determine if the tribunal is collegiate. If collegiate,
exclusive with SC. If non-collegiate, concurrent.
TIP: If the tribunal involved is collegiate, like those
bodies (except the Ombudsman), the action shall be
brought to the Supreme Court because those specific
bodies are at the same level as the Court of Appeals,
and the Court of Appeals cannot, under the doctrine
of non-interference or judicial stability, you cannot
annul the act of a co-equal body. If those specific
bodies are equal with the Court of Appeals, you
cannot bring the action to the Court of Appeals to
annul their decisions, orders, or acts. You have to go
to the Supreme Court.
EXCEPTION: Ombudsman.
Certiorari versus COA and COMELEC
Slide: Under the Constitution, there are three (3)
Constitutional
Commissions,
namely:
the
Commission in Elections, the Commission on Audit,
and the Civil Service Commission.
If these tribunals commit grave abuse of discretion
or act without jurisdiction, how will their actions
be reviewed? The governing rule is Article IX-A,
Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution.
REMEMBER: The constitutional bodies we mentioned
whose acts are subject to the original, exclusive
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the talking of
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, is only the
COMELEC and COA. But if you examine the
Constitution, there are three Constitutional
Commissions there: Commission on Elections,
Commission on Audit, and the Civil Service
Commission.
What about the CSC?
TAKE NOTE: The CSC was not part of the bodies we
mentioned earlier. CSC also can be a quasi-judicial
body because there are cases filed before it, but it is
not included among those we enumerated where
you go straight to the Supreme Court if you file a
certiorari or prohibition or mandamus.
Section 9 of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7902.
Jurisdiction. — The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
xxx
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social
Security Commission, the Employees Compensation
Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except
those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution,
the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act,
and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17
of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Slide: Remember that Section 7 of Article IX of the
Constitution provides “unless otherwise provided
by this Constitution or by law”.
Republic Act No. 7902 amended Section 9 of B.P.
129 and conferred exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over the judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders
or awards of the Civil Service Commission to the
Court of Appeals.
HOW?
■ By a Petition for Review under Rule 43.
The CSC can also be a quasi-judicial body because
there are cases filed before the CSC, but here, there
is no appeal of the decision of the CSC that can be
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 56
directly brought to the Supreme Court if you file a
petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.
Why is that?
The governing rule is Article IX-A, Section 7 of the
1987 Constitution:
Article IX-A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution
xxx Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or
by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days
from receipt of a copy thereof.
So, sa Civil Service Commission actually, by law, there
is a subsequent law saying that the decisions of the
CSC kay sa Court of Appeals sa, not directly to the
Supreme Court. That is the reason.
Now, in relation to the acts of the Constitutional
Commissions, Section 7 says, “may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.”
To be technical about it, it is a certiorari brought under
Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
Rule 64 - REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS
OR RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT.
Specific siya under Rule 64. Section 1, that is the
scope.
However, under Section 2 of Rule 64: except as
hereinafter provided..
Section 2. Mode of review. — A judgment or final
order or resolution of the Commission on Elections
and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the
aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari
under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided. (n; Bar
Matter No. 803, 17 February 1998)
●
Thus, certiorari against the COMELEC or the
COA is a 65 certiorari subject to the special
rules under Rule 64.
Again, I already mentioned that out of the three:
COA, COMELEC and CSC, ang nagpabilin lang na
diretso sa Supreme Court kay COA and COMELEC.
Ang CSC by law, didto na sa Court of Appeals i-review
or if you are talking of certiorari, didto gihapon.
So, although it is subsumed under Rule 64, a
certiorari, but Rule 64 says, gamiton na to ang
procedure under Rule 65, except as hereinafter
provided. So, Rule 65 ang procedure na gamiton
although subsumed siya under Rule 64.
Now, “may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari”, we have to clarify this also because the
word “certiorari”, naa’y tulo ka rules diha nga magapply. Unsa na siya nga certiorari?
Now, regarding the CSC, going back, the Constitution
says, “unless otherwise provided by this Constitution
or by law”, I said that there is a law which provides
otherwise, meaning dili diretso sa Supreme Court,
but sa Court of Appeals.
Note, however that, in a sense, there are three types
of certiorari:
1.
2.
3.
Appeal by Certiorari to the SC under Rule 45;
Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule
65;
The lesser known Rule 64 certiorari
Q: What type of certiorari do we employ against the
COMELEC and COA?
DISCUSSION: So, katong sa Supreme Court na
certiorari, which was mentioned regarding acts of
the Comelec and the COA, which can be raised by
certiorari to the Supreme Court, unsa man klase nga
certiorari?
What is that law?
That is Republic Act 7902, which amended Section 9
of BP 129. So, didto na siya sa Court of Appeals
regarding the CSC.
So, I already mentioned that in CSC as provided by
RA 7902 that relief should be with the Court of
Appeals, it is no longer to the Supreme Court.
What is the mode of the CSC to the CA? If its an
ordinary appeal, its by petition for review under Rule
43.
Now going back to the three kinds of certiorari, we
mentioned Rule 45, Rule 65 and the Rule 64.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 57
Rule 45
Take note, however, of the dichotomy:
When you say Rule 45, this is a mode of review. It is
an appeal from a lower court and then to the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is actually
reviewing the acts of the lower court. So, petition for
review on certiorari, that is Rule 45. That is to the
Supreme Court. Rule 45 is only to the Supreme Court.
Wala nay lain.
Rule 65
Rule 65 is not an appeal. It is an original action. It is
an extraordinary remedy. You don’t review, although
in a sense gina review gud gihapon pero the SC or CA
or RTC, because there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, it can
annul the acts of the lower court or tribunal.
So, when you say Rule 65, although diba as we’ve
discussed, naay mga Rule 65 na walay laing
paadtuan kundi kay SC, but then again, that’s
because the body or the tribunal that we’re talking
about is a collegiate court, so there is no other way
but to the SC. Pero ang certiorari under Rule 65 naay
cases na pwede concurrent si Supreme Court, CA or
RTC. So, that’s Rule 65, certiorari.
Rule 64
Now, Rule 64, ang certiorari kato lang jud Comelec
and COA, which is also covered or the procedure that
we follow are also those under Rule 65.
Sandiganbayan
When the law says “review on certiorari by
the Supreme Court in accordance with Rule
45 against the Sandiganbayan, it talks about
an appeal. So, to be accurate, this is exclusive
appellate, not original jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION: It means an appeal, exclusive appellate
jurisdiction, but diri pa man ta nagdiscuss sa original
exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Ngano
nag diretso man ko ug Rule 45?
Here, kung ordinary appeal, sa decision sa
Sandiganbayan, pwede siya maappeal to the
Supreme Court under Rule 45 pero again kung naay
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction and that decision is not subject to
appeal and there is no other plain and speedy
remedy under the ordinary course of law, ang
remedy lang nimo is to certiorari under Rule 65.
Supreme Court lang gihapon na siya because Rule 65
is also in aid of the Sandiganbayan’s appellate
jurisdiction. Although again, it's an original action
because you want to annul the acts of the
Sandiganbayan.
So, exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari involving acts or orders of the
Sandiganbayan.
Court of Tax Appeals
Section 19 of Republic Act 1125:
Let’s go to Sandiganbayan, which is also to the
Supreme Court, because it is a collegiate court which
is ka-level lang sa CA so, no other choice but to the
Supreme Court.
SANDIGANBAYAN (PD 1606, RA 8249, AND RA 10660)
●
●
Section 7. XXX Decisions and final orders shall
be subject to review on certiorari by the
Supreme Court in accordance with Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court shall
decide any case on appeal promptly and
without the necessity of placing it upon the
regular calendar
SEC. 19. Review by Certiorari. - A party adversely
affected by a decision or ruling of the CTA en banc may
file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for
review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure." (as amended by RA 9282)
Again, it says Rule 45, it’s means a review but again if
we’re talking of grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no
appeal, kay naa man uban nga orders ang tribunal
nga dili pwede ma-appeal, like dili pa siya final. Kay
pag final na gani ang order or decision, meaning
there’s nothing for the court to do. Kana siya, appeal
ang remedy. Pero kung in the middle ka pa sa kaso,
naay mga orders nga gi-iisue nga naay grave abuse
of discretion, dili man ka pwede maka appeal ana
kay dili pa man siya final. So, what you do is original
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 58
action for certiorari under Rule 65. So, that’s Court of
Tax Appeals to the Supreme Court under Rule 65.
Again, even if muingon pa ang Section 19 na Rule 45,
that is the ordinary appeal but in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction, you can elevate the order or act of the
CTA under Rule 65 to the SC if the requisites are
present.
Once again, the dichotomy:
●
●
When the law says “a verified petition for
review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45”
against the CTA, it talks about an appeal. So,
to be accurate, this is exclusive appellate, not
original, jurisdiction.
So, same as the Sandiganbayan, if the CTA
committed grave abuse of discretion, the
remedy can be certiorari under Rule 65 over
which the Supreme Court has exclusive
original jurisdiction.
Pareha lang na siya, ang sa Sandiganbayan ug sa
CTA, the law says Rule 45 but that is an ordinary
appeal it doesn’t mean nga wala na kay remedy kung
ang order sa Sandiganbayan or sa CTA not subject to
appeal because again it is not yet final. Naa lang
gihapon ka ug remedy, but this time, didto ka sa Rule
65. Supreme Court gihapon kay dili man pwede nga,
aside from the fact na walay lain na court higher that
the CTA or higher than the Sandiganbayan but the
Supreme Court, but kung asa man gud ang appellate
jurisdiction usually sa isa ka tribunal diha pud nimo
siya i-question if it is certiorari. That’s the meaning of
“in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.” If it has
appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the CTA or
over the decisions of the Sandiganbayan, it also has
jurisdiction over a certiorari - original action as
against the tribunal or body.
OMBUDSMAN IN CRIMINAL CASES
Unlike decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman
in administrative cases where the Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman
provides for a remedy of appeal to the court of
Appeals by way of a verified petition for review
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, there is no
specific appeal or remedy provided for resolutions
or orders of the Office of the Ombudsman in
criminal and non-administrative cases which are
considered final and unappealable.
In Ombudsman, I already mentioned this, and I made
a distinction between administrative cases, nonadministrative cases, and criminal cases. Again, balik
na pud ta because we will discuss it more
exhaustively this time.
If in Sandiganbayan, as to administrative cases, how
to review you go to the Court of Appeals in Rule 43
under the Rules of Court. Petition for Review is an
appeal.
If criminal and non-administrative cases, these are
final and executory therefore, there is no appeal.
There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy under the ordinary course of law so, what
you have is an extraordinary remedy under Rule 65,
certiorari.
Ngano sa Supreme Court man? Nganong dili man sa
Court of Appeals? Nganong dili man sa RTC? The
basis here is RA No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act.
Under RA 6770
● Section 14. Restrictions. — XXX No court
shall hear any appeal or application for
remedy against the decision or findings of
the Ombudsman, except the Supreme
Court, on pure question of law.
DISCUSSION: So, sa Supreme Court lang sya dili siya
to any other court even if in the presence of the
Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts.
So, this was actually mentioned in several cases and
assigned those cases to you, but I will just discuss the
case of Estrada vs. Desierto.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 59
Estrada vs. Desierto
Carpio-Morales vs. CA
G.R. No. 156160, Dec. 9, 2004
G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015
The remedy of aggrieved parties from resolutions
of the Office of the Ombudsman finding probable
cause in criminal cases or non-administrative
cases, when tainted with grave abuse of discretion,
is to file an original action for certiorari (Rule 65)
with this Court and not with the Court of Appeals.
The second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770
provides that no appeal or application for remedy
may be heard against the decision or findings of
the Ombudsman, with the exception of the
Supreme Court on pure questions of law.
This involved the former President Estrada. So, gi file
ni siya sa Ombudsman. A Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 against the findings of the Ombudsman in
the criminal case gi ile sa Court of Appeals invoking
the hierarchy of courts. Because under BP Blg. 129,
the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction as well as the
Regional trial Court over Petitions for Certiorari
under Rule 65. Except to those bodies under that
Constitution. So, they are invoking the hierarchy of
courts but again based on Section 14 of RA No. 6770,
you will only have your remedy under the Supreme
Court. You cannot have any other remedy.
The question now is what mode of review? Is it
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 or original action
for certiorari under Rule 65 to question the findings
of the Ombudsman in criminal and nonadministrative cases?
The rule on Ombudsman Act says that the rules in
criminal and non-administrative cases are final and
executory. You cannot appeal that pursuant to Rule
45. As to rule 45, it is an ordinary appeal that
presupposes that the decision is not yet final and
executory but again the findings of the Ombudsman
is not appealable that is why you can only have
certiorari under Rule 65. You cannot use Rule 45.
As to Rule 45, that is still under the Supreme Court
but not that mode of review because it is an appeal.
So, Rule 65, thereby, no appeal, no other modes of
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.
So, in that case, the Supreme court said your remedy
is to go to the Supreme Court under Section 14 of RA
No. 6770 and not Rule 45 but Rule 65 because the
decision you are assailing is final and executory.
This paragraph, which the Ombudsman particularly
relies on in arguing that the CA had no jurisdiction
over the main CA-G.R. SP No. 139453 petition, as it
is supposedly this Court which has the sole
jurisdiction to conduct a judicial review of its
decisions or findings, is vague for two (2) reasons:
(1) it is unclear what the phrase
"application for remedy" or the word
"findings" refers to; and
(2) it does not specify what procedural
remedy is solely allowable to this Court,
save that the same be taken only against
a pure question of law.
Take note also this case of Carpio-Morales vs. Court
of Appeals. Mao pud ning case nga nag-overturn sa
Aguinaldo Doctrine. Here, wala kaayo ni siya na
pansin no pero if you will read the case thoroughly
everything there, the Supreme Court actually
declared as unconstitutional Section 14 of RA No.
6770. It says that “no court shall hear any appeal or
application for remedy against the decision or
findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme
Court, on pure question of law.”
The Supreme Court said this paragraph, which the
Ombudsman particularly relies on in arguing that the
CA had no jurisdiction over the main case petition, as
it is supposedly this Court which has the sole
jurisdiction ( Explanation of Ma’am Yangyang: kay
mao man jud na sa case ni Estrada vs. Desierto and
all other cases before. If the Supreme Court, it is Rule
65 because again of Section 14 of RA No. 6770) to
conduct a judicial review of its decisions or findings,
is vague for two (2) reasons:
(1) it is unclear what the phrase "application for
remedy" or the word "findings" refers to; and
(2) it does not specify what procedural remedy is
solely allowable to this Court, save that the same be
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 60
taken only against a pure question of law The task
then, is to apply the relevant principles of statutory
construction to resolve the ambiguity.
Explanation as to No. 2: Vague siya because
even Rule 45 pure question of law gihapon
siya but It’s an appeal. While Rule 65, if it is
going to the Supreme Court, it should also
be pure question of law because the
Supreme Court is not trier of facts. So, even
if it’s a Petition for Certiorari before the
Supreme Court, it is still limited on the legal
aspects of the grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
So, dili daw klaro ang Section 14 of RA
No.6770.
Slide: The second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 ,
which attempts to effectively increase the Supreme
Court's appellate jurisdiction without its advice and
concurrence is unconstitutional and perforce, invalid.
Effect: Subject matter jurisdiction lies with the court
of Appeals, not with the Supreme Court.
The 2nd paragraph of Section 14 which attempts to
effectively increase the Supreme Curt’s appellate
jurisdiction without its advice and concurrence is
unconstitutional and invalid. Diba we discussed
before limitations on the power of Congress that the
Congress cannot increase, modify or decrease the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without
its advice and concurrence.
So, RA No. 6770 by making the remedy directly and
solely to the Supreme Court wala man nag-ingon ang
Supreme Court na okay ko ana wala man siya nagingon gibutang nimo tanan where in fact in the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts pwede man unta na sa
Court of Appeals, sa RTC so nganong sa Supreme
Court? So, that’s why the Supreme Court, in this case,
decided en banc said that it is unconstitutional.
If you analyze that because, in this case, the Supreme
Court uphold that the subject matter of that
jurisdiction lies within the Court of Appeals and not
with the Supreme Court. It was also Rule 65.
Following that case of Carpio-Morales vs. Court of
Appeals, I myself had a personal experience. KAtong
mga nabaik sa akoa you know that I discussed with
you this before. I had a case also involving a public
officer sa Ombudsman and criminal case. There was a
filing of probable cause. So here, kanang man gud sa
Ombudsman after maka determine ug probable
cause ang Ombudsman next ana is magfile na sila
depende kung if the salary grade is lower than 27 sa
trial court na ifile ang case pero kung grade 27 and up
sa Sandiganbayan na siya. So, my client sa
Sandiganbayan na pero I was also questioning the
filing of probable cause on the ground of grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
While the case was pending with the Sandiganbayan,
I filed with the Supreme Court based on the case of
Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals. But surprisingly,
even if I exhaustively discussed the history and the
case of Carpio, the Supreme Court decided again
citing the cases of Estrada and backwards. They did
not even mention at all na dili applicable diri CarpioMorales. As in murag wala siya and wala siya ni
appear sa pleadings. So, natingala ko. Kinsa man ang
researcher ani. Murag wala dyud na nagbasa and
wala dyud niya gi address at all.
So, nagfile ko ug motion for reconsideration and I
even filed a motion to refer the petition to the
Supreme Court en banc because my argument is that
this is a doctrine laid down in the case of CarpioMorales vs. Court of Appeals and it is decided by the
Supreme Court en banc. Then, you cannot overturn a
doctrine decided by the Supreme Court en banc
because division lang man to ang nagdecide sa
Supreme Court.
So, I wanted the case to be elevated to the Supreme
Court en banc pero the Supreme Court division said
no. The Supreme Court en banc is not an appellate
court. So, wala. Gi deny. I don’t know in the
subsequent cases basig mu ingon na pud na dapat sa
Court of Appeals kay naa man ang case ni CarpioMorales vs. Court of Appeals so dapat dili ka sa
Supreme Court.
So, I wanted to see unta if naa na ba ron katong case
namo. At that time, wala pa man pud to siya na
publish so I’m looking forward for the copy of the
publish decision which after na siya sa Capio-Morales
vs. Court of Appeals kay unta sa akoang subsequent
cases n apud maggamit na to siya basig mu ingon
napud ang Supreme Court ko nga ngano sa akoa man
nimo gi file dapat following the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts sa Court of Appeals na under the case of
Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 61
So again, for me, kay dili man to en banc ang
nagdecide sa amoang case, I would still stick with the
ruling of the case Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals
na unconstitutional ang Section 14 of RA No. 6770.
(*inaudible 21:23-21:25) Deadman lang si Supreme
Court division wala jud siya nagmention at all.
Mahappy unta ko kung nagmention lang man unta
siya at sa Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals. Wala
jud murag gi copy paste ang desisyon uy samoka. But
anyway, that is based on actual experience.
Lagman vs. Medialdea
The SC said, the name of the petition is
Petition for Review of the factual basis for the
declaration of martial law or Petition for Review under
the Third Paragraph of Section 18 of Article VII of the
1987 Constitution.
(not found in the rules of court)
Another case which is still within the exclusive
original jurisdiction….(end 21:50)
Another case that is within the original jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court
2. Election contest involving the president
and the vice president
Note: Kung naa na gani ni siya na election contest,
you cannot file that before any other tribunal, you
just file that with SOLELY AND ONLY with the
Supreme Court under Art 7, Sec 4.
ARTICLE VII Section 4 [1987]
xxx The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the President or VicePresident, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.
3. Cases questioning the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of
martial law and the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
the extension thereof
ARTICLE VII Section 18 [1987]
xxx The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon
within thirty days from its filing.
4. Disciplinary
proceedings
against
members of the Philippine bar and the
judiciary.
RULE 56-A ROC
Section 1. Original cases cognizable. — Only petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus, disciplinary proceedings against
members of the judiciary and attorneys, and cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls may be filed originally in the Supreme Court.
5. Injunction in agrarian cases
Section 20 of RA 9700, which amend Sec 55 of RA
6557
"SEC. 55. No Restraining Order or Preliminary
Injunction. — Except for the Supreme Court, no court
in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any
restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction
against the PARC, the DAR, or any of its duly
authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute
or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in
connection with the application, implementation,
enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other
pertinent laws on agrarian reform."
Note: you cannot file an injunction against the DAR
before any other court. It can only be with the SC.
Discussion: Ang question, it is an original action.
Unsa man ang pangalan sa case? Petition for what?
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 62
6. Injunction in any other laws or rules
There are still scattered laws saying na injunction, in
those cases, are to be filed exclusively and for the
first instance in the SC.
Sec 78, RA 9136
Section 78. Injunction and Restraining Order. - The
implementation of the provisions of this Act (Electric
Power Industry Reform Act of 2001) shall not be
restrained or enjoined except by an order issued by
the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Discussion: You file directly to the SC. “Petition for
injunction” – name of the case.
Sec 3, RA 8975
Section 3. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary
Restraining
Orders,
Preliminary
Mandatory
Injunctions. – No court, except the Supreme Court,
shall issue any temporary restraining order,
preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory
injunction against the government, or any of its
subdivisions, officials or any person or entity, whether
public or private acting under the government
direction, to restrain, prohibit or compel certain acts in
relation to national government infrastructure
projects.
Rules 2, Sec 10 of
Environmental cases.
Rules
of Procedure in
Section 10. Prohibition against temporary restraining
order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. - Except the
Supreme Court, no court can issue a TRO or writ of
preliminary injunction against lawful actions of
government agencies that enforce environmental laws
or prevent violations thereof.
Note: A TRO and Injunction is a provisional remedy.
Injunction could be a provisional remedy while the
case is pending or it can be the main action. The
purpose of it is to stop the doing of an act if it is a
preliminary prohibitory injunction or to compel the
doing of an act if it is a preliminary mandatory
injunction.
Kung mahuman na ang case, it now becomes a
mandatory injunction or prohibitory injunction. It is
no longer preliminary.
Remember: Falling within the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the SC, so wala kay choice only the SC.
CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL
Concurrent Original – meaning, the Supreme Court
has jurisdiction. It is an original case filed, and not an
appeal. It is first filed in the court, but concurrent
with other courts.
What are these cases?
1.
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS
-
Petition for certiorari
Petition for Prohibition
Petition for Mandamus
Remember: Concurrent siya, but with the Court of
Appeals only.
Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus gihapon, but
now, we are talking of different bodies. Kaganina,
Supreme Court only. Now, Supreme Court AND Court
of Appeals.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
We are talking here about the acts of the RTC. Of
course, dili ta pwede mag certiorari sa RTC to annul
the act of another RTC, it has to be a higher body.
That is why it is concurrent only to the CA.
Going back, kung act gani sa CA, the SC lang pud. It is
no longer concurrent with any other bodies.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (under RA 7902)
Under RA 7902 if you are talking of appeal under Rule
45, it is with the CA, not with the SC.
Diba wala na siya sa mga list sa constitutional
commissions na diretso siya Supreme Court because
Civil Service is Court of Appeals.
But as to certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, sa
Court of appeals pwede pud sa Supreme Court kay
wala man gikuha sa SC ang authority to act on
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 63
against the CSC, naa lang gihapon with respect to this
extraordinary remedy. Naa gihapon concurrent pero
naa pud si CA pursuant to RA 7902, in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction. Kay ang appeal sa CSC kay
didto na sa CA.
Remember: if we are talking about appeal, under
Rule 4, walay concurrent jurisdiction ang Supreme
Court ug CA. Because in Appeal, dili ka pwede
mulaktaw imo jud ng subayon gikan sa RTC.
In CSC, kung ang appeal sa CSC is sa CA then didto
lang ka. Dili ka pwede mudiretso sa SC. But if you say
certiorari, probihition, mandamus, original action na
siya. It is not an appeal so pwede ka sa CA or sa SC.
Again, in all these cases we observe the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts.
Central Board of Assessment Appeals
Under PD 464, BP 129, and RA 7902, didto na sila sa
Court of Appeal, ang appellate jurisdiction. That is
why ang certiorari, pwede pud nimo ma file sa CA
concurrent with the SC.
Another principle of concurrent jurisdiction aside
from the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, if you file a
case with one court, na naay concurrent (RTC, CA,
SC), kung ni file na gani ka sa isa, that court exercises
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.
Kinsa man ang naay jurisdiction over that?
Actually naay concurrent jurisdiction diha ang:
Supreme Court ug Court of Appeals supposedly kay
again, wala man giwala sa Supreme Court ang
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus sa mga quasi-judicial bodies. Naa
gihapon.
BUT TAKE NOTE: Under the case of St. Martin
Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, you have to observe the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts . Didto ka sa Court of
Appeals ang imohang Rule 65.
Ayaw na mo pag-charchar later na ay pwede bitaw iargue na exception sya sa doctrine of hierarchy of
courts. I’m sure i-dismiss na sa SC so didto gyud mo
sa CA following the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Mao gyud na siya ang St. Martin Funeral Homes vs
NLRC. Ayaw na mo pag-take og chance, go directly to
the Court of Appeals.
SLIDE: Concurrent original jurisdiction with the
Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court in
petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against lower courts and bodies, and in petitions
for quo warranto and habeas corpus. This
jurisdiction is subject to the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts (Sections 9 (1), 21 (1), BP Blg 129, Art 8,
Sec 5 1987 Constitution)
National Labor Relations Commission
About labor cases. NLRC is a collegiate body.
If you have a case, for example, illegal dismissal;
claims for damages arising from EE-ER; illegal strike;
petition to declare illegal strike etc; where will we file
these cases? Labor Arbiters of NLRC.
If, for example, the labor arbiter will decide, then you
are aggrieved and walay Motion for Reconsideration
sa labor arbiter. You go directly to the NLRC, you file
an appeal there.
Kung naa nay decision ang NLRC, you can file a
motion for reconsideration but after that, final and
executory na ang decision sa NLRC.
Does it mean na wala na kay remedy? Pildi na gyud
ka? No. You can still question it BY PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI citing grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction - RULE 65.
SLIDE: Concurrent original jurisdiction with the RTC
in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers
and consuls (Sec 21(2), BP Blg 129, Art 8 Sec 5
1987 Constitution)
Discussion: Diba namention nato sya sa Constitution
na naay jurisdiction ang SC but this is actually shared
with the RTC. Because ang katong sa RTC naa ni sya
sa BP Blg 129 Sec 21 (2) na naa pud jurisdiction ang
RTC in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers,
and consuls. Pero si SC naman under Art. 8 Sec 5 of
the 1987 constitution, naa pud siyay original
jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors public
ministers and consuls . Meaning, concurrent ang
ilahang jurisdiction. We are talking about original
actions, not an appeal, so you file it for the first time.
PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF KALIKASAN (With CA)
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 64
●
-
-
The Writ is a remedy available to a natural
or juridical person, entity authorized by law,
people’s organization, non governmental
organization, or any public interest group
accredited by or registered with any
government agency on behalf of persons
whose constitutional rights to a balanced
and healthful ecology is violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee
or private individual or entity involving
environmental damage of such magnitude
as to prejudice the life, health, or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces, constitutional right to a balance
and healthful ecologies.
This act of the government, for example
official or entity, will cause environmental
damage nga dako kaayo og magnitude involving two or more territories, cities, or
municipalities. So you seek for a Writ of
Kalikasan.
●
●
CONTINUING MANDAMUS - To compel the
doing of an act and to seek for damages
because of the neglect of the doing of an act
-
So it is concurrent with the SC and CA pero
apil gihapon ang RTC ani sa Writ of
Continuing Mandamus.
HABEAS CORPUS with RTC and CA
●
●
Where? You can go to the SC or the CA.
WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS (With RTC and
CA)
●
neglect to perform the duties of the
respondent, under the law, rules or
regulations.
Actually concurrent pud siya sa CA. Here it is
to compel. You are compelling the doing of
an act.
Mandamus- When any agency or
instrumentality of the government or officer
thereof unlawfully neglects the performance
of an act which the law specifically enjoins
as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
station in connection with the enforcement
or violation of an environmental law rule or
regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully
excludes another from the use or enjoyment
of such right and there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty, attaching thereto supporting
evidence, specifying that the petition
concerns an environmental law, rule or
regulation, and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the respondent to do
an act or series of acts until the judgment is
fully satisfied, and to pay damages sustained
by the petitioner by reason of the malicious
●
For example naay nawala, gideprive of his
liberty, is under restraint, you can file a
petition for habeas corpus to direct those
person/s having custody of the person or
who are restraining another of his liberty to
explain under what authority are you
holding this person.
It can also be used in custody cases.(naa kay
illegitimate child na ang custody dapat sa
mother, gidala sa imohang BF or iyahang
papa didto, you want to get the custody of
the child and the faster way is to file a writ
of habeas corpus)
Ang jurisdiction ana is concurrent with the
SC, CA, RTC
WRIT OF AMPARO
●
●
●
Concurrent with the RTC, Sandiganbayan,
and CA
When there is a violation of constitutional
rights,
enforced
disappearances,
extrajudicial killings, etc, you use the writ of
amparo
You can file that with the CA,
Sandiganbayan, RTC, also concurrently, with
the SC
DECEMBER 9, 2020 - ZOOM
So we discussed last meeting the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court. We are now in the concurrent
[original jurisdiction] because we are already finished
with the exclusive original jurisdiction of the SC.
So last time we discussed concurrent original
jurisdiction with the CA and the RTC in petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, and against
lower courts and bodies and in petitions for quo
warranto and habeas corpus. We will discuss those
later more exhaustively. Also, concurrent jurisdiction
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 65
with the RTC in cases affecting ambassadors, public
ministers, and consuls. We will discuss that also.
Petition for Writ of Kalikasan with the CA. Petition for
writ of continuing mandamus with the RTC and the
CA. Habeas Corpus with the RTC and CA. And then
Writ of Amparo with the RTC, Sandiganbayan, and
CA. Again, we are talking about the Supreme Court’s
original concurrent jurisdiction.
Cases
affecting
Ambassadors,
Ministers, and Consuls
Public
Here, ang SC, ang concurrent jurisdiction, original
with the RTC. Ang SC na jurisdiction over cases
affecting Ambassadors, Public Ministers and Consuls,
we will find that in Article 8, Section 5 of the 1987
Constitution.
Article 8, Section 5, 1987 Constitution.
The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus.
We mentioned that last meeting. Kaning sa RTC
naman, gi-confer pud siya ug jurisdiction over these
cases under Section 21, paragraph 2 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129.
Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. –
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original
jurisdiction:
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other
public ministers and consuls.
consuls? We have what we call diplomatic immunity.
They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts
receiving them/of the receiving state.
For example, here we have the consul or ambassador
of the U.S. There is what we call diplomatic
immunity. So they cannot be sued, but in some cases
where they waive their diplomatic immunity, which
means they can now be sued, here the jurisdiction is
with the RTC or the SC.
Supreme Court, pwede siya original because naa man
gud na siya’y international repercussions ang mga
cases involving these officials. That’s why kung baga
pa sa importance, they are important cases because
their effects are not only felt within the Philippines
but also where these officers, diplomats, or consuls
originate. So there are international consequences.
Writ of Kalikasan
Now we mentioned also the Writ of Kalikasan. The SC
has original and concurrent jurisdiction over petitions
for Writ of Kalikasan. This is a special civil action. You
will discuss this in your Special Civil Actions.
So here, under Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases (Administrative
Matter No. 09-6-8-SC):
Rule 7, Section 3. Where to file. - The petition shall
be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the
stations of the Court of Appeals.
So concurrent sila. This is the basis for that. Although
you will discuss this more on your Special Civil
Actions.
Writ of Continuing Mandamus
Original gihapon, meaning you can file these cases
for the first time before the RTC. It’s not a
continuation of another case before a lower court,
but originally filed before the RTC. So silang duha ni
SC, they have the same original but concurrent
jurisdiction.
Diplomatic Immunity
This is under Rule 8 also from the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases:
Rule 8, Section 2. Where to file the petition. - The
petition shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court
exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the
actionable neglect or omission occurred or with
the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
Did you already discuss this in your political or
international law? About diplomats, ambassadors,
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 66
So again, by special law, jurisdiction is concurrent
original - SC, CA, RTC.
Habeas Corpus
I already mentioned what is the nature of a habeas
corpus proceeding. It is actually a special proceeding.
So katong when a person has been deprived of his
liberty, you file a petition for habeas corpus. Or when
you want to recover custody. Illegal confinements or
detentions. This is the petition that you file – habeas
corpus, under Rule 102, Section 1 of the Rules of
Court. Again, this is governed by the Rules on Special
Proceedings. But we are just talking about the
jurisdiction of the SC.
Rule 102, Section 1. To what habeas corpus
extends. — Except as otherwise expressly provided
by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to
all cases of illegal confinement or detention by
which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by
which the rightful custody of any person is
withheld from the person entitled thereto.
For example: Davao City, Region 11 Judicial Region,
the writ of habeas corpus cannot be extended to the
National Capital Region. But if it’s the SC and CA
which issued it, nationwide ang coverage sa writ of
habeas corpus. So anywhere.
Family Courts Act of 1997 (R.A. No. 8369)
Here, there is also a mention of the petition for
habeas corpus.
Section 5. Jurisdiction of family Courts. - The
Family Courts shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
(b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of
children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
Now there’s a case here – the case of Madriñan v.
Madriñan.
Under Section 2, who can grant the writ of habeas
corpus?
Rule 102, Section 2. Who may grant the writ. —
The writ of habeas corpus may be granted by the
Supreme Court, or any member thereof in the
instances authorized by law, and if so granted it
shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines,
and may be made returnable before the court or
any member thereof, or before a Court of First
Instance, or any judge thereof for the hearing and
decision on the merits. It may also be granted by a
Court of First Instance, or a judge thereof, on any
day and at any time, and returnable before
himself, enforceable only within his judicial district.
It may be granted by the SC or any member thereof;
or by the CA or any member thereof; actually also by
the Court of First Instance (CFI). When you say CFI,
this is the RTC. Mao ni sila ang jurisdiction. So you
can file before any of these courts, but habeas
corpus.
There’s a difference because when you say habeas
corpus which is filed before the RTC, ang jurisdiction
sa RTC regarding the writ of habeas corpus is only
within the territorial jurisdiction of that court.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 67
Madriñan v. Madriñan
G.R. No. 159374. July 12, 2007.
Facts: The husband left the conjugal abode and
took the three sons away from the wife. So the
wife filed a petition for habeas corpus to recover
custody of the three sons, alleging that the
husband’s act of leaving the conjugal dwelling and
going to Albay and Laguna (while bringing their
three sons along with him) disrupted the
education of their children and deprived them of
their mother’s care. In her petition, she prayed
that her husband be ordered to appear and
produce the sons before the court and explain why
they should not be returned to her custody. That is
the nature of a writ: to inquire into the legality of
the cause of detention. So the husband should be
able to explain that he has grounds to remain in
custody of the children and why it should not be
given to the wife.
The petition for habeas corpus was filed by the
wife before the Court of Appeals.
The husband questioned the jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals on the ground that with the
enactment of RA 8369, it is very clear that the
Regional Trial Courts acting as Family Courts have
exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide
petitions for habeas corpus.
Issue: Whether or not RA 8369 deprives the Court
of Appeals and the Supreme Court of their
jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving
custody of minors. NO.
Decision: RA 8369 did not divest the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court of their
jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving
custody of minors. RA 8369 reveals no manifest
intent to revoke the jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court over petitions for
the issuance of writ of habeas corpus. RA 8369
must be read in harmony with the provisions of RA
7902 holding that Family Courts have concurrent
jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court in petitions for habeas corpus
where the custody of minors is at issue.
It does not mean that when custody of minors is
involved, that you would be limited to Family
Courts. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court still retain concurrent jurisdiction.
Under RA 8369, Family Courts are vested with
original exclusive jurisdiction in custody cases, but
not in habeas corpus cases. The petition for writ of
habeas corpus is different from a petition for
custody; a writ of habeas corpus is only a
supplement. Writs of habeas corpus, which may be
issued by the Family Courts under said law, pertain
to the ancillary remedy that may be availed of in
conjunction with the petition for custody of minors
under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court.
In Madriñan v. Madriñan, the Supreme Court said it
was proper for the wife to file the case before the
Court of Appeals because the husband transferred
places (first to Albay then to Laguna), which had
different territorial jurisdictions. What would happen
to the petition if it is filed with a Regional Trial Court
acting as a Family Court in Albay and then the
husband transfers to Laguna and then to Davao? So it
was proper to have filed it with the Court of
Appeals, as the writ issued is enforceable
nationwide. The wife does not need to file every now
and then each time the husband would transfer to a
different territorial jurisdiction. Hence, it was proper
for the petition to have been filed with the Court of
Appeals.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE
SUPREME COURT
Appellate jurisdiction - where there is already a
pending case and it is just elevated to the Supreme
Court for review. It is just a continuation of the
proceedings already started with the lower court but
because the aggrieved party believes there is an error
committed by the court a quo then he appeals to the
Supreme Court.
What are those cases within the exclusive appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
See Article VIII, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution:
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower
courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity
of any treaty, international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 68
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
-
Tax ordinances: for example, the local
government imposes a toll fee on large
trucks reaching a certain weight before they
are allowed to pass through the locality. If
you want to question such an ordinance,
you can do so with the Regional Trial Court,
and then on appeal, with the Supreme
Court.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower
court is in issue.
-
This does not pertain to a petition for
certiorari on grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
This pertains to no jurisdiction. Here, a case
was filed before the RTC but the RTC has no
jurisdiction because the money claim was
P200,000 (it should be filed with the MTC).
All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher, if the accused is
convicted, diretso na sya sa SC.
Pero pag death penalty, there is no need for the
accused to file an appeal - it is automatically
reviewed by the SC.
[All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved, we will discuss this more exhaustively.]
*wala na napadayon
To be more specific, the SC has appellate jurisdiction
by way of petition for review on certiorari against the
CA, Sandiganbayan, and RTCs.
Appeal to the SC
This is different from an extraordinary remedy or
original action because when it is, for example an
extraordinary remedy or original action, it is not just
a continuation of the proceedings in the courts
below. Lahi jud na sya, you file that originally before
the SC. But here, it is an appeal. So pwede na gikan
ka sa MTC, then RTC, to CA, and last sa SC. Pag npildi
napud ka, wa nakay pag-asa.
What is the mode of review?
Rule 45. Appeal by Certiorari to Supreme Court
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. —
A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a
judgment or final order or resolution of the Court
of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial
Court or other courts whenever authorized by law,
may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition
for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise
only questions of law which must be distinctly set
forth. (1a, 2a)
Section 2. Time for filing; extension. — The petition
shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of
the judgment or final order or resolution appealed
from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for
new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after
notice of the judgment. On motion duly filed and
served, with full payment of the docket and other
lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the
expiration of the reglementary period, the
Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant an
extension of thirty (30) days only within which to
file the petition. (1a, 5a)
Section 3. Docket and other lawful fees; proof of
service of petition. — Unless he has theretofore
done so, the petitioner shall pay the corresponding
docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court
of the Supreme Court and deposit the amount of
P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the
petition. Proof of service of a copy, thereof on the
lower court concerned and on the adverse party
shall be submitted together with the petition. (1a)
Section 4. Contents of petition. — The petition
shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the
original copy intended for the court being
indicated as such by the petitioner and shall (a)
state the full name of the appealing party as the
petitioner and the adverse party as respondent,
without impleading the lower courts or judges
thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b)
indicate the material dates showing when notice of
the judgment or final order or resolution subject
thereof was received, when a motion for new trial
or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when
notice of the denial thereof was received; (c) set
forth concisely a statement of the matters
involved, and the reasons or arguments relied on
for the allowance of the petition; (d) be
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original,
or a certified true copy of the judgment or final
order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 69
the court a quo and the requisite number of plain
copies thereof, and such material portions of the
record as would support the petition; and (e)
contain a sworn certification against forum
shopping as provided in the last paragraph of
section 2, Rule 42.
Section 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. — The
failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
foregoing requirements regarding the payment of
the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs,
proof of service of the petition, and the contents
of and the documents which should accompany
the petition shall be sufficient ground for the
dismissal thereof.
The Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny
the petition on the ground that the appeal is
without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for
delay, or that the questions raised therein are too
unsubstantial to require consideration. (3a)
Section 6. Review discretionary. — A review is not
a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion,
and will be granted only when there are special
and important reasons thereof. The following,
while neither controlling nor fully measuring the
court's discretion, indicate the character of the
reasons which will be considered:
(a) When the court a quo has decided a question
of substance, not theretofore determined by the
Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably
not in accord with law or with the applicable
decisions of the Supreme Court; or
(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from
the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure
by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the
power of supervision. (4a)
Section 7. Pleadings and documents that may be
required; sanctions. — For purposes of
determining whether the petition should be
dismissed or denied pursuant to section 5 of this
Rule, or where the petition is given due course
under section 8 hereof, the Supreme Court may
require or allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs,
memoranda or documents as it may deem
necessary within such periods and under such
conditions as it may consider appropriate, and
impose the corresponding sanctions in case of
non-filing or unauthorized filing of such pleadings
and documents or non-compliance with the
conditions therefor. (n)
Section 8. Due course; elevation of records. — If
the petition is given due course, the Supreme
Court may require the elevation of the complete
record of the case or specified parts thereof within
fifteen (15) days from notice. (2a)
Section 9. Rule applicable to both civil and criminal
cases. — The mode of appeal prescribed in this
Rule shall be applicable to both civil and criminal
cases, except in criminal cases where the penalty
imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. (n)
Rule 65 is different.
Rule 65. Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in
excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file
a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the
facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings
of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting
such incidental reliefs as law and justice may
require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified
true copy of the judgment, order or resolution
subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and
documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping as
provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule
46. (1a)
Section 2. Petition for prohibition. — When the
proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person, whether exercising judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without
or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 70
judgment be rendered commanding the
respondent to desist from further proceedings in
the action or matter specified therein, or
otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law
and justice may require.
its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or
omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the
petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the
Court of Appeals.
The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a
certified true copy of the judgment, order or
resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings
and documents relevant and pertinent thereto,
and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as
provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule
46. (2a)
No extension of time to file the petition shall be
granted except for compelling reason and in no
case exceeding fifteen (15) days. (4a) (Bar Matter
No. 803, 21 July 1998; A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC)
Section 3. Petition for mandamus. — When any
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or
unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other
is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the respondent, immediately or at
some other time to be specified by the court, to do
the act required to be done to protect the rights of
the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained
by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of
the respondent.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification
of non-forum shopping as provided in the third
paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (3a)
Section 4. When and where petition filed. — The
petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days
from notice of the judgment, order or resolution.
In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is
timely filed, whether such motion is required or
not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from
notice of the denial of said motion.
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or,
if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower
court or of a corporation, board, officer or person,
in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction
over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals
whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of
Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases.
— When the petition filed relates to the acts or
omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency,
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the
petitioner shall join, as private respondent or
respondents with such public respondent or
respondents, the person or persons interested in
sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall
be the duty of such private respondents to appear
and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in
behalf of the public respondent or respondents
affected by the proceedings, and the costs
awarded in such proceedings in favor of the
petitioner shall be against the private respondents
only, and not against the judge, court, quasijudicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person impleaded as public respondent
or respondents.
Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court
where the petition is pending, the public
respondents shall not appear in or file an answer
or comment to the petition or any pleading
therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court by
either party, the public respondents shall be
included therein as nominal parties. However,
unless otherwise specifically directed by the court,
they shall not appear or participate in the
proceedings therein. (5a)
Section 6. Order to comment. — If the petition is
sufficient in form and substance to justify such
process, the court shall issue an order requiring
the respondent or respondents to comment on the
petition within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy
thereof. Such order shall be served on the
respondents in such manner as the court may
direct together with a copy of the petition and any
annexes thereto.
In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals, the provisions of
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 71
section 2, Rule 56, shall be observed. Before giving
due course thereto, the court may require the
respondents to file their comment to, and not a
motion to dismiss, the petition. Thereafter, the
court may require the filing of a reply and such
other responsive or other pleadings as it may
deem necessary and proper. (6a)
Section 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief.
— The court in which the petition is filed may issue
orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also
grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction for the preservation of the
rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The
petition shall not interrupt the course of the
principal case unless a temporary restraining order
or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued
against the public respondent from further
proceeding in the case. (7a)
Section 8. Proceedings after comment is filed. —
After the comment or other pleadings required by
the court are filed, or the time for the filing thereof
has expired, the court may hear the case or require
the parties to submit memoranda. If after such
hearing or submission of memoranda or the
expiration of the period for the filing thereof the
court finds that the allegations of the petition are
true, it shall render judgment for the relief prayed
for or to which the petitioner is entitled.
The court, however, may dismiss the petition if it
finds the same to be patently without merit,
prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the
questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to
require consideration.
Section 9. Service and enforcement of order or
judgment. — A certified copy of the judgment
rendered in accordance with the last preceding
section shall be served upon the court, quasijudicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person concerned in such manner as the
court may direct, and disobedience thereto shall
be punished as contempt. An execution may issue
for any damages or costs awarded in accordance
with section 1 of Rule 39. (9a)
DISCUSSION:
Rule 65 is really certiorari, a petition for certiorari an original action.
What we are talking about here is Rule 45 because
we are talking now of appellate jurisdiction of the SC.
If there is error in the action, judgement, or orders of
the CA, there is no other venue to elevate but to the
SC because only the SC has the exclusive power of
review over CAs decision.
Sandiganbayan
Decisions of the Sandiganbayan, SC jud na because
Sandiganbayan and CA has the same level. But again
when we say Sandiganbayan, what is involved are
public officers with SG27 and higher - any appeal
should be to the SC.
Regional Trial Court
Not all decisions of the RTC are appealable to the SC.
There are just specific cases na you do not need to go
through the CA but directly to the SC.
What are these cases?
(Need not appeal to the CA; Appeal directly to SC)
* Cases na even if RTC ang nag decide, you do not file
an appeal with the CA but directly with the SC.
1.
Pure questions of law (*but not all)
- Pure questions of law regarding
decisions of the RTC rendered by
the RTC in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction
(Explanation: The case originated from the RTC but
you want to appeal - not regarding the factual issues
kay okay na ka ato. Pure question of law ra gyud
imohang i-assail because the law is applied
wrongfully. So here, deretso naka sa SC. Kung mu-file
ka sa CA, mali na, it is not even a doctrine of
hierarchy of courts na question. We are talking of
appeal here ha from the decision of the RTC. Lahi ang
certiorari as an original action - you are assailing the
judgment of the RTC for being issued with GADALEJ.
Kato, pwede sa SC, pwede sa CA but subject to the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts.)
What if there is also a factual issue?
So mixed questions of fact and law - original
jurisdiction gihapon sa RTC. Where do you appeal?
You appeal to the CA.
Rule 45 is a petition for review on certiorari - that is
appeal.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 72
But how about if it is decided by the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and you are
raising only pure questions of law?
For example there is an unlawful detainer case from
the MTC but napildi so nag appeal sa RTC then napildi
usab. Now you are raising only pure legal questions
of law. You appeal to the CA because the decision
rendered by the RTC is in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction.
Note:
Only decisions rendered by the RTC in the exercise
of its original jurisdiction are appealable directly to
the SC under Rule 45.
Slide: ON WHAT?
● On pure questions of law (Sec. 1, Rule 45);
● In cases involving the constitutionality or
validity of a law or treaty, international or
executive agreement, presidential decree,
proclamation,
order,
instruction,
ordinance or regulation, legality of a tax,
impost, assessment, toll or penalty;
● In cases involving the jurisdiction of a
lower court (Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution);
Again, directly appealed to the Supreme Court.
COURT OF TAX APPEALS IN ITS DECISION RENDERED
EN BANC
● If decided En Banc, appeal directly with the
Supreme Court. Under RA 9282.
● If it is only rendered by a Division of the
Court of Tax Appeals, the appeal should be
filed with the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9851
Philippine Act on Crimes Against International
Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes
Against Humanity
Section 18. Philippine Court, Prosecutors and
Investigators. – The Regional Trial Court of the
Philippines shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over the crimes punishable under this Act. Their
judgments may be appealed or elevated to the Court of
Appeals and to the Supreme Court as provided by law.
Under this law, you may appeal or elevate judgments
by the RTC to the Supreme Court. However, the
Supreme Court does not have exclusive appellate
jurisdiction. Under Sec. 18, such judgments by the
RTC may be appealed or elevated to the Court of
Appeals also. So, the CA and the SC have concurrent
appellate jurisdiction in such cases.
Slide: EXAMPLE: Suppose that a party is aggrieved
by the decision of the Court of Appeals and avers
that the same was tainted by grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. What is his remedy?
ANSWER: A special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 before the Supreme Court.
● Note that if a party avails of this remedy,
he is invoking the original jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court.
● This remedy is not an appeal. It is not
considered a continuation of the case
before the Court of Appeals and is an
original case filed before the Supreme
Court.
In this example, there is no question that it should be
filed with the Supreme Court. What should be
identified is the remedy or recourse that the
aggrieved party should file with the SC on whether it
should be under Rule 45 or under Rule 65.
If it is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, (and please remember, if there
is no appeal and there is no plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy under the ordinary course of law)
the remedy should be that under Rule 65 before the
Supreme Court.
Even if there is grave abuse of discretion but there is
an appeal provided for by law, like it’s a final
judgment of the Court of Appeals, a final order or
final judgment can be appealed, it should not be
under Rule 65. It should be under Rule 56.
❖ INTERLOCUTORY ORDER – an order which is
not yet final, but there is an incidental
question; for example, a case resolved by
the Court of Appeals but it does not finally
dispose of the case, there will still be
proceedings after such order.
If it is an interlocutory order of the Court of Appeals
that is being questioned, such cannot be appealed, so
the remedy is certiorari under Rule 65 if there is
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. An original action.
Slide: EXAMPLE: Suppose that a party is aggrieved
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 73
by the decision of the Court of Appeals but there
was a simple error in judgment that he cannot say
that there was a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. What is
his remedy?
ANSWER: The aggrieved party may appeal under
Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
● Note that this appeal is just a
continuation of the case before the Court
of Appeals.
quasi-judicial bodies are frontally inconsistent with
the findings of the Court of Appeals.
This is the exception where the findings of facts of
the trial court are diametrically opposed with the
findings of facts of the Court of Appeals. This is when
the Supreme Court, as the final arbiter, will examine
the factual issues.
When is a matter factual question or a legal
question?
Another difference:
If it is an original action for certiorari (Rule 65), like
filed with the Supreme Court, you need to attach in
your petition for certiorari certified true copies of the
judgment and the order which is the subject of the
petition. The records of the case should be attached
with the petition.
But with Rule 45, not necessarily. If the Supreme
Court gives due course with your appeal, it will order
the RTC or CA or any Court whose decision is the
subject of the appeal to elevate the records of the
case to the SC.
In Rule 45, again, the Supreme Court only deals with
questions of law as a general rule. Why?
BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT A TRIER OF
FACTS
Slide: Passing upon a factual issue is not within the
province of the Supreme Court. The findings of
facts of the Court of Appeals are not generally
reviewable by the Supreme Court. Also, factual
findings of the trial court, particularly when
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally
binding on the Supreme Court. (Office of the
Ombudsman v. Lazaro-Baldazo, G.R. No. 170815,
February 2, 2007)
Especially when the RTC and the CA have the same
factual findings, there is nothing for the Supreme
Court to review on the facts. It would just limit itself
to the legal questions
Slide: It is not the function of the Supreme Court
to determine the weight of the evidence
supporting the assailed decision. However, factual
issues may be delved into and resolved where the
findings and conclusions of the trial court or the
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 74
Question of Fact vs. Question of Law
Slide: There is a question of fact when doubt or
difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the
alleged facts. There is a question of law where the
doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on
a certain state of facts. (Cano vs. Chief of Philippine
National Police, G.R. No. 139368, November 21,
2002)
Cancio vs. Performance Exchange Corporation
G.R. No. 182307. June 6, 2018
Slide: There is a question of fact when the issue
presented before the Supreme Court is the
correctness of the lower court's appreciation of
the evidence presented by the parties. To
determine whether a lower court erred in the
appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court must
also examine the records to see if there was
evidence that was overlooked, or if certain pieces
of evidence were given undue weight. Simply
arguing that the facts are not disputed will not
evade raising questions of fact before the Supreme
Court. (
Cancio vs. Performance Exchange Corporation
G.R. No. 182307. June 6, 2018)
It's not simply a matter of saying that this is purely a
question of law.
Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. DOTC
G.R. No. 217158. March 12, 2019
What was questioned here was the legality but the
Supreme Court said that it is also a question of fact
and not purely a question of law. It's not how or what
you allege. The Supreme Court will examine if indeed
it is just a question of law or it entails looking into the
facts of the case.
QUESTION OF LAW
QUESTION OF FACT
For a question of law to
be one of law, the same
must not involve an
examination of the
probative value of the
evidence presented by
If the issue invites a
review of the evidence
presented, the question
posed is one of fact.
the litigants.
Apply the law
Apply the
evidence
law
on
In jury trial, it is
determined by the
judge.
In jury trial, it is
determined by the jury.
For a question of law to be one of law, the same
must not involve an examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented by the litigants. For
example, there is a witness, but you are saying that
the trial court should not have believed this
particular witness because this witness is obviously
lying. "There are inconsistencies in the testimony of
the witness. The testimony is against human nature.
It's against the law of nature." That is actually
examining the probative value of the evidence so it's
a question of fact.
A question of law should not involve an examination
of the probative value of the evidence. If the issue
invites a review of the evidence presented, the
question posed is one of fact. If it is just a question
of law, it's just a matter of application of the law.
There is no controversy as to the factual matters
raised.
But if it is a question of fact, you apply the law on
evidence e.g. if it is credible, if the witness is
competent to testify, or if the testimony is just
hearsay. Ingon siya gikawat daw ni B ang iyahang
kulintas pero siya mismo wala kakita. That's hearsay
and that's a question of evidence competence. Or for
example a question on whether a document is
admissible even though it's just a photocopy, not an
original copy. That is a question of fact if it pertains
to how evidence is appreciated. It's not a question of
law.
It's not applicable here in the Philippines, but in a jury
trial (like in the U.S.), a question of law is determined
by the judge and if it is a question of fact, it is
determined by the jury. This is because the jury may
not be knowledgeable about the law but they can
decide on the facts.
Read the case of Ericsson Telecommunications Inc.
vs. City of Pasig.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 75
Ericsson Telecommunications Inc. vs. City of Pasig
G.R. No. 176667. November 22, 2007.
Slide: The test of whether a question is one of law
or of fact is not the appellation given to such
question by the party raising the same; tather, it is
whether the appellate court can determine the
issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the
evidence, in which case, it is a question of law;
otherwise it is a question of fact. (Ericsson
Telecommunications Inc. vs. City of Pasig
G.R. No. 176667. November 22, 2007)
and submit and offer documents. It only decides on
questions of law.
Exceptions; When the Supreme Court May
Hear Questions of Fact
There are certain exceptions in jurisprudence to the
rule that the Supreme Court in general shall not
resolve questions of facts. There are certain instances
where the Supreme Court also determines factual
issues.
Habeas Data
Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC
Jurisdictional Consequence
1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5. The Supreme
Court shall have the following powers: x x x
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
xxx
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
Slide: Section 5(2)(e), Article VIII of the
Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall
have appellate jurisdiction over “all cases in which
only an error or question of law is involved.” Only
questions of law may be raised before the
Supreme Court (i.e. under a petition for review
under Rule 45) because the Court is not a trier of
facts and the factual findings of lower courts are
final, binding or conclusive on the parties and to
the Court. (United Coconut Planters Bank vs.
Spouses Uy, G.R. No. 204039, January 10, 2018)
If it is decided by the Regional Trial Court, remember
that it should be a decision in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction. If it is from the Court of Appeals,
it doesn't matter. It should be with the Supreme
Court because there is no other court after the Court
of Appeals.
The Supreme Court is not a Trier of Facts
The general rule is that the Supreme Court does not
review the probative value of the evidence presented
before it. The Supreme Court does not conduct trial
in the sense that you will have to present witnesses,
Section 19. Appeal. - Any party may appeal from the
final judgment or order to the Supreme Court under
Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law
or both.
The Supreme Court may hear both questions of fact
and law by way of exception, under the Rule on the
Writ Habeas Data (A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC).
If you remember, any party may appeal from the final
judgment or order to the Supreme Court under Rule
45. The appeal may raise questions of fact, or law, or
both. This is one of the exceptions where the
Supreme Court may determine questions of fact or
mixed questions of fact and law.
Writ of Amparo
Rule on the Writ of Amparo
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
Section 19. Appeal. - Any party may appeal from the
final judgment or order to the Supreme Court under
Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law
or both.
The appeal may raise questions of fact, or law, or
both.
Writ of Kalikasan
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
Rule 7, Section 16. Appeal. - Within fifteen (15) days
from the date of notice of the adverse judgment or
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 76
denial of motion for reconsideration, any party may
appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. The appeal may raise questions of fact.
Under Section 16, the appeal may raise questions of
fact, even though it is an appeal under Rule 45.
A MIXED QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW
A mixed question of fact and law refers to one the
solution of which depends on both fact and law. In
resolving mixed questions, a reviewing court must
adjudicate the facts of the case and decide relevant
legal issues at the same time.
When you say naman mixed questions of fact and
law - it refers to one where the solution of which
depends on both fact and law.
So, in resolving a mixed question, the reviewing court
must adjudicate the facts of the case and decide
relevant legal issues at the same time.
Example:
Negligence, that is, a failure to comply with some duty
of care owed by one to another, is a mixed question of
law and fact.
There is a question of law as to the duty of care owed
by a defendant to a plaintiff. The existence of
negligence, however, is determined by facts and
evidence, which makes it a question of fact.
(Cancio vs Performance Foreign Exchange Corporation
GR No. 182307, June 6, 2018)
Example, in the case of Cancio vs Performance
Foreign Exchange Corporation.
Negligence, what is negligence? You discussed that in
your obligations and contracts.
Negligence is failure to comply with some duty of
care owed by one to another. It is actually a mixed
question of fact and of law. There is a question of
law as to the duty of care owed by a defendant to the
plaintiff like for example, General rule what kind of
diligence is a person required to observe? Ordinary
diligence or diligence of a good father of a family.
So, to say that a person is negligent, he must fall
short of that standard of ordinary diligence. In some
other cases like in common carriers, in so far as the
duty of precaution as against human lives is
concerned, the law requires extraordinary diligence.
It’s a law, a legal provision. If you only exercised
ordinary diligence where the law requires you to
exercise extraordinary diligence, you are then
negligent. So ang question of law, what kind of
diligence are you supposed to observe?
But is it extraordinary or ordinary? Under the
circumstances, did you exercise the requisite degree
of diligence? So here musulod ang question of fact.
Unsa man imong gibuhat as common carrier? Gi
inspect ba nimo ang ligid before ka nilakaw?
Nagconduct ba ka ug periodic maintenance? Did you
observe the speed limit? So those are the factual
issues that you should resolve whether or not there
was negligence. So it’s a mixed question of fact and
of law.
A MIXED QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW
For purposes of review, a mixed question of fact and
law is treated as a question of fact. As such, appellate
recourse should be brought before the Court of
Appeals, as a general rule, and not the Supreme Court.
But for the purpose of review, in so far as the
appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court is
concerned, again please remember pure questions of
law lang.
if it now becomes a mixed question of fact and law in
such a way that na for you to resolve the legal
question, you have to examine the factual issues
because there is also a question, the parties have not
agreed as to the factual questions, then you now
have a mixed question of fact and law which is again
not within the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme
court. you go to the court of appeals. Because the
court of appeals can examine factual questions.
Now, aside from the ones which we mentioned na
the Supreme Court in its exercise of appellate
jurisdiction can determine mixed questions of cats
and law, based on jurisprudence, these are the
exceptions:
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 77
Exceptions to the that the Supreme Court is
not a trier of facts
properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion.
1. When it inquires into the factual basis for the
declaration of martial law and suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
So let’s just summarize the appellate jurisdiction of
the SC.
We’re not even talking about the appellate
jurisdiction of the supreme court in #1 because this is
within the original jurisdiction of the supreme court.
obviously mao na gyud na ang provision, factual basis
on the declaration of martial law and suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The
Supreme Court will determine factual issues, not only
legal.
2. When the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises or conjectures.
We’re talking here of the findings in the decision
elevated to the Supreme Court on appeal. So if wala
gyud basis ang findings, nagspeculate langa ang judge
before the court a quo, so here the sc can look into
the factual issues.
3. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible.
Appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, we are talking
here of pure questions of law. The Supreme Court
shall have appellate jurisdiction if it is the decision of
the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan or the RTC in
the exercise of its original jurisdiction and the court
of appeals , court of tax appeals tendered by the CTA
en banc
Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
MODE
AGAINST
FROM WHAT
CASES
Appeal by
Certiorari
under Rule 45
(pure questions
of law)
COURT OF
APPEALS
Cases before
these courts
where an error
of judgment is
involved
4. When there is grave abuse of discretion
5. When the judgment
misapprehension of facts
is
based
on
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS
a
COURT OF TAX
APPEALS
6. When the findings of facts are conflicting
7. When in making its findings, the Court of Appeals
went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings
are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee
8. When the findings are contrary to the trial court
9. When the findings are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are
based.
10. When the facts set forth in the petition, as well
in the petitioner's main and reply briefs, are not
disputed by the respondent
11. When the findings of fact are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence or contradicted by
the evidence on record.
SANDIGANBAYA
N
In its decisions
rendered en banc
(RA 9202)
Appeal by
Certiorari
under Rule 45
(questions of
fact or law)
COURT OF
APPEALS
SANDIGANBAYA
N
Writ of Amparo
Writ of Habeas
Data
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS
COURT OF
APPEALS
12. When the CA manifestly overlooks certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which if
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 78
Writ of
Kalikasan
Again ha para di ta maconfuse:
If it is a pure question of law kaning 4 (CA,
Sandiganbayan, CTA, RTC in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction) to the Supreme Court
Kaning mixed questions of law kaning 3 ka courts but
kani na cases
So katong mga discussion pud sa prior jurisprudence.
Twelve exceptions na pwede idetermine sa SC ang
factual questions as of now VERY EXCEPTIONAL na to
siya.
Again, it should be purely legal questions. Of course,
aside atong naay LAW gyud:
●
●
CA for Writ of Kalikasan
●
Ang policy na ng SC in this case of Gio Samar diba, we
mentioned 12 exceptions to the general rule where
supposedly the SC in those instances may determine
questions of fact in an appeal raised to it. Even in
certiorari original action cases because in Gio Samar
certiorari to siya, original action.
But the SC, please remember the policy is, actually
not a policy:
These by law, we can raise questions of fact to the
SC.
Let’s review the 2 limitations:
●
Gio-Samar vs DOTC
G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019
●
“However, litigants do not have unfettered discretion
to invoke the Court's original jurisdiction. The
doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates that, direct
recourse to this Court is allowed only to resolve
questions of law, notwithstanding the invocation of
paramount or transcendental importance of the
action. This doctrine is not mere policy, rather, it is a
constitutional filtering mechanism designed to
enable the Court to focus on the more fundamental
and essential tasks assigned to it by the highest law
of the land.”
In that case of Gio-Samar, aside from the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts na iya gyud explain ug tarong
unsa ang history/origin, if it is not of, even if, that
question is of transcendental importance pero if it is
not PURE QUESTION OF LAW, it does not fall for the
mere application of the law, dili siya dapat idiretso
sa SC, didto dapat sa lower ranked court muadto.
Depende kakinsa na decision subject.
If it is an MTC decision, then certiorari should be file
with the RTC.
If it is an RTC decision, then certiorari should be filed
with the CA. Dili ka mudiretso sa SC.
BISAN UNSA PA SIYA KA IMPORTANTE BUT ANG
TIMAAN AN NATO IS LEGAL QUESTION LANG (pure
question of law)
factual basis of the declaration of martial
law
suspension of the privilege of habeas
corpus, data, writ of kalikasan, amparo
Congress cannot increase the appellate
jurisdiction of the SC without its consent
(Constitutional Provision - Section 30, Article
VI)
It cannot also diminish the jurisdiction of the
SC as defined in Section 5.
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS
The CA is a creation again of law. So, it is not (wala
yatang not) a statutory court, it is not created by the
Constitution.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides for the jurisdiction
of the CA:
In Section 9, although ang section 9, it mentions
about the original jurisdiction as well as appellate
jurisdiction. So, there is an enumeration.
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals
shall Exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes,
whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgements of Regional Trial Courts;
and
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 79
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commission, including
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Social Security Commission, the Employees
Compensation Commission and the Civil Service
Commission, Except those falling within the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code
of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No.
442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of
subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph od Section
17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
The court of Appeals shall have the power to try
cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to resolve
factual issues raised in cases falling within its
original and appellate jurisdiction, including the
power to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals
must be continuous and must be completed within
three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief
Justice. (as amended by R.A. No. 7902.)
Original Jurisdiction of the Court Of Appeals
We now go first to the original jurisdiction of the CA.
Exclusive - again just like we discussed, you file that
in the first instance before the CA because we are
talking about the CA now. It is not a continuation of
the proceedings of any of the courts because it is an
independent action with itself. Although it seeks to
affect the judgements and decisions of other courts.
Exclusive because you cannot file it in any other
courts.
Section 9, Paragraph 2 of BP 129 - Exclusive
original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgements of Regional Trial Courts
Annulment of judgement - We are talking here of
the judgement of the RTC like for example naay kaso
na gifile sa RTC and then ikaw si defendant and then
walay summons na giissue sa imoha at all. Wala ka
kabalo na naay kaso against you and then you only
learned about the decision and it’s already final and
executory daw kay naglapse na ang period to file a
motion for reconsideration or appeal but as we have
already discussed in jurisdiction. Proceedings before
a court which acquired no jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant for example are null and
void. So, what do you do with that? So, one remedy
although you have a lot of remedies. One remedy is
you can file an action for annulment of judgement
against the decision of the RTC before the CA.
Now under Rule 47, Section 2 what are the grounds
for annulment of Judgement:
Section 2. Grounds for annulment. — The
annulment may be based only on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was
availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion
for new trial or petition for relief.
Two Grounds for Annulment of Judgment:
A. Extrinsic Fraud
B. Lack of Jurisdiction
Here, actually daghan pa other reliefs again
available.
There’s petition for relief from judgement but
annulment of judgement is also a remedy like for
example ni lampas na ang reglementary period for
you to file for relief but it is still within the period to
file an action for annulment of judgment kay 4 years
ni siya from the time the decision became final or if
the annulment is based on lack of jurisdiction before
it is barred by estoppel. So, you can file that.
Extrinsic Fraud
Kaning extrinsic fraud, we will discuss this when we
go to Rule 47 pero just remember it means na
because of the fraud committed by the other party
the aggrieved party has been deprived of his
opportunity to present his action or defense in court.
Because of the fraud committed by the other party,
the aggrieved party has been deprived of his
opportunity to present his action or defense in court.
Like, plaintiff ka for example, you file a case against B.
You are A in this case. The case is now set for pretrial. That is one of the steps or incidents in a case –
pre-trial. One of the consequences of pre-trial, when
the plaintiff does not appear during the pre-trial
without any justifiable cause, the case will be
dismissed. So example, defendant approached
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 80
plaintiff and said, “Plaintiff, ayaw nag attend sa pretrial kay mubayad nako saimong mga gipaningil,
etc.” So, the plaintiff did not attend the pre-trial.
Defendant then invoked that “without justifiable
cause plaintiff failed to appear during pre-trial so I
am moving for the dismissal of the case. This has
been unknown also to do the plaintiff (assuming).
Terrorism cases, they may authorize in writing any
police or law enforcing officer and the members of
his team duly authorized in writing to do these acts:
examine deposits, placements, trust accounts, gather
or cause the gathering of information about the said
deposits or accounts, etc. So, that is the original
jurisdiction of the CA.
So that is an example of an extrinsic fraud because by
reason of the act of the defendant, plaintiff was
deprived of the opportunity to be present in that pretrial. There is a fraud committed. So, that is a ground
for annulment of judgement.
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over petitions under
Republic Act 10168, An Act Defining the Crime of
Financing of Terrorism, to extend freeze order
issued by the Anti-Money Laundering Council.
You cannot file this action at any other court, only to
the Court of Appeals if we are talking of judgments or
final orders of the RTC. So, you file it before the CA.
Exclusive original jurisdiction to issue certain orders
under RA 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007.
Section 7 says:
SEC. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and
Recording of Communications. -The provisions of
Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) to the
contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement
official and the members of his team may, upon a
written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to,
intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form,
kind or type of electronic or other surveillance
equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or
with the use of any other suitable ways and means for
that purpose, any communication, message,
conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words
between members of a judicially declared and
outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group
of persons or of any person charged with or suspected
of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism.
So, here only the Court of Appeals has the original
jurisdiction over that.
Anti-Money Laundering – naka kwarta ka because of
an illegal act ei., gambling, kidnapping, terrorism, etc.
and then you make it appear that the proceeds are
legitimate, so you deposit it in the bank, invest it, etc.
Here, the Court of Appeals can extend freeze orders
by the Anti-Money Laundering Council, it extends the
original period and determines the basis of the freeze
order.
So, freeze order, this extends the authority of the
Anti-Money Laundering Council which can be
inquired into or extended by the CA. so, 2o days but
upon petition can be extended by the CA for a period
not exceeding 6 months.
Concurrent Original Jurisdiction of the Court
of Appeals
We already touched or discussed some of these
when we discussed the Jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. Because most of these also are concurrent
with the SC.
1. Concurrent Original Jurisdiction with the Supreme
Court to issue certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
a. The RTC
b. The CSC
c. The Central Board of Assessment Appeal,
Also, in relation to terrorism, under the Bank Secrecy
Law, supposedly, you cannot inquire into the bank
deposits without the authority of the person whose
deposits you’re seeking to inquire into or the court’s.
Judicial authorization to examine bank deposit
accounts and records, the Justices, not withstanding
RA 1405 as amended, either Justices of the Court of
Appeals, designated as a special court to handle Anti-
d. Other quasi-judicial agencies mentioned
in Rule 43 and
e. The NLRC, although theoretically, the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the CA
over adverse original action for certiorari
against the NLRC is concurrent but in the
case St. Matin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, they
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 81
should be filed with the CA following the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
2. Concurrent and Original Jurisdiction with the
Supreme Court and the RTC to issue writ of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and
bodies and writs of quo warranto and writ of habeas
corpus. While they are not in aid of their appellate
jurisdiction.
Certiorari – to annul and void the proceedings of a
court or a tribunal which acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
What will happen in certiorari, if your petition for
certiorari will be granted, the judgment which is the
subject of the certiorari is annulled. Declared null and
void.
Slide: Concurrent and original with the Supreme
Court and the Regional Trial Court to issue writs
of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against
lower courts and bodies and writs of quo
warranto and habeas corpus, whether or not in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
❖ Previously, the Court of Appeals could
issue these writs only in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction, i.e., only in
connection with a case appealed to it
(Sec 9[1], B.P. Blg 129).
So, these are the cases where the Court of Appeals
and the Supreme Court, as well as the RTC have
concurrent and original jurisdiction.
We’re talking of against lower courts and bodies. So,
lower courts meaning we're talking of the MTC here.
It's a lower court. It’s not the RTC because
concurrent gani ilahang jurisdiction so meaning even
the RTC can take cognizance. So, we’re talking of the
MTC and other ka level na courts. But again, subject
to the hierarchy of courts.
Now, there's another concurrent original jurisdiction
in the rule on the writ of habeas data. We already
mentioned this. So, the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, the Sandiganbayan or the Regional Trial
Courts so they do have concurrent jurisdiction.
So just an overview of what we have so far discussed.
The court we're talking here of is the concurrent
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
COURT
Subject Matter
Regional Trial Court
Petition for writ of habeas data
which does not involve public
data files of government
offices.
VENUE is the RTC of the place:
DISCUSSION: Prohibition naman is when you want to
stop the perpetration of an act or commission of an
act. Maybe you want to stop him from assuming the
performance of a certain act. So that’s prohibition.
1.
2.
3.
Mandamus is the reverse you want to compel him to
do a particular act in which under the law should be
ministerial and dili discretionary. So, he has no
discretion to decide whether or not to act but he has
to act mandamus.
Quo warranto here is that you are questioning the
qualifications, the authority to exercise an office. You
are familiar with the case of Chief Justice Serreno
katong quo warranto proceedings. We are dealing or
we question the authority to exercise a particular
function of office because allegedly the officer here is
not qualified. He has committed a violation.
Habeas Corpus is that we discussed it already.
Where the petitioner
resides; or
Where the respondent
resides; or
Where the data or
information is
gathered, collected, or
stored.
PETITIONER chooses where.
Sandiganbayan
Court of Appeals
Supreme Court
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 82
Petition for writ of habeas data
which concerns public data files
of government offices
With the Regional Trial Courts, the petition for writ of
habeas data, which does not involve public data files
of government offices. It is concurrent with the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan and the RTC.
So, here, we just have to clarify the so-called original
and concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
with these different boards.
Now, what is within the jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court? Under the law petition for writ of habeas
data, which does not involve public data files of
government offices. So here, the venue is the
Regional Trial Court of the place:
1. Where the petitioner resides;
2.Where the respondent resides; or
3. Where the data or information is
gathered, collected or stored, depending
upon the petitioner. Siya ang magchoose
kung asa niya i-file kung asa ang venue.
When we say venue, we are referring here to the
place. The place kung sa Digos ba siya, kung sa
Davao. We'll discuss that venue as distinguished from
jurisdiction when we go to Rule 4. But again, when
we say jurisdiction, it is the authority of the court to
hear and decide the case. We are not talking of the
place. We are talking of the court itself whether it is
the MTC, the RTC, or the Court of Appeals
Concurrent Original Jurisdiction
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS
DATA
information is gathered, collected or stored, at the
option of the petitioner. The petition may also be
filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the action
concerns public data files of government offices.
Now, the Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court, as to
habeas data, we are referring here to petitions for
writ of habeas data which concern public data files of
government offices. So, diha ilahang concurrent
jurisdiction.
Concurrent jurisdiction, as well as original, with the
Supreme Court, the RTC, the Sandiganbayan to issue
writs of amparo. We discussed this also in our lecture
regarding the Supreme Court.
Same. Concurrent and original jurisdiction with the
Supreme Court to issue a writ of kalikasan.
Concurrent and original jurisdiction with the
Supreme Court and the RTC to issue a writ of
continuing mandamus
Slide: Original and concurrent with the Supreme
Court in the issuance of a restraining order,
preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory
injunction in any case involving the powers, duties
and responsibilities of the Securities and Exchange
Commission that falls exclusively within its
jurisdiction (Section 179, Republic Act No. 11232,
Revised Corporation Code of the Philippines)
I think we discussed this also in the Supreme Court's
jurisdiction.
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, January 22, 2008
Section 1. Habeas Data.- The writ of habeas data
is a remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or information
regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
Section 3. Where to File. - The petition may be
filed with the Regional Trial Court where the
petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has
jurisdiction over the place where the data or
Slide: Concurrent and original jurisdiction with the
Supreme Court in the issuance of restraining order,
preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory
injunction against the Philippine Competition
Commission in the exercise of its duties and
functions (Section 47, Republic Act No. 10667 or
the Philippine Competition Act)
Have you discuss na Competition Law? Naa na ba na
sa inyuha ron? Dili ni siyang kanang pagtuo ninyo na
Conflict of Laws sa second sem na competition lahi
sad na siya. I think you are familiar with monopolies,
combination mao na siyang covered sa competition
law. So, kung ing-ani na mga issues, there cases
within the jurisdiction of the Philippine Competition
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 83
Commission. So, kung naa kay pangayuon nga TRO
injunction, you will file that either to the Court of
Appeals or with the Supreme Court.
exercise of original jurisdiction. The appeal
involves question of fact or mixed questions of
fact and law.
As we already discussed, kung decision ng RTC in
the exercise of its original jurisdiction and ang
imung ipasaka on appeal and merely and purely
questions of law, sa Supreme Court ka under
Rule 45. Kani siya, mixed questions of fact or law
or fact so court of appeal na.
Appellate Jurisdiction
●
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of
ordinary appeal from the Regional Trial
Courts and the Family Courts (Sec. 9[3],
B.P. Blg. 129)
●
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of
petition for review from the Regional Trial
Court rendered by the RTC in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction (Sec. 22, B.P.
Blg. 129; Rule 42, Rules of Court; Sec. 9,
B.P. Blg. 129)
Your mode of appeal is notice of appeal.
2. Petition for Review rendered by the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Here, from MTC then the aggrieved party
appealed in the RTC. Then ang RTC nag decide,
aggrieved lang gihapon. Then mag appeal napud.
Where? In the Court of Appeals. On what
question? Purely questions of law, purely
questions of fact, Or mixed questions of fact and
law. (Rule 42)
We now go to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court
of Appeals. So, bisag ang Court of Appeals ang tawag
sa iyaha kay Court of Appeals kay feeling nato
appeal. But, as we have already discussed, naa pud
syay original jurisdiction dili lang appellate. But now
we're going to the appellate jurisdiction:
1.
2.
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of
ordinary appeal from the Regional Trial
Court and the family courts;
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of
review from the Regional Trial Court
rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction.
So, these are the legal basis. Just take note of the
sections and the laws involved.
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by of petition for
review from the decisions, resolutions, orders or
awards of the Civil Service Commission, Central Board
of Assessment Appeals and other bodies mention in
Rule 43 and of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases. Enemecio vs
Ombudsman; Gonzales vs Rosas
Sa appellate jurisdiction, in general, mabahin nato na
sila into three.
1.
Ordinary appeal from the RTC and Family
Courts.
Ordinary appeal, meaning, these cases are
decided by the RTC and the Family Courts in the
The mode is not notice of appeal but petition for
review.
In the exercise of RTC’s appellate jurisdiction,
that is still with the CA.
3.
Appeal from administrative bodies.
We discussed before the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction. There are cases that should be field
before the proper administrative bodies because the
expertise is within this bodies. They have the skills
and knowledge about that particular case- agrarian
case, corporation cases, real estate cases, labor
cases.
After sa primary jurisdiction, related dira and
exhaustion of administrative remedies. From HLUB to
HLRUB Commission to Office of the President. Or sa
DAR, first, you go to provincial agrarian reform
adjudication board, then to Dept. agrarian reform
adjudication board in Manila.
You must first exhaust all the possible remedies in
that administrative bodies. There are some na
maabot ka sa office of the president like sa HLURB.
After you’ve exhausted all the possible administrative
remedies in that particular tribunal, didto na
mupasok ang Court of Appeals. Like in HLURB kung
naabot na ka sa Office of the president, unsa pa ba
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 84
sunod sa OP? Wala na. but it does not mean na wala
na kay remedy. You can now go to the regular courts.
But the regular court here is not the RTC but the CA.
Halos tanan, in general, na mga quasi-judicial bodies
didto ka muappeal sa CA. What is the mode? Petition
for review under Rule 43. Rule 43 basta quasi-judicial
bodies after exhausting all the possible
administrative remedies in that body.
In Ombudsman, administrative cases decided by the
Ombudsman, asa nato siya pwede ipa question? You
go to the CA under Rule 43.
Among these agencies under Rule 43 are the Civil
Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment
Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office
of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social
Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau
of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer,
National Electrification Administration, Energy
Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications
Commissions, Department of Agrarian Reform under
RA 6657, GSIS, Compensation Commission, Agricultural
Invention Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine
Atomic Energy Commission, Board of investments,
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and
voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.
Take note that all of these bodies that after them you
can appeal to the CA by ways of Rule 43- Petition for
Review.
Voluntary Arbitrators authorized by law
Ex. There are labor cases na ang jurisdiction is with
the voluntary arbitrator. For example, naay CBA or
has agreed by the parties, pwede na siya irefer to
voluntary arbitration. This under the department of
National Reconciliation Mediation Board. This is
different with NLRC.
Kani siya, the decisions of voluntary arbitrator, in
labor cases, are appealable to the CA by way of
petition for review under Rule 43.
However, regarding NLRC, diba it is still a quasijudicial agency, pero lahi ang treatment sa decision
sa NLRC.
Among these agencies under Rule 43 are the Civil
Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment
Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of the President, Land Registration
Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil
Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks,
and Technology Transfer, National Electrification
Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National
Telecommunications Commission, Department of
Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657,
Government Service Insurance System, Employees
Compensation Commission, Board of Investments,
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and
voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.
Re: NLRC
DISCUSSION: Diba it’s still a quasi-judicial agency?
Pero lahi ang treatment sa decision sa NLRC. As we
have discussed and in the case of St. Martin Funeral
Homes, ang decision sa NLRC is final and executory.
Dili siya pwede i-appeal. But it doesn’t mean that you
don’t have the remedy against that decision. You can
still have it questioned, but NOT BY APPEAL.
You file an ORIGINAL ACTION for certiorari under
Rule 65, again, following the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts. It should be with the Court of Appeals.
Note that under RA No. 9282, the judgments and
final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals are no
longer appealable by way of petition for review to
the Court of Appeals. Judgments of the Court of
Tax Appeals rendered en banc are appealable to
the Supreme Court by way of Rule 45 (Sec 11, RA
No. 9282). This is pursuant to the doctrine of noninterference.
DISCUSSION: As I said, ka-level lang ang Court of
Appeals ug ang CTA. So you cannot modify, annul,
reverse the decision of a co-equal body.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
●
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of
petition for review from the decisions of
the Philippine Competition Commission in
cases over which it has jurisdiction
(Section 39, RA No. 11232, Revised
Corporation Code of the Philippines).
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 85
cadastral cases - didto na ka diretso sa Court of
Appeals.
DISCUSSION: Remember we already discussed that _
concurrent with the SC -- they are referring to
injunctions, TROs, which are CONCURRENT
ORIGINAL.
Here, we are not talking about the TRO, injunction,
BUT cases mismo filed before the Philippine
Competition Commission under Section 39, RA
11232. Katong mga cases under the jurisdiction of
the PCC, i-appeal nimo sila sa RULE 43, COURT OF
APPEALS.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
●
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
decisions and final orders of the Regional
Trial Court acting as a Special Commercial
Court in cases falling under the Interim
rules of Corporate Rehabilitation and the
Interim Rules of Procedure Governing
Intra-Corporate Controversies under
Republic Act No. 8799.
(NOTE: to be discussed more under the jurisdiction
of the Regional Trial Court)
DISCUSSION: Didto gihapon na sya sa Court of
appeals.
●
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
decisions of Municipal Trial Courts in
cadastral or land registration cases
pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction
(Sec. 34, BP Blg 129 as amended by RA
No. 7691). This is because decisions of
Municipal Trial Courts in these cases are
appealable in the same manner as
decisions of Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 34,
BP. Blg 129).
DISCUSSION: Makakita ka karon og decision sa MTC
na diretso sa Court of Appeals. Why?
Because ang jurisdiction gyud is with the RTC, kanang
Land Registration Proceedings - BUT, it is DELEGATED
TO THE MTC. So, kung magdecide ang MTC in these
cases, it’s actually like, it is the RTC which decides
because gi-delegate lang kay MTC. That is why, ang
appeal nimo in these cases - land registration and
You do not appeal to the RTC kay gi-delegate na gani
sa imoha. Iyaha tung case, gipa-hear lang sa imoha.
“...these cases are appealable in the same manner as
decisions of RTC.”
So, ordinary appeal by notice of appeal to court of
appeals.
SUMMARY
1. Under BP 129, there is only one type of
case in the exclusive original jurisdiction
of the CA which is annulment of the
judgments of the RTCs. The others are
under special laws.
2. The exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the
CA can be invoked by either an ordinary
appeal or a petition for review in the
following manner:
CASE
MODE
Cases heard originally
by the RTC
Ordinary appeal
Cases heard originally
by the Family Courts
Ordinary appeal
Cases heard on appeal
by the RTC from the
MTC
Petition for Review
under Rule 42
Decisions, resolutions
orders or awards of the
CSC, CBAA, and other
bodies mentioned in
Rule 43 and of the
Office of the
Ombudsman in
administrative
disciplinary cases
Petition for Review
under Rule 43
MTCs acting as
cadastral and land
registration courts (Sec.
34, BP 129)
Ordinary appeal.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 86
DISCUSSION :
BP 129 - mao ni ang law which laid down the
jurisdiction of the central regular courts.
Commission on Audit. Note that the CA
no longer reviews the CTA
NOTE: Civil Service is with the Court of Appeals
DISCUSSION:
SUMMARY
Cases heard originally
by the RTC
-
Ordinary appeal
●
Just remember it should be questions of fact
or mixed questions of fact and law
If it is pure question of law - go to the
Supreme Court under Rule 45
-
Decisions, resolutions
orders or awards of the
CSC, CBAA, and other
bodies mentioned in
Rule 43 and of the
Office of the
Ombudsman in
administrative
disciplinary cases
-
Petition for Review
under Rule 43
SUMMARY
●
●
December 14, 2020 - ZOOM LECTURE
0:08 to 05:08 by Chang
SUMMARY
There is only one instance when the Municipal
Trial Court’s decision is appealable directly to the
CA and this is under Section 34 of BP 129.
Remember: Civil Service Commission, didto
na sya sa Court of Appeals, even if it is a
constitutional commission.
Katong COA, COMELEC, diba sa Supreme
Court sila, dili sila reviewable by the CA.
-
As contrasted with the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals can hear both
questions of fact and questions of law.
There is only one instance when the
Municipal Trial Court’s decision is
appealable directly to the CA and this is
under Section 34 of BP 129.
Under the St. Martin case, the mode of
appeal (or more appropriately, the mode
of review against the NLRC is a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65)
SUMMARY
● The only remaining government agencies
exercising quasi-judicial functions, whose
decisions and final resolutions are directly
appealable to the Supreme Court are the
Commission on Elections and the
Under the St. Martin case, the mode of appeal (or
more appropriately, the mode of review) against
the NLRC is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
The only remaining government agencies
exercising
quasi-judicial
functions,
whose
decisions and final resolutions are directly
appealable to the Supreme Court are the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the
Commission on Audit (COA). Note that the CA no
longer reviews the CTA.
Let’s just summarize what we have discussed
regarding the Court of Appeals. So again, as we
have already mentioned, out of the 3
Commissions under the Constitution, only 2
remain to be reviewable by the SC – Comelec
and COA. Here, the CSC is reviewable either by
certiorari or by appeal under Rule 43 by the CA.
SUMMARY
As contrasted with the SC, the CA can hear both
questions of fact and questions of law.
Because the CA can be a trier of facts, it has the
power to try and conduct hearings like a trial court.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 87
Now, we also discussed before that the SC is not
a trier of facts. It only entertains questions of law
as a general rule. But to distinguish the SC from
CA, the CA can both here questions of fact and
questions of law. It has the power to try and hear
cases like a trial court.
Even if the CA is not a trial court, it has the power
to try cases and conduct hearings (like a trial
court), receive evidence and perform any and all
acts necessary to resolve factual issues in cases
falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction,
including the power to grant and conduct new
trials or further proceedings. [Section 9(3), BP
129 as amended by R.A. 7902].
The CA may pass upon factual issues when a
petition for certiorari is filed before it or in petitions
for writ of amparo or habeas data or in case of
actions to annul the judgment of the RTC over
which the CA has original jurisdiction.
However, this does not mean that the CA should
conduct a trial de novo in a case appealed before
it.
Although the CA can determine questions of fact
and it can receive evidence, it does not conduct
trial de novo.
Trial de novo means trying the case anew, like
for the first time. You don’t do that because you
are an appellate court. There are already records
in the court below and you can utilize that. So
only certain items or aspects that there’s really a
controversy – diha ang CA usually naga conduct
ug trial. It does not start from the very beginning.
It does not conduct trial de novo. So that was
discussed in the case of Lingner & Fisher GMBH
v. IAC.
Lingner & Fisher GMBH v. IAC
G.R. No. L-63557, October 28, 1983
The Appellate Court acted correctly in denying the
request for an evidentiary hearing. Evidence
necessary in regard to factual issues raised in
cases falling within the Appellate Court's original
and
appellate
jurisdiction
contemplates
"incidental" facts which were not touched upon, or
fully heard by the trial or respondent Court. The
law could not have intended that the Appellate
Court would hold an original and full trial of a main
factual issue in a case, which properly pertains to
Trial Courts.
You know what happens in a hearing na
evidentiary? Here, you present witnesses.
Usually testimonial evidence. During the pre-trial,
the parties will already determine what are the
documents that they will need to present during
the trial. So you will ask the adverse party. We
have here the document, we will stipulate on the
genuineness and due execution of this
document, if the other party will stipulate as to
the genuineness and due execution, as well as
maybe the veracity of the contents of that
document then there is no need for you to offer
that during the hearing. I mean you don’t need a
testimony on that para i-identify siya or i-present.
But you can, in the formal offer (you will learn in
your Evidence), pwede na nimo siya i-diretso ug
offer, no need for that document to be identified
because it was already admitted.
The same with testimonial evidence. So this is
my witness, Juan dela Cruz. This is the
substance of his testimony. So he will testify.
And then the other party will say, I will stipulate
as to his testimony. So in that case, dili na nimo
siya kinahanglan i-present in court, para mag
testify. But katong mga items na wala gi admit sa
pikas party, so you will need to present them.
How do you present? Testimonial evidence so
mag tawag ka ug witness, mag testify siya in
court. So question and answer, direct
examination, and then i-cross-examine sa pikas,
nya balik na pud ka redirect examination, and
recross-examination.
Mao
na
siya
sa
witness/testimonial evidence. You need to
specify also the purpose of the testimony.
Now sa documents naman, dili pwede ha na
kung wala pud gyud sa pikas ang document, dili
pwede na i-diretso nimo na “Oh, mao ni akong
document.” For every document there has to be
a testimony to identify that document.
05:09- 10:09 Chiara
For every document, there has to be a testimony
to identify that document. “Your Honor, I
executed a Deed of Sale on June 1, 2005. Here
is the Deed of Sale.” You have to identify and
testify on the document. Later on after all the
testimonial evidence, all the documentary
evidence that was identified shall be offered in
court.
But usually, not all. The Court of Appeals does
not really conduct a trial (an evidentiary trial). It
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 88
conducts only with respect to issues that are
controverted. The Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction
contemplates “incidental” facts, which were not
touched upon, or fully heard by the trial or
respondent court. That is the limit to the trial
regarding the Court of Appeals as a trier of facts.
Slide:
Remedial Law
Civil Procedure
Clarification – Rule 65 cases versus the
Ombudsman
Gatchalian vs. Ombudsman
GR No. 229288, August 1, 2018
Recall the Carpio-Morales vs. CA case regarding
the Ombudsman where I said walay klaro ang
Supreme Court. Read this other case, which is
better at addressing the decision of the Supreme
Court Division.
Read this case as your assignment. It reiterated
the ruling that any decision or findings of the
Ombudsman in criminal and non-administrative
cases if there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, shall
be reviewable by way of Certiorari under Rule 65
to the Supreme Court.
that such determination is tainted with grave
abuse of discretion. Not every error in the
proceedings or every erroneous conclusion of
law or fact, however, constitutes grave abuse
of discretion. It has been stated that the
Ombudsman may err or even abuse the
discretion lodged in her by law, but such error
or abuse alone does not render her act
amenable to correction and annulment by the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari.
In the case of Gatchalian (2018), although more
recent than the case of Information Technology
(2017), it was a Division case. The Information
Technology case was decided en banc in 2017
and was decided after Carpio-Morales vs. CA
(decided in 2015).
So, the case is reviewable to the Supreme Court
by way of Certiorari under Rule 65.
JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT
Slide:
Remedial Law
Civil Procedure
Jurisdiction of the RTC
CRIMINAL CASES
(Finding of probable
cause)
ADMINISTRATIVE
CASES
Special Civil Action
for Certiorari under
Rule 65 before the
Supreme Court
Appeal under Rule 43
or a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule
65 before the Court of
Appeals
GATCHALIAN vs. OMBUDSMAN
GR No. 229288, August 1, 2018
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
FOUNDATION
OF
THE
PHILS.
vs.
COMELEC
GR No. 159139, June 6, 2017 (en banc)
The Ombudsman's determination of probable
cause may only be assailed through certiorari
proceedings before this Court on the ground
Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Courts
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court is
provided primarily by Sections 19-24 of BP
Blg. 129, as amended, and also by other
special laws and rules.
Among all the courts, the RTC is a court of
general jurisdiction.
Discussion: When we say Subject Matter
Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts, we
are referring to those cases within the jurisdiction
of the RTC. What are the kinds and nature of
cases within the power of the RTC to hear and
decide?
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 89
Just like the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals, we have the exclusive original
jurisdiction, the concurrent original jurisdiction,
and the appellate jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court.
possession of real property or an
interest therein, where the assessed
value of such property exceeds
P20,000 (outside Metro Manila),or
exceeds P50,000 (Metro Manila);
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court is
provided primarily by Sections 19-24 of BP Blg.
129, as amended, and also by other special laws
and rules.
*If it is a civil action but the subject is incapable
of pecuniary estimation, the jurisdiction is with
the RTC
BP Blg. 129 is the main law on jurisdiction
regarding the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial
Court, and the Municipal Trial Courts. And those
about jurisdiction not found on BP Blg. 129 are
also provided for by other special laws and rules.
*If it is a real action involving title to or
possession of real property, the jurisdiction
depends on the assessed value of the property it is with the RTC if the value exceeds P20K
(outside MM)/ P50K (MM)
Remember: The RTC is a court of general
jurisdiction because it has jurisdiction over a
number of cases.
**Assessed value - refers to tax declarations
over the property
Continuation of ..
Edren (10:10-15:10)
If a case does not fall within the jurisdiction of
any other court, it falls under the jurisdiction of
the RTC.
RTC - has catch all jurisdiction
It can try not only a limited number of subjects
but several cases.
Slide:
Unlike the MTC, a court of limited jurisdiction
that can only take cognizance of cases
expressly provided by law, the RTC is a court
of gen. jurisdiction because all cases, the
jurisdiction of which is not specifically provided
by law to be within the jurisdiction of any other
court, falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
(Durisol Philippines, Inc. vs. CA, 377 SCRA
353; Sec. 19 (6), BP 129)
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
(Sec. 19, BP 129)
❖ Over actions in admiralty or maritime
jurisdiction where the demand or claim
exceeds P300,000 (outside Metro
Manila) or exceeds P400,000 (Metro
Manila);
❖ Over matters of probate, testate, and
intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds P300,000 (outside
Metro Manila), or exceeds P400,000
(Metro manila);
End 15:10
15:11-20:11 Gennard
Continuation
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
(Sec. 19, BP 129)
●
New topic:
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
(Sec. 19, BP 129)
❖ In all civil actions in which the subject
of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation;
❖ Over actions involving title to or
●
Over cases not falling within the
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
person, or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions;
In all other cases in which the
demand,
exclusive
of
interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses, and costs or
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 90
the value of the property in
controversy
exceeds
P300,000
(outside Metro Manila) or exceeds
P400,000 (Metro Manila)
Over cases not falling within the jurisdiction
of any court, tribunal, person, or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
This is the catch-all jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court. That is why it is called a court of
general jurisdiction.
Slide: Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
(Under special laws and rules)
● Acting as a Special Agrarian Court
over all petitions for the determination
of just compensation to land owners,
and the prosecution of all criminal
offenses under RA 6657;
Slide: WHAT TRIGGERS RTC’S AGRARIAN
JURISDICTION?
Under the law, the Land Bank is first charged
with the responsibility of determining the value
of lands placed under land reform and the
compensation to be paid for their taking.
Through notice sent to the landowner pursuant
to Sec. 16(a) of RA No. 6657, the DAR makes
an offer. In case the landowner rejects the
offer, a summary administrative proceeding is
held and afterward the provincial (PARAD), the
regional (RARAD), or the central (DARAB)
adjudicator as the case may be, depending on
the value of the land, fixes the price to be paid
for the land. If the landowner does not agree to
the price fixed, he may bring the matter to the
RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court. This in
essence is the procedure for the determination
of compensation cases under RA No. 6657.
We discussed before, under the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction, agrarian law implementation
cases fall within the primary jurisdiction of the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) or the
DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). However,
we’re talking here of the jurisdiction of the RTC
acting as a Special Agrarian Court in determining
just compensation. This is specific.
As you know of the concept of eminent domain,
private property is taken for public use upon
payment of just compensation. With the
effectivity of RA 6657, agricultural lands
exceeding 5 hectares shall be covered by the
DAR. Mao na pasabot na subjected to coverage
or gina CARP kay CARP-covered kay every
person, natural or juridical, is only entitled to a
maximum of 5 hectares of agricultural land, the
excess of that kay ginakuha sa government and
ginabayaran na siya, it is expropriated and will
be distributed to qualified agrarian reform
beneficiaries. As a landowner, bayaran mo ug
just compensation. Ang magvalue sa inyong
land, primarily, is the Land Bank of the
Philippines. The Land Bank has a formula for
that. If you don’t agree with the Land Bank’s
valuation, you can contest that valuation.
Primarily, sa DAR through the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) or
with the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (RARAD) or the central DARAB. These
are the quasi-judicial agencies of DAR.
20:12 - 25:12 Kate
If you don't agree with their determination, you file a
case with the special agrarian court, in the RTC. In the
LandBank or DAR, that is merely preliminary
determination of just compensation, so you bring
that to the RTC acting as a special agrarian court so
that is provided under Section 50 thereof, Rule XIII,
Section (u) of the DARAB Rules of Procedure.
To implement the provisions of R.A. No. 6657,
particularly Section 50 thereof, Rule XIII, Section
(u) of the DARAB Rules of Procedure provides:
Land Valuation Determination and Payment of Just
Compensation. - The decision of the Adjudicator
on land valuation and preliminary determination
and payment of just compensation shall not be
appealable to the Board but shall be brought
directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as
Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall
be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration.
Within 15 days from notice, you bring the question
on the determination of just compensation before
the Regional Trial Court. It's not an appeal. It's really
within the original jurisdiction of the RTC. Because
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 91
the one with DAR is preliminary determination of just
compensation.
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
(Under special laws and rules)
TAKE NOTE THAT THIS IS STILL ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION
●
●
The fact that the decision of the
Adjudicator on land valuation and
preliminary and payment of just
compensation "shall be brought directly
to the Regional Trial Courts" does not
mean that the RTC is exercising appellate
jurisdiction.
The valuation of property in eminent
domain is essentially a judicial function
which cannot be vested in administrative
agencies. (Export Processing Zone
Authority vs. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603,
April 29, 1987)
The valuation of property, as discussed in the case of
Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay, in
eminent domain is essentially a judicial function
which cannot be vested in administrative agencies.
It's in the original jurisdiction of the RTC acting as a
special agrarian court.
LAND BANK vs. J.L. JOCSON AND SON
G.R. No. 180803, October 23, 2009
●
Jurisdiction over appeals from decisions
of the SAC resides in the Court of Appeals
via a Rule 42 petition for review, which
may raise either questions of fact, or of
law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
And after that, if for example the RTC has decided,
what's next? Jurisdiction over appeals from decisions
of the SAC resides in the Court of Appeals, although it
is under Rule 42 petition for review. Well actually,
Rule 42 is actually an appeal from a decision of the
RTC acting in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction,
but it's already clarified by the Supreme Court that
the RTC is not acting as an appellate court over
petitions for determination of just compensation.
Although the mode of review of the RTC decisions
are a little weird because it's Rule 42. Just remember
that. It could raise questions of facts, questions of
law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
●
Acting as a Special Commercial Court,
over intra-corporate disputes and
corporate rehabilitation cases (Section 5.2
of R.A. No. 8799 or the Securities
Regulation Code)
Slide:
Under Section 5.2 of RA 8799 or the Securities
Regulation Code, so this is another law granting the
RTC exclusive original jurisdiction over intracorporate disputes and corporate rehabilitation
cases. What are these?
Intra-corporate disputes as discussed in the case of
San Jose versus Ozamiz. This is internal in a
corporation, or within and among the members.
Two Tests
SAN JOSE versus OZAMIZ
G.R. No. 190590, July 12, 2017
Under the relationship test, there is an intracorporate controversy, when the conflict is:
(1) between the corporation, partnership, or
association and the public;
(2) between the corporation, partnership, or
association and the State insofar as its
franchise, permit, or license to operate is
concerned;
(3) between the corporation, partnership, or
association and its stockholders, partners,
members or officers; and
(4) among the stockholders, partners or
associates themselves.
This will determine whether or not the issue is intracorporate controversy, which falls under the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court acting in intracorporate disputes or in corporate rehabilitation
cases.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 92
In accordance with the nature of controversy test,
an intra-corporate controversy arises when the
controversy is not only rooted in the existence of
an intra-corporate relationship, but also in the
enforcement of the parties' correlative rights and
obligations under the Corporation Code and the
internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the
corporation.
25:13 -30:13 (khayzee)
We will not discuss unsa gyud ng cases because
that will be discussed in your corpo. Ang subject
matter jurisdiction lang atong gina isturyahan
unsa pa jud ang subject matter jurisdiction sa
RTC.
Slide:
In accordance with the nature of controversy
test, an intra-corporate controversy arises when
the controversy is not only rooted in the existence
of an intra-corporate relationship, but also in the
enforcement of the parties’ correlative rights and
obligations under the Corporation Code and the
internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the
corporation.
Why do we need to know?
Because ang confusion diha mag arise whether
or not asa man ni siya nako i file. Sa SEC,
security and exchange commission, or sa
regional trial court. So, again, intra corporate
controversies and corporate rehabilitation cases,
RTC. The others unsa man na? Naa puy nabilin
sa SEC?
Kay, can the SEC be divested of authority once a
case is alleged to be an intra corporate
controversy?
Does this mean the SEC can be divested of
authority once a case is alleged to be an intracorporate controversy?
NOT NECESSARILY
Not necessarily. Kay, discussing the cause of
Roman Jr. VS SEC, what is the ruling of the
supreme court here? Under the Securities
Regulation Code, or the SRC, jurisdiction on
intra corporate disputes has already been
transferred to the RTC acting as a Special
Commercial Court.
ROMAN, JR VS SEC
(GR No. 196329, June 1, 2016)
Under the SRC, jurisdiction on intra-corporate
disputes has already been transferred to the RTC
acting as a special commercial court. despite the
said transfer, however, the SEC still retains
sufficient powers to justify its assumption of
jurisdiction
over
matters
concerning
its
supervisory,
administrative
and
regulatory
functions.
Despite the SEC transfer however, the SEC still
retains sufficient powers to justify its assumption
of jurisdiction over matters concerning its
supervisory, administrative and regulatory
functions. So diha remember like katong sa
katong Kapa na case, Rigen? familiar ba mo
ana? Nag invest ba mo ana? Okay. Ang sa SEC
to siya regulatory administrative regarding those
kinds of activities na wala diay silay authority
from the SEC.
Slide:
Beyond doubt, therefore, is the authority of the
SEC to hear cases regardless of whether an
action involves issues cognizable by the RTC,
provided that the SEC could only act upon those
which are merely administrative and regulatory
in character.
In other words, the SEC was never dispossessed
of the power to assume jurisdiction over
complaints, even if these are riddled with intracorporate allegations, if their invocation of
authority is confined only to the extent of ensuring
compliance with the law and the rules, as well as
to impose fines and penalties for violation thereof;
and to investigate even motu proprio whether
corporations comply with the Corporation Code,
the SRC and the implementing rules and
regulations.
So meaning even if the allegations na intra
corporate ang nature pero ang prayer lang nimo
or ang relief na ginapangayo nimo sa SEC, is
about its supervisory powers, its administrative
powers to ensure compliance with the laws naay
jurisdiction ang SEC ana.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 93
It cannot decide on all other matters na regarding
rehabilitation or the controversies between the
stockholders or corporations, wala to siya. Didto
lang kutob and pwede irule sa SEC.
pangutana what is the mode of review? Kay,
under the Rules Of Court man gud, the way of
review, pwede ta rule 41, from the RTC to the
Court of Appeals, rule 42, also from the RTC to
the court of appeals, Rule 43, from the RTC to
the court of appeals.
Okay, so just remember na the:
CONCLUSION
Thus, parties cannot simply aver that the
matter is an intra corporate controversy to
divest the SEC of jurisdiction in pending cases
before it. As explained by no less than the
Supreme Court, the SEC still has jurisdiction
over matters concerning its expansive its
supervisory, administrative and regulatory
functions
Again, as long as naa sa iyahang, within
supervisory, administrative and regulatory
functions, maka rule sa SEC.
30:14 - 35:14
Kue
Rule 43 from the RTC to the CA. There is also
Rule 45 from the RTC to the SC, which we
already discussed. So, we have to know kung
gikan kani na body, although we know na kani
siya ang sunod. Kabalo ta gikan sa RTC kay CA
siya pero unsa ang mode of review? Is it Rule
41, 42, 43.
So, kini kaganiha katong sa RTC acting as a
special agrarian court we said na Rule 42.
Slide:
As we previously noted:
The Court of Appeals exercise exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over decisions and final orders of the
RTC acting as Special Commerical Court in case
falling under the Interim Rules of Procedure
governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under
Republic Act no. 8799.
What is the mode of review?
So, we already discussed the sa katong court of
appeals. So gikan sa RTC, as a special
commercial court, asa man nato i elevate ang
decision sa RTC, we already discussed this,
COURT OF APPEALS, noh?
Exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over decisions and final
orders or the regional trial court acting as a
special commercial court in cases falling under
the Interim Rules Of Corporate Rehabilitation
and The Interim Rules Of Procedure Governing
Intra Corporate Controversies, kay, I mentioned
that before when we were in the jurisdiction,
appellate jurisdiction of the court of appeals, I
said na we will discuss this more in jurisdiction of
the RTC.
Now, what is the mode of review? From the
RTC, to the Court of Appeals. Ngano sige ta
Under the AM No. 04-09-07-SC, A PETITION
FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 43
All decisions and final orders in cases falling
under the Interim Rules of Corporate
Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of
Procedure
Governing
Intra-Corporate
Controversies under RA No. 8799 shall be
appealable to the CA through a petition for
review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
So kani, what is the mode of review, Rule 43.
Timan-i lang ninyo, as a general rule, I’m not
saying na everything but as a general rule when
you seek to review the decision of a quasijudicial agency, or the RTC acting or having
been in trusted with the authority of a previously
quasi-judicial agency like the SEC gitransfer sa
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 94
RTC ang mode of review to CA IS RULE 43.
mao na siya usually. Pag quasi judicial agencies.
We discussed an exception is katong sa NLRC
diba. NLRC although it is a quasi-judicial agency
but the decision of the NLRC is final and
executory so you cannot appeal to the CA but
you can question if there is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
by
an
ORIGINAL
ACTION
CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65. Where to the
CA under the case of St. Martin Funeral Homes
vs NLRC (GR No. 130866.) Not to the SC
because you have to observe the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts.
New Rules
The Court most recently promulgated A.M. 1212-11-SC, or the Financial Rehabilitation
Rules of Procedure (2013 Rules) on August
27, 2013.
The 2013 Rules eliminated the remedy of
appeal from the rehabilitation court’s approval
or disapproval of the rehabilitation plan.
We also have the new rules, Admin No. 12-1211-SC or the Financial Rehabilitation Rules of
Procedure or which is called the 2013 Rules.
Which
the remedy of appeal from the
rehabilitation court’s approval or disapproval of
the rehabilitation plan.
Again, remember RULE 43.
COMMENT
Rule 43 describes a remedy that specifically
applies to quasi-judicial bodies, not to courts of
justice.
I already mentioned noh this specifically applies
to quasi-judicial bodies not to courts of justice but
here Rule 43 gihapon kay katong powers man
gud na gina exercise sa RTC as a special court
gikan to siya before sa quasi-judicial body
gitransfer sa RTC.
We are talking here of the rehabilitation.
Basically when we say rehabilitation, so naay
maybe its a corporation or partnership, a juridical
entity that has become insolvent.
So, it is in financial distress. So gusto nimo siya
isave or gusto nimo siya iliquidate or tagaan
nimo siya ug chance to settle its obligations so
you will have a rehabilitation plan for that so sa
RTC gihapon na siya. But what is the remedy for
example kung giapprove or disapprove ang
rehabilitation plan?
Rule 6
PROCEDURAL REMEDIES
Section 1. Motion for Reconsideration - a party
may file a motion for reconsideration of any
order issued by the court prior to the approval
of the Rehabilitation Plan. No relief can be
extended to the party aggrieved by the court’s
order on the motion through a special civil
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 95
action for certiorari under Rule 65 Rules of
Court. An order issued after the approval of
the Rehabilitation Plan can be reviewed only
through a special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Under Rule 6, we can file a motion for
reconsideration and then kung gi deny imong MR
because the rule says no appeal unsa imong
remedy? Well when there is no appeal and any
other place speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law but there is grave abuse
of discretion again amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. RULE 65 CERTIORARI. That’s
the remedy to the CA following the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts.
Section 2. Review of Decision or Order kn
Rehabilitation Plan 1 An order approving or
disapproving a rehabilitation plan can only be
reviewed through a petition for certiorari to the
CA under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court within
15 days from notice of the decision or order.
So, that’s also in Section 2.
Rule 65. It effectively lends more credence to
the factual findings and the judgment of
rehabilitation courts.
Wala na tong kuwan ha, take note lang Rule 43
although RTC acting as a special commercial
court but excluding orders relating to the
approval or disapproval of the rehabilitation plan.
So, kana siya walay remedy of appeal.
35:15 - 40:15
Dili Rule 43 but Rule 65 Certiorari to the Court of
Appeals.
(SLIDE) SUMMARY: REMEDY AGAINST RTC
ACTING AS SPECIAL COMMERCIAL COURT
ORDER
REMEDY
NOTES
Any order
issued by the
court prior to
the approval
of the
Rehabilitation
Plan
(interlocutory
orders)
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATIO
N WITH THE RTC
No relief can
be extended
by the party
aggrieved by
the court’s
order on the
motion
through a
special civil
action for
certiorari
under Rule 65
Any order
issued after
the approval
of the
Rehabilitation
Plan
CERTIORARI
UNDER RULE 65
WITH THE CA
An order
approving or
disapproving a
CERTIORARI
UNDER RULE 65
WITH THE CA
Golden Cane vs Steelpro
GR No. 198222, April 04, 2016
Under the 2013 Rules, the Rehabilitation
Court's final order approving or disapproving a
rehabilitation plan is no longer subject to
appeal; it can only be reviewed through a
petition for certiorari. The 2013 Rules
narrowed the scope of appellate review from
errors of law and fact under Rule 43, to errors
of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion under
-----------------
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 96
This includes
the dismissal
of the petition
rehabilitation
plan or any
other final
order
because it
amounts to a
failure of
rehabilitation.
It is
considered a
final order.
Discussion:
So, what is the nature of the order? What is the
remedy?
●
Any order issued by the court prior to
the approval of the Rehabilitation Plan
(interlocutory orders).
What is an interlocutory order?
An interlocutory order is issued by the court
pending the final judgment. Wala pa nadetermine sa court ang merit sa case. So, didto
pa lang ta sa tunga-tunga, wala pa ta nahuman.
And then, when the court issues an interlocutory
order, there is something for the court to do.
So, if you are aggrieved of that interlocutory
order, you file for a motion for reconsideration
with the RTC.
No relief can be extended by the party aggrieved
by the court’s order on the motion through a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
Meaning, motion for reconsideration lang ka, you
cannot go for a certiorari. Also, it is not allowed.
(We are talking of interlocutory orders.)
●
Any order issued after the approval of
the Rehabilitation Plan
So, actually you can also have a motion for
reconsideration, if DENIED - certiorari under
Rule 65.
Actually, the general rule on certiorari under Rule
65, dapat mag motion for reconsideration ka, you
have to give the court a quo or the court of origin,
the tribunal or the body, whose decision is
assailed to CORRECT ITSELF. Give chance to
that court to reconsider. So, if dili, for example,
despite the motion for reconsideration, denied
gihapon, that is the time you go by way of
certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
So, it is really required as a general rule. There
are however certain exceptions that the court will
dispense with the requirement of a motion for
reconsideration. But that is an exceptional
circumstance.
●
An order approving or disapproving a
rehabilitation plan or any other final
order
So, remedy, as we already discussed, Motion for
reconsideration and if denied, certiorari under
Rule 65.
Now, any other order not for the rehabilitation,
intra-corporate controversies, appeal to the Court
of Appeals under Rule 43.
FINAL versus INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
●
●
●
A FINAL ORDER is one that finally
disposes of the case, leaving nothing else
to be done.
An INTERLOCUTORY ORDER is one
that leaves something still to be done by
the trial court with respect to the merits of
the case.
While a final order can be appealed, an
interlocutory order cannot.
Discussion:
Example: when we go to “motions” - a motion to
dismiss, for example nag rule ang judge on your
motion to dismiss. Is that ruling a final order?
Or an interlocutory order?
IF IT IS A GRANT OR APPROVAL, “Okay, the
Motion to dismiss is granted. The case is
dismissed”. That partakes of a FINAL ORDER.
Why? Because wala na man, it finally disposes
of the case. The court has nothing else to do
after it dismisses a case.
But IF THE COURT DENIES the motion to
dismiss, “Motion to dismiss is denied”, IT IS NOT
A FINAL ORDER.
Why? Because the court will continue with the
case. After it denies the motion to dismiss, the
court will continue with the case. There is still
something more for the court to do. That is not a
final order.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 97
Okay, that is an illustration of what is a final order
and what is not a final order.
●
latter;
An INTERLOCUTORY ORDER is one
that leaves something still to be done
by the trial court with respect to the
merits of the case.
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;
So, I already discussed it.
●
While a final order can be appealed,
an interlocutory order cannot.
Interlocutory orders cannot be appealed. There
are interlocutory orders that the remedy is
usually motion for reconsideration, if it is denied,
you can go with certiorari.
4. Petitions
for
support
acknowledgment;
But take note that there also another denial or
rulings na dili pwede i-elevate by way of
certiorari. We will go there in the subsequent
rules. Naay mga dili nimo pwede i-elevate by
certiorari. Unsa imong buhaton kung aggrieved
ka? Maghulat ka na mahuman ang kaso. Then, if
mahuman na ang kaso, imong, issue isagol nimo
sa imuhang appeal. Itaas kabuban sa final
decision and i-elevate nimo. So, not all
interlocutory order can be elevated on certiorari
under rule 65.
SLIDE: Exclusive Original
(Under special laws and rules)
Jurisdiction
Acting as a Family Court, over the actions
enumerated under Section 5 of RA 8369,
plus RA 9262.
Summary judicial proceedings brought
under the provisions of Executive Order
No. 209, otherwise known as the “Family
Code of the Philippines”;
6.
Petitions for declaration of status of
children as abandoned, dependent or
neglected children, petitions for voluntary
or involuntary commitment of children; the
suspension, termination, or restoration of
parental authority and other cases
cognizable under Presidential Decree
No.603, Executive Order No. 56 (Series
of 19860, and other related laws; and
7.
Petitions for the constitution of the family
home.
DISCUSSION: We will just discuss the noncriminal cases because criminal cases sa
inyuhang man ng criminal procedure.
●
SLIDE: Non-Criminal Cases Under the
Family Courts
1. Petitions for guardianship, custody of
children, habeas corpus in relation to the
Petitions for guardianship, custody of children,
habeas corpus in relation to the latter.
-We discuss this in the case of Madrinan vs.
Madrinan.
●
DISCUSSION: You know what is RA 9262?
Violence against Women and Children or VAWC.
or
5.
40:16 - 45:16
DISCUSSION: There are interlocutory orders
ang remedy ana usually is motion for
reconsideration for interlocutory order. If denied,
you can go by way of certiorari.
and/
Petitions for adoption of children and the
revocation thereof.
-Again, the Family Courts RTC gihapon ni sya,
acting as a Family Court.
●
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
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 98
-Magpa-annul kag kasal, declaration of nullity of
marriage, legal separation, separation of
property, those related to marital status, the
properties between the husband and the wife,
those who are living together under different
status of marriage and petitions for dissolution of
conjugal partnership of gains.
●
Petitions for support and/ or acknowledgment;
● Summary judicial proceedings brought under the
provisions of Executive Order No. 209,
otherwise known as the “Family Code of the
Philippines”
-Like declaration of presumptive death sa family
court. Kanang gusto ka mag-asawa bitaw usab
unya nawala na imng bana wa nakakabalo kung
asa siya so summary proceedings na siya fro
declaration of presumptive death.
● Petitions for declaration of status of children as
abandoned, dependent or neglected children,
petitions
for
voluntary
or
involuntary
commitment of children; the suspension,
termination, or restoration of parental authority
and other cases cognizable under Presidential
Decree No.603, Executive Order No. 56
(Series of 19860, and other related laws.
-Kani kailangan nimo ni siya for example gusto
nimo mag-adopt and that child having the status.
● Petitions for the constitution of the family home.
-We don’t need a petition na to constitute a
family home.
SLIDE: When may family issues
determined by a non-Family Court?
be
If any question involving any of the above
matters should arise as an incident in any
case pending in the regular courts, said
incident shall be determined in that court (last
paragraph, Section 5 of RA No. 8369).
DISCUSSION: Those same issues which we
mentioned katong guardianship and property
relations. Actually, if they are also raise incident
in another case filed before a regular court like
for example partition of real property then mu
crop up ang mga issues relating to issues na
naa sa jurisdiction sa family court, pwede
gihapon siya i-resolve sa regular court if they’re
incident so that’s the last paragraph of Section 5
of RA No. 8369. You don’t have to file a separate
case sa family court para lang katong incidental
issue ma determine. Pwede siya ma resolve by
that court.
SLIDE: Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
(Under special laws and rules)
Under the RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS
DATA, over a petition for issuance of a writ of
habeas data which does not involve public
data files of government offices (Section3 ,
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC).
SLIDE: Exclusive Original
(Under special laws and rules)
Jurisdiction
Over all criminal and civil cases involving
violations of the Philippine Competition Act
and other competition-related laws (Section
44, Republic Act No. 10667 or the Philippine
Competition Act)
DISCUSSION: We also mention this in the
appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. So,
appellate to kani original. Diri musugod ang
exclusive original jurisdiction.
SLIDE: Exclusive Original
(Under special laws and rules)
Jurisdiction
PD 1529, Sec. 17. What and where to file.The application for land registration shall be
filed with the Court of First Instance of the
province or city where the land is situated.
XXX
DISCUSSION: Mga land registration cases. Nag
land registration na ba mo?
Tin T 45:17-50:17
LAND REGISTRATION CASES
Section 17. What and where to file. The
application for land registration shall be filed with
the Court of First Instance (RTC) of the province
or city where the land is situated. XXX
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 99
Other cases:
Discussion:
·
Section 32: Petition for review of decree of
registration within one year from and after the
date of entry of such decree or registration.
Indirect Contempt Example:
·
Section 36: Cadastral registration.
·
Section 70: Adverse Claims
ipatanggal ang adverse claims
sa imung titulo,sa RTC na siya.
·
Section 108: Amendment and alteration of
certificates.
- naay mali sa imung certificate of title
then imung ipausab, sa RTC na siya.
You are the court, then naa kay gi issue na writ
of preliminary injunction to enjoin this person
from doing a certain act. Then, wala niya
gituman. What is the remedy against the person?
It is indirect contempt because it is not
committed in the presence of a judge.
Indirect contempt is a petition. If it is indirect
contempt committed against the MTC, pwede
siya ifile sa MTC itself or pwede pud pud sa
RTC. They have concurrent original jurisdiction.
Kung gi file siya with the MTC, appeal siya with
the RTC.
Also, petition for issuance of new owner’s copy
of the title (pag nawala ang certificate of title) is
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of RTC.
Kung gi file siya with the RTC, appeal siya with
the CA.
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1.
With the SC in actions affecting
ambassadors,
public
ministers,
and
consuls (Section 21 (2) of BP 129);
2.
With the SC and the CA in petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against lower courts and bodies and in
petitions for quo warranto and habeas
corpus (Section 21 & Section 9, BP 129);
3.
With the SC, the CA and the SB to issue
writs of amparo (Section 3, AM 079-12-SC)
4.
With the SC and the CA to issue writs of
continuing mandamus (Rule 8 Section 2, AM
09-6-8-SC)
5.
With the MTC in petitions for indirect
contempt under Rule 71, Sec. 5, where such
contempt has been committed against the
MTC. Where filed with the MTC, appeal shall
be made with the RTC.
6.
With the MTC in the issuance of
Temporary Protection Orders (TPOs) or
Permanent
Protection
Orders
(PPO)
pursuant to RA 9262.
Sec 22, BP 129
Appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by
lower courts (MTCs) in their respective
territorial jurisdictions. The decisions of the
RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
shall be appealable by petition for review to
the CA.
This is RTC acting as an appellate court.
Decisions of the MTC are appealable to the
RTC.
50:18- 51:30 up to 56:03
SLIDE:
SPECIAL JURISDICTION
(Section 23, BP 129)
●
Certain branches of the Regional Trial
Court may be designated by the
Supreme Court to handle exclusively
criminal cases, juvenile and domestic
relations cases, agrarian cases, urban
and land reform cases which do not
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 100
fall under the jurisdiction of quasijudicial bodies and agencies, and/or
such other special cases as the
Supreme Court may determine in the
interest of a speedy and efficient
administration of justice (Sec. 23, BP
Blg 129)
DISCUSSION: Mao ni sya sa una ang Sec. 23,
Batas Pambansa Blg 129. This is the basis of the
creation of the Familly Courts, Special Agrarian
Courts - RTCs which are designated as family
courts and special agrarian courts.
●
and/or such other special cases as the
Supreme Court may determine in the
interest of a speedy and efficient
administration of justice
- So, within the authority of the
Supreme Court to give that to
the RTC acting as a special
court.
SLIDE
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISIDICTION
(RTC)
Where money is the parameter (Section 19
of BP 129)
Actions in admiralty
or maritime
jurisdiction [Section
19 (3)]
Matters of probate,
test or intestate
[Section 19(4)]
Any other demand,
exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses,
and costs; or the
value of the property
in controversy
[Section 19(8)]
If demand, claim or
gross value of the
estate does not
exceed these
amounts:
RTC if:
Demand, claim or
gross value of the
estate exceeds
P300,000 outside
Metro Manila or
P400,000 if within
Metro Manila
Forcible
ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION,
Two kinds
NOTES: Cases under admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction includes two kinds of
cases:
1. Those involving acts committed on the
high seas or other navigable waters;
and
2. Those
involving
contracts
and
transactions connected with shipping
and employed on the high seas or
navigable waters.
DISCUSSION:
Remember, ang nahitabo kay sa high seas or in
navigable waters. Mao na sya ang cases under
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.
NOTES:
● The phrase “exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses, and costs”
implies that only the amount of the
main claim will be used in determining
jurisdiction.
● Testate means that there is a will
involved in the settlement of the estate
of a deceased person. Intestate
means that the deceased left no will.
DISCUSSION: “XXX implies that only the
amount of the main claim will be used in
determining jurisdiction.”
● The main claim, walay labot ang interest,
damages in determining jurisdiction
SCENARIO: You have a claim for loan. The
amount of the loan is P300,000.
56:04 - 1:02:28
Automatic MTC
With interest and you're also claiming for
damages, because you suffered sleepless
nights, moral shock and serious anxiety so niabot ug 500,000 imong claim. The determination
of the jurisdiction is based only on the main claim
exclusive of interest and damages and etc. So if
the principal is only 300,000 then it falls within
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 101
the jurisdiction of the MTC if it is outside Metro
Manila because it did not exceed 300,000.
Testate katong matters probate. What do u mean
by testate or intestate? Pag testate gni meaning
nay last will and testate, so pagnamatay ang isa
ka tao and nagbilin siyag last will and testatment.
The last will and testament would have to be
probated. Meaning the court will determine the
genuiness and the due execution of the will. So
if the Gross Value meaning wlay labot ang mga
utang sa estate and obligations didto ta magbase
if it does not exceed 300,000 MTC and if
exceeding 300,000 RTC. 400,000 ang threshold
if within Metro Manila.
Intestate meaning walay last will and testament,
so unsay may adtuon sa korte if walay last will
and testament. If wala pa sila nag-agree among
themselves sa pagdistribute sa estate. Kay if
mag-agree na sila kay extra-judicial settlement
lang na siya and ok lang na siya document na
notarize. Pero if dili magkasinabot kay mu-adto
ug korte, petition for the settlement of the
intestate estate of Juan Dela Cruz and sa court
isettle ang estate and again were basing on the
Gross Value.
Pag probate we do not follow the rules of civil
procedure kay special proceeding man nah siya.
Lahi ang rules. Were just talking
about
jurisdiction, MTC bah or RTC. But as to the
procedure this will be discussed in your Special
Proceeding.
Notes:
Gross value of the estate means the total of all
the assets that make-up the deceased estate
before the removal of their debts.
A probate court cannot adjudicate title to
properties to be part of the estate. All that the
court could do is to determine whether they
should or should not be included in the list of
properties to be administered.
So if it is a probate court special lang ang
jurisdiction, it will only determine matters to the
extrinsic validity of the will, meaning mao ba jd
ning last will na gibuhat sa patay, naa ba siyay
sound mind tung pagbuhat. Legal age ba siya, or
if wala ba siya gipugos. It will not determing
question on ownership, filiation, and other
matters.
Notes:
The phrase “the value of the property in
controversy” refers to personal property only
because, when it comes to real property, we
follow different parameters as follows:
Now dba sa ika-third katong any claim or other
claim where the demand exclusive of interest…
does not exceed 300,000 blahblah, or the value
of the property in controversy, we are referring
here to personal property, because if real
property lahi ang threshold to determine
jurisdiction. You know what is personality dba,
those which are movables, cars, furniture,
jewelry, and even documents.
Exclusive Original Jurisdcition where assessed
value is used
Action involving title to or possession of real
property or an interest therein, where the
assessed value of such property exceeds
20,000 (outside Metro Manila) or exceeds
50,000 (Metro Manila)
If exceeding kay RTC if below kay MTC.
Example
Maja seeks to recover title to agricultural land
from Yassi. She previously sold it to Yassi In
2020 for 500,000.
True or False:
Because the amount of the consideration is
500,000 the action shall be lodged in the RTC.
False:
Take note that the action (to recover title) is a
Real Action, or one founded on the privity of
real estate (i.e. title to or possession of real
property or an interest therein), Maja seeks to
recover ownership no the consideration for the
sale.
1:02:29 – 1:08:56 Transcribed by Derogongan
The action (to recover title) is a REAL ACTION,
or one founded on the privity of real estate (i.e.
title to or possession of real property or an
interest therein). Maja seeks to recover
ownership, not the consideration for the sale.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 102
An action to recover title, action involving title to,
or interest in real property, the basis for
determining jurisdiction is the assessed value of
the property. Because ang iyahang action is to
recover the title, not for specific performance, not
for the rescission of the deed of sale, so it is a
real action. It should be based on the assessed
value of the real property. So tan-awa na ‘to dili
ang price sa deed of sale but the assessed value
of the property.
What is the assessed value?
Kung naay tax declaration, we refer to the tax
declaration. Kabalo na mo sa tax declaration,
lahi na siya sa titulo ha. Ang certificate of title
you find that with the Registry of Deeds. Walay
presyo na nakabutang diha sa titulo. Kanang tax
declaration, you will find that in the Office of the
City Assessor, municipal or provincial assessor.
Depende kung asa ka tax declaration. Again,
naa diha ang assessed value sa property. Mao
na ang imong i-attach sa imong complaint. For
example, if walang assessed value then you go
to BIR, zonal value. Naa man nay zonal value,
though kato mas taas ang zonal value sa BIR
kaysa sa assessed value. Kung wala pud siya,
based on your declaration. Imuha ng i-alleged
sa imuhang complaint, ang assessed value sa
imong property. Otherwise, the complaint is
dismissible. Why? It could be lack of jurisdiction.
Why? Because how could the court know kung
asa may jurisdiction, wala ka man nag-alleged sa
assessed value. You should allege so that the
court could either know if within the jurisdiction
ba siya. Kung sa RTC mo siya gifile, whether
kung ‘yung 20,000 ba siya outside of Metro
Manila. Here, we based on the assessed value,
not on the market value or fair market value.
Real action vs Personal Action
When we say real action, an action involving title
to or possession of real property. Personal action
is any action which does not involve title to or
possession to real property. But remember that
not all action na naay mainvolve or naay
matouch na real property is already a real action.
It’s possible na it’s a personal action.
Why do we need to know whether it is a real or
personal action? These are the things you need
to consider.
REAL ACTION
PERSONAL ACTION
Founded on the privity
of real estate, it
affects title to or
possession of real
property,
or
an
interest therein
Any other action that
is not founded on the
privity of real estate.
The parameter to
determine whether it
is the RTC that has
jurisdiction
is
the
assessed value of the
real property. If the
assessed
value
exceeds P20,000 or
P50,000 as the case
may be, the RTC has
jurisdiction.
The parameter to
determine
whether
the amount of the
claim or demand or
value of personal
property. If amount or
value
exceeds
P300,000
or
P400,000 as the case
may be, the RTC has
jurisdiction.
A real action is
commenced and tried
in the proper court
which has jurisdiction
over the area wherein
the
real
property
involved, or a portion
thereof, is situated.
A personal action is
commenced and tried
where the plaintiff or
any of the principal
plaintiffs resides, or
where the defendant
or any of the principal
defendants resides, at
the election of the
plaintiff.
A real action is founded on the privity of real
estate, it affects title to or possession of real
property, or an interest therein. A personal action
is one that is not founded on the privity of the
real estate.
Ngayong important for us to know whether it is
real or personal action? One is jurisdiction. The
parameter to determine whether it is the RTC
that has jurisdiction is the assessed value of the
real property. If the assessed value exceeds
P20,000 or P50,000 as the case may be, the
RTC has jurisdiction. However, if it is not a real
action, if it is personal action, the parameter to
determine whether it is the RTC has jurisdiction
is the amount of the claim or demand of the
value of the property. If the amount or value
exceeds P300,000 outside MM, RTC. P400,000
outside MM, RTC below that MTC.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 103
There are also personal actions na walay
amount involved like action incapable of
pecuniary estimation, walay amount involved
diha. But jurisdiction also lies with the RTC. Dili
na ka malibog kay wala ka nang iconsider na
amount.
The other consideration is as to venue. Because
a real action is commenced and tried in the
proper court which has jurisdiction over the area
wherein the real property involved, or a portion
thereof, is situated. Venue. Kay kung real action,
as a general rule, kung asa nakabutang ang
property, kung asa located ang property like if
the property is located in Davao City, then the
venue is in Davao City. You cannot file the case
in any other venue except kung nagfall mo in any
exception but as a general rule, where a property
or a portion thereof is located. For example, ang
property is nasa boundary ng Davao City, sa
may Sta. Cruz, you can file in any appropriate
court where the portion of the property is located
whether sa Sta. Cruz, or diri sa Davao City. In
the proper jurisdiction, meaning, if the assessed
value of the property is more than P20,000 RTC,
that’s where you refer to jurisdiction. Now as to
the place where it is to be filed, Davao City, it is
with respect to venue.
A personal action on the other hand is
commenced and tried where the plaintiff, so lahi
ang venue, where the plaintiff or any of the
defendants reside.
1:08:57-1:14:24 (LUCMAN)
PRINCIPLE TO REMEMBER
●
For real actions, real property is ALWAYS
involved. Any action that relates to other
property (i.e. personal, incorporeal), even if it
involves title or possession, is considered a
personal action.
Incorporeal – no physical existence but they exist
by legal contemplation such as goodwill,
copyright and patent.
Even if the issue here involves title of possession
of personal properties, the parameter here is not
20 50 but 300 400 pag personal properties.
HEIRS OF SEBE VS. HEIRS OF SEVILLA
G.R. No. 174497, October 12, 2009
❖ An action “involving title to real property”
means that the plaintiff’s cause of action is
based on a claim that he owns such property
or that he has the legal rights to have
exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or
disposition of the same. Title is the “legal link
between (1) a person who owns property
and (2) the property itself.”
NOTES
● Where it is contended that the action
involves title to or possession of real property
or any interest therein, jurisdiction is not
automatically vested in the RTC. You have to
look at the ASSESSED VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY.
●
If the assessed value of the real property is
more than P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 in
Metro Manila, that’s the time the RTC has
jurisdiction.
I have to also clarify that there are certain actions
involving possession of real property na dili sa
RTC but sa MTC – Forcible entry and unlawful
detainer cases although they involve possession
to real property they are not within the jurisdiction
of RTC but with the MTC.
But of course, you have to know what is a
forcible entry case and unlawful detainer case
because as we have already discussed to
determine the jurisdiction of the court you have
to examine the allegations in the complaint.
For example, the title of your case is forcible
entry so you filed in Municipal Trial Court as it is
under their jurisdiction but based on the recital of
your complaint it will not qualify as forcible entry.
It is an ordinary case for recovery of possession
because you filed the case more than one year
after this possession. Dili na sya forcible so
walay jurisdiction ang court. So you have to be
careful that all the elements of the case are
properly recited or alleged in the complaint for
the court to have jurisdiction.
❖ The Sebes claim that their action is, first, for
the DECLARATION OF NULLITY of the
documents of conveyance that defendant
Sevilla tricked them into signing and, second,
for the RECONVEYANCE of the certificate of
title for the two lots that Sevilla succeeded in
getting. The subject of their action is, they
conclude, incapable of pecuniary estimation.
When you say declaration of nullity, ordinarily
that is an action which is incapable of pecuniary
estimation that is in the same level as an action
for rescission, or action for specific performance.
Meaning you cannot estimate in terms of money
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 104
LET'S GO BACK to:
1:14:25 - 1:20:52
That is in the same level as an action for rescission,
action for specific performance, meaning, you cannot
estimate in terms of money because you are just
seeking to have these documents declared null and
void, or you want a contract rescinded or annulled or
you just want the person to perform his obligation in
the contract. We cannot measure that in terms of
money, that's why their basis for filing this with the
RTC is because this is a declaration of nullity case.
Therefore, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
and based on BP Blg. 129, that is within the original
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. Is that correct?
Because that is their contention.
In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of
the property in controversy exceeds P300,000
(outside Metro Manila) or exceeds P400,000
(Metro Manila).
Again, in all other cases not involving real property,
also not incapable of pecuniary estimation, we base
on the value of the property, exceeding P300,000 or
P400,000 as the case may be.
NOTES
ISSUE:
The Supreme Court determined that the
controversy was ultimately about which among
the parties has valid title to the two lots and would
thus be legally entitled to the certificates of title
covering them.
HELD:
The present action is not about the declaration of
the nullity of the documents or the reconveyance
to the Sebes of the certificates of title covering the
two lots. These would merely follow after the trial
court shall have first resolved the issue of which
between the contending parties is the lawful
owner of such lots, the one also entitled to their
possession.
Based on the pleadings, the ultimate issue is
whether or not defendant Sevilla defrauded the
Sebes of their property by making them sign
documents of conveyance rather than just a deed
of real mortgage to secure their debt to him. The
action is, therefore, about ascertaining which of
these parties is the lawful owner of the subject
lots, jurisdiction over which is determined by the
assessed value of such lots.
This is because ultimately, the question boils down to
the determination of who has title over the lot. Who
is the real owner of the lot? Why should be allow
Sebe to recover? Is he the real owner of the lot in the
first place? That involves title to or possession over
real property or interest in real property.
"Damages of whatever kind" means actual and
compensatory, moral, nominal, temperate,
liquidated and exemplary. More on the kinds of
damages later on when we discuss docket fees.
“Damages of whatever kind“ which are not included
in the computation of the amount of the demand
for the purpose of determining jurisdiction, we
mean actual and compensatory, moral, nominal,
temperate, liquidated and exemplary damages.
This was explained to you in your Obligations and
Contracts. Under Article 1170 of the Civil Code, those
who are guilty of fraud, contravention of the tenor of
the obligations, delay, negligence are liable for
damages. So these are the damages. These are the
kind of damages that are not included.
EXAMPLE: When you file a case, for example, for
recovery of possession of jewelry, you include in the
allegation if it's a loan, the interest, the penalties, the
damages that you suffered because you could not
sleep, moral damages, nominal, etc., and then
attorney's fees because you hired a lawyer to
represent you in the case, and cost of litigation
because you will pay docket fees, transcript of
stenographic notes, etc. You will have many expenses
when you file a case, but these are not included in
the determination of jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the case.
"Attorney's fees" are not actually paid to the
lawyer. It is paid to the prevailing litigant. The
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 105
governing rules here is Article 2208 of the Civil
Code.
we know which court has jurisdiction? These are
the rules to determine:
JURISDICTION OVER ACTIONS PURELY FOR
DAMAGES
You know about Attorney's fees. This is not actually
paid to the lawyer. Under Article 2208 of the Civil
Code, it is paid to the prevailing litigant.
JOKE TIME: Kay alangan na man, diha paka mubayad
sa imong lawyer. "Atty. diha lang tika bayaran inig
mahuman ang kaso ha. Ibutang ra diha, 5 million as
Attorney's fees." No. Kapoy baya mag--I mean, Legal
Ethics (lol). Pero in reality man gud, magsugod naka
ug trabaho. Mura gud nag mag opisina ka. Okay ba
sa imuha na five years after paka bayaran sa imong
opisina para imong sweldo. Di man siguro.
That is not the kind of Attorney's fees that is referred
to. It is paid to the prevailing litigant. That is to
compensate the litigant for the expenses of hiring a
lawyer, but it's for him.
"Litigation expenses" are actually variable and
estimated amounts. No litigant can determine in
advance how much he will eventually incur as
expenses in prosecuting a claim. Both attorney's
fees and litigation expenses are part of damages.
Rules to remember to determine jurisdiction:
·
First
If the claim for damages is merely
incidental or ancillary to the main
cause of action do not include the
amount of damages in determining
jurisdiction
Notes: (that what I explained, action
for collection, action for recovery of
possession of personal property,
Specific performance but there is a
claim for damages, do consider the
damages, look at the main action, if
it is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, it is under the
jurisdiction of RTC. If it is for some
of money, recovery of possession
of
personal
property
either
exceeding P300,000 or P400,000,
depending, they are not included)
o Example:
When you allege litigation expenses in your
complaint, of course you cannot estimate yet
because the case will still run. You still don't know
how much you will have to pay later on, such as
appearance fees for your lawyer, the photocopies,
mailing, and etc. But these are not included in the
determination of the jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
"Costs" are actually different from attorney's fees
and litigation expenses. These are "judicial costs"
as mentioned under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
Consult Rules 141 and 142 for this.
(Discussed as is).
1:20:53 - 1:27:35 (SERUELA)
If for example, there is a main action aside from
damages, the determination of jurisdiction over
the subject matter is based on the main action,
we do not include damages. However, there are
cases where it is purely for damages. So, how do
●
●
●
Article 1191. The power to
rescind obligation is implied in
reciprocal ones, in case one of
the obligors should not comply
with what is incumbent upon
him.
The injured party may choose
between the fulfillment and the
recission of the obligation, with
the payment of damages in
either case.
As we will see later on, recission
and specific performance are
incapable
of
pecuniary
estimation and thus belong to
the jurisdiction of the RTC. The
damages are merely incidental
to the main action.
Notes/ Discussion: If there is a breach
in a reciprocal obligation, as the
aggrieved party, you have alternative
remedies either for specific performance
or for recession. What was stated is
either of both, with damages in either
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 106
case. So here, if your cause of action is
for specific performance, that is
incapable of pecuniary estimation even if
you claim for damages, like the damages
is only for P200,000, but the main action
itself is specific performance incapable
of pecuniary estimation, it falls under the
jurisdiction of Original Jurisdiction of the
RTC. Same with recission, it is incapable
of pecuniary estimation, regardless of
the amount of claim jurisdiction lies with
RTC. Damages are only incidental to
the main action.
determining the jurisdiction of the
court.
O Example: Damages as the main
cause of action: Quasi-delict under
Article 2176:
Article 2176: Whoever by his act or
omission causes damages to another,
there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damages done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing
contractual
relation
between the parties, is called quasidelict and is governed by the
provision of this chapter.
o Another example
In Davao City, Yam barrowed
exactly P300,000 from Yen. Yam
did no pay Yen so Yen sued her to
collect the debt. She included the
accrued interest of P300,000,
P50,000 as moral damages and
P25,000 as exemplary damages.
The total claim is therefore is
P405,000
Even if the total amount claimed
exceeds the jurisdiction of the
MTC, the MTC, not the RTC, has
jurisdiction because the main claim
does not exceed P300,000
o The exclusion of the term “damages of
whatever kind” in determining the
jurisdictional amount under Section
19 (8) and Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg.
129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691,
applies to cases where the damages
are merely incidental to or a
consequence of the main cause of
action. However, in cases where
the claim for damages is the amin
action, or one of the causes of
action, the amount of such claim
shall be considered in determining
the jurisdiction of the court.
·
Second:
Where the claim for damages is the
main cause of action, or one of the
causes of action, the amount of such
claim
shall
be
considered
in
Notes/ Discussion: Situation: you were
hit by the car of A, but that was by
reason of negligence. Then, you filed a
civil action for damages based on quasidelict. You might be claiming actual
damages for hospitalization expenses, or
compensatory damages for the loss of
income that you suffered because you
were hospitalized for 10 days, moral
damages for the serious anxiety, mental
anguish, sleepless nights that you
suffered because of your injury. You also
want to claim for exemplary damages to
serve as an example or correction so
that A will not repeat the same act in the
future. Here, your purely claiming for
damages. In this case, the second rule
applies.
In determining the jurisdiction of the
court over the subject matter of the case,
damages, you add the total amount of
claim for damages. So that would be the
basis of determining the subject matter
of jurisdiction. If it exceeds P300,000 or
P400,000 then RTC.
o
Also, Article 26 is an example. Those
damages as one of the cause of
action.
Article 26. Every person shall respect
the dignity, personality, privacy and
peace of mind of his neighbors and
other persons. The following and
similar acts , though they may not
constitute a criminal offense, shall
produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy pf another’s
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 107
residence; (2) Meddling with or
disturbing the private life or family
relations of another; (3) Intriguing to
cause another to be alienated from
his friends; (4) Vexing or humiliating
another on account of his religious
beliefs, lowly stating in life, place of
birth, physical defect, or another
personal condition.
Notes/ Discussion: So here, the damages
together with the injunctions and other reliefs is
part of the main cause of action. So here, you
will include, you will determine, you will consider
in the determination of the subject matter over
the case. So the total amount will determine
whether it is the RTC or the MTC which has
jurisdiction, because here the claim for damages
is the main cause of action together with the
other remedy sought.
December 15, 2020
0:00-5:06 Gennard
Slide: Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation
What do we mean by an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation? It means “where the
value of the case cannot be estimated”
(SPOUSES DE LEON vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. No. 104796, March 6, 1998)
If there is a case here that you really have to
remember, it is:
RUSSEL vs. VESTIL
G.R. No. 119347, March 17, 1999
Test to determine w/n the action is incapable
of pecuniary estimation:
● Ascertain the nature of the principal
action sought.
When you say “the value of the case cannot be
estimated,” there is no sum of money that is
being collected or recovered, there is no property
being recovered as the subject of the case,
something that you cannot put a monetary value.
It falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
remedy sought. The principal, not only the
anciliary.
Slide: “RUSSEL RULES”
1. If it is primarily for the recovery of sum
of money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary estimation, and
whether jurisdiction is in the MTC or
the RTC depends on the amount of
the claim.
2. However, where the basic issue is
something other than the right to
recover a sum of money, where the
money claim is purely incidental to, or
a consequence of, the principal relief
sought, this Court has considered
such where the subject of the litigation
may not be estimated in terms of
money and are cognizable exclusively
by the RTCs.
Under number 2, even if there is a claim for sum
of money like you want to enforce a contract or
to rescind a contract and then you also claim for
damages, as discussed as an available relief
under Art. 1191 of the NCC, but here the claim
for damages or the money claim is merely
incidental to the main cause of action which is for
specific performance or rescission. Here, the
action is actually incapable of pecuniary
estimation. It is within the RTC’s jurisdiction.
Slide: RUSSEL vs. VESTIL
G.R. No. 119347, March 17, 1999
Listing of cases that are incapable of
pecuniary estimation:
1. Specific performance (delivery of
property in case of breach of contract);
2. Support;
3. Foreclosure of mortgage;
4. Annulment of judgment;
5. Actions questioning the validity of a
mortgage;
6. Actions to annul a deed of sale or
conveyance;
7. Actions for recovery of the price paid
in a contract;
8. Actions for rescission, which is a
counterpart of specific performance.
The Supreme Court laid down the test of such in
Russel v. Vestil. The ultimate test here is to
ascertain the nature of the prinicipal action or
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 108
can file a case to compel the seller to deliver the
item which is sold.
Slide: SITUATION
BREACH OF CONTRACT may lead to three
different remedies:
● SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (with
damages if claimed;)
● RESCISSION (with damages if
claimed and may also include mutual
restitution;)
● DAMAGES ONLY
Now let’s go back to Obligations & Contracts. For
example you entered into a contract, there is a
reciprocal obligation and one of the parties
breached the undertakings in the contract. Under
Art. 1191, the aggrieved party has 2 alternative
remedies: specific performance (with damages)
or rescission (with damages.) Also, he may sue
for damages only.
05:07-11:16
Notes:
There is no such thing as an “action for breach
of contract.”
Breach of contract is a cause of action, but not
the action or relief itself. Breach of contract
may be the cause of action in a complaint for
specific performance or rescission of contract.
It is therefore erroneous to entitle a complaint
as one for breach of contract.
Specific Performance
This is referred to in Article 1191 as “fulfillment
of the obligation.”
What do you ask of the court if you file an
action for specific performance.
To compel the defendant to perform his
obligation,
Take note that specific performance is a
remedy available only if the obligation to be
compelled is an obligation to give (real
obligations).
For example, you bought something so you have
a contract of sale. You are a buyer and you
bought an article from a seller. In a contract of
sale you have a reciprocal obligation, the seller
has to deliver the item and the buyer has to pay
for the goods. What if the buyer already paid but
the seller refuses to deliver, so as a buyer one of
your remedies is for specific performance. You
You cannot compel an obligation which is to do
because we have under our Constitution a
provision against involuntary servitude. Your
remedy is to sue for damages.
Applying Russell”
In an action for specific performance, the issue
is whether the defendant can be compelled to
perform his obligation. The amount of the
obligation is merely incidental, making an
action for specific performance incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
Thus, an action for specific performance to
compel the defendant to execute a deed of
conveyance covering a parcel of land with an
assessed value of 19,000 is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The main
issue is whether or not there is right to compel
specific performance.
For example, you bought a parcel of land. If the
seller refuses to deliver, the buyer can file an
action to compel the performance of the
obligation of the seller. So seller now refuses to
deliver the land and to execute the necessary
deed of conveyance although the buyer already
paid. The parcel of land has an assessed value
has 19,000. Which court has the jurisdiction?
Here, it is an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation because the main issue here is
whether or not there is right to compel specific
performance.
If you remember the case of Heirs of Sebe which
we discussed that it was an action for declaration
of nullity of the deed of conveyance and the
recovery of the possession of the property.
That’s different, because there naa nay delivery
of the property to the buyer, so there was already
transfer of ownership and the previous owner
wants to recover the property.
Here, we’re not talking of ownership, because
even if the parties concluded a deed of sale as
long as there is no delivery of the property to the
buyer there is no transfer of ownership yet that
why ang imong action is for specific performance
to compel the seller to deliver. But there is no
issue of ownership because there is no delivery.
So dili title or ownership ang issue dri.
11:16 – 16:54 (Derogongan)
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 109
There is no transfer of ownership yet, that’s why
ang imuhang action is for specific performance,
to compel the seller to deliver and maybe kung
wala pa siyay gi-execute na deed of sale kay
possible na verbal lang although you already
paid so it is no longer covered by the Statute of
Frauds. Valid siya to na sales so you can
performance but there is still an issue on
ownership because wala pay transfer of
ownership from the seller to the buyer because
there is still no delivery. That is why as the buyer,
you are still required to compel him to deliver so
that title can be transferred or its ownership. Dili
ownership or title ang issue diri kundi WON you
have the right as the buyer for example to
compel the performance by the seller of his
obligation. So, it is not capable of pecuniary
estimation.
Rescission
·
Rescission is an action to terminate a
contract because of substantial or
fundamental breach.
·
What do you ask of the court if you file
an action for rescission?
- To determine if the breach is substantial
and if so, declare it rescinded.
Rescission is a remedy available to the
aggrieved party who in a reciprocal obligation, in
case of substantial or fundamental breach. So
even though the contract is valid, you can ask for
the termination of the contract because of the
breach committed by the other party.
What do you ask of the court if you file an action
for rescission?
One, the court will have to determine if the
breach is substantial and if it is, then declare it
rescinded or terminated.
Applying Russell:
·
·
·
rescinded is merely incidental, making
an action for rescission incapable of
pecuniary estimation
Take note na even in an action for rescission, if it
is decreed by the court, there will be mutual
restitution. So, if it is a contract of sale, the seller
will have to, for example naa nay nagbayad, the
seller has to return whatever has been paid or if
it is the buyer, the buyer already got the property,
the property is to be returned to the seller,
mutual restitution. Iuli ninyo whatever you have
received by virtue of the contract.
Take note that, while there may be mutual
restitution, rescission has to be declared first. For
rescission to be declared by the court, the court
has to determine if the requisites for rescission
are present. Maybe it is an action for rescission,
mutual restitution is an incident to the rescission
of the contract. Still, it is an action for rescission,
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
SSS vs. Atlantic Gulf
GR 175952, April 30, 2008
If the controversy lies in the nonimplementation of the approved and agreed
dacion en pago, it is a suit for specific
performance and one incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
I presume that you what is dacion en pago or
dacion in payment, it is a mode of extinguishing
obligation, a pre-existing monetary obligation to
deliver instead property. For example, if there is
already an agreement to dacion en pago and
then the other party now fails or refuses to
comply with his obligation, so the aggrieved party
files a suit for specific performance to compel
performance of dacion in payment. It is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation because the
issue here is the performance of the dacion in
payment. The court needs to determine the
validity of the agreed dacion en pago.
In action for rescission, the issue is
whether
the
obligation
was
substantially breached.
Take note that, while there may be
mutual restitution of amounts received
as a result of rescission, rescission
has to be declared first.
The amount of the obligation to be
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 110
Sps. Pajares vs. Remarkable Laundry
GR 212690, February 20, 2017
Remarkable Laundry entered into a contract with
Sps. Pajares designating them as an outlet for
laundry services. In their contract, there is a quota
of 200 kilos of laundry each week. If they fail to
meet their quota, they are still contractually obliged
to pay Remarkable for 200 kilos. The spouses
ceased operations. Remarkable claimed amounts
representing the minimum. The spouses did not
pay.
Remarkable filed an action for “breach of contract
and damages” to claim P200,000, the amount
representing the unpaid minimum quota before the
RTC, plus another P80,000 total as damages,
attorney’s fees and costs.
Did the RTC have jurisdiction?
- If the action filed is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, RTC has jurisdiction.
- If the action is capable of pecuniary estimation,
the MTC has jurisdiction.
Held: - NO. A complaint primarily seeking to
enforce the accessory obligation contained in the
penal clause is actually an action for damages
capable of pecuniary estimation.
- Petitioner’s responsibility under the above penal
clause involves the payment of liquidated
damages because under Article 2226 of the Civil
Code the amount the parties stipulated to pay in
case of breach are liquidated damages.
If the action is incapable of pecuniary
estimation, of course we have to disregard the
amounts of the claim, the RTC has jurisdiction.
But if the action is capable of pecuniary
estimation, obviously it would be the MTC which
would have jurisdiction because the claim is only
P200,000. The damages are merely incidental.
The Supreme Court said that actually the basis
of the claim of the plaintiff here, the P200,000 is
based on the loss or stipulation in the contract na
there is a minimum quota of 200 kilos. Even if
they fail to meet their quota, the Spouses are
contractually compelled to pay Remarkable for
200 kilos, P200,000. Now, the SC that this is
actually a penal clause in the contract between
Remarkable Laundry and Spouses Pejares.
16:54-22:32 LUCMAN
HELD:
The SC said this is actually a penal clause in the
contract between Remarkable Laundry and the
Sps. Pajares
● NO. A complaint primarily seeking to enforce
the accessory obligation contained in the
penal clause is actually an action for damages
capable of pecuniary estimation.
● Petitioner’s responsibility under the above
penal clause involves the payment of
liquidated damages because under Article
2226 of the Civil Code the amount the parties
stipulated to pay in case of breach are
liquidated damages.
● Breach of contract may also be the cause of
action in a complaint for damages filed
pursuant to Article 1170 of the Civil Code. It
provides:
Article 1170. Those who in the performance
of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
negligence, or delay, and those who in any
manner contravene the tenor thereof; are
liable for damages.
Here like what we discussed before breach of
contract is not actually the proper designation of
the case. Breach of contract is a cause of action,
it could a cause of action in a complaint for
specific performance or rescission or damages
filed pursuant to Article 1170 of the NCC.
● Since the total amount of the damages
claimed by the respondent in its complaint
filed with the RTC on September 3, 2012
amounted only to P280,00.00, (which is way
below the jurisdiction of RTC) said court was
correct in refusing to take cognizance of the
case.
SUPPORT
Why is support considered to be incapable of
pecuniary estimation when in fact it can be
expressed in terms of money and support is
necessarily paid in money?
Three reasons:
1. Support entails a declaration of entitlement
to support as provided under the Family
Code.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 111
2. When you sue for support, you are
compelling a person to perform his legal
obligation and you are not suing him simply
for a sum of money; and
3. The amount of support varies. It cannot be
fixed. It depends upon the need of the
person entitled to receive support as well as
the ability of the person obliged to give
support.
For example, due na ang obligation and despite
demand, the debtor fails or maybe refuses to pay the
loan. So default na sya. Now upon default, the
creditor can foreclose on the mortgage.
What will happen upon foreclosure?
Annulment of Judgment
Meaning there’s a judgment rendered by the
court and then you are alleging that because of
extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction that
judgment of the court is null and void.
●
Even if the judgment to be annulled is
expressed momentarily or has a monetary
component, the issue here is whether the
grounds for annulment, lack of jurisdiction or
extrinsic fraud, are present.
Foreclosure of mortgage and
questioning the validity of mortgage
actions
These actions are also considered as incapable
of pecuniary estimation.
●
The property will be sold at a public auction and then
the proceeds of the sale will be used to pay off the
obligation. For example, sobra ang proceeds, the
excess will have to be returned to the debtor. Pero
kung kulang naman pud ang proceeds sa auction sale,
then the deficiency will still be collected against the
debtor. That is why we have what is called a
deficiency judgment in a judicial foreclosure of
mortgage.
A mortgage is a security for the fulfillment of
an obligation. It is not the monetary
obligation itself that you are suing upon but
merely the security therefor. You are asking
the court to enforce the accessory contract.
Naa pud extrajudicial foreclosure pero dili ta
concerned ana. We are concerned about judicial
foreclosure because we are talking about jurisdiction
- asa nimu i-file ang case for judicial foreclosure of
mortgage?
Here, it is the accessory contract of mortgage which
is being enforced, dili katong payment of the loan.
Even if the loan itself can be pecuniarily determined,
capable of pecuniary estimation but the enforcement
of the mortgage is the one that is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
(22:32 - 29:16) by Cuartero
… so you’re asking the court to enforce the accessory
contract of mortgage. Suppose you borrowed PHP 1
Million, and then of course, the lender is not so
confident in your capacity to pay, so he would like to
have a security na in case you cannot pay in cash,
there is still something that will serve as a collateral;
he can do that. Real estate mortgage, for example. As
a collateral for the PHP 1 Million loan, iprenda nya sa
imuha ang iyang yuta na 1 hectare.
Now if you are also filing a case for annulment or
declaration of nullity of a mortgage, you are
questioning the validity of a mortgage, you are not
suing for a specific amount. You are actually
contending that the REM is null and void, so the
validity or the invalidity of the mortgage contract, if
that is the question that is involved, is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
What happens when you foreclose a mortgage?
When does it happen?
There are also other actions that are deemed
incapable of pecuniary estimation based on the other
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 112
cases decided by the Supreme Court. But we will
discuss the next case which is also interesting,
relating to foreclosure of mortgage.
It also has jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to,
or possession of, real property or any interest in it
where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds PHP 20,000.00, and if it is below PHP
20,000.00, it is the first level court which has
jurisdiction.
ROLDAN vs. SPOUSES BARRIOS
GR No. 214803 - April 23, 2018
(This case was decided after the Vestil case.)
An action “involving title to real property” means
that the plaintiff’s cause of action is based on a claim
that he owns such property or that he has the legal
right to have exclusive control, possession,
enjoyment, or disposition of the same.
Facts:
On February 3, 2014, petitioner Alona G. Roldan filed
an action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage
against respondent spouses Clarence I. Barrios and
Anna Lee T. Barrios and respondent Romel D.
Matorres.
The RTC dismissed the foreclosure cases finding that
being a real action and the assessed value of the
mortgaged property is only PHP 13,380.00, it is the
first level court (the MTC) which has jurisdiction over
the case and not the RTC.
Issue:
The allegations and reliefs sought in petitioner’s
action for foreclosure of mortgage showed that the
loan obtained by respondent spouses Barrios from
petitioner fell due and they failed to pay such loan
which was secured by a mortgage on the property of
the respondent spouses; and prayed that in case of
default of payment of such mortgage indebtedness
to the court, the property be ordered sold to answer
for the obligation under the mortgage contract and
the accumulated interest.
It is worthy to mention that the essence of a contract
of mortgage indebtedness is that a property has been
identified or set apart for the payment of money or
the fulfillment of an obligation to answer for the
amount of the indebtedness, in case of default in
payment.
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction
Whether or not the RTC was wrong in dismissing the
case
Held:
The RTC has no jurisdiction over the cases.
The RTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction in
civil actions where the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of nonpayment of the mortgage indebtedness. In real
estate mortgage when the principal obligation is not
paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to
foreclose the mortgage and to have the property
seized and sold with the view of applying the
proceeds to the payment of the obligation.
Therefore, the foreclosure suit is a real action insofar
as it is against property, and seeks the judicial
recognition of a property debt, and an order for the
sale of the res. || 29:16
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 113
Under the mortgage
accumulated interest.
contract
and
the
Now, the SC said, it is worthy to mention that the
essence of the contract of mortgage
indebtedness, is that a property has been
identified or set apart from the mass of the
property of the debtor-mortgagor as a security for
the payment of money or the fulfillment of an
obligation to answer the amount of indebtedness,
in case of default payment. Foreclosure is but a
necessary consequence of non-payment of the
mortgaged indebtedness. In a real estate
mortgage when the principal obligation is not
paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to
foreclose the mortgage and to have the property
seized and sold with the view of applying the
proceeds to the payment of the obligation.
Therefore, the foreclosure suit is a real action so
far as it is against the property, and seeks the
judicial recognition of a property debt, and an
order for the sale of the res.
The SC also addressed the contention of the
plaintiff-petitioner citing the case of Russel v
Vestil to show that action for foreclosure of
mortgage is an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation and, therefore, within the jurisdiction
of the RTC. The SC were not persuaded, the SC
cited its own ruling the case of Russel, also citing
the case of Singsong v Isabela Sawmill:
In determining whether an action
is one the subject matter of which is not
capable of pecuniary estimation, this
court has adopted the criterion of first
ascertaining the nature of the principal
action or remedy sought, if it is primarily
for the recovery of a sum of money, the
claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in
the municipal court or in the court of first
instance would depend on the amount of
claim. However, where the basic issue is
something other than the right to recover
the sum of money claim is purely
incidental to, or a consequence of, the
principal relief sought, this court has
considered such action as cases where
the subject of the litigation may not be
estimated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively by court of first
instance (now RTC)
Examples of actions incapable
pecuniary estimation are those for
specific performance, support, or
foreclosure of mortgage or annulment
of judgment; also action questioning the
validity of a mortgage, annulling a deed
of sale or conveyance and to recover the
price paid and for rescission, which is a
counterpart of a specific performance.
It was mentioned in the last paragraph that
examples of actions incapable of pecuniary
estimation is the foreclosure of mortgage. But it
was also mentioned the last paragraph of Russel
that:
While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P.
129 are also incapable of pecuniary
estimation, the law specifically mandates
that they are cognizable by the MTC,
METC, or MCTC where the assessed
value of the real property involved does
exceed ₱20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or
₱50,000.00, if located elsewhere. If the
value
exceeds
₱20,000.00
or
₱50,000.00 as the case may be, it is the
Regional Trial Courts which have
jurisdiction under Sec. 19(2). However,
the subject matter of the complaint in
this case is annulment of a document
denominated as "DECLARATION OF
HEIRS
AND
DEED
OF
CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL
PARTITION.
So, the SC said that clearly, the last paragraph
clarified that while civil actions which involve title
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein, are also incapable of pecuniary
estimation as it is not for recovery of money, the
court's jurisdiction will be determined by the
assessed value of the property involved.
So the SC is saying in this case of Roldan v
Barrios ( “But I think ma’am is citing the case of
Russell v Vestil since there is no case of Roldan
v Barrios in the syllabus) that an action for
foreclosure of mortgage is really also an action
which is incapable of pecuniary estimation
because it is not for recovery of money but
because it also involve title to and possession of
real property or any interest therein, so it’s a real
action, the court’s jurisdiction will be determined
by the assessed value of the property involved.
So here, because the assessed value of the
property is only around P13,000, it is within the
jurisdiction of the MTC, not the RTC. So, the SC
said that the dismissal by the RTC of the case
was proper. We have to be very careful because
there are several cases having different ruling,
so we will just be confused. However, take note
of this case, if they have similar facts. Personally,
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 114
I still believe that it is more sound to consider an
action for foreclosure of mortgage as an action
which is incapable of pecuniary estimation, then
if it is incapable of pecuniary estimation, then, it
should be within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Actually, as we have already discussed, when
you foreclose a mortgage, you are not claiming
title or possession over the property. The
property which is the real property subject of the
mortgage will just be sold at public action and
the proceeds will be applied in payment of the
obligation. In a public auction, any person can
actually bid, so, it is free for all. So, how can it be
an action involving exclusive right to possess or
the title in whatever, but of course that is just my
opinion. We have here a jurisprudence, although
again, this is now a different interpretation of the
Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Russel.
Kaya lang, we have to consider also that in the
case of Russel, ang case dyud ato is declaration
of heirs and deed of confirmation of previous oral
partition. Kani na case of Roldan vs Barros, it
really is for foreclosure of mortgage, more in
point siya ang ruling. But take note this is also a
Division-decided case, Division of the Supreme
Court, not En Banc.
Bardillon vs. Barangay Masili
GR No 146886, April 30, 2003
An expropriation suit does not involve the
recovery of a sum of money. Rather, it deals
with the exercise by the government of its
authority and right to take property for
public use. As such, it is incapable of
pecuniary estimation and should be filed with
the regional trial courts.
This case of Bardillon vs. Barangay Masili,
expropriation suit. You know what is
expropriation? Nagexplain pud ko ana last
meeting. What is the nature of an expropriation
suit? Private property is taken by the State for
public use upon payment of just compensation.
Now, an expropriation suit does not involve the
recovery of a sum of money. For example, ikaw
si landowner. And then you are questioning the
propriety of the expropriation. You are not also
seeking for the recovery of a sum of money,
although it might also be involved because you
are questioning the amount of the just
compensation. But, aside from that, the issues in
a just compensation case are not only limited to
the sum of money. Rather, in an expropriation
suit, it deals with the exercise with the
government of its authority and the right to take
property for public use. So as such, it is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and should be
filed with the Regional Trial Courts. Duha man
gud na ka-phases ang expropriation na case.
No.1, the determination of the propriety of
expropriation, kung tama ba na kani ba dyud na
property ang i-expropriate. No.2, kung tama ang
expropriation, if it is within the power of the State
and for example they have complied with all the
requisites for the expropriation. Second napud
diha is the amount of the just compensation. So
again, this is a case of incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
MENDOZA vs. TEH
GR No 122646 March 14, 1997
Likewise falling within its jurisdiction are
actions “incapable of pecuniary estimation,”
such as the appointment of an administratrix
for an estate.
In the case of Mendoza vs. Teh, petition for the
appointment of an administratrix of an estate
appointment of an administrator executor of an
estate. Unsa man na siya? Like for example,
naay person who died, if he left a will, and he
named a person in the will who will administer
his properties prior to his distribution to the heirs,
we have here an executor. If wala siya last will
and testament, but he has vast properties and
then dili pa dayun madistribute among the heirs
and there are obligations to be paid, there is a
need to appoint an administrator or administratrix
kung babae. So where do you file that petition?
Even if we’re talking of the estate which is
subject of the administration and the estate has a
monetary value, but the appointment itself of the
administrator is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. You cannot measure that in terms of
money, ang issue lang dira is when there is a
need for the appointment of an administrator and
if he is qualified to act as an administrator. So we
are not talking here any sum of money. So that is
within the jurisdiction of the RTC. Though again,
this is not within Civil Procedure. This shall be
governed on the rules of special proceedings.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 115
BCDA vs. UY
GR No. 144062, Nov. 2, 2006
Section 19 of BP 129 shows that a Regional
Trial Court has jurisdiction over all civil cases
in which the subject of litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. Jurisprudence has
recognized complaints for injunction with a
prayer for temporary restraining order or writ of
preliminary injunction as such
In this case of BCDA vs. Uy, we are talking here
of an action for injunction. The Supreme Court
said complaints for injunction are actions
incapable of pecuniary estimations. Thus, falling
within the jurisdiction of the RTC. What do you
mean of injunction? You prohibit someone from
doing an act. That is for prohibitory injunction.
Or mandatory injunction, compelling the doing
of an act. So within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Let’s reason this out…
●
●
●
Injunction is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
The RTC has jurisdiction over all
actions that are incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
THEREFORE, it is only the RTC that
can grant all types of injunction.
Now, if you are saying that injunction is an action
which is an action incapable of pecuniary action,
and then the RTC has jurisdiction over all actions
that are incapable of pecuniary action, is it safe
to say that it is therefore only the RTC that can
grant all types of injunction.
NOPE!!!
●
●
Because there are different kinds of
injunction:
- MAIN
ACTION
FOR
INJUNCTION
- PROVISIONAL REMEDY OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The injunction to in Bases Conversion
that is incapable of pecuniary
●
estimation is a main action for
injunction, which falls under the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
The provisional remedy of a
preliminary injunction can be prayed
for before and granted by a Municipal
Trial Court.
The answer is no. It does not necessarily follow.
Why? Because there are 2 different kinds of
injunctions. No. 1, we have a main action for
injunction. And no. 2, we have a provisional
remedy of preliminary injunction. Know the
injunction referred to in the BCDA case which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation, and within the
jurisdiction of the RTC is a main action for
injunction.
It is incapable of pecuniary estimation because
you can’t put a value on the order stopping a
person from doing a certain act. So, it cannot be
estimated in terms of money, that is why it is with
the RTC.
The provisional remedy of preliminary
injunction can be granted even by the Municipal
Trial Court. It is a remedy which is granted while
the case is pending. So that the relief that may
be granted to the prevailing party at the end of
the case will not be rendered illusory. For
example, because there is no injunction the
person or the defendant is able to do the act
which is complained of (Nabaligya na niya ang
property which is the subject of the case, so at
the end of the trial, when the case is decided,
even if nakadaog si plaintiff, but asa naman tong
property which he is supposed to be entitled to?)
So, it affords the preservation of the right of the
plaintiff just in case that he wins the case. To
grant the injunction, dapat naa pud requisites
here. But again, it is not solely the province of
the RTC to grant a provisional remedy of
preliminary injunction. It can be granted even by
the MTC. So, we have to make a distinction.
Injunction is defined as a judicial writ,
process or proceeding whereby a party is
ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain
act. It may be filed as a main action before
the trial court or as a provisional remedy in
the main action. (Evy Construction and Dev’t
Corp. v Valiant Roll Forming Sales Corp., GR
207938, October 11, 2017)
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 116
The main action for injunction is distinct from the
provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary
injunction under Rule 58 which cannot exist
except only as part or as an incident of an
independent action or proceeding. Take note
again na ang main action for injunction, mao ni
siya ang title sa case, INJUNCTION. Again it is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and falls within
the jurisdiction of the RTC. Kani pud preliminary
injunction, dili kinahanglan na ang main action
kay injunction. You can file any case, SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE or any CIVIL ACTION for that
purpose, pero you can ask for PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION while the case is pending, So that
is the ancillary remedy of injunction. It can coexist as part of or as incident of another case. So
it cannot exist on its own, the ancillary remedy of
preliminary injunction. There has to be a main
case to which it is connected or to which it is
prayed for or applied for.
Section 33 (BP 129). Jurisdiction of
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
civil cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts shall exercise:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction
over civil actions and probate
proceedings,
testate
and
intestate, including the grant of
provisional remedies in proper
cases, where the value of the
personal property, estate or
amount of the demand does not
exceed P300,000 or in Metro
Manila where such personal
property, estate or amount of the
demand does not exceed
P400,000 xxx
A PRINCIPLE TO REMEMBER
A main action for injunction is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation over which
the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction. However,
the provisional remedy of preliminary
injunction can be prayed for before and
granted by the MTC in a proper case filed
before it.
- Of course, it can also be granted by the
RTC, the Court of Appeals, by the Supreme
Court.
Other Examples
- Where the issue in the case is whether
or not an assignment of rights is a nullity, the
action is one incapable of pecuniary
estimation (Singsong v Isabela Sawmill, 88
SCRA 623).
An action seeking to annul a resolution
of a government-owned and controlled
corporation is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation even if the resolution
mentions sum of money (Polomolok Water
District v Polomolok General Consumers
Association Inc, Gr 162124, October 19,
2007)
Iniego vs. Purganan
G.R. No. 166876, March 24, 2006
According to respondent Judge, what he
referred to in his assailed Order as not capable
of pecuniary estimation is the cause of action,
which is a quasi-delict, and not the amount of
damage prayed for. From this, respondent
Judge concluded that since fault or negligence
in quasi-delicts cannot be the subject of
pecuniary estimation, the RTC has jurisdiction.
This is an action for damages based on a quasidelict. You know what is a quasi-delict? Diba
when an act or omission causes damage to
another there being fault or negligence or there
is no pre-existing contractual relations within the
parties. This gives rise to an action of quasidelict , now here the judge said na this is within
the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Why?
Because the case is for quasi-delict and
according to him the basis of determining
jurisdiction is the cause of action and not the
amount of the damage prayed for. Although
damages were prayed for by the plaintiff here but
again because this is a quasi-delict case we
based on the cause of action.
So according to the judge since fault or
negligence in quasi-delict cannot be the subject
of pecuniary estimation. Di man na nimo ma
measure kung gi unsa pagkadanhag sa usa ka
tawo kung level 1 iyang pagkadanhag or level
10. You cannot measure that according to the
judge, so it is incapable of pecuniary estimation
therefore it is within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 117
The Supreme Court said no judge you are
wrong. Actions for damages based on quasidelict are primarily and effectively actions for
the recovery for a sum of money for the
damages suffered. Because the defendant
alleged tortious acts and therefore capable of
pecuniary estimation.
Diba we discussed it before na kung ang main
action nimo is for damages like for example
based on negligence or quasi-delict wala naman
kay lain claim diha damages lang man so the
basis of the jurisdiction would be the total
amount of damages claimed. Because here the
damages are no longer merely incidental to the
main action it is already the main action in itself,
the action to claim for damages. The SC said
that damages claimed on such action represent
the monetary equivalent of the injury caused to
the plaintiff by the defendant which are thus
sought to be recovered by the plaintiff. This
money claim is the principal relief sought and it is
not merely incidental thereto or a consequence
thereof.
How about the reasoning of the judge that
this cause of action is based on quasi-delict
and you cannot measure fault or negligence
and that there is no value to that or no
monetary value to that?
The SC said it is very clear from BP Blg. 129, as
amended by RA 7691, that what is to be
determined to be capable or incapable of
pecuniary estimation is not the cause of
action but the subject matter of the action. A
cause of action is the delict or wrongful act or
omission committed by the defendant in violation
of the primary rights of the plaintiff. On the other
hand, the subject matter of the action is the
physical facts, the thing, real or personal
property such as the money, lands, chattels and
the like and relation to which the suit is
prosecuted and not the delict/wrong committed
by the defendant. Mura gud kitong sa discussion
nato before breach of contract. Breach of
contract is the cause of action but when you file
a case it could either be for specific performance,
rescission or damages that could be the subject
matter of the action.
There is a difference between a cause of action
and subject matter of the action. Ang subject
matter mao tong gusto nimong ma recover/
makuha by way of remedy in the case and cause
of action mao tong imong reason ang basis for
you to file the suit, so you have to make a
distinction.
The subject matter is not the delict or wrong
committed by the defendant but the remedy that
you want to be given in the case and the remedy
that you want to be afforded by the court. The
thing that you want to recover, the money that
you want to get or to recover or collect from the
defendant. So fault or negligence which the RTC
and the CA also claimed to be not capable of
pecuniary estimation is not actionable by itself for
such fault or negligence to be actionable, there
must be a resulting damage to a third person.
The reliefs available to the offended party to
such cases are reparation, restitution or payment
of such damage. Kini relief mao ni imong subject
matter without which any alleged offended party
has no cause of action or relief. The fault or
negligence of the defendant therefore is
inextricably intertwined with the claims for
damages and there can be no action based on
quasi-delict without a claim for damages.
December 16, 2020 - Zoom
Part 1 00:40 - 6:35
Personal Property
Slide: Recovery of personal property
●
●
An example of an action seeking to
recover personal property is an action
for replevin under Rule 60.
This action is capable of pecuniary
estimation. The basis of jurisdiction is
the value of the personal property
sought to be recovered. (Bar 1997,
No. 1(e]).
DISCUSSION: An action which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, is within the jurisdiction of
the RTC. We discussed what are actions
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
If the action is for the recovery of sum of money,
then it’s not incapable of pecuniary estimation
because, precisely you can measure it in terms
of money. The basis of jurisdiction will be the
amount of the demand. Exclusive of damages,
litigation expenses, attorney fees, etc. if that is
incidental to the main cause of action. If it is for
the recovery of personal property, it is also an
action which is CAPABLE of pecuniary
estimation.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 118
When we talk about an action to recover
personal property, it is different from an action to
recover real property because if that’s the case,
the jurisdiction is based on the assessed value of
the (real) property. Whether it is more than
P20,000 outside Metro Manila or more than
P50,000 in Metro Manila. Except for actions
forcible entry and unlawful detainer which are
within the jurisdiction of the MTC regardless of
the assessed value.
Q: What are examples of actions to recover
personal property?
A: Example is an action for replevin under Rule
60 of the Rules of Court. Here you are seeking to
recover personal property.
agree unanimously because one cannot decide
for the others what their share should be), you
have to go to court to impose partition.
In those cases where partition is the only issue, it
is an action which is real in nature - the
jurisdiction is based on the assessed value.
If aside from partition, you first have to determine
the hereditary rights where their rights to inherit
and the amount of their rightful share in the
property is not yet settled, the partition is just
INCIDENTAL to the main issue of the hereditary
rights. That action is INCAPABLE of pecuniary
estimation.
BarQ question in 1997: What court has
jurisdiction in an action for recovery of personal
property?
TAKE NOTE: When you say determination of
hereditary rights, you cannot decide it by the
regular courts. It has to be resolved by the
PROBATE courts whether in a testate or
intestate proceeding.
A: It is not an action which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. It depends on the value of
the personal property.
Kate Dec 16 6:36 - 12:31
Slide: Hypothetical Case
Slide: OTHER EXAMPLES (Incapable of
Pecuniary Estimation)
●
An action for partition of a real
property located in Taytay, Rizal and
with an assessed value of P2,000, the
resolution of which involves the
determination of hereditary rights, is
an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation and thus, should be filed in
the Regional Trial Court.
Take note: In the case of Russell vs. Vestil,
there was also a partition in that case.
The SC has different rulings regarding an action
for partition. In other cases, the SC said, an
action for partition is an action which is
considered or denominated as a real action. In
that case, you will base the jurisdiction of the
court on the assessed value of the property.
BUT, there are also other cases where the
Supreme Court said that it is an action which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Why?
Because it is not actually the main issue here.
The resolution for the prayer for partition
involves the determination of hereditary
rights which is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation. Before you can go into
the partition (an action where everybody must
Lebron entered a contract of lease with Pia
whereby Lebron would rent Pia's building in
the amount of P100,000.00 per month. After
one month, Maja went to the building where
she demanded from Lebron the rental
payment. Maja also brought with her supposed
title over the rented property. A few hours
later, Pia also went to Lebron demanding
payment of the rent. Lebron does not know
whom to pay the rentals. What remedy does
Lebron have?
Guide Questions (recit):
1. What is the remedy? What can you suggest?
File an interpleader
2. What is an interpleader?
Here, there is now doubt who is the real owner of
the property being leased. You learned before in
Obligations and Contracts that payment must be
made to the person to whom it is due. If Lebron
pays Pia and it turns out that Maja is the real
owner, Pia can still collect. In the same manner,
if you pay to Maja, and Pia turns out to be the
real owner, then the payment is not valid. So
here, we have the remedy of interpleader under
the Rules of Court.
Slide: Rule 62 (Interpleader)
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 119
Section 1. When interpleader is proper. —
Whenever conflicting claims upon the same
subject matter are or may be made against a
person who claims no interest whatever in the
subject matter, or an interest which in whole or
in part is not disputed by the claimants, he
may bring an action against the conflicting
claimants to compel them to interplead and
litigate their several claims among themselves.
Question: In an action for interpleader, who files
the interpleader and who are the defendants in
that case?
✓ Answer: Lebron will file a case for
interpleader against Maja and Pia to
compel them to litigate among
themselves and prove who has a right to
the rentals.
jurisdiction if the personal property is
valued at not more than P400,000. If
the personal property is valued at
more than P400,000 and the case is
filed in Metro Manila, it is the RTC that
has jurisdiction.
Part 1 — 12:32 to 18:27 by Chiara
Real property
IN INTERPLEADER THAT IS A REAL
ACTION
●
Question: Here, what court has jurisdiction over
the case? It depends.
What is the subject matter of the case? It's the
payment of the lease rentals.
Slide: Are actions for interpleader capable
of pecuniary estimation?
●
Not necessarily.
●
An interpleader action may be
commenced in the Regional Trial
Court or in the Municipal Trial Court
depending on the subject matter, the
amount of the claim or the value of the
property involved.
It actually depends.
Slide: In Interpleader That is A Personal
Action
●
●
If the subject matter is personal
property which is valued at not more
than P300,000 and the case is filed
outside Metro Manila, the MTC, MTCC
or MCTC has jurisdiction over the
action. If the personal property is
valued at more than P300,00 and the
case is filed outside Metro Manila, it is
the RTC that has jurisdiction.
If the case is filed in Metro Manila, the
Metropolitan Trial Court has
If the subject matter is real property,
which has an assessed value of not
more than P20,000.00 and the case is
filed outside Metro Manila, the MTC
has jurisdiction over the action. If the
real property is valued at more than
P20,000.00 and the case is filed
outside Metro Manila, it is the RTC
that has jurisdiction. If the case is filed
in Metro Manila, the Metropolitan Trial
Court has jurisdiction if the real
property has an assessed value of not
more than P50,000.00 Conversely, if
the real property is valued at more
than P50,000.00 and the case is filed
in Metro Manila, it is the RTC that has
jurisdiction.
Here, we also base on the assessed value of the
real property. If the assessed value of the
property does not exceed P20,000.00 outside
Metro Manila and P50,000.00 in Metro Manila, it
is with the MTC; and exceeding that, it is the
RTC. So, it also depends.
IN INTERPLEADER THAT IS A REAL
ACTION
●
If the subject matter of the interpleader
suit is one that is incapable of
pecuniary estimation (i.e., the
performance of an obligation), it is the
Regional Trial Court that has
jurisdiction under BP Blg. 129, Section
19(1), as amended.
Discussion:
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 120
“incapable of pecuniary estimation” – where
the performance of an obligation, or rescission or
annulment of a contract is sought -- filed with the
RTC
So, it really depends on the subject matter of the
action for interpleader. It is not simply because
we are seeking to know which party has a better
right or that you are compelling them to litigate
among themselves. Again, in determining
jurisdiction, we have to look into the subject
matter of the action, not the cause of action.
These are different matters.
●
●
Cause of action – this constitutes what
are your rights, the obligations of the
defendant, how did the defendant violate
your rights, and what damages were
caused to you by reason of such
violation of your rights
Subject matter – referring to the thing,
the money, the right, which is being
enforced, recovered or collected (the
subject matter)
So, it depends on the subject matter of the suit.
You should be familiar with an action for
interpleader because, if you read the Bible, it is
quite similar to the story of King Solomon and the
two women claiming to be the mother of the
same baby. King Solomon did not know which
one was the real mother. To know which one, he
applied the principles of interpleader (or maybe
we took the principle used by King Solomon and
applied it to interpleader under Rule 62). He
compelled the two women to prove between
themselves which one was the real mother. The
real mother was the one who would not allow the
child to be split in half.
We are done with actions incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
Actions involving title to or possession of
real property
Discussion: We are still in the jurisdiction of the
RTC. As discussed, if the assessed value of the
real property exceeds P20,000.00 outside Metro
Manila or P50,000.00 within Metro Manila,
jurisdiction is within the RTC.
What actions involve title to or possession of
real property?
The crucial thing to know is what are these
actions that involve title to or possession of real
property. As seen in the earlier cases, it is not
easy to determine. It could appear as an action
involving title or possession, but it is not
necessarily a real action; it could be an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation (such as the
case of Russell vs. Vestil where we discussed
the partition of a real party where the Supreme
Court said it was incapable of pecuniary
estimation because the action involved the
determination of hereditary rights). Hence, we
need to know what these actions are.
There are three actions involving title to or
possession of real property, which are
considered real actions:
1. ACCION INTERDICTAL
Actions involving title to or possession of
real property
●
An ACCION INTERDICTAL is a
summary proceeding to recover
property based on the better right to
possess. It covers forcible entry and
unlawful detainer actions under Rule
70, which must be brought within a
period of one year.
What is unlawful detainer?
Discussion: As a review of Property Law, when
we say unlawful detainer, the possession is
lawful in the beginning. It could be because there
is a lease contract between the owner and the
possessor; or the occupation could have been
my mere tolerance where the owner tolerated the
possession/occupation by the occupant. But
there is an understanding that upon the
expiration of the lease contract…
18:28 – 24:23 Marianne
...the occupant or lessee has to vacate the
property and turn-over the possession to the
owner; or upon the end of the tolerance by the
owner, the occupant has to vacate the property.
So, if the occupant refuses to leave despite
demand, then you have an action for unlawful
detainer.
Part of the element of an unlawful detainer case
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 121
is that you have to file the action within 1 year
from the date of the last demand.
Now, for example nilampas na ug 1 year, (same
story lang) nag-lease, nag-expire and despite
demands wala jud siya nihawa – 3 years na. Is it
still an action for unlawful detainer? You want
to recover the property. Can you still recover
the property even though 3 years na? YES.
YOU STILL CAN, BUT NOT UNDER THE
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL
DETAINER. (We will discuss that in the second
action.)
Let’s go first to the forcible entry.
What is a forcible entry?
When the occupation is attended by force,
intimidation, strategy, threat and stealth (FISTS).
The prior possessor has been deprived of his
possession by the other because of FISTS. So,
there is now a cause of action for forcible entry.
The prior possessor can demand that the
present possessor be ejected, and the
possession be turned over to the prior
possessor.
So, these [unlawful detainer and forcible entry]
are what we call accion interdictal.
The issue in these cases is the “better right of
possession or possession de facto”. We are not
talking here of ownership; we are just talking
here who has the right to possess the property or
who has the better right to possess the property.
So, these are actions involving title to real
property. BUT PLEASE REMEMBER: even if
they are real actions, forcible entry, and unlawful
detainer cases fall within the jurisdiction of the
MTC. Regardless of the assessed value of the
property.
2. Accion Publiciana
Discussion:
Actually, ang circumstances under accion
publiciana and accion interdictal pareha-pareha.
We are just also talking here of the right to
recover, the better right to possession or
possession de facto without going into the issue
of ownership. Here, I am not claiming ownership,
I am claiming that I have the better right to
possess. That I’m entitled to possession.
Now, the only difference here is tong giingon na
ko na 3 years na ang nilapas, wala ka nagfile ug
action for unlawful detainer. In forcible entry you
have to file this case within 1 year from the time
of dispossession or if it's through stealth, that you
were deprived of possession from the time of the
recovery of the stealth. Pinasecret man nang
stealth, so from the time na na-discover nimo
ang possession. Not necessarily from the time
na na-occupy.
So, 1 year, pag nilampas ka ug 1 year you can
still institute an action for recovery of the property
but not forcible entry or unlawful detainer ang
imo na case. It is for accion publiciana. Action for
recovery of real property. Kung 3 years na,
accion publiciana ang imo na i-file. But here, diri
na ta mutan-aw sa assessed value. Because in
accion publiciana, the basis of jurisdiction is the
assessed value of the property. So, dira na
musulod if more than 20,000 ang assessed value
outside Metro Manila or more than 50,000 in
Metro Manila – RTC. Below 20,000 or 50,000
less that would be with the MTC.
3. Accion Reivindicatoria
ACCION REIVINDICATORIA seeks the
recovery of possession based on ownership
before the trial court in an ordinary proceeding.
Discussion:
The third one is accion reivindicatoria.
ACCION PUBLICIANA is an ordinary civil
proceeding to recover the better right of
possession of real property independently of
title, except in cases of forcible entry and
unlawful detainer, although any of the special
circumstances mentioned is present, where
the one-year period for bringing such action
has already expired.
So, here this is an accion to recover ownership.
Although it carries with it also the recovery of
possession because one of the aspects of the
ownership is possession. So, here the basis for
your recovery is because you are the owner. You
have to prove ownership in an accion
reivindicatoria.
Now, the question is which court has
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 122
jurisdiction over accion reivindicatoria,
recovery of ownership or recovery of
possession based on ownership?
Tine T. (24:24- 30:19)
It also depends on the assessed value of the
property. Again, 20,000 or less- MTC, more than
20,000-RTC (if outside Metro Manila). If within
Metro Manila, 50,000 ang threshold.
In ACCION INTERDICTAL OR ACCION
PUBLICIANA, the plaintiff merely alleges
proof of a better right to possess without claim
of title. What distinguishes an action for
unlawful detainer from a possessory action
(accion publiciana) and from a reinvindicatory
action (accion reinvidicatoria) is that the first is
limited to the question of possession de facto.
In Accion Publiciana and Accion
Reivindicatoria cases, we must look at the
assessed value of the property first. If the
assessed value does not exceed 20,000 or
50,000, as the case may be, the MTC has
jurisdiction even if the action does not qualify
as one for forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
In excess of these amounts, the RTC already
has jurisdiction.
ACCION
INTERDICT
AL
(unlawful
detainer,
forcible
entry)
ACCION
PUBLICIANA
ACCION
REINVINDIC
ATORIA
AKA
Ejectment
suit
Possessory
action
Reinvindicato
ry action
Aim
To recover
possession
de facto, with
no reference
to ownership
or title
To recover
possession de
jure,
independently
of title
To recover
possession
based on
ownership
What
plaint
iff
prove
s
The plaintiff
alleges proof
of a better
right to
possess
without claim
of title
The plaintiff
merely alleges
proof of a better
right to possess
without a claim
of title
Ownership or
title
Juris
dictio
n
MTC
(regardless
of the
assessed
value of the
property
involved.
Jurisdiction
would depend
on the
assessed value
of the property
Jurisdiction
would depend
on the
assessed
value of the
property
Is it possible that you are entitled to possess
without any reference to title?
Example:
You are occupying a property peacefully and
without any disturbance. Suddenly, here comes
this person na by force, gi oust ka sa possession
over the property.
Now, if you file an action for forcible entry against
the present occupant, what you only need to
prove is that you are in prior physical and
peaceful possession over the property. You do
not need to prove that you are the owner.
Nobody has the right, not even the owner of the
property, to dispossess your peaceful
possession extrajudicially.
If that person alleges (freeze 27:12-27:15) by
force, he cannot do that. That actually gives rise
to a cause of action for forcible entry without any
reference to ownership.
Perio
d
ACCION
INTERDI
CTAL
(unlawfu
l
detainer,
forcible
entry)
ACCION
PUBLICI
ANA
ACCION
REINVINDIC
ATORIA
One (1)
year from
Ten (10)
years
Being a real
action over
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 123
within
which
to file
actio
n
date of
actual
entry on
the land
or from
the date
of last
demand
to vacate
(Rule 70,
Sec 1;
Art 1147
of the
Civil
Code)
from the
date of
possessi
on by
another
person
(Art 555
of the
Civil
Code)
immovables,
thirty (30)
years from the
date when the
owner has
been deprived
of his property
(Art 1141 of
the Civil
Code)
Unlawful detainer- One year from the date of
the last demand.
Forcible Entry- one year from the time of
dispossession, or kung secret ang pag enter,
from the time the dispossession was discovered.
Accion Reinvindicatoria
Being a real action over immovables, thirty (30)
years from the date when the owner has been
deprived of his property.
Although there are nuances to this, it would also
matter like you have thirthy years within which to
recover the property by accion reinvindicatoria,
but if you remember in your law of prescription, if
the other party has already acquired the property
by ordinary prescription it only requires 10 years.
Even if naa kay thirty years to recover pero siya
na acquire na niya by ordinary acquisitive
prescription, he only needs ten years. Even if
wala pa niabot ug thirty years ang imung
prescriptive period pero you cannot recover pud
because the other has already aquired it by
ordinary acquisitive prescription.
What if sa complaint the assessed value so it
is a real action- action for recovery of
ownership, for example, of a real property.
30:20-36:15-TINE B
SLIDE: What if assessed value is not
alleged in the complaint?
Recall that jurisdiction over the subject matter
is determined by the allegations in the
complaint. If the plaintiff fails to make the
proper allegations that would vest jurisdiction
to the trial court, the later can indeed order the
dismissal of the action
In LARESMA versus ABELLANA, G.R. NO.
140973, November 11, 2004, the Supreme
Court declared:
The complaint does not contain any
allegation of the assessed value of Lot
4-E covered by TCT No. 47171. There
is, thus, no showing on the face of the
complaint that the RTC had exclusive
jurisdiction over the action of the
respondent. Moreover, as gleaned
from the receipt of realty tax payments
issued to the respondent, the
assessed value of the property in
1993 was P8,300.00. Patently then,
the Municipal Trial Court of
Aloguinsan, Cebu, and not the
Regional Trial Court of Toledo City,
had exclusive jurisdiction over the
action of the respondent.45 Hence, all
the proceedings in the RTC, including
its decision, are null and void.
DISCUSSION: So definitely, to determine which
court has jurisdiction, you should allege the
assessed value of the property because how will
the court know whether or not it has jurisdiction
kung wala siya kabalo sa assessed value. Pero
in the complaint wala nimo gi alleg ang assessed
value thinking na action is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. Daghan na biktima ani no. Thinking
na it’s an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation wala na nla gi allege ang assessed
value sa property kay automatically RTC man na
sya pag-incapable of pecuniary estimation and
the it turns out na it’s a real action diay because
the ultimate claim or the main relief for is the
recovery of real property.
So, what will happen now if walay alleged
assessed value in the complaint? Well, it may be
dismissed by the court because definitely the
court has no jurisdiction. It cannot be said na
RTC ky how do we know nga more than 20,000
ang value sa property na wala man nimo gi
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 124
allege in your complaint and as what we have
discussed before to determine whether or not the
court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the case, the court only has to look into the
allegations made in the complaint. If the
complaint is insufficient such that dili nato makita
ang assessed value then, the complaint is
dismissible.
This was the ruling of the Court in the case of
Laresma vs. Abellana. Again, whether or not the
RTC or MTC has jurisdiction over the action,
they cannot determine because there was failure
to allege in the complaint the assessed value of
the property.
So, all the proceedings made in the RTC
because it was filed in the RTC because there
was no basis in saying that the RTC has no
jurisdiction because it was a real action. There
was not even a tax declaration as attached to the
complaint. So, wala jud tay basis in knowing na
the RTC ba jud has jurisdiction.
SLIDE: But, rather than dismiss the case
outright…
It is posited the court may instead order the
Plaintiff to simply amend* his complaint. This is
in keeping with the liberal policy on the
interpretation of the Rules of Court.
DISCUSSION: Although, when we go to
amendments, pwede na nimo siya ma correct.
You can amend the complaint but please
remember also that when we go to amendment,
there’s also what we called amendment as a
matter of right and amendment by leave of court,
judicial discretion.
Amendment as a matter of right, it has happens
before the answer, before the filing of the
defendant of his answer. So, you can amend
your complaint as a matter of right. You don’t
need to ask permission from the court.
Here, I would say na if it is amendment as a
matter of right wala pa answer sa pikas na
disover nimo na hala I forgot to allege the
assessed value of the property. I forgot to attach
the tax declaration in the complaint. So, i-amend
nimo. Okay lang na sya because it’s a matter of
right provided also nga in your amendments kay
gifile nimo sya sa RTC makita jud dapat didto na
ang RTC jud ang naay jurisdiction because it
was in the tax declaration the assessed value of
the property is more than 20,000.
Pero, once na nag-answer na si defendant,
amendment is no longer a matter of right. It is
already a matter of judicial discretion. The court
has to rule whether or not it allows the
amendment.
So, unsa may difference? Well, if we’re talking of
jurisdictional issue, an amendment that is
intended to confer jurisdiction upon in the court
when in the first place it has none, you cannot
amend your complaint so ask to confer
jurisdiction upon the court after the defendant
has already filed answer. Why? Because, here,
the court has no authority to act on your motion
for leave to amend the complaint. If the court in
the beginning has no jurisdiction, it continuous to
have no jurisdiction to act. It cannot issue any
order except for the dismissal of the case.
Katong sa first na situation, wala may buhaton si
court at all kay it doesn’t even have to approve
the amendment kay it does not seek for the
leave of court. It’s a matter of right. You can
amend that. Dili ta mga-invoke sa power of the
court to hear, decide and act on the case
because here amendment is a matter of right.
Pero, after answer, when amendment is no
longer a matter of right and you would like the
court to approve your amendment so as to
confer jurisdiction, dili na sya pwede. Again,
because if the court has no jurisdiction, it cannot
on the case and it cannot even decide na okay I
will approve the amendment so as to confer
jurisdiction. We will discuss that when we go to
amendment.
SLIDE: Concurrent Jurisdiction with the
MTC
RA 9262, SEC. 10. Where to apply for a
Protection Order.
-Applications for BPOs shall follow the rules on
venue under Sec. 409 of the Local
Government Code of 1991 and its
implementing rules and regulations. An
application for a TPO or PPO may be filed in
the regional trial court, metropolitan trial court,
municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 125
with territorial jurisdiction over the place of
residence of the petitioner: Provided, however,
That if a family court exists in the place of
residence of the petitioner, the application
shall be filed with that court.
-
Action for annulment of judgment of the
RTC (CA - provided under the RoC)
Action for annulment of judgment of the
MTC brought under Rule 47 (Not
specified so it falls under the catch-all
jurisdiction of the RTC)
DISCUSSION: We will go now to the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the RTC. We go to the
concurrent jurisdiction of the RTC.
First with the MTC. So, what are those cases
where the RTC has concurrent jurisdiction with
the MTC.
Slide:
RTC vs. QUASI-JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS
There are a lot of cases here. To accurately
determine whether jurisdiction is lodged before
the RTC or a quasi-judicial body, you have to
examine the law administered by such agency
and read the decided cases. We have to read
and examine all the cases on the topic in the
syllabus.
Edren (36:16-42:11)
Slide:
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE
MTC
RA 9262, SEC. 10. Where to apply for a
protection order. - Applications for BPOs shall
follow the rules on venue under Section 409 of
the Local Government Code of 1991 and its
implementing rules and regulations. An
application for a TPO or PPO may be filed in
the RTC, MeTC, MTC, MCTC with territorial
jurisdiction over the place of residence of the
petitioner; Provided, however, That if a family
court exists in the place of residence of the
petitioner, the application shall be filed with
that court.
CATCH-ALL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
(6) in all cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising jurisdiction or any court,
tribunal, personal or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions;
Pero naay cases na maski dili provided sa law
(BP 129) kung asa sya na jurisdiction under, dili
gihapon sya ma fall under the RTC - pwede sya
under sa administrative agencies/bodies.
For example the case is about housing, dili
dayon ka muderetso sa RTC kay basin naay law
na naga provide na this case is under the
jurisdiction of the HLURB.
Or if it involves employment er-ee relationship,
you check first if there are laws sa DOLE or sa
NLRC kung naa ba silay jurisdiction sa case kay
most likely, naa man na. Pero kung wala jud,
then RTC.
Naay mga issues nga daghan ug applicable
laws. So kinsa man gyud ang muresolve ani na
mga kaso?
Q: How do you know if the case is not within the
jurisdiction of any court?
What law will ultimately be used to resolve
the controversy in the case?
Example:
If the resolution of the case ultimately boils
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 126
down to application of a special law within the
competence of an administrative or quasijudicial agency, the RTC has no jurisdiction.
*Kung labor laws ang applicable, then the
jurisdiction is with the NLRC or DOLE
*Kung agrarian cases gani, sa DAR
Basta kung unsa na laws applicable sa ilaha,
didtoa sila na jurisdiction.
42:12 to 48: 07 - Chang
What law will ultimately be used to resolve the
controversy in the case?
– If the resolution of the case ultimately boils down
to application of a special law within the
competence of an administrative or quasi-judicial
agency, the RTC ahs no jurisdiction.
– If the resolution of the case can be had without
reference to these special laws, the RTC has
jurisdiction.
(Reading second item) If the resolution of the
case can be had without reference to these
special laws, of course, catch-all jurisdiction of
the RTC, it is with the RTC.
Now please remember this case of Halagueña v.
PAL on the issue of jurisdiction.
Halagueña v. PAL
G.R. 172013, October 2, 2009
The issue in this case was which tribunal has
jurisdiction over the alleged discriminatory and
unconstitutional provisions of a CBA.
You know what’s a CBA? That’s a collective
bargaining agreement (CBA). Kana siya kanang
diba naa’y company, and then naa’y union, and
then the union, siya ang na-elect as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent. Naa na sila’y
contract between the management and the
union. Mao na siya ang gina tawag na CBA.
Kana na agreement ang mag govern sa terms
and conditions of employment of the workers
who are represented by the union. Aside from
the labor laws, pwede pa ka mangayo’g better
benefits/terms and conditions in the CBA.
So naa daw discriminatory and unconstitutional
provisions in the CBA. Nganong ni pirma man
pud tawon sila ani na CBA noh kung
discriminatory man diay. Kasab-i inyong mga
union officers nag pataka lang ug pirma. Okay
anyway unsa man na provision diri ang ilahang
giingon na discriminatory and unconstitutional?
Remember ha ang employer dili baya na siya
ang mag sige ug buot na “Oh sige mao ni atong
naa sa CBA, take it or leave it.” Dili na siya ingon
ana. CBA is negotiated na siya, kung mag
deadlock pa gyud pwede pa na mag strike ang
union diha. Okay so sakit na sa ulo sa employer
ang union. Okay so the provision is:
The provisions included one that set the
retirement age for cabin personnel (compulsory
retirement of 55 for female and 60 for males).
So ngano ipa-retire man nato ang 55 na bata
paman na siya, kusgan pa man na siya. Ang 60
pud. Kani siya ang question, kung kinsa ang
naa’y jurisdiction.
When you go to labor relations, issues arising
from the interpretation and enforcement of a
provision in the collective bargaining agreement
(CBA), if it cannot be resolved by grievance, it
will be referred to the Voluntary Arbitrator. Read
slide below:
Remember that in Labor Law:
The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators have original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved
grievances arising from the interpretation or
implementation of the CBA. Regular courts have
no power to set and fix the terms and conditions of
employment. Absent any arbitration clauses, labor
tribunals would have jurisdiction.
Okay so didto na siya. Pero kung wala’y
arbitration clause, kay sa CBA man gud, ibutang
pud na ninyo kung unsa ang mga issue which
are subject to arbitration. Kung di siya apil diha,
didto ka sa NLRC under the Labor Arbiters.
So karon ang question is didto ba sa Voluntary
Artbitrator ang jurisdiction over this issue
because again it involves a provision in the CBA,
which is allegedly discriminatory and
unconstitutional.
So here, actually mura ta’g it’s in the
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 127
interpretation and implementation of the CBA
because we are talking about a provision in the
CBA.
Held:
The issue raised is whether Section 144, Part A of
the PAL-FASAP CBA is unlawful and
unconstitutional. Here, the petitioners' primary
relief in Civil Case No. 04-886 is the annulment of
Section 144, Part A of the PAL-FASAP CBA,
which allegedly discriminates against them for
being female flight attendants.
The said issue cannot be resolved solely by
applying the Labor Code. Rather, it requires the
application of the Constitution, labor statutes, law
on contracts and the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women, and the power to apply and interpret
the constitution and CEDAW is within the
jurisdiction of trial courts, a court of general
jurisdiction.
Diba, whether or not unconstitutional, so we
have to apply the provisions of the Constitution
which are allegedly violated by this stipulation in
the CBA. You also apply the law on labor. You
also apply the law on contracts because we are
talking here of the CBA which is also a contract,
the binding effect on the contract. And the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women, so international
law pa gyud.
So even if naa’y labor aspect na kasi ni siya,
which may be under the Voluntary Arbitrator, he
cannot possibly resolve all issues here. He
cannot apply the Constitution. Again, sa labor,
their competence is limited only to issues arising
from employer-employee relationship.
48:08 - 54:03 - Bolo
The said issue cannot be resolved solely by
applying the Labor Code. Rather, it requires the
application of the Constitution, labor statutes, law
on contracts and the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
women, and the power to apply and interpret the
constitution and CEDAW is within the jurisdiction
of the trial courts, a court of general jurisdiction.
So kanang law on contracts, international law,
Constitutional law, beyond na na sa ilaha
competence. So, because of that, which court
has jurisdiction? It cannot be within the
jurisdiction of the DA or the Labor Arbiter so
we’re now using the catch-all jurisdiction of the
RTC.
When no specific court or quasi-judicial agency
or tribunal has jurisdiction over all these issues
raised then it could only be the RTC under its
catch-all jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of the labor arbiters and the
NLRC under Article 217 of the Labor Code is
limited to disputes arising from an employeremployee relationship which can only be
resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other
labor statutes, or their CBA.
Thus, where the principal relief sought is to be
resolved not by reference to the Labor Code or
the other labor relations statute or a CBA but by
the general civil law, the jurisdiction over the
dispute belongs to the regular courts of justice
and not to the labor arbiter and the NLRC. In
such situations, management relations nor in
wage structures and other terms and conditions
of the employment, but rather in the application
of the general civil law. Clearly, such claims fall
outside the area of competence or expertise
ordinarily ascribed to labor arbiters and the
NLRC and the rationale for granting jurisdiction
over such claims to these agencies disappears.
Actually, even if naay issue or naay labor aspect
pero dili man gud sya purely labor, it will require
the application of the general law on contracts for
example under the New Civil Code, the
Constitution so you go to the RTC.
Appellate Jurisdiction (Section 22, BP 129)
Appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by
lower courts (MTCs) in their respective territorial
jurisdictions. The decisions of the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be
appealable by petition for review to the Court of
Appeals. (Sec. 22, B.P. Blg. 129)
Modes of Review of RTC Decisions
Original Jurisdiction
Ordinary Appeal
under Rule 41
Appellate Jurisdiction
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 128
Petition for Review
under Rule 42
Special Jurisdiction
(SAC)
Petition for Review
under Rule 42
Special Jurisdiction
Ordinary Appeal under
rule 41
(Family Courts)
RA 8369, Sec 14.
Appeals. – Decisions/
orders of the Court shall
be appealed in the same
manner and subject to
the same conditions as
appeals from the
ordinary RTCs.
Pure Questions of law
Petition for Review
under rule 45
Now, let’s go to the kinds of decision rendered by
the RTC and how to review these decisions of
the RTC. We have discussed before those cases
falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the RTC under BP 129. So, meaning, the case is
filed for the first time before the RTC. If the RTC
renders a decision in these cases, how do you
appeal? Where to appeal?
Decisions of the RTC as already discussed, are
appealable to the CA. Under what mode? Under
Rule 41, its an ordinary appeal.
Now, decisions rendered by the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the case
was from the MTC, appealed to the RTC, as
discussed the RTC has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over the decisions of the MTC. The
decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction, asa man nan to
ipasaka? Didto sa CA, didto lang gyud na sya sa
CA under what mode? Under Rule 42, this is
what we call petition for review to the questions
of law, questions of facts or mixed questions of
fact and law.
We also discussed under the original jurisdiction
of the RTC, the special jurisdiction of the RTC.
So here, it’s a petition for review although if you
remember our discussion diba nagcomment ko
didto nga a petition or an action filed before the
RTC to determine just compensation is actually
in the exercise of the RTC’s original jurisdiction.
Bisan pa gikan na sya sa DAR, the landbank as
we have discussed before, will initially determine
the just compensation for the land na
giexpropriate sa DAR and then ifile nimo sa
PARAD, RARAD, or sa DARAB ang preliminary
determination of just compensation na gi
determine sa landbank.
54:09-59:57 - KHAYZEE
I file nimo sa DARAB (Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board), sa PARAB
(Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board), or sa DARAB ang preliminary
determination of just compensation na gi
determine sa landbank. Then i decide na siya sa
DAR, when I say DAR, it means the PARAB and
the DARAB. Okay so, any decision of the dar will
be raised to the SAC, the special agrarian court,
The ITC, nasa special agrarian court. But again,
as we have discussed, ingon ng supreme court
dili ni siya appeal to the RTC, it is an original
action. Kung mag decide si RTC, that issue on
just compensation, asa man nato i appeal? Didto
nato i appeal sa court of appeals gihapon, but
the mode of review is rule 42. Rule 42 which i
commended before, is actually a mode of review
for decisions of the RT rendered in it is appellate
jurisdiction. Here we’re talking about the original
jurisdiction of the RTC. Anyway, that’s the law
which says Rule 42.
Okay, special jurisdiction. RTC acting as a family
court. Asa man nato i appeal? Court of appeals
gihapon under rule 41 because it’s in the
exercise of the RTC’s Original Jurisdiction. Rule
41, notice of appeal.
Pure questions of law. If the RTC decided, in the
exercise of Its Original Jurisdiction, and you want
to appeal that decision, and you are raising
purely questions of law, where do you appeal
and what is the mode of appeal? Do you still
remember? Be daw beh, kung nakaremember ba
mo ato. Pila kani gibalik?
Angeles?
“Ma’am?”
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 129
Asa man na siya? RTC decided a case in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction. Then, we
would like to appeal involves only questions of
law. Where do you appeal? Hm, we discussed
that before. I’d just like to know kung
nakaremember ba mo.
“Uh, ano ma’am, if it involves questions of law
ma’am it appeals to the court of appeals ma’am.”
Are you sure?
“Uh, yes ma’am.”
It says oh, naa diri sa table nato, the mode of
review’s petition for review is under rule 45. Rule
45 is appeal to the supreme court.
“Uh, what I thought of ma’am was the hierarchy
to be followed.”
Yes, there is no hierarchy to be followed here
because, okay I’ll repeat ha.
Decisions rendered by the RTC, in the exercise
of its ORIGINAL jurisdiction, and you would like
to appeal that decision, raising only questions of
law, appeal is DIRECTLY to the supreme court.
We discussed this under the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Okay, appeal
is directly to the supreme court, under Rule 45.
But, if the RTC, even if the RTC exercised its
original jurisdiction, so meaning a case is filed for
the first time for the RTC, and then in the
decision, you are appealing, you want to appeal
that decision, raising questions of facts, or mixed
questions of facts and law, you appeal to the?
Asa man? Diri ta oh, kani diri. Makita ninyo ang
cursor? Makita ba ang cursor sa screen?
pointing to:
Original jurisdiction
Ordinary Appeal
Rule 41
“Yes ma’am”
Diri ta, original jurisdiction, ordinary appeal under
rule 41, to the court of appeals. Kung questions
of facts or mixed questions of facts and laws.
Kung diri ta, appellate jurisdiction, the RTC, so
gikan sa MTC, ang appeal sa RTC.
Now gikan sa RTC, gusto napud ka mu appeal
raising purely questions of law. Asa man ka mag
appeal? Kani ha, in the exercise of the RTC’s
appellate jurisdiction. And then we would like to
appeal on that decision raising purely questions
of law. Asa ka mag appeal? Sa court of appeals.
Dili sa supreme court. Nganong dili man sa
supreme court? Because we’re talking of a
decision rendered by the RTC in the exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction.
Kay, katong sa supreme court deretso, purely
questions of law, kato siyang decision
surrendered by the RTC in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction. Pure questions of law. Okay,
do not be confused. Na gets ninyo? Well, wala
nato siya i exam kung nagets pa gid ninyo. Okay,
so let’s have a break first for 10 minutes.
PART 2
59:57-1:03:46 Gennard
When I say MTC, this is a generic term for the
courts of this level: Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, and Metropolitan Trial Court.
JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Among all the courts, it is only the MTC whose
subject matter jurisdiction is wholly ORIGINAL.
Its original jurisdiction, however, can be
EXCLUSIVE or CONCURRENT under the
current state of the law and the rules.
The MTC has no appellate jurisdiction because it
is the first level court.
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
BP Blg. 129
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall
exercise:
1.
Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil
actions and probate proceedings, testate and
intestate, including the grant of provisional
remedies in proper cases, where the value of
the personal property, estate, or amount of the
demand does not exceed Three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000) or, in Metro
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 130
Manila where such personal property, estate,
or amount of the demand does not exceed
Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000),
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and
costs, the amount of which must be specifically
alleged: provided, that 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 the causes of
action, irrespective of whether the causes of
action arose out of the same or different
transaction;
The last part of this provision (underlined
portion,) we’re talking here of the joinder of
causes of actions. We have not arrived to that
topic yet, but when we say joinder:
1:03:47-1:07:34
Halimbawa daghag utang si A sa imoha nay
100,000, 200,000, ug 300,000 tanan sila due and
demandable. Ofcourse gusto nimo isahun lang
ang kaso na i-file kay A. Naay tulo ka utang si A
and each utang is separate and distinct from the
others. Kung i-file na nimo tanan against kay A
musobra siya sa threshold so RTC jud na siya,
pero kung isa-isahun nimo siya kay MTC ra. If
you file these cases against A and there's a
proper joinder of action ang basis sa Jurisdiction
kay ang total na claim nimo kay A. Or maybe
there's a joinder of parties, like mufile kag case
kay A, B, and C. There are requisite if mufile kag
joinder of parties kung kanu-a pwde I join nimo
ang parties in the same case. If ang claim nimo
kay A kay 100,000, kay B is 200,000, and kay C
is 300,000. If i-file nimo ug nag isa-isa dili ka maabot sa RTC kay MTC ra ka, pero if proper ang
joinder sa parties i-file nimo ang case against all
of them in 1 case kay A, B, and C the basis of
jurisdiction kay ang the totality of your claim
against A, B, and C so RTC na siya. That’s the
concept of the last paragraph when there's a
proper joinder of cause of action or if joinder of
parties, the totality of claims of all the cause of
action shall be the basis of the determination
which court has jurisdiction.
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of
forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided,
that when, in such cases, the defendant raises
the question of ownership in his pleadings and
the question of possession cannot be resolved
without deciding the issue of ownership, the
issue of ownership shall be resolved only to
determine the issue of possession.
Now as I said, in these cases, regardless of the
assessed value of the property MTC jud na siya.
And theses cases ang issue lang kay possession
de facto not ownership, however, the defendant
may raise the question of ownership in his
pleadings. Would that change the nature of the
case? Dli gihapon. Dli siya determanitive kung
kinsa ang owner. Still ang issue lang gihapon
ang possession. Pwde i-determine ang issue of
ownership per only in so far as to determine who
is entitled to the possession.
1:07:34 – 1:11:21 Derogongan
… and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership,
the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to
determine the issue of possession.
Meaning, dili siya gihapon mi imong
determinative kung kinsa tinuod pud na owner.
Still ang issue lagi diha is the possession. Pwede
na to idetermine ang issue of ownership but only
insofar as to determine the issue of possession.
in fact, the issue of possession resolved by the
MTC to determine the issue of possession,
forcible entry, unlawful detainer case will not be
res judicata regarding the ownership. It still can
be raised in another action precisely for that
purpose to question the ownership. Because lahi
na siya na issue, ang ownership. It is not the
subject matter, it is not the controversy in an
unlawful detainer or forcible entry.
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil
actions which involve title to, or possession of,
real property, or any interest therein where the
assessed value of the property or interest
therein does not exceed Twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such assessed value does not
exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and
costs; Provided, That in cases of land not
declared for tax purposes, the value of such
property shall be determined by the assessed
value of the adjacent lots. (as amended by RA
7691)
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 131
Katong number 1 na exclusive jurisdiction, talks
of personal actions, katong magbase sa value ng
property na P300,000, P400,000. 2nd category,
forcible entry and unlawful detainer case, wala
tay pakialam sa value ng property. 3rd situation or
category, real actions. In real actions, we are
just talking about accion provinciana and accion
reinvidicatoria. Here, kung dili siya sa RTC,
MTC. Kung does not exceed P20,000, outside
MM, MTC. If it does not exceed P50,000 in MM,
MTC.
Take note of exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses and costs. Dili nato siya apilon sa
computation. Dito lang ta maglimit sa assessed
value of the land, walay apil ang claim for
damages if that is a real action.
How do we … assessed value? Naa pud diri.
Based sa tax declaration. Kung for example,
walay tax declaration, pwede pud siya idetermine
based on assessed value of the adjacent lots.
Section 33 Simplified
1. Civil actions where the amount of the
demand does not exceed P300,000 or
P400,000 in MM;
2. Civil actions where the value of the
personal property does not exceed
P300,000 or P400,000 in MM;
3. Probate proceedings where the value
of the estate does not exceed
P300,000 or P400,000 in MM;
4. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer
cases; and
5. Real actions where the assessed
value of the property or interest therein
does not exceed P20,000.00 or,
P50,000.00 in MM.
Sec. 33. Mao ni siya ang actions within the
jurisdiction, exclusive and original of the MTC.
Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are personal actions.
Though no. 3 is a special proceeding. Ang
procedure sa no. 3 dili na siya sa civil procedure,
special proceeding ni siya but we are just talking
about jurisdiction, ang threshold amount is
P300,000.
No. 4 and 5 are real actions. In no. 4, we don’t
care about the assessed value of the property.
1:11:21 – 1:15:08 - LUCMAN
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL
Rule 71, Section 5. Where charge to be filed.
– Where the charge for indirect contempt has
been committed against a Regional Trial Court or
a court of equivalent or higher rank, or against an
officer appointed by it, the charge may be filed
with such court. Where such contempt has been
committed against a lower court, the charge may
be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the place
in which the lower court sitting; but the
proceedings may also be instituted in such lower
court subject to appeal to the Regional Trial
Court of such place in the same manner as
provided in Section 11 of this Rule. (4a; Bar
Matter No. 803, July 21, 1998)
RA 9262, SEC. 10. Where to Apply for a
Protection Order. – Applications for BPOs shall
follow the rules on venue under Section 409 of
the Local Government Code of 1991 and its
implementing rules and regulations. An
application for a TPO or PPO may be filed in the
regional trial court, metropolitan trial court,
municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court
with territorial jurisdiction over the place of
residence of the petitioner: Provided, however,
that if a family court exists in the place of
residence of the petitioner, the application shall
be filed with that court.
SPECIAL JURISDICTION
BP 129, SECTION 35. Special jurisdiction in
certain cases. – In the absence of all the
Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any
Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge,
Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and
decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or
applications for bail in criminal cases in the
province or city where the absent Regional Trial
Judges sit.
DELEGATED JURISDICTION
Section 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in
Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be
assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and
determine cadastral or land registration cases
covering lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots where the value of
which does not exceed One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be
ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by
agreement of the respective claimants if there
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 132
are more than one, or from the corresponding tax
declaration of the real property. Their decisions
in these cases shall be appealable in the same
manner as decisions of the Regional Trial
Courts. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)
We also discussed this delegated jurisdiction of
the MTC. Katong cadastral and land registration
cases, ang jurisdiction gyud ana is with the RTC
but pwedeng i-delegate ni RTC didto kang MTC.
Now kung mag-decide si MTC in that case,
pwede sya i-appeal dili sa RTC but didto sa
Court of Appeals kay technically kay RTC gyud
sya na case gi-delegate lang didto kay MTC.
speak of damages as an incident to a main
action, like action for collection of a sum of
money and then with claim for damages,
attorney’s fees, the only basis is the action for
collection of a sum of money. We don’t include
the damages, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, costs of suit, etc.
But if you have several claims against one
person, or daghan kag gipang-file-an ug kaso,
the totality of those claims, those main claims of
yours, shall be the basis of the determination of
jurisdiction.
Do not be confused.
•
•
By process of elimination, if such civil actions
or probate proceedings do not fall within the
jurisdiction of the RTC based on the amount
of the claim or value of personal property,
then jurisdiction will belong to the MTCs.
Take note that “interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, and costs” are excluded in
determining jurisdiction. However, they are
included in the determination of the filing or
docket fees to be paid. (That is if the main
action is not for damages like, again, claim
for sum of money, or claim for specific
performance or rescission but with damages
so we do not consider the interest, damages,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and
costs in the determination of the jurisdiction,
only the main action).
TOTALITY RULE
Last part of Section 33(1)
“Where there are several claims or causes of
actions 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 the causes of action, irrespective of whether
the causes of action arose out of the same or
different transactions.”
Example:
Pia filed a case before the Manila RTC against
Maja on the following causes of action:
FIRST, to collect on a loan which fell due on
January 14, 2020 in the amount of PHP
150,000.00 plus interest on such loan in the
amount of PHP 20,000.00;
SECOND, to collect on a loan which fell due on
August 15, 2020 in the amount of PHP
200,000.00 plus interest on such loan in the
amount of PHP 40,000.00;
THIRD, because Maja compelled her to litigate
instead of just paying the debt, Pia claimed
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in the
total amount of PHP 100,000.00; and
FOURTH, because Maja’s failure to pay caused
her serious anxiety, Pia also included a claim for
moral damages in the amount of PHP
200,000.00.
Recitation Questions:
Was the case properly filed before the RTC?
What is the basis in determining jurisdiction?
|| 01:18:56
1:18:55- 1:22:42 (Seruela)
Fourth. Because Maja’s failure to pay caused
her serious anxiety. Pia also included claim for
moral damages in the amount of P200,000.00.
December 16
(01:15:06-01:18:55) by Cuartero
The basis of the jurisdiction shall be the total
amount of the demand.
This is different from damages because when we
Ma’am: Was the case properly filed before the
RTC?
What is the basis in determining
jurisdiction?
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 133
Student: On the assessed value
Ma’am: But we are not talking of a land here.
What kind of action is this?
Student: Specific performance:
Ma’am: Based on the subject matter, what is the
nature of that action?
Student: Personal action
Ma’am: personal action as opposed to real
action. When you say personal action, it does
involve real property, title, possession, or
interest. When you say personal action it could
also be capable of pecuniary estimation or
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Is this
capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation?
Student: Because it is an action for collection of
money, it is capable of pecuniary estimation.
Ma’am: it is very capable of pecuniary
estimation, you are collecting a loan. Even if it is
also actually a specific performance, but it is
capable because you are demanding a sum of
money. If you remember the case of Remarkable
laundry v Pajares, where he invoked the penal
clause in the contract “Laundry Services”. Even if
the plaintiff invoking enforcement of a contract,
so specific performance which is supposed to be
incapable of pecuniary estimation, but he was
claiming the liquidated damages mention in that
contract. So it still for a sum of money which is
capable of pecuniary estimation. Look at what is
claimed in the case, if there is amount or money
involved or if there is a property involved. Is it
measurable in terms of money. If it is a property,
is it personal or real property. So we are now
settled that it is a personal action and capable of
pecuniary estimation. Now, what is the total
amount of claim that will be used in determining
jurisdiction?
Student: the total amount is P350,000.00. the
total amount P150,000 in addition the
P250,000.00 excluding the interest.
Ma’am: So you apply the Totality Rule, that there
are actually two loans here being collected by
Pia against Maja, the P150,000.00 and the
P250,000.00, so the totality rule.
1:22:42-1:26:29 (Espuerta)
…. So the totality rule and then we also apply the
rule na if the main action is not for damages, so
the computation, insofar the determination of the
jurisdiction is concerned, will exclude the
damages, interest, penalties, attorney’s fees.
Iexclude siya. So take note ha, in the
determination of jurisdiction, excluded ni sila.
Pero in the determination of docket fees, kanang
bayaran nimo inig file, apil na sila sa
computation. Sa jurisdiction lang na sila walay
apil. Okay, so which court has jurisdiction here?
Recit Answer: MTC (Municipal Trial Court). It did
not exceed the 400k threshold and the case is in
Manila RTC.
Threshold is 400k, outside metro manila, it could
have been with the RTC because it exceeds
300k, but this is in metro manila
Adding everything up, Pia’s total claims against
Maja amounted to P710,000.00.
Maja filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case.
Should the court grant or deny the motion to
dismiss?
Okay so, here, its not 710k, but its only 350k,
which is the basis in determining the jurisdiction
of the court.
We exclude in the computation this interest,
damages, attorneys fees and litigation expneses,
although we add the amounts of debt no.1 and
debt. No2. So it is only 350k.
So, does the RTC have jurisdiction?
NO
Remember that the complain is filed in
Metro Manila, which means that the total claim
should be more than P400,000.00 for the same
to be cognizable by the RTC
Because Pia’s total claim is only
P350,000.00, the case should have been filed
before the MeTC. Maja’s motion to dismiss
should be granted.
So this already the answer to your…
Take note that:
Recall that under ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR NO. 09-94, the exclusion of
damages of whatever kind applies only to cases
where the damages are merely incidental to or a
consequence of the main cause of action.
However, in cases where the claim for
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 134
damages is the main cause of action, or one of
the causes of action, the amount of such claim
shall be considered in determining the
jurisdiction of the court.
So, please remember the totality rule and the
exlusion of damages, and etc.
SPS. PAJARES vs. REMARKABLE LAUNDRY
GR No 212690, February 20, 2017
A complaint primarily seeking to enforce
the accessory obligation contained in the penal
clause is actually an action for damages capable
of pecuniary estimation.
Petitioner’s responsibility under the
above penal clause involves the payment of
liquidated damages because under Article 2226
of the Civil Code the amount the parties
stipulated to pay in case of breach are liquidated
damages.
This is a case which we have already discussed.
The case of pajares vs remarkable laundry.
Okay, I, again in this particular case, if you
remember, ang iyang claim is liquidated
damages of 200k pesos base on the clause of
their contract plus naa pa siyay claim na 80k
pesos as attorneys fees. So here, applying the
rule which we have already discussed, if the
claim for damages is merely incidental to a main
action, the claim for damages will not be included
in the determination of jurisdiction. But if it just a
claim purely for damages, we include all the
computations involved. Here what was claimed
was the liquidated damages stipulated in the
contract. So damages lang. so that’s why we
included also katong attorneys fees iyang
gipangayo. But since 280k lang gihapon, then it
was not in the jurisdiction of the RTC. It was not
in the first place an action, its not incapable of
pecuniary estimation. It is actually capable of
pecuniary estimation. Although they sought to
enforce the contract. They were claiming for
damages, the penal clause. The penalty
mentioned in the contract, liquidated damages.
Purely damages.
1:26:29-1:30:16 - Eborde
Sps. Pajares v Remarkable Laundry (Cont.)
.. We include all the computations
involved. Here, what was claimed was the
liquidated damages stipulated in the
contract. Damages only. That is why we
include also in the computation, the
attorney’s fees. But since 280,000 lang
gihapon, it was not within the jurisdiction
of the RTC. It is not incapable of pecuniary
estimation as they claim. It is actually
capable of pecuniary estimation. Although
they sought to enforce the contract, they
were claiming the damages. They claimed
the penal clause. They claimed the penalty
mentioned in the contract, the liquidated
damages. So purely damages, so we add
the attorney’s fees, still outside gihapon. It
is below the jurisdiction of the RTC.
3 Kinds of Real Actions (Actions referred to
in Section 22, par 2 and 3 of BP 129)
1. Accion Interdictal- this is the only once
within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
2. Accion Publiciana
3. Accion Reivindicatoria
For number 2 and 3, it really depends upon the
assessed value of the property. So only when
20,000 below or 50,000 below if in Metro Manila,
it will fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
MTC.
Again, I already explained to you what makes a
case for Unlawful Detainer and forcible entry.
You also have to be careful here. Because, even
if you claim or if you file a case for unlawful
detainer or forcible entry, mao jud ni ang caption
sa imong case. But sa imong complaint, ang
elements niya, dili siya maconsider as forcible
entry or unlawful detainer. Actually, accion
publiciana kay more than one year na, diha paka
nagfile ug case. So here, kung gifile nimo siya sa
MTC, and it happens, kay kuno lage Forcible
Entry or Unlawful Detainer, gifile nimo sa MTC.
But in reality, it is an Accion Publiciana, swerte
ka kung ang assessed value does not exceed
20,000 kay MTC lang gihapon. Pero kung ang
assessed value diay based sa tax declaration
kay 30,000 unia gifile nimo outside Metro Manila,
walay jurisdiction ang MTC. So the case will be
dismissed. Although, you can always refile sa
proper court. Pwede ka magfile sa RTC pero ang
sakit lang diha is imong docket fees na
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 135
gibayaran , dili na to nimo makuha. Mubayad ka
usab ug docket fees sa RTC. So who’s fault is
that? Sala na sa lawyer dili na sala sa client.
●
ON STATUS OF MTC RULING ON
OWNERSHIP
●
·
In an unlawful detainer case, the
sole issue for resolution is physical or
material possession of the property
involved, independent of any claim of
ownership by any of the parties.
However, where the issue of
ownership is raise, the courts may
pass upon the issue of ownership in
order to determine who has the right to
possess the property.
●
· We stress, however, that this
adjudication is only an initial
determination of ownership for the
purpose of settling the issue of
possession, the issue of ownership
being inseparably linked thereto. The
lower court’s adjudication of ownership
in the ejectment case is merely
provisional and would not bar or
prejudice an action between the same
parties involving title to the property. It
is, therefore, not conclusive as to the
issue of ownership xxx
1:30:16 -1:34:02 Torculas
De Grano vs. Lacaba
G.R. No. 158877, June 16, 2009
The word “possession,” as used in forcible
entry and unlawful detainer cases, means
nothing more than physical possession, not
legal possession in the sense contemplated in
civil law. When the law speaks of possession,
the reference is to prior physical possession or
possession de facto, as contra-distinguished
from possession de jure. Only prior physical
possession, not title, is the issue. Issues as to
the right of possession or ownership thereof
are not involved in the action; evidence thereof
is not admissible, except only for the purpose
of determining the issue of possession.
Ang sakit lang diha is imong docket fees na
imong gibayaran dili na to nimo makuha mo
bayad kag usab og docket fees sa RTC. Kinsa
man ng sala, sala na sa lawyer dili na sala sa
client kay malay ba na sa client kung kinsa ang
court na naay jurisdiction kung kabalo pa na siya
wala nalang ta ka niya gi hire.
So well you have to know the jurisdiction.
Dapat kabalo ka kung kinsa nay jurisdiction
that’s why as discussed in the case of De Grano
vs. Lacaba so also kung for example ang
imohang case is forcible entry and unlawful
detainer pero ultimately kung basahon nimo ang
complaint your claiming ownership over the
property so you want to recover ownership pero
imong go caption lang nimo sa title kay unlawful
detainer or forcible entry dili pud na siya in reality
ejectment case is actually a reivindicatory action,
action reinvidicatoria so again ang basis in
determing jurisdiction is the assessed value of
the property dili siya automatically MTC or RTC
depende sa assessed value sa property.
Cabrera vs. Getaruela, et. Al.
G.R. No. 164213, April 21, 2009
So just read this case of Cabrera vs. Getaruela.
Just for you to know kung unsa ng mga
ejectment cases for you to know nga kini sila
within the jurisdiction of the MTC so the issue
again is possession.
As I said even if the issue of ownership is raised
by the defendant maybe in an action for
ejectments when you said ejectment that is the
generic term used for action interdictal, forcible
entry and unlawful detainer.
But if it is just to determine the issue of
possession naa gihapon na siya sa jurisdiction of
the MTC and even if the MTC will touch on the
issue of ownership to resolve the issue of
possession it will not be considered rest judicata
the lower courts adjudication of ownership in the
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 136
ejectment case is merely provisional and would
not barred or prejudiced an action between the
same parties so bisag the same parties ha
involving title to the property so in an ejectments
suit forcible entry or unlawful detainer the
decision or the determination by the court as to
ownership is not conclusive. It will not bar as to
for determination of ownership.
Jurisdiction if Ejectment Suit is not
possible
A mere ejectment suit may not be the
proper remedy cognizable by the MTCs in at
least two situations:
regard to technical rules. Such simplified
procedures may provide that affidavits and
counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of
oral testimony and that the periods for filing
pleadings shall be non-extendible.
The rules on summary procedure is different
from the ordinary rules on civil procedure which
we will discuss starting from Rule 1 so lahi pud
ng Revised Rules on Summary Procedure they
are the rules applicable in the MTCs only and for
specific actions like an action for forcible entry
and unlawful detainer governed na sila by the
Rules on Summary Procedure but we will also
discuss the small claims kay nay mga cases
before nga under the rules on summary
procedure per okay covered na pud sila sa small
claims so unsa man atong gamiton na rule.
1.
The action was not brought in the
proper Municipal Trial Court within one year
from date of actual entry on the land or from
the date of last demand to vacate. Take
note that an action to recover by mere
accion interdictal prescribes in 1 year;
2.
The assessed value of the property
may not be within the jurisdiction of the
MTC and the action was not brought within
one year.
Summary Procedure
Section 36. Summary procedures in special
cases. – In Metropolitan Trial Courts and
Municipal Trial Courts with at least two
branches, the Supreme Court may designate
one or more branches thereof to try exclusively
forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases,
those involving violations of traffic laws, rules
and regulations, violations of the rental law,
and such other cases requiring summary
disposition as the Supreme Court shall adopt
special rules or procedures applicable to such
cases in order to achieve an expeditious and
inexpensive determination thereof without
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 137
January 5, 2021- RECORDED LECTURE
DISCUSSION: These are applicable in MTCs, walay
summary procedure sa RTC, CA and SC.
00:00-07:18
We will only discuss the civil cases.
Summary Procedure
Section 36. Summary procedures in special
cases. – In Metropolitan Trial Courts and
Municipal Trial Courts with at least two branches,
the Supreme Court may designate one or more
branches thereof to try exclusively forcible entry
and unlawful detainer cases, those involving
violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations,
violations of the rental law, and such other cases
requiring summary disposition as the Supreme
Court shall adopt special rules or procedures
applicable to such cases in order to achieve an
expeditious and inexpensive determination
thereof without regard to technical rules. Such
simplified procedures may provide that affidavits
and counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of
oral testimony and that the periods for filing
pleadings shall be non-extendible.
DISCUSSION: Sec. 36 is the substantive law which
provides for the summary procedure in cases before
the MTCs. Later we will discuss the rule itself which
was promulgated by the SC pursuant to Sec. 36 BP
129. That will be the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure. This is the basis.
TAKE NOTE of the cases covered.
REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE
I. Applicability.
Section 1. Scope. - This shall govern the summary
procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial
Courts and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the
following cases falling within their jurisdiction:
A. Civil Cases:
For NO 1. Take note that we have discussed that all
cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
regardless of the amount of the property claimed,
regardless of the amount of damages, MTC GYUD
NA SYA.
Aside from that, this is covered by the RRSP,
meaning, naa pud regular procedure sa MTC na
pareha og procedure sa RTC. But when it comes to
FE and UD, they are covered by the RRSP, not by
regular rules.
For NO. 2. Take note, nausab na pud ning P10,000 na
threshold. We will discuss in the next slides. All other
civil cases at this time, P10,000 below covered by the
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
For probate proceedings, dili na sya covered, even by
the regular rules. Because and probate proceedings
covered by the Rule on Special Proceedings, not Civil
Procedure.
TAKE NOTE
Section 1. A(2) has already been amended by AM
No. 02-11-09-SC, November 12, 2002, to read as
follows:
- 2. All other cases, except probate proceedings,
where the total amount of the plaintiff’s claim does
not exceed P100,000 or P200,000 in Metropolitan
Manila, exclusive of interest and costs.
DISCUSSION: Kung sa Metro Manila, P200,000 or
less under na sa Summary Rules; outside Metro
Manila P100,000 or less under sa Summary Rules
And take further note:
1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid
rentals sought to be recovered. Where attorney’s
fees are awarded , the same shall not exceed
P20,000.
2. All other civil cases, except probate proceedings,
where the total amount of the plaintiff’s claim does
not exceed P10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Except for forcible entry and unlawful detainer
cases which are still covered by Summary Rules,
this provision is almost irrelevant because money
claims not exceeding P300,000 or P400,000 (in
Metro Manila) are now governed by small claims.
NOTE: Second paragraph of 1a dili na sya relevant.
Why? All these cases supposedly covered by
Summary Rules are now covered and governed by
small claims act. Lahi pud ning procedures sa small
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 138
claims, mas paspas pa gyud ni sa Summary Rules.
Although as we said dili na relevant, still naay cases
governed gihapon by Summary Rules. Forcible Entry
or other claims na dili money claims.
Kate 7:19-14:37
Now, we focus on the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure.
What are the limitations on the summary rules?
Limitation on Summary Rules
This Rule shall not apply to a civil case where the
plaintiffs, cause of action is pleaded in the same
complaint with another cause of action subject to
the ordinary procedure; nor to a criminal case
where the offense charged is necessarily related to
another criminal case subject to the ordinary
procedure. [Section 1(b), last paragraph]
EXAMPLE: Recovery of possession which is not
forcible entry, or which is not unlawful detainer,
because the elements of forcible entry are different.
The entry must be by virtue of force, intimidation,
strategy, threat, or stealth, and the case was filed
within one year from the time of dispossession or
from discovery of unlawful entry if it's by stealth. If
you exceed one year, you can no longer file a case for
forcible entry but you can still file a civil action for
recovery of possession.
Here, the jurisdiction will depend on the assessed
value of the property. If it is 20,000 or less outside
Metro Manila, it is with the MTC, but it is governed
by the regular rules but not the summary rules. If the
value of the property is 50,000 or less in Metro
Manila, it is still with the MTC. But again, not covered
by the Summary Rules.
If aside from the recovery of possession, you still
have a cause of action governed by the Summary
rules, the Rules say that the summary rules will not
apply but ordinary rules and subject to ordinary
procedure, nor to a criminal case where the offense
charged is necessarily related to another criminal
case subject to the ordinary procedure.
How will we determine if the summary rules would
be applicable to the case?
Sec. 2. Determination of applicability. — Upon the
filing of a civil or criminal action, the court shall
issue an order declaring whether or not the case
shall be governed by this Rule. A patently
erroneous determination to avoid the application
of the Rule on Summary Procedure is a ground for
disciplinary action.
When you file a case, for example a forcible entry
case, your pleading will be just like the ordinary
pleading. The caption of the case, the heading, it's
just "Municipal Trial Court". Of course you did not
put: "This is governed by the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure". You just make an ordinary
pleading. It is already the court which will declare in
the order whether or not it will be covered by the
Summary rules.
A patently erroneous determination to avoid the
application of the Rule on Summary Procedure is a
ground for disciplinary action, meaning disciplinary
action in the court because they will be determining
what rule shall be followed. If they avoid it in court,
it's a ground for disciplinary action and the judge may
be held administratively liable.
REQUIREMENTS RE: PLEADINGS
II. Civil Cases
Sec. 3. Pleadings. —
A. Pleadings, allowed. — The only pleadings
allowed to be filed are the complaints, compulsory
counterclaims, and cross-claims pleaded in the
answer, and the answers thereto.
B. Verifications. — All pleadings shall be verified.
These are the only pleadings allowed:
●
Complaints
a pleading where the plaintiff recites his causes of
actions; here in his complaint, he recites the
elements of a cause of action; when you say cause of
action, you will allege what your rights are and what
the obligations of the defendant are in relation to
your rights, and what are the violations of your right
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 139
were committed by the defendant, and what
damages you suffered are by virtue of the violation of
your right and the relief you are seeking from the
court; that will be the content of the complaint
●
Compulsory counterclaims
For example, the plaintiff and complainant filed the
case, the defendant is the one against whom the case
is filed and directed to answer the complaint; the
defendant will file the answer, and in his answer, he
will negate or refute the allegations of the plaintiff; if
the defendant feels that the case filed against him is
unsubstantiated, unjustified, baseless, or malicious,
he has the right to ask for damages because of the
wrongful accusation and wrongful filing of a case
against him because he was harassed, he will suffer
damages, he will have to hire a lawyer, the time,
effort, and sleeplessness, so in that Answer, the
defendant can also allege a counterclaim; it is
"compulsory" counterclaim because there is also
what we call a "permissive counterclaim".
14:38 to 21:56 MESIONA
● Compulsory counterclaims
Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, only
compulsory counterclaims are allowed. Permissive
counterclaim is not allowed. Basically, a compulsory
counterclaim is one that is related to the complaint
filed against you. For example, because of the
unsubstantiated complaint or baseless complaint
filed by the plaintiff, the defendant suffered
damages. So, those damages, which the defendant
suffered, are necessarily related to the filing of the
complaint. These are what we call compulsory
counterclaims; they should be claimed in the same
action.
Permissive counterclaim, on the other hand, is not
related to the complaint. For example, naningil sa
imo og utang and then naa pud diay siya property
nimo na iyang gi-retain, but you also want to claim
that property by way of counterclaim. That is just
permissive. It does not arise out of the complaint
filed by the plaintiff. So, this is not allowed under the
Rules on Summary Procedure.
● Cross-claims pleaded in the answer
What is a cross-claim? For example, A files case
against X and Y. Nitubag si X, saying “Dili ako ang
liable kundi si Y, the co-defendant.” So, X now also
files a cross-claim against Y. That is what we call a
cross-claim, and that is allowed under the Revised
Rules on Summary Procedure.
●
Answer
Remember these allowed pleadings. Because there
are other pleadings when we go to the Rules of
Court.
Verifications – all pleadings shall be verified.
Meaning under oath siya. What is a verification and
how does it look like? That will be discussed in Rule 7.
But basically, under oath ang verification; you swear
under oath that the facts alleged in the pleading are
based on personal knowledge or based on authentic
records (can be verified based from records; they can
be proved).
Those are the requirements for pleadings under the
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, Sec. 4.
Duty of court. — After the court determines that
the case falls under summary procedure, it may,
from an examination of the allegations therein and
such evidence as may be attached thereto, dismiss
the case outright on any of the grounds apparent
therefrom for the dismissal of a civil action. If no
ground for dismissal is found it shall forthwith
issue summons which shall state that the summary
procedure under this Rule shall apply.
Before the court issues summons (this is the order
from the court to the defendant to file his answer),
the court will first examine the allegations in the
complaint if there is a basis for the outright dismissal
of the case. Kung naa, then i-dismiss and dili na isummons si defendant, dili na siya patubagon. The
case is dismissed. But if there is no ground for
dismissal, then the court shall issue summons. And in
the summons, diha na i-state sa court that the
summary procedure shall apply in the case.
Sec. 5. Answer. — Within ten (10) days from
service of summons, the defendant shall file his
answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof
on the plaintiff. Affirmative and negative defenses
not pleaded therein shall be deemed waived,
except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter. Cross-claims and compulsory
counterclaims not asserted in the answer shall be
considered barred. The answer to counterclaims or
cross-claims shall be filed and served within ten
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 140
(10) days from service of the answer in which they
are pleaded.
Within ten (10) days from service of summons, the
defendant shall file his answer to the complaint and
serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff.
After the court issues summons to the defendant,
either requiring the defendant to answer, there will
be 10 days under the Summary Rules within which
the defendant shall file his answer to the complaint.
If you go beyond the 10 days, naa na siyay
consequence, which we will discuss in the next
sections.
Unsa man buhaton ni defendant? The defendant will
file an answer. How does he file an answer? He will
file his answer by (1) submitting a copy first to the
plaintiff either by personal service or maybe by
registered mail. For example, you gave a copy of the
answer to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff should affix
is signature on the furnished copy of the answer.
And then (2) by filing it in court. Remember that the
court will not accept your answer if it does not show
any proof that a copy of it was served to the plaintiff.
Affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded
therein shall be deemed waived. We will discuss
Affirmative and Negative Defenses more exhaustively
when we go to the Rules of Court. Mao ni sila ang
mga possible defenses ni defendant in his answer.
Affirmative Defenses – meaning you accept the
allegations in the complaint but still you are saying
that you are not liable. For example, it is true that I
have a debt, but the debt has already prescribed,
meaning I will not be held liable for the payment
thereof due to prescription.
Negative Defenses – meaning you are denying it. For
example, I have no debt, nagpataka lang na siya, siya
hinuon ang naay utang sa ako. Basically, you are
refuting the allegations in the complaint.
If those Affirmative and Negative Defenses are not
pleaded in the Answer, they are deemed waived,
meaning you can no longer raise them subsequently.
Wala na. Going back to the prescription example,
kung wala na allege in your answer, then wala na,
you cannot allege that anymore.
EXCEPT for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter. As we have discussed before, jurisdiction is
not subject to waiver, to an agreement of the parties,
to silence, to estoppel. Kung walay jurisdiction ang
court, wala jud siyay jurisdiction. For example, the
case should have been filed before the Regional Trial
Court, but you filed it before the MTC. Of course, the
defendant can always raise the issue of lack of
jurisdiction of the MTC over the subject matter.
Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims not
asserted in the answer shall be considered barred.
So, kung naa ka cross-claim sa imo co-defendant, or
compulsory counterclaim against the plaintiff, then
you should allege that in your Answer. Otherwise, in
the middle of the case dili n aka pwede i-allow sa
court to assert that anymore. The Answer is the only
opportunity to assert a cross-claim and compulsory
counterclaim.
The answer to counterclaims or cross-claims shall be
filed and served within ten (10) days from service of
the answer in which they are pleaded.
21:57 – 29:15
So, for example you are the plaintiff, you received an
answer with compulsory counterclaim filed by the
defendant. Then, you also want to answer it, kay
nagpataka lang ni si defendant. Your answer to the
counterclaim should be filed and served within 10 day
also from the time you received the answer of the
defendant.
Cross-claim also, so if you’re the defendant and you
received a cross-claim from the other defendant. Like
my example that A filed a case against X and Y and
then, X filed an answer with cross-claim against Y
saying that, “it was actually Y that is liable and not me
(X)”. So, Y here has 10 days from service of the
answer to him within which to file his answer to the
cross-claim.
We will discuss this further when we reach the Rules
of Court, more exhaustively. My intention here is just
to give you an overview of the matter.
Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer. — Should the
defendant fail to answer the complaint within the
period above provided, the court, motu proprio, or
on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as
may be warranted by the facts alleged in the
complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein:
Provided, however, that the court may in its
discretion reduce the amount of damages and
attorney's fees claimed for being excessive or
otherwise unconscionable. This is without prejudice
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 141
to the applicability of Section 4, Rule 15 of the
Rules of Court, if there are two or more
defendants.
Q: Now, what if the defendant failed to answer the
complaint? What will happen?
A: Section 6 says that the court, motu proprio, which
means the court on its own without any motion from
the plaintiff or on motion of the plaintiff. The court may
also wait if there is any motion from the plaintiff.
Q: What is that motion?
A: A motion that will pray for the court to render
judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged
from the complaint and limited to what is prayed for
therein.
For example, the complaint is for forcible entry, and
the defendant did not answer. Then, the court on its
own or by motion of the plaintiff, the court will rule, will
decide, or render a decision. Of course, because the
defendant did not answer, the decision of the court will
be based on the facts alleged in the complaint and is
only limited to what is prayed for in the complaint. Of
course, the court cannot go beyond prayers - the
issues raised in the complaint.
Provided that the court may in its discretion reduce the
amount of damages and attorney's fees claimed for
being excessive or otherwise unconscionable. So, the
court cannot go beyond what is prayed for in the
complaint but can actually also award less than what
is prayed for in the complaint. This is without prejudice
to the applicability of Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of
Court, if there are two or more defendants. Because it
is possible that defendant X filed his answer, but Y did
not file. So, what will happen? Meaning, as far as Y is
concerned, he did not file his answer. So, the court
may rule based on the allegations in the complaint.
Now, TAKE NOTE that in the Revised Rules of
Summary Procedure there is NO DEFAULT or order
of default. Because in the ordinary/regular rules under
the Rules of Court, if the defendant did not file an
answer, he can be declared in default. So, although
they have the same effect because if you are
defaulted the court may render judgment or require
you to present evidence if you are the plaintiff. But
here, there is no default or order of default in the
Rules of Summary Procedure, the court will
immediately render a decision based on the
allegations raised in the complaint.
Sec.
7.
parties. — Not later than thirty (30) days after the
last answer is filed, a preliminary conference shall
be held. The rules on pre-trial in ordinary cases
shall be applicable to the preliminary conference
unless inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the
preliminary conference shall be a cause for the
dismissal of his complaint. The defendant who
appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be
entitled to judgment on his counterclaim in
accordance with Section 6 hereof. All cross-claims
shall be dismissed.
Section 7 – this presupposes that the defendant has
an answer. So, there was a complaint filed, the
defendant was summoned and the defendant
answered. So, not later than thirty (30) days after the
last answer is filed - last answer is filed meaning
kapila ba diay mag answer? For example, there are a
lot of defendants. It is possible that these defendants
will not file their answers at the same time. So, after
the last answer is filed, a preliminary conference shall
be held.
Q: What is a preliminary conference?
A: It is like a pre-trial.
So, under the Rules on Pre-trial, you will discuss what
are the facts admitted; what are the issues; who are
the witnesses; what are the documentary
requirements that you must present; is there a
possibility of an amicable settlement – that is
essentially pre-trial.
The rules on pre-trial in ordinary cases shall be
applicable to the preliminary conference unless
inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
NOW, THIS IS IMPORTANT.
Q: What happens if the plaintiff fails to appear in a
preliminary conference?
A: It is a cause for a dismissal of his complaint.
Q: How about if it is the defendant?
A: The defendant who appears in the absence of the
plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on his
counterclaim in accordance with Section 6 hereof. All
cross-claims shall be dismissed.
So, again the scenario is that the plaintiff is absent, but
the defendant is present. So, the court will dismiss the
complaint of the plaintiff.
Preliminary conference; appearance of
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 142
It is okay if the defendant has no counter-claim, the
case is already closed.
Q: But what if the defendant has counterclaim?
Should the court dismiss the counterclaim of the
defendant because the plaintiff did not appear?
A: No, that would not be fair. So, what will happen if
there is a counterclaim from the defendant, he shall be
entitled to a judgment on his counterclaim in
accordance with Section 6.
29:16-36:34
Meaning, the court will read the allegations in the
counterclaim of the defendant. Base from that,
the court will render judgment on the
counterclaim.
The rule in cross-claim is different. All crossclaims should be dismissed. Because here, the
basis of the cross-claim is the existence of the
complaint. Kung ma dismiss ang complaint, wala
nay basis ang cross-claim.
For example:
A filed a case against X and Y for collection.
There are two defendants. Now, X, in his
answer, interposes a cross-claim against Y, X
says na tinuod nan aa jud utang pero dili ako ang
liable kundi si Y.
Now, if the complaint of A is dismissed because
he failed to appear in the preliminary conference.
Unsa pa ang basis sa cross-claim ni X against
Y? Ngano pabayaron pa man ni X si Y didto kay
A if in the first place, A’s complaint was already
dismissed? So, all cross-claims shall be
dismissed. However, ang counterclaim, pwede
gihapon mag proceed.
If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the
plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment in
accordance with Section 6 hereof. This Rule
shall not apply where one of two or more
defendants sued under a common cause of
action who had pleaded a common defense
shall appear at the preliminary conference.
What if the defendant is the one who failed to
appear during the preliminary conference?
What is the consequence?
The plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment in
accordance with Section 6 hereof.
So ang effect ana kay pareho lang gihapon sa
defendant na wala nag file ug answer. Even if
you file an answer but you failed to appear
during the preliminary conference, the plaintiff
shall be entitled to judgment.
This Rule shall not apply where one of two or
more defendants sued under a common cause of
action who had pleaded a common defense shall
appear at the preliminary conference.
The same as we have discussed before, for
example, common ang defenses ni X and Y, the
two defendants in the case filed by A, even if Y
failed to appear during the preliminary
conference, the court cannot directly render a
judgment because X appeared. The court cannot
render a judgment against Y because it will also
affect X because they are sued under a common
cause of action. So, the court will proceed with
the case. The court cannot yet render a
judgment even if one of the defendants does not
appear during the preliminary conference
because there is a common defense between
the two defendants. The court has to hear what
the defendants have to say and trial shall
proceed.
Sec. 8. Record of preliminary conference.
— Within five (5) days after the termination of
the preliminary conference, the court shall
issue an order stating the matters taken up
therein, including but not limited to:
–
(a) Whether the parties have
arrived at an amicable settlement, and
if so, the terms thereof;
–
(b) The stipulations or admissions
entered into by the parties;
–
(c) Whether, on the basis of the
pleadings and the stipulations and
admissions made by the parties,
judgment may be rendered without the
need of further proceedings, in which
event the judgment shall be rendered
within thirty (30) days from issuance of
the order;
–
(d) A clear specification of material
facts which remain controverted; and
–
(e) Such other matters intended to
expedite the disposition of the case.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 143
Discussion: This is just an order issued by the
court summarizing what happened during the
preliminary conference. The court will state what
are the matters taken up. (a)-(e) are the contents
of the record of preliminary conference.
MAIN FEATURE OF SUMMARY RULES
Sec. 9.
Submission of affidavits and
position papers. — Within ten (10) days from
receipt of the order mentioned in the next
preceding section, the parties shall submit the
affidavits of their witnesses and other evidence
on the factual issues defined in the order,
together with their position papers setting forth
the law and the facts relied upon by them.
Discussion: When the case is covered by the
summary rules, there is no full-blown trial unlike
in ordinary cases.
witnesses.
36:35-43:53
So, kanang affidavit of witnesses mao na na siya
ang statement as to the factual issues involved.
Documents. If naa pud kay documents such as
mga certifications and contracts that need to be
attached, i-attach pud nimo na siya sa imuhang
position paper. So, that is how you comply with
this rule which is the submission of affidavits and
position papers.
Sec. 10. Rendition of judgment. - Within
thirty (30) days after the receipt of the last
affidavits and position papers, or the expiration
of the period for filing the same, the court shall
render judgment.
DISCUSSION: So, mas paspas siy diba kay
position papers lang and affidavits and then,
decision dayon.
What will you do?
In summary rules, you will submit a position
paper. A position paper is like a complaint with a
heading and a caption. But in position paper, you
have to state that you have timely submitted the
position paper, 10 days from the receipt of the
order requiring you to submit position paper. You
also have to state the facts of the case; the
statement of the case; the summary of the case
from the filing of the case until the issuance of
the order requiring the parties to submit position
papers; the issues involve; the arguments or
your discussion. Mao na siya ang itsura sa
position paper.
But of course, in your position paper, you have
factual issues and not only legal issues.
Sometimes, even the legal issues would also
depend on the factual issues kay kung wala mo
nagkasinabot unsa ang state of facts so you
have to prove pa kung unsa ang state of facts.
Based on the state of facts which were proved,
diha pa ta mag interpret kung unsa ang
applicable law. Unlike kung walay contest or
issue as to the facts, so legal lang tanan atong
mga arguments.
If there are factual issues involved, how can we
prove the factual issues na dili man kaya fullblown trial? We don’t have direct examination,
cross-examination. That is when your position
paper should be supported by affidavits of
Continuation of Sec. 10
However should the court find it necessary to
clarify certain material facts, it may, during the
said period, issue an order specifying the
matters to be clarified, and require the parties
to submit affidavits or other evidence on the
said matters within ten (10) days from receipt
of said order.
DISCUSSION: So, kung kulangan pa ang court,
pwede siya magrequire ug additional affidavits of
document.
Continuation of Sec. 10
Judgment shall be rendered within fifteen (15)
days after the receipt of the last clarificatory
affidavits, or the expiration of the period for
filing the same.
DISCUSSION: For example, walay gi file ang
party required.
Continuation of Sec. 10
The court shall not resort to the clarificatory
procedure to gain time for the rendition of the
judgment. XXX
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 144
DISCUSSION: Mag-atik-atik lang si court na sige
magclarificatory pa ta when in fact di pa diay siya
ready na magrender of judgment within 30 days.
So, that is also a ground for disciplinary action.
COMMON PROVISION
Sec. 18. Referral to Lupon.
— Cases
requiring referral to the Lupon for conciliation
under the provisions of Presidential Decree
No. 1508 where there is no showing of
compliance with such requirement, shall be
dismissed without prejudice and may be
revived only after such requirement shall have
been complied with. This provision shall not
apply to criminal cases where the accused
was arrested without a warrant.
DISCUSSION: There’s a common provision and
this also applies in ordinary procedure in the
regular procedure.
Referral to Lupon. There are case man gud (I
don’t know if you discuss this in your criminal
procedure kay naa man pud criminal cases na
covered by the barangay conciliation) so naay
mga civil cases na before you can file them in
court dapat ni agi sa ka ug barangay conciliation
and you have to attach to your complaint
application to file action. So, kung walay ing-ana,
walay certification to file an action because there
was no prior referral of case to the lupon, it’s a
ground for the dismissal of the case.
But the dismissal is without prejudice meaning
pwede pa na siya ma revive kung makita na
nagcomply na ka sa requirement for barangay
conciliation. We will discuss this also when we
go to the regular rules because this is actually a
defense for failure to comply with the condition
precedent. It’s an affirmative defense. Again, just
understand kung unsa ng prior referral to the
Lupon.
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions.
— The following pleadings, motions or
petitions shall not be allowed in the cases
covered by this Rule
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to
quash the complaint or information except
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter, or failure to comply with
the preceding section;
DISCUSSION: So, kaning motion to dismiss mao
ni siya sa civil case.
Motion to Quash. This refers to a criminal case.
So, generally, when the defendant receives the
summon from the court requiring him to file his
answer, dapat magfile siya ug answer. He
cannot file a motion to dismiss because that is
not allowed. Unless, if the ground for motion to
dismiss, as we discussed, is lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter because this is not
subject to waiver, to estoppel, to silence ,or
failure to comply with the preceding section
katong referral to the lupon for that is also a
ground for the dismissal of the case. Pwede ka
magmotion to dismiss based on that ground.
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
DISCUSSION: You cannot file a motion for a bill
of particulars. This will also be discussed in the
Rules of Court.
Question: Unsa man nang bill of particulars?
Answer: Basically, kung ikaw si defendant and
then you are require to file your answer pero
naay matters in the complaint na dili klaro.
Although, naay sufficient allegation of a cause of
action in the complaint pero naay details na dili
ka katubag ug tarong kung dili nimo to ma clarify
so, kana ang motion for a bill of particulars.
You’re just asking the plaintiff to make more
particular or certain the allegations in the
complaint. Klaruhon lang niya kung unsa tong
iyahang allegations in the complaint.
But that is not allowed under the Rules of
Summary Procedure kay makadugay ni siya sa
kaso. Summary meaning mas paspas to
expedite the resolution of the case. So, bawal ni
siya nga mga motions.
(c) Motion for new trial, or for
reconsideration of a judgment, or for
opening of trial;
DISCUSSION: Here, kung nagrender na ug
judgment si court in a case which is covered by
the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and
you are not contented or happy and aggrieved by
that decision, you cannot file a motion for new
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 145
trial, or you cannot file a motion for
reconsideration or for opening of trial. What can
you do is to file an appeal. You appeal because
this is your remedy.
Daghan na biktima aning letter c. May na lang
kay nakabasa jud ta ug Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure. I have three cases already
na na paspas jud taman ang ano resolution sa
amoang case. Kasagaran defendant pud ko and
naa pud toy plaintiff ko.
Here, in those two cases na defendant akong
client, na daog mi…...
43:54-51:12
opportunity. Expose him when there is no more
opportunity for him to rectify his mistake.
(d) Petition for relief from judgement;
Petition for relief from judgment is a remedy
where the decision is already final but because
of, for example, extrinsic fraud - wala ka
nakabalo na naay decision against you tas
naging final na sya. Here, you can file a petition
for relief of judgment - ordinarily. But that is not
allowed in the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure.
*Chika ni mam
.. And then the lawyer for the plaintiff (sa forcible
entry case), filed a motion for reconsideration of
the decision of the court but it is actually a
prohibited pleading - bawal na sya. So, kabalo
ko kay I received a copy of the motion for
reconsideration. And kabalo pud ko na bawal tu
sya. But I did not file any opposition yet or
comment to the motion.
Why? Because gusto nako na mag lapse iyang
period to appeal - because he has 15 days to
appeal, supposedly. For example, nag
comment2 ko didto na “This motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading.” Unya
nareceive sa plaintiff akon comment 5 days
palang from the time he received the decision of
the court, so pwede pa sya mag file ug appeal
diba?
So muhulat sa ko na mu lapse ang 15 days and
then didto pa ko muingon na, “Bawal man na
sya!”
In that case, wala na syay mabuhat kay iyang
period to appeal has already lapsed. So dili na
sya maka appeal and the decision is now final
and executory.
Advise: Dili maging over excited to expose the
error of your opponent. Paghulat ug proper
(e) Motion for extension of time to file
pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;
(f) Memoranda;
*Dili pud allowed sa Revised Rules on SP kay
what you file is a position paper
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
prohibition against any interlocutory order
issued by the court;
Dili pud pwede pero, for example, kung mali
gyud diay tung interlocutory order nga gi-issue ni
court, what is your remedy? Well, you have to
wait until the court renders a decision in the
case. And if you are still aggrieved by the
decision, you file an appeal and you include in
your appeal you issue against that interlocutory
order.
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in
default;
*Bawal sya, again. Kay there is no default order
under the Summary Rules.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 146
What will happen if the defendant fails to file an
answer? The court would just render a judgment
based on the allegations in the complaint.
A violation of this requirement may subject the
party or the counsel who submits the same to
disciplinary action, and shall be cause to
expunge the inadmissible affidavit or portion
thereof from the record.
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
Dilatory motions - intended for delay
So kung naa gyud kay reason nganong dili ka
maka appear sa trial or preliminary conference,
kay halimbawa gi operahan ka, that is not
dilatory motion - hence, allowed.
Diba we discussed na under the Rules on
Summary Procedure, ang isubmit lang kay
position paper ug affidavits.
“ . .. shall state only facts of direct personal
knowledge of the affiants which are admissible in
evidence, and shall show their competence to
testify to the matters stated therein.”
(j) Reply;
*Although a pleading, reply is not allowed
Meaning, kabalo jud ka - dili na nadunggan ra
nimo saimong silingan na nadunggan rapid nya
saiyang silingan. Kanag mga hearsay ba, dili na
pwede. Based lang jud dapat saimong personal
knowledge.
(k) Third Party Complaints;
“. .. which are admissible in evidence.”
*Another pleading na bawal
(l) Interventions;
**Will be discussed further on the Rules on Court
Note: Ang allowed lang na pleading kay
complaint, answer, and compulsory counterclaim
or cross-claim interposed in the answer.
You cannot also attest in your affidavit
matters which are covered under the
Rules on Privileged Communication.
For example, doctor ka, and you are also a
witness in the case, although kabalo ka unsay
result saimong examination on that patient, naa
kay personal knowledge but you cannot divulge
that because that is covered under the Rule on
Privileged Communication. And of course, karon,
mas bawal sya kay we have the Data Privacy
Act. You are not competent to testify on that.
Only when you have personal knowledge and
you are competent to testify.
Sec. 20. Affidavits. - The affidavits required to
be submitted under this Rule shall state only
facts of direct personal knowledge of the
affiants which are admissible in evidence, and
shall show their competence to testify to the
matters stated therein.
“A violation of this requirement may subject the
party or the counsel who submits the same to
disciplinary action, and shall be cause to
expunge the inadmissible affidavit or portion
thereof from the record.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 147
“
-
The affidavit itself can be expunged.
Meaning, kuhaon sya sa record or
maybe a portion lang kay dili tannan
didto kay inadmissible, naa lang certain
portions - pwede na portions lang ang iexpunge from the records.
Unsang klase na affidavits atong buhaton diri?
Should it be in the form of a judicial affidavit? Or
can it be just in the form of an ordinary affidavit?
Actually, it can be in the form of an ordinary
affidavit kay ang judicial affidavit man gud, form
na sya of a direct testimony.
Again, on the Rules on Summary Procedure,
wala tay direct examination, cross, redirect,
recross.
Pero kung gusto ka na in the form of judicial
affidavit, walay problema. But there will be no
cross examination. It will just be that affidavit nga
imong i-attach saimong position paper.
51:13 to 58:31
Sec. 21. Appeal. – The judgment or final order
shall be appealable to the appropriate regional
trial court which shall decide the same in
accordance with Section 22 of Bata Pambansa
Blg. 129. The decision of the regional trial
court in civil cases governed by this Rule,
including forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
shall be immediately executory, without
prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken
therefrom. Section 10 of Rule 70 shall be
deemed repealed.
After the judgment or final order of the MTC, in a
case covered by the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure, the aggrieved party can appeal.
Where? To the RTC. Here, please remember
ang important here:
For example, from the MTC, a forcible entry or
unlawful detainer case covered by the Revised
Rules on Summary Procedure, napildi si
defendant, so ni-appeal sila sa RTC, pildi
gihapon sa RTC. The Rule says that the decision
of the RTC in cases covered by the Revised
Rules on Summary Procedure shall be
immediately executory even if nag-appeal pa
ka further sa court of appeals. Pwede na na
ma execute ang decision. So if you are the
defendant, pwede na ka pahawaon didto sa
premises.
That’s the beauty of a case covered by the
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure kay for
example ha, kung dili siya forcible entry, so dili
sya covered by the Revised Rules, kay more
than one year naka nag demand, so it’s just a
case for recovery of possession. Now, pareha
gihapon na naa’y decision si MTC, for example
ang value sa property is P20,000 or less so MTC
gihapon ang jurisdiction. But dili siya Revised
Rules on Summary Procedure, covered siya by
the Ordinary Rules. So naa’y trial. Mas dugay na
siya kay naa pa’y trial, you have to follow all the
procedures involved in a full-blown trial, and then
napildi si defendant, so appeal si defendant didto
sa RTC. Pildi napud siya sa RTC, appeal napud
siya sa CA. If it is not covered by the Rules on
Summary Proceedings, di siya immediately
executory.
So dili dali ang process. Kung ikaw si plaintiff, dili
pa siya sweet victory for you na napildi gihapon
si defendant sa RTC. Kaya pag appeal niya sa
CA, dili gihapon ka-execute, because it is still
pending appeal and not immediately
executory. Pwede discretionary sa court ang
pag execute but it’s not a matter of right.
So in Section 21 of the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure says that, the judgment or
final order shall be appealable to the appropriate
RTC which shall decide the same in accordance
with Section 22 of BP Blg. 129. So this is Section
22:
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 148
What is this Section 22 of BP 129 again?
Section 22. Appellate jurisdiction. – Regional
Trial
Courts
shall
exercise
appellate
jurisdiction over all cases decided by
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such
cases shall be decided on the basis of the
entire record of the proceedings had in the
court of origin and such memoranda and/or
briefs as may be submitted by the parties or
required by the Regional Trial Courts. The
decision of the Regional Trial Courts in such
cases shall be appealable by petition for
review to the Court of Appeals (Rule 42) which
may give it due course only when the petition
shows prima facie that the lower court has
committed an error of fact or law that will
warrant a reversal or modification of the
decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.
This refers to the appellate jurisdiction of the
RTC which we already discussed in the
jurisdiction of the RTC. (Please read provision
above). So mao ni siya ang basis.
Sec. 22. Applicability of the regular rules. —
The regular procedure prescribed in the Rules
of Court shall apply to the special cases herein
provided for in a suppletory capacity insofar as
they are not inconsistent herewith.
Sec. 23. Effectivity. — This revised Rule on
Summary Procedure shall be effective on
November 15, 1991
Are the regular rules applicable? Of course,
general rule, no. These shall apply to the special
cases provided for in a suppletory capacity
insofar as they are not inconsistent herewith.
So that would be all for the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure. Now let’s go to the Rule of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases.
Remember that all these cases are within the
jurisdiction of the MTC. Also cases covered by
the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, MTC
gihapon na siya. But they follow a different
procedure. With the advent of this Small Claims
Act, kani na mga cases, under gihapon sila sa
jurisdiction of the MTC, pero i-follow nato ang
procedure for small claims, dili ang Ordinary
Procedure ug dili ang Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure.
Now, nag-overlap ni actually, because the cases
covered by the small claims act were also
previousl covered by the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure. But mag prevail na karon
ang Small Claims Act. So all those cases na
supposedly covered by the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure, covered na sila sa Small
Claims Act, ang procedure na atong i-follow
would be the Rules of Procedure for Small
Claims Cases. So again Section 2 says:
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
(took effect March 18, 2010)
SEC. 2. Scope.– This Rule shall govern the
procedure in actions before the Metropolitan
Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs)
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) 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.
So mao ni siya ang first na parameter sa Small
Claims Act. Katong pag take effect niya in March
18, 2010. If the value does not exceed P100,000,
covered siya under the Rules of Procedure for
Small Claims Clases. Exclusvie of interests and
costs, kato lang principal.
So we have this provision on Joinder of Claims.
Meaning, ikaw si plaintiff, daghan ka’g
complaints against this particular person, daghan
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 149
siya’g utang sa imoha, which he may have
contracted on several but different dates.
SEC. 6. Joinder of Claims.– Plaintiff may join
in a single statement of claim one or more
separate small claims against a defendant
provided that the total amount claimed,
exclusive of interest and costs, does not
exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00).
Pwede lang gihapon siya basta di ka mu exceed
ug P100,000. Actually, joinder of cause of action
will also be discussed under the Rules of Court.
Notes
Before the concept of small claims was
introduced in our court system, the Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure applied to money
claims not exceeding P100,000 in first level
courts (MTCs) outside Metro Manila and
P200,000i n first level courts (MTCs) within
Metro Manila, otherwise known as the
Metropolitan Trial Courts.
for MTC within Metro Manila and outside of
Metro Manila. Pagdiha ka na amount, small
claims ka.
As to joinder of claims:
Section 8. Joinder of Claims. - Plaintiff may
join in a single statement of claim one or more
separate small claims against a defendant
provided that the total amount claimed,
exclusive of interest and costs, does not
exceed 200,000.
Of course, under the Revised Rules also in AM
08-8-7-SC. Even sa joinder or claims ni increase
pud iyang parameter nahimo pud siyang does
not exceed 200,000 pesos.
Now, on February 1, 2016, Administrative Matter
No. 08-8-7-SC became effective…
BOLO 58:32-1:05:50
Now, on February 1, 2016 Administrative Matter
No. 08-8-7-SC, came effective which increased
the parameter under the small claims act so
before diba, not exceeding 100,000 pesos
gireform to siya whether within Metro Manila or
outside Metro Manila sa small claims before
gireform siya not exceeding 100,000 pesos.
Now under this rule again na 2016, ni increase
siya, nahimo siyang 200,000 pesos below, both
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 150
Then, as announced by OCA Circular No. 1652018, effective August 1, 2018, Section 2 and
8, were amended again.
Finally, as announced by OCA Circular No. 452019, effective April 1, 2019, Sections 2 and 8;
were amended again.
Section 2. Scope. - These Rules shall govern
the procedure in actions before the
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal
Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial
Courts (MTCs) and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts (MCTCs) for payment of money where
the value of the claim does not exceed
300,000 pesos exclusive of interest and costs.
Section 2. Scope. - These Rules shall govern
the procedure in actions before the
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal
Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial
Courts (MTCs) and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts (MCTCs) for payment of money where
the value of the claim does not exceed the
jurisdictional amount of these courts under RA
No. 7691 (400,000 pesos) for the MeTCs and
(300,000 pesos) for the MTCCs, MTCs and
MCTCs, exclusive of interest and costs.
Section 8. Joinder of Claims. - Plaintiff may
join in a single statement of claim one or more
separate small claims against defendant
provided that the total amount claimed,
exclusive of interest and costs, does not
exceed 300,000 pesos.
Then under OCA Circular No. 165-2018 effective
August 1, 2018. Sections 2 and 8 of the Rules on
Small Claims were also amended again so
gihimo na siyang 300,000 pesos ang maximum
both for Metropolitan Manila Area and outside
the Metropolitan Manila Area. 300,000 pesos
uniform. Also, for joinder as we discussed
already. Even if ijoin nimo imong claims against
one defendant for example, as long as the total
amount of claim does not exceed 300,000 pesos
exclusive of interest and costs.
Nanotice nimo noh na unlike katong sa
jurisdictional amounts sa BP 129 and sa Revised
Rules of Summary Procedure na lahi ang
amounts/thresholds sa courts withing Metro
Manila and outside Metro Manila. Sa small
claims, pareho lang sila, uniform. So, in OCA
Circular No. 45-2019, effective April 1, 2019.
Sections 2 and 8 were again amended. This time
gireflect na nila ang usual disparity sa usual
parameters between the courts in Metro Manila
and courts outside Metro Manila.
So, karon please remember under the Small
Claim Act, money claims within Metro Manila ang
threshold is 400,000 pesos and below kung dili
ka mag exceed 400,000 pesos, imong money
claim, it would be covered by the Small Claims
Act and governed by the rules on Small Claims
Cases within Metro Manila. Pero outside Metro
Manila, it is still 300,000 pesos.
So, pareho na siya sa katong jurisdictional
amounts pud diba kay ang money claims pg not
exceeding 300,000 pesos ang jurisdiction there
is MTC outside Manila. So, if you are in the
Metropolitan Area, if your money claim does not
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 151
exceed 400,000 pesos, the jurisdiction of that
would be MTC. But now please remember in
addition sa jurisdiction. Ang procedure na mag
govern the Rule on Small Claim Cases na if you
are talking about money claims.
claims act and therefore must be governed by
the Rules of Procedure on Small Claims.
So, again MTCs in all actions which are:
Section 8. Joinder of Claims. - Plaintiff may
join in a single statement of claim one or more
separate small claims against defendant
provided that the total amount claimed,
exclusive of interest and costs, does not
exceed the jurisdictional amount of the
concerned court under RA No. 7691 (400,000
pesos) for the MeTCs and (300,000 pesos) for
the MTCCs, MTCs, MCTC.
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 111 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
These claims or demands may be:
Just read this. It also applies in cases of joinders
of claim. Again, the same parameters in so far
the amounts concerned 300,000 pesos or less
for outside Metro Manila and not exceeding
400,000 pesos for Metro Manila Areas.
(a) For money owed under any of the
following:
1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan;
3. Contract of Services;
4. Contract of Sale;
5. Contract of Mortgage;
What are these small claims?
Section 5. Applicability. - The Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions
that 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 111
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Now, let’s go more specifically what are these
small claims? Which are covered by the small
(b) For damages arising from any of the
following:
1.) Fault or negligence
2.) Quasi-contract
3.) Contract
(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable
settlement or an arbitration award involving a
money claim covered by this Rule pursuant to
Sec 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of
1991.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 152
Like for example naa moy Amicable Settlement
sa Barangay and then nagkasabot namo and
then gusto ipa-enforce. You do that. That will be
governed by the Rules on Small Claims Cases.
CASES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
MTC
CASE
Governed by
Civil actions where the RULES ON SMALL
amount of the demand CLAIMS
does
not
exceed
300,000
pesos
or
400,000 in Metro Manila.
Civil actions where the
value of the personal
property
does
not
exceed 300,000 pesos
or 400,000 pesos in
Metro Manila (example:
Replevin).
SUMMARY RULES
if value does not
exceed
100,000
pesos or 200,000
pesos. In excess,
apply
REGULAR
RULES.
Cases
of
forcible SUMMARY RULES
entry/unlawful detainer.
Probate
proceedings
where the value of the
estate does not exceed
300,000 or 400,000 in
Metro Manila.
REGULAR RULES
or the RULES ON
SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS to
be specific
Real
actions
where REGULAR RULES
assessed value does
does not exceed 20,000
pesos or 50,000 pesos
in Metro Manila.
Now, with the presence of the ordinary rules, the
revised rules on summary procedure, and then
the rules on small claims cases. You might be
confused nog kung unsa ba gyud. How do we
know? Basig ma overlook nato na kani diay siya
kay small claims or dapat regular.
So we have here the summary noh of all those
cases within the jurisdiction of the MTC and
whether they are governed by the small claims,
summary rules or regular rules.
So, civil actions where the amount of the
demand does not exceed 300,000 pesos or
400,000 in Metro Manila. 300,000 pesos outside
Metro Manila or 400,000 pesos in Metro Manila.
So, this will be governed by the rule on Small
Claims okay, money claims.
Civil actions where the value of the personal
property does not exceed 300,000 pesos or
400,000 pesos in Metro Manila (example:
Replevin).
Kani siya ha we are not talking about money
claims but recovery of personal property diba we
base on the value of the personal property.
KHAYZEE 1:05:51-1:13:07
The revised rules in summary procedure, and
then the rules on small claims cases.
You might be confused noh kung unsa ba gyud.
How do we know? Kay, because basig ma
overlook nato na kani diay siya is small claims or
dapat regular.
CASE
GOVERNED BY
Civil actions where
the amount does not
exceed P300,000 or
P400,000 in Metro
Rule on Small Claims
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 153
Manila
Civil Actions where
the value of the
personal property
does not exceed
P300,000 or
P400,000 in Metro
Manila (example:
replevin)
Cases of forcible
entry or unlawful
detainer
Summary Rules if
value does not
exceed P100,000 or
P200,000. In excess,
apply regular rules
Probate proceedings
where the value of teh
estate does not
exceed P300,000 or
P400,000 in Metro
Manila
Regular rules or the
rules on special
proceedings
Summary rules
Okay, so we have here the summary of all those
cases within the jurisdiction of the MTC and
whether they are governed by the Small Claims
or summary rules or regular rules.
Okay, so civil actions where the amount of the
demand does not exceed 300,000, or 400,000, in
Metro Manila, so there are 1000, outside Metro
Manila, or 400,000 in Metro Manila. So, this will
be governed by the rule on small claims, kay,
money claims, civil actions where the value of
the personal property does not exceed 300,000
pesos or 400,000 pesos in Metro Manila.
Kay, kani siya ha we're not talking here money
claims, but recovery of personal property, diba it
will be based on the value of the personal
property. Now, of course dapat pag 300 or less
outside Metro Manila, of course, MDC also for
400,000 or less in Metro Manila, empties
example of that case will be ang ma govern here
would be the summary rules. If the value does
not exceed 100,000, or 200,000. in excess, we
apply the regular rules, why not the Small Claims
because it's not a money claim.
Okay, cases of forcible entry and lawful detainer
are clearly summary rules, regardless of the
value of the property, probate proceedings where
the value of the estate does not exceed 300,000,
outside Metro Manila or 400,000 in Metro Manila,
it will be governed by the rules on special
proceedings. The actions where the assessed
value does not exceed 220,000, outside Metro
Manila or 50,000 in Metro Manila.
So these actions are not the ones which are
categorized as forcible entry or unlawful detainer
cases, it will be governed by the, these actions
will be governed by the regular rules. So para
nato mahibalan kung summary rules, small
claims, regular, and first natong i evaluate is
covered ba ni sila, sa small claims. Kung dili
covered, covered ba ni sa, revised rules and
summary procedure, dili covered regular rules.
So it's a process of elimination.
Now, unlike in the revised rules and summary
procedure, walay pleadings involved in small
claims cases, there's just they're just forms noh,
na you, ano, you procure them from the court. So
you just fill out those forms.
Section of the Rules of Procedure for Small
Claims cases states that:
Section 23. Decision - After the hearing, the
court shall render its decision on the same
day, based on the facts established by the
evidence (Form 13-SSC) 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.
The decision shall be final and unappealable.
And then remember under Section 23, after the
hearing, the court shall render its decision in the
same day, based on the facts established by the
evidence, kay one day lang, paspas kaayo. The
decision should immediately be entered by the
clerk of court in the court docket for civil cases in
a copy thereof, served under parties, the
decision shall be final and unappealable.
Final you cannot appeal. Now, what if you are
the aggrieved party and you are not happy with
the decision of the small claims court? Do you
have any remedy? final naman, unappealable.
even if it is final, unappealable does not mean
you don't have any other remedy where in other
cases where appeal is not an available remedy.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 154
REMEDY
Nevertheless, the proscription on appeals in
small claims, similar to other proceedings
where appeal is not an available remedy, does
not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. (AL ang Network Inc vs
Mondejar Gr no 200804 January 23, 2014)
Let's just summarize the distinctions between the
rousson summary procedure and the small
piece. So I saw that jurisdictional parameter.
SUMMARY
PROCEDURE
SMALL
CLAIMS
Jurisdictional
parameter
The total amount of
plaintiff’s claim
does not exceed
P100,000 or
P200,000 in Metro
Manila, exclusive of
interests and cost
Tgr value of the
claim does not
exceed P300,000
or P400,000
exclusive of
interests or cost
Appeal
The decision is
appealable to the
RTC under Section
22 of BP 129
Because the
decision is final
and appealable,
the remedy is
Rule 65 petition
for certiorari
before the RTC
Applicability
Applies to both civil
and criminal cases
Applies only to
claims that are
civil in nature
Parties
Allowed
A lawyer may
appear and
represent a litigant
A lawyer may not
appeal unless he
himself is a party
litigant
Representativ
e
A litigant may
choose not to
personally appear
and instead be
represented by
another person by
way of Special
Power of Attorney
Appearance
through a
representative,
who must not be
a lawyer, and
must be related to
or next-of-kin of
the individual
party, must be for
valid cause
Main feature
The use of
affidavits as
substitutes for
testimony and
position papers,
aimed at speedy
resolution of a case
The use of forms
as substitutes for
pleadings for the
purpose of
avoiding costs
and resolving a
small claim as
expeditiously as
possible
Where? RTC
The aggrieved party can actually file an original
action for certiorari and rule 65 of the rules of
court if there is grave abuse of discretion,
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
This was also discussed in the case of A.L ang
network incorporated versus manejar. case. So
certiorari under rule 65. Now where diba ang rule
65 is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the
RTC, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court, but again, following the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts, you file that before the
Regional Trial Court.
Considering the final nature of a small claims
case decision under the above-stated rule, the
remedy of appeal is not allowed and the
prevailing party may, thus immediately move
for execution
Of course, because the decision is final and
unappealable, even if you file a petition for
certiorari, but because it is already final, you can
if you are the prevailing party, you can
immediately move for the execution of the
decision. Now what if the aggrieved party files a
petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial
Court will state execution. No, it will not stay,
'kay.
Unless, of course, the party who filed the action
for certiorari secures a temporary restraining
order or injunction. kana must be or otherwise
the mere filing of the petition for certiorari will not
stay. the final, the execution of the final and
executory decision of the small claims court.
In summary procedure, the total amount of the
plaintiffs claim does not exceed 100,000 or
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 155
200,000. In Metro Manila, exclusive of interest
and costs. For small claims, the value of that lien
does not exceed 300,000 or 400,000.
Exclusive of interest and cost. as to appeal.
decisions of the MPC covered by in cases
covered by the summary procedure are
appealable to the RTC under Section 22 of the
(???) one to nine. For cases covered by the
Small Claims rule, the decision is final and
appealable.
Therefore there is no appeal noh. 'kay the
remedy is a (??) petition for certiorari before the
RTC now as to the applicability to civil and
criminal cases. In summary procedure this can
apply to both civil and criminal cases. But Small
Claims is the rule on small claims applies only to
claims that are purely civil in nature and to the
civil aspect of a criminal action. Now as so the
party is allowed in under the rules in summary
procedure, a lawyer may appear and represent
litigant. 'kay but in small claims a lawyer is not
allowed, unless he himself is the party litigant
Bawal ang lawyer sa small claims.
Now as to the representative, pwede ba mag
appoint ng representative ang litigant under the
rules in summary procedure, a litigant may
choose not to personally appear and instead be
represented by any other person by way of a
special power of attorney. Under the rule the
Small
Claims
appearance
through
a
representative who must not be a lawyer and
must be related to or next of kin of the individual
party and must be for a valid code. So daghan
requirements before you can appoint a
representative
Unlike sa summary procedure na walay
requisites walay qualifications kung kinsa man
na siya ang gusto nimong i appoint. but under
the small claims act, naay qualifications, the
main features under the rules and summary
procedure again, we have of course there are
pleadings, but they subsequently use affidavits
and position papers. 'kay as substitutes for
testimony. Whereas sa small claims ang main
feature here is the use of forms as substitutes for
pleadings. And the purpose here is to avoid
costs and to resolve a small claim as
expeditiously as possible.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 156
January 6, 2021 - ZOOM LECTURE
Part 1
0:00-05:37
RULE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Title of the Rules. — These Rule shall
be known and cited as the Rules of Court.
Section 2. In what courts applicable. — These
Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as
otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.
“Except as otherwise provided by the Supreme
Court”
The general applicability of the Rules is pursuant to
Article 5(5) of the Constitution which mandates that
the procedural rules to be promulgated by the
Supreme Court “shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade.” EXCEPTIONS to this general
applicability are the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure;
The Rule of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases;
The Rule on Examination of Child
Witnesses; and
The cases enumerated in Rule 1, Section
4.
Section 4. In what case not applicable. — These
Rules shall not apply to election cases, land
registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency
proceedings, and other cases not herein provided
for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character
and whenever practicable and convenient.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 157
The Rules of Court applies to the Municipal Trial
Courts, Regional Trial Courts, Court of Appeals, and
the Supreme Court. We discussed this when we talked
about the powers of the SC. Again, the MTC is a
generic term for the lower courts, the inferior courts.
The Rules on Summary Procedure will not apply to the
RTC, CA, and SC. This only applies in the MTC but
not all cases, only those cases identified by the Rules
on Summary Procedure. (ex. Cases on forcible entry,
unlawful detainer)
The Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, again,
will not apply to the RTC, CA, and SC. This only
applies in the MTC, as we already discussed before.
The Rule on Examination of Child Witnesses, this will
be discussed in your Law on Evidence. This is not
covered by the Rules of Court although when you go
the Rule on Evidence, it only mentions that children or
minors can be called as witnesses but as to the rule,
how they are utilized as witnesses, is not covered by
the RoC.
05:38-11:14
And the cases enumerated in Rule 1, Section 4.
Section 4 In what case not applicable. - These Rules
shall not apply to election cases, land registration,
cadastral, naturalization, and insolvency proceedings,
and other cases not herein provided for, except by
analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
practibale and convenient.
So the Rules of Court will not apply to election cases.
Why? Because election cases are covered by different
rules, the Comelec rules of procedure.
Land registration, Cadastral, naturalization, and
insolvency also, theres a separate rule for them.
Actually theres a lot cases not covered by the Rules
of Court. For example, cases na within the
competence of Administrative Agencies. We discuss
the doctrine of primary of jurisdiction, when an issue,
controversy or matter is within the competence or
expertise of a specific branch or agency then that
matter should be resolved in that branch office or
quasi-judicial agency. They have their own rule. We
already mention before, the DAR has the DARAR
rules of procedure. In the NLRC, they also have the
NLRC rules of procedure. Although in most of these
Rules, it is mentioned that the Rules of Court is
applicable in a suppletorily manner, because dile man
gud exhaustive ang ilang rules kay naay mga walay
certain provisions applicable to a certain situation.
Like for example, under Rule 22 we have the
computation of time. Usually pag mga cases naa jud
kay period within which to file such as deadline to file
the answer, and etc. which there is a reglamentary
period. For example 10 days ang nkabutang sa Rules
and the 10th day falls under a holiday, Rule 22
provides that the deadline would be on the next
working day. If your case is in the NLRC or before the
DAR, silent ang ilang rules as to that. You can apply
the Rules of Court in a suppletorily manner.
11:15 - 16:51 DEROGONGAN
Sec. 3. Cases governed. – These Rules shall govern
the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or
criminal and special proceedings.
a. 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.
A civil action may either be ordinary or
special. Both are governed by the rules for
ordinary civil actions, subject to the
specific
rules prescribed for a
special civil action.
b.
A criminal action is one by which the
State prosecutes a person for an act
or omission punishable by law.
c.
A special proceeding is a remedy by
which a party seeks to establish a
status, a right, or a particular fact.
Sec. 3 says na ang Rules of Court daw will apply in
these kinds of actions: civil, criminal or special
proceedings.
What are these actions or proceedings na applicable
ang RoC?
Civil action
As already mentioned, it is one which a party sues
another. Here, when you say civil action, it is
adversarial. Naa gyud nag-away ani. Although in a
civil action, there is no imprisonment involved. What
is the relief given to the aggrieved party maybe for
damages or to compel the offending party to
perform, comply with his obligations in a contract for
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 158
example. Here, in a civil action, you sue another
maybe because that person violated your right, so
you want your right to be enforced. Like for example,
a contract of loan. So, the obligation of the borrower
is to pay. The lender has the right to be paid. So, if
the borrower fails to pay, the creditor/lender can sue
the debtor/borrower for payment. That’s for the
enforcement of a right. Or for the protection of a
right. Here, wala pay nahitabo but you want that
right to be protected.
Example:
You want to enjoin the other party from entering
your property, from committing acts of
dispossession, so you are asking for an injunction or
the prevention or redress of a wrong. Again, that is
the nature of a civil action.
Kinds of Civil Action
1. Ordinary
2. Special
Both are governed by the Rules of Court, the rules for
ordinary civil actions. Although, pag special civil
actions, naa pud siyay specific provision under the
ROC applying only to special civil actions. There is a
specific rule for special civil actions. Although in
general, the rules on ordinary civil actions are also
applicable to special civil actions.
Criminal actions
You have already discussed this in your criminal
procedure. It is one by which the state prosecutes a
person for an act or omission punishable by law. The
act is defined by the RPC or by a special law, then
there is a commission of that act, and so you
prosecute against the offender. It is the state which
prosecutes, it is the state which is the offended party.
Special proceeding
It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
status, a right, or a particular fact. In a special
proceeding, it is not usually adversarial. There is no
violation of a right, there is no right to be enforced or
to be protected. But you want to establish a status, a
right, or a particular fact.
Like for example, adoption. You are seeking to
establish the status of this child as a legally adopted
person. Guardianship is also a special proceeding, to
establish a status as a person who is insane, suffering
from civil interdiction, prodigal, you are seeking to
establish his status or declaration of nullity of
marriage. It is not usually adversarial ang special
proceeding. There is also a specific provision in the
RoC dealing with special proceedings.
16:52-22:28 - LUCMAN
DIVISION OF THE RULES
1) CIVIL PROCEDURE – the body of rules that sets
out the rules and standards that courts follow
when adjudicating civil lawsuits. It is divided into
three distinct set of provisions, to wit:
a) Rules 1-56 or Civil Procedure Proper;
(coverage of our subject matter)
b) Rules 57 – 61 or Provisional Remedies
which are writs and processes available
during the pendency of the action to
preserve and protect certain rights and
interests pending rendition, and for
purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final
judgment in the case.
c) Rule 62 – 71 or Special Civil Actions which
are civil actions governed specifically by the
special rules and generally by the rules for
ordinary civil actions.
2) SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – rules governing
miscellaneous proceedings dealing on specific
issues (Rules 72-100). A special proceeding is
defined as a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
3) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – the legal process for
adjudicating claims that someone has violated
criminal law (Rules 110-127).
CHAM 22:29-28:05
From Slide:
2. Special Proceedings – rules governing
miscellaneous proceedings dealing on specific
issues (Rules 72-109). A special proceeding is
defined as a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, right, or a particular fact.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 159
3. Criminal Procedure – the legal process for
adjudicating claims that someone has violated
criminal law (Rule 110-127)
4. Evidence – the means sanctioned by the Rules of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact (Rules 128-133)
Again, as a mentioned, the Rules of Court applied to
all cases but there are certain provisions that are
applicable to special cases. So, if there are specific
provision, we will follow that not the general rule.
For example, if you have case in agrarian, let see first
the agrarian law; ayaw sa adto sa Rules of Court; only
if silent ilang provision, we can apply the latter
suppletory.
CONCEPT OF DEFAULT
As I have discussed this, di ba dili na siya applicable sa
revised rules on summary procedure. Now, what is
default?
DISCUSSION:
And then EVIDENCE which is applicable to all. So
here, the law on evidence will tell us the procedure
on how to establish your case. Naa dri, how to
present your witnesses, what are your possible
objection, what are the admissible and nonadmissible, who are the qualified and incompetent
witnesses and how do you make the court recognize
your evidence. This is applicable in ordinary civil
actions, provisional remedies, criminal cases and
special proceedings.
If you are the defendant, you will receive summons.
You are required to answer. So, under the ordinary
rules on civil procedure, if the defendant fails to file
his answer within the reglementary period (which is
now 30 days), he can be declared in default. So,
when you say 'declared in default', he will no longer
be given any chance to present his defense although
he is entitled to notices. But he cannot present
witnesses na. He cannot rebut the evidence of the
plaintiff. That is in civil cases. but in criminal cases,
default is not applicable. There is no default. We
cannot say that the accused did not file a counteraffidavit. Although ha, when you file a criminal case
in the Office of the Prosecutor, and then....
From Slide:
Applicability of the rules in general to the specific
divisions and vice versa
The rules of Court is the collective term to describe
all the rules from Rule 1 to Rule 144. Technically
speaking, Civil Procedure actually begins at Rule 2
Because Rule 1 relates to General Provisions.
28:06 – 33:42 Seruela
The doctrine we follow here is the Generalia
Specialibus Non Derogant or that “universal things
do not detract from specific things.” The special
provision will always prevail. Rule 110 to 127 will
always govern Criminal Procedure and Rules 1 to
71 will always govern Civil Procedure.
DISCUSSION:
.. and then the office of the prosecutor will require
the accused or the respondent in that case to file his
counter affidavit. If you will not filed a counteraffidavit, the chances are, there will be a probable
cause, depending in the evaluation of the fiscal. It is
because you did not refute the affidavit complaint of
the complainant. Hence, chances are there will be a
probable cause, but I am not saying in all cases,
because there are cases which has no probable cause
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 160
even if there is no counter-affidavit by the
respondent because the affidavit complaint does not
fall into the definition of the crime. It is possible that
there is probable cause. If there is probable cause,
the office of the prosecutor will now file the
information in the court and the court will issue a
warrant of arrest. However, it does not mean that
the accused is defeated, because again, there is no
default in criminal cases. Although, there is a warrant
of arrest against the accused, and just because there
is a probable cause, the trial will still proceed. The
prosecution will still have to present evidence to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the
accused. So, there is no default in criminal cases.
·
Rule 120, Section 8: it is applicable to all
cases. Although it is under Rule 120, this rule
also apply to civil procedure even if the
applicable rules of civil procedure case are only
Rule 1 to 56. This rule also apply to civil
procedure. Rule 36 is actually under Civil
Procedure. Once a judgment becomes final,
whatever case it is (special civil action or maybe
a criminal case), there shall be an entry of
judgment.
·
Rule 127, Section 1: this rule is beyond the
civil procedure provision. However, it also
applicable to civil procedure case, the availability
of provisional remedies. So, in what instances a
provisional remedy be a availed of? Again what
are the provisional remedy?
Instances when the rules allow
reference to and application of
provisions from another division of
rules
●
Rules 120, section 8;
o Section 8. Entry of Judgment –
After a judgment has become final,
it shall be entered in accordance
with Rule 36.
●
Rule 127, section 1;
o Section 1. Availability of
provisional remedies. – The
provisional remedies in civil
actions, insofar as they are
applicable, may be availed of in
connection with the civil action
deemed instituted with the criminal
action
This means civil procedure then referred from Rules
in Criminal Procedure or Cases from Criminal
Procedure referring from the Rules of Procedural
Remedies.
1.
Preliminary attachment
2.
Preliminary injunction
3.
Receivership
4.
Support pendente lite
Not only in civil action, this rule is also applicable to
criminal case if there is a civil aspect instituted with
the criminal case
What did you learn in criminal law as well as well as
in the obligations and contracts? Isn’t it that, every
person who is criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable. This is under article 100 of the Revised
Penal Code of the Philippines. Meaning, if you
commit a crime, you are criminally liable for the
felony and also civilly liable. For example, stealing,
you are criminally liable, hence you will be
imprisoned, and also accessory penalties,
disqualification, etc. Aside from that you have civil
liability. Civil liability arising from crime or delict.
Remember the five sources of obligation in your
obligations and contracts?
1.
Law
2.
Contract
3.
Quasi-contract
4.
Delict
5.
Quasi Delict
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 161
So the civil aspect of the crime. In that case, there is
availability of provisional remedy, even if it is mainly
a criminal case if there is a civil aspect which is
deemed instituted in the case. Please remember,
those criminal case without civil aspect because
there is no private offended party like illegal
possession of firearms, drugs, there will be no
availability of provisional remedy.
33:43 – 39:19
Rule 72, Section 2;
Section 2. Applicability of rules of civil
actions. – in the absence of special provisions,
the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall
be, as far as practicable, applicable in special
proceedings.
Special proceedings na pud ta. Nag-ingon si
Rule 72, pwede diay nato magamit pud ang
Rules sa Civil Procedure even if it is a special
proceeding.
Ex. Declaration of Nullity of Marriage/ or
Adoption – when you look at the rules for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, or adoption,
when you look at the rules, wala man pre-trial
diha na gi-mention. But, pre-trial is also present
in a special proceeding. Naa gihapon na siyay
pre-trial because in a pre-trial, you also need to
determine beforehand kung unsa mga facts
already admitted, or facts already stipulated,
unsa ang evidence sa pikas, kinsa ang
witnesses sa pikas. So, applicable gihapon.
Rule 128, Section 2;
Section 2. Scope – The rules of evidence
shall be the same in all courts and in all trials
and bearings, except as otherwise provided by
law or these rules. (2a)
on evidence na naay presentation of witnesses,
naay direct examination, cross examination. So
walay formal offer of evidence in the Revised
Rules on Summary Procedure on civil actions.
So that’s an exception.
Classification of Actions
-
AS TO NATURE: Ordinary or Special
o Rules 62-71 (Special) – Interpleader,
Declaratory Relief & Similar Remedies,
Review of Judgements, Final Orders or
Resolutions of Comelec & COA,
Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus, Quo
Warranto, Expropriation, Foreclosure of
Real Estate Mortgage, Partition, Forcible
Entry & Unlawful Detainer, Contempt.
o
All other actions are considered
ordinary.
Actually, wala naka specify sa Rules of Court
kung unsa tung ordinary. Ordinary, daghan
kaayo na siya. Anything under the sun. Pero ang
special civil action, naka specify siya kay gamay
lang man ni sila.
Both ordinary and special civil actions are
governed by the rules on ordinary civil actions,
subject to the specific rules. In the case of
conflict between the specific rule governing a
particular type of civil action and the ordinary, the
specific rule will prevail. If the rules on special
civil actions are silent, the rules for ordinary
actions will be applied. The fact that an action is
subject to special rules other than those
applicable to ordinary civil actions is what makes
a civil action special.
So the rules on evidence, as I said, applicable
siya whether it is a civil action, provisional
remedies, special civil action, criminal case, or
it’s a special proceeding. And in all courts: MTC,
RTC, CA, or SC.
Note: “except as otherwise provided by law or
these rules”
Example sa exception: We’ve discussed this
already. Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
Under the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure, position papers ra ta or affidavits in
civil actions. So here, di nato magamit ang rule
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 162
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ORDINARY AND
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
ORDINARY
CIVIL
ACTIONS
SPECIAL
CIVIL ACTION
As to what rules govern – for example, if it is a
collection of money, didto lang gid ta sa Rule 156,
except those which are also expressly declared to be
applicable also to ordinary civil actions. Pero, katung
rules sa special civil action, di gid na siya mu-apply sa
ordinary civil action. Didto lang dyud na siya sa special
civil actions.
39:20 – 44:56 - RYAN
As to what
rules govern it
As to which
court has
jurisdiction
As to the
applicability of
the elements of
a cause of
action
An ordinary
civil action is
governed by
the rules for
ordinary civil
actions and
never the
specific rules
prescribed for a
special civil
action.
A special civil
actions is
governed by
the rules for
ordinary civil
actions, subject
to the specific
rules
prescribed for a
special civil
action
An ordinary
civil action may
be filed before
the MTC or the
RTC,
depending on
the
jurisdictional
amount or
nature of the
action involved.
Specific types
of civil actions
must be filed
before either
the MTC or the
RTC
Every ordinary
civil action
must be based
on a cause of
action. A cause
of action is the
act or omission
by which a
party violates a
right of
another.
The
requirement of
a cause of
action finds no
application to
certain special
civil actions
where the
violation of the
plaintiff’s rights
is not a
prerequisite for
filing such
actions.
As to what
governs it
Ordinary Civil
Action
Special Civil
Action
An ordinary civil
action is
governed by the
rules for
ordinary civil
actions and
never the
specific rules
prescribed for a
special civil
action.
A special civil
action is
governed by the
rules for ordinary
civil actions,
subject to the
specific rules
prescribed for a
special civil
action.
In case of
conflict, the rules
on special civil
action SHALL
PREVAIL.
As to which
court has
jurisdiction
As to the
applicability
An ordinary civil
action may be
filed before the
MTC or the RTC,
depending on
the jurisdictional
amount or
nature of the
action involved.
Specific types of
civil actions must
be filed before
either the MTC
or the RTC.
Every ordinary
civil action must
be based on a
The
requirements of
a cause of action
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 163
(see discussion 1)
of the
elements of
cause of
action
cause of action.
A cause of action
is the act or
omission by
which a party
violates a right
of another.
(see discussion 2)
finds no
application to
certain special
civil actions
where the
violation of the
plaintiff’s rights
is not a prerequisite for
filing such
actions.
depend sa kind
of civil action.
(see discussion 3)
As to how
initiated
An ordinary civil
action is
initiated by the
filing of a
complaint.
Special civil
actions, on the
other hand, may
be initiated by
the filing of a
complaint or a
petition.
Example:
As to the
requirement
of
verification.
Verification –
under oath
· Forcible
entry
(special civil
action) –
filed in a
form of a
COMPLAINT
.
Ordinary Civil
Action
Special Civil
Action
Under Rule 7,
Section 4, except
when otherwise
specifically
required by law
or rule,
pleadings in
ordinary civil
action need not
be under oath or
verified.
Pleadings in
many special
civil actions must
be verified, such
as complaint for
expropriation
(Rule 67),
petitions for
certiorari,
prohibition and
mandamus (Rule
65), petitions for
quo warranto
(Rule 66, Section
1), petitions
under Rule 64,
pleadings in
accion interdictal
(Rule 70) and
petitions for
indirect
contempt (Rule
71).
General rule:
Pleadings in
ordinary civil
actions NEED
NOT be verified.
·
Certiorari –
filed in a
form of a
PETITION.
General rule:
Pleadings in
special civil
actions ARE
VERIFIED.
So, whether a
case is filed in a
form of a
complaint or a
petition, it will
DISCUSSION 1:
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 164
Here are some examples:
·
-
INTERPLEADER (compelling two
persons to litigate against each
other to prove who has the
better right)
Situation like ikaw, lessee ka,
then naay duha ka tao karon nga
nangolekta nimo kay sila daw ang
lessor. So naglibog naka kung
kinsa. You file an action for
interpleader to compel them to
litigate against each other to
prove who really has the right to
collect.
When you file a civil action there MUST BE a
cause of action because if your cause of action is
absent or incomplete, your civil action is
susceptible to dismissal.
ELEMENTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION
When you say a cause of action, that means
that:
1. YOU HAVE A RIGHT and;
2. the OTHER PARTY HAS AN
OBLIGATION TO RESPECT
YOUR RIGHT;
3. then HE VIOLATED YOUR
RIGHT; and
4. because of such violation, YOU
SUFFERED DAMAGES.
So depende kung unsa nga case ang
subject sa interpleader. Diha mag
matter kung unsa nga court ang naay
jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION 3:
·
DECLARATORY RELIEF
For example, declaratory relief.
-
Declaratory relief falls within the
jurisdiction of RTC because it is
INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY
ESTIMATION.
Sa declaratory relief, wala pamay nahitabo nga
violation ana. Gusto lang nimo makakuha ug
pronouncement as to a particular matter. Pero
it’s just a guidance. Wala pa’y violation.
So, NOT all special civil action require a cause
of action.
·
FORCIBLE ENTRY OR UNLAWFUL
DETAINER
-
The jurisdiction is with
MTC as provided in B.P.
Blg. 129.
44:57 - 50:30 JOE
As to how
initiated
Ordinary Civil
Action
Special Civil
Action
An ordinary
civil action is
initiated by the
filing of a
complaint.
Special civil
actions, on the
other hand,
may be
initiated by the
filing of a
DISCUSSION 2:
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 165
complaint or a
petition.
As to the
requirement
of verification
As to whether
summons are
served
As to whether
the defendant
can be
declared in
default
Under Rule 7,
Section 4,
except when
otherwise
specifically
required by
law or rle,
pleadings in an
ordinary civil
action need
not be under
oath or
verified.
Pleadings in
many special
civil actions
must be
verified, such
as a complaint
for
expropriation
(Rule 67),
petitions for
certiorari,
prohibition
and
mandamus
(Rule 63),
petition for
quo warranto
(Rule 68,
Section 1),
petitions
under Rule 64,
pleadings in
accion
interdictal
(Rule 70) and
petitions for
indirect
contempt
(Rule 71).
Under Rule 14,
Section 1, as
amended, the
court shall,
within five (5)
calendar days,
direct the clerk
of court to
issue the
corresponding
summons to
the defendant.
The rule on the
issuance of
summons does
not apply to
certain special
civil actions.
Under Rule 9,
Section 3, as
amended, if
the defending
party fails to
answer within
the time
allowed, the
While default
may be
declared if a
party fails to
plead (i.e.,
claimant in
interpleader
under Rule 62,
court shall,
upon motion
of the claiming
party with
notice to the
defending
party, and
proof of such
failure, declare
the defending
party in
default.
Section 5),
failure to
answer does
not lead to a
default
declaration
under Rule 70,
where a
default motion
is a prohibited
pleading.
As to the
remedy of
appeal
The remedy of
a defeated
party is appeal.
The remedy of
a party
aggrieved by a
judgment
rendered on
appeal is a
petition for
review. In
other words,
there can only
be one appeal.
There are
special civil
actions where
multiple
appeals are
allowed,
namely: (1)
Expropriation;
(2) Foreclosure
of Mortgage;
and (3)
Partition.
As to venue
The venue
depends on
whether the
action is a real
or personal
action.
The venue
does not
necessarily
depend on the
real or
personal
nature of the
action.
As to
availability of
special civil
action as
corrective
relief and
conversion.
An ordinary
civil action
cannot be
converted into
special civil
action.
A special civil
action for
declaratory
relief may be
converted into
an ordinary
civil action
under Rule 63,
Section 6.
In exceptional
cases, a party
aggrieved by a
judgement in
an ordinary
civil action,
when there is
no appeal or
other plain,
speedy or
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 166
A party
aggrieved by a
judgment in a
special civil
action may file
a special civil
action for
adequate
remedy in the
ordinary
course of law,
may file a
special civil
action for
certiorari on
the ground
that the
tribunal acted
without or in
excess its or
his jurisdiction,
or with grave
abuse of
discretion
amounting to
lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
certiorari on
the ground
that the
tribunal acted
without or in
excess of its or
his jurisdiction,
or with grave
abuse of
discretion
amounting to
lack or excess
of his
jurisdiction, if
there is no
appeal or
other plain,
speedy or
adequate
remedy on the
ordinary
course of law.
Or a petition like again forcibly entry is a special civil
action you file here a complaint so there is a
complaint here a certiorari is not in the form of a
complaint you file a petition which is a petition for
certiorari. So depende sa kind sa civil action as to the
requirement of verification again I already mentioned
this last night what is verification. It simply means
that it is under oath, you attest under oath na the
allegations in the complaint are true and of your
personal knowledge are based on authentic records.
Now, under Rule 7 as to the general rule or ordinary
civil actions pleadings in ordinary civil actions need
not be verified okay as a general rule. Whereas in
special civil actions general rule verified na sila ang
pleadings here.
So expropriation dapat verified petition for certiorari,
provision mandamus verified okay forcible entry
verified so again kinahanglan ug verification. As to
when summons are serve yes in ordinary civil actions
kinahanglan gyud ang issuance of summons that is
required for the court to acquired jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant. Whereas in special civil
actions wala some lang ang kuan forcible entry again
dapat nay summons. Although in some like special
civil action for certiorari provision mandamus dili
summons ang gina issue dira. If for example in the
court of appeals order is dili kayo applicable and rule
on summons sa special civil actions.
As to whether defendant can be declared in Default
As to whether the defendant can be declared in
default okay for ordinary civil actions yes default is
applicable under Rule 9 Section 3 so we will go there
under special civil actions while default may be
declared if a party fails to plead but failure to answer
does not need to a default declaration under Rule 70.
Where a default motion is a prohibited motion unsa
manang Rule 70 katong forcible entry and unlawful
detainer cases kay they are covered by the rules on
summary procedure where default is not allowed
noh you cannot even file a motion to declare a
defendant in default.
As to remedy of Appeal
As to the remedy of appeal the remedy of appeal is
available in an ordinary civil action so there is only
one appeal also here you appeal once on the
judgment rendered by the court in an ordinary civil
action. In special civil action there are certain kinds of
civil actions na possible ang multiple appeals like in
its expropriation, foreclosure of mortgage, partition.
Multiple appeals example expropriation nganong naa
may multiple appeals what are the issues involved in
an expropriation case number 1 the propriety of
expropriation so proper ba ang exercise sa power of
expropriation and number 2 the determination of
just compensation kung tama ba ang gibayad nimo sa
owner of the property expropriated. So in this two
matters nay order ang court so kung agree ka sa first
order or first judgment nga proper ang expropriation
you can appeal and then pag-abot napud sa ikaduha
agree gihapon ka you can appeal so in that case there
are multiple appeals.
As to Venue
As to venue in ordinary civil actions it will depend if
the action is a real action or a personal action we will
go there in Rule 4 noh as to venue. In a special civil
action on the other hand the venue is not dependent
on the nature of the action. Does not depend on
whether it is a real action or a personal action. As to
availability of special civil action as corrective relief
and conversion an ordinary civil action just as a
general rule cannot be converted into a special civil
action like file kag action for collection you cannot
convert that into a special civil action but for example
during the proceedings like there’s an interlocutory
order issued by the court in that ordinary civil action
and then there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction there is no
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 167
appeal or any other plain or adequate remedy under
the law you can file a special civil action for certiorari.
A special civil action on the other hand may be
converted into an ordinary civil action under Rule 63
Section 6 so we will discuss that again when we go to
special civil actions.
AS TO THE CAUSE OR FOUNDATION
REAL or PERSONAL
●
An action is “real’ when it affects title to or
possession of real property, or an interest
therein. All other actions are personal
actions (Bar 1994, 2004, 2006)
●
An action is real when it is founded upon
the PRIVITY OF REAL ESTATE. That
means that realty, or an interest therein is
the subject matter of the action. Not every
action however, involving a real property is
a real action because the realty may only
be incidental to the subject matter of the
suit.
50:30 - 54:36
As to
availability of
special civil
action as
corrective
relief and
conversion
ORDINARY
CIVIL ACTION
SPECIAL
CIVIL ACTION
An ordinary
civil action
cannot be
converted into
a special civil
action.
A special civil
action for
declaratory
relief may be
converted into
an ordinary civil
action under
Rule 63,
Section 6.
In exceptional
cases, a party
aggrieved by a
judgment in an
ordinary civil
action, when
there is no
appeal or other
plain, speedy
or adequate
remedy in the
ordinary course
of law, may file
a special civil
action for
certiorari on the
ground that the
tribunal acted
without or in
excess of its or
his jurisdiction,
or with grave
abuse of
discretion
amounting to
lack or excess
of jurisdiction
A party
aggrieved by a
judgment in a
special civil
action may file
a special civil
action for
certiorari, on
the ground that
the tribunal
acted without
or in excess of
its or his
jurisdiction, or
with grave
abuse of
discretion
amounting to
lack or excess
of jurisdiction, if
there is no
appeal or other
plain, speedy
or adequate
remedy in the
ordinary course
of law.
REAL OR PERSONAL ACTION
- It is important to know if it is a real or personal action.
If it is not a real action then it is a personal action by
process of elimination.
- Not all action involving real property is a real action, it
depends upon the primary or ultimate relief prayed for
by the parties in the suit.
- There are some cases when realty is just incidental
to the subject matter.
TO BE A REAL ACTION: it is not enough that the
action must deal with real property. It is important
that the matter in litigation must also involve any of
the following issues relating to real property:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Title;
Ownership;
Possession;
Partition;
Foreclosure of mortgage; or
Any interest in real property.
DOCTRINES
●
KINDS OF CIVIL ACTIONS
●
An action for damages to real property,
while involving realty is a personal action
because although it involves real property,
it does not involve any of the issues
mentioned.
An action to recover possession of real
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 168
●
property plus damages is a real action.
The aspect of damages is merely an
incidental part of the main action.
An action to recover possession of a
personal property is a personal action. An
action for a declaration of nullity of
marriage is also a personal action
(Tamano vs Ortiz, 291 SCRA 584)
Remember these doctrines:
●
An action for damages to real property, while
involving realty is a personal action because
although it involves real property, it does not
involve any of the issues mentioned.
Ex: Nangguba sa imong yuta so you are filing a case
for damages. Is that a real action because a real
property is involved? No. That is a personal action.
What you are seeking for are damages and not as to
title, ownership, possession, partition, foreclosure or
any interest in the property
●
An action to recover possession of real
property plus damages is a real action
NOTE:Diri duha - action to recover possession plus
damages. Is it real or personal action? Walay middle
ground. It is only either real action or personal action.
The main relief prayed for here is for the recovery of
possession, damages are merely incidental.
Obviously, this is a real action.
●
An action for a declaration of nullity of
marriage is also a personal action
NOTE: Although maybe in the end there is also a
liquidation of absolute community property or property
regime of the marriage, still that does not make it a
real action.
kate
54:21-58:11
It is a personal action because there is no real
property involved here, although maybe in the end,
there's also liquidation of the absolute community
property, the property regime of the marriage,
although the properties may be real properties, it still
does not make it a real action because it's just
incidental. The real relief here is for the declaration
of nullity, so it's a personal action.
recovery of ownership of real property. Where the
allegations as well as the prayer of the complaint
do not claim ownership or possession of the lots
but instead seeks for the by the defendants in
favor of the plaintiff, the action is a personal action
(Adamos vs. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., 25 SCRA 529)
PLEASE REMEMBER: There are cases where the
Supreme Court that it's a real action, and there are
cases when it is deemed a personal action. For as
long as it does not involve a claim of or recovery of
ownership of real property, it is a personal action. If it
does not involve a title, possession, ownership, and if
it's just specific performance to compel the other
party to perform his obligations under the contract,
then it is a personal action.
In Adamos vs. J.M. Tuason, the allegations in the
complaint do not claim ownership or possession of
the lots but merely seeks for the execution of a deed
of sale by the defendants in favor of the plaintiff, the
action is a personal action. Because there is no claim
of ownership or possession, only the execution of a
deed of sale, then it is a personal action.
For example, you bought property. Although a
contract of sale is perfected by consent as a
consensual contract. Although, under the Statute of
Frauds, if it involves real property, it has to be in
writing. But it does not have to be in a public
document. A public document is only required for
convenience. You bough property, it has been
delivered to you, so the problem is you cannot
register the transaction with the Register of Deeds
because it was either verbal or maybe private
document. You need a notarized Deed of Sale. Then
when you went to the seller, the seller rejects just to
make it harder for you. What is your remedy? You file
an action for the execution of a Deed of Sale.
Here, there is no issue as to title or possession, only
the execution, because they refuse to execute the
Deed of Sale. So it is a personal action although you
are talking about a land, but it is not the ownership,
title, or possession which is the issue.
Action for specific performance
Adamos vs. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc.,
An action for specific performance is a personal
action as long as it does not involve a claim of or
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 169
Gochan vs. Gochan
However, where a complaint is denominated as
one for specific performance but nonetheless
prays for the issuance of a deed of sale for a parcel
of land for the plaintiff to acquire ownership of the
land, its primary objective and nature is one to
recover the parcel of land itself and thus, is
deemed a real action (Gochan vs. Gochan 372
SCRA 356)
Here, the complaint is denominated as specific
performance but prays for the issuance of a deed of
sale for a parcel of land for the plaintiff to acquire
ownership of the land. Here, the acquisition of
ownership and title is an issue. The issuance of a
Deed of Sale is just needed for the plaintiff to acquire
ownership. Here, primary objective and nature is one
to recover the parcel of land itself. What is the
nature of the action–personal or real? It is a real
action because the ultimate relief prayed for is the
acquisition of ownership over the land, although
denominated as specific performance.
58:12 to 1:02:02 MESIONA
EXERCISES
●
The plaintiff seeks the issuance of a deed
of assignment in his favor of certain
shares of stocks to regain ownership and
possession of said shares. REAL OR
PERSONAL?
– Personal action (not founded on the
privity of real estate)
What is the subject matter? Issuance of a Deed of
Assignment of shares of stock
Is there real property involved? No. So, it is not a
real action. It is a personal action.
Remember: If there is no real property involved in
the case, it can never be a real action. But if there is a
real property involved in the case, it does also
automatically mean that it is a real action. You have
to consider what is the ultimate relief prayed for in
the complaint.
In the example above, dili siya pwede maging real
action because there are no real properties involved.
It is a personal action. It is not founded on the privity
of real estate.
●
Complaint for breach of contract so the
plaintiff prays that the contract be
rescinded and that the defendant be
ordered to return possession of the land.
REAL or PERSONAL?
- REAL action because it is founded on the
privity of real estate
What is the nature of this action as to foundation?
Real or personal? What is the goal of the plaintiff
here?
Of course, dili lang man siguro siya gusto na irescind
ang contract just for the sake of rescinding the
contract. His goal is to recover the possession of the
land. So, it is real action because it is founded on the
privity of real estate.
Hernandez vs. DBP
71 scra 290 (asked in the Bar 2 times)
Hernandez filed in the RTC against DBP an action
seeking the annulment of the cancellation of the
award of a house and lot in Quezon City in his
favor. DBP had unilaterally cancelled the award
because X was a retired employee who had merely
an option to purchase said house and lot. DBP filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground
of improper venue, contending that since the
property in question is located in Quezon City, the
complaint should have been filed there.
The issue in this case was that the venue was
improper, according to DBP, because the property in
question was located in Quezon City. Ngano man?
Because if the action is a real action, the venue
should be in the place where the property is located.
To determine whether the venue is proper here, we
should determine also if this is a real or personal
action.
ISSUE: Real or personal action?
●
SIGNIFICANCE: A real action is ‘local,’ i.e.,
its venue depends upon the location of
the property involved in the litigation.
“Actions affecting title to or possession of
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 170
●
real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court
which has jurisdiction over the area
wherein the real property involved, or a
portion thereof is situated (Sec. 1, Rule 4,
Rules of Court).
On the other hand, a personal action is
‘transitory,’ i.e., its venue depends upon
the residence of the plaintiff or the
defendant at the option of the plaintiff. A
personal action may be commenced and
tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides or where the
defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides, or in the case of a
non-resident defendant, where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff (Sec.
2, Rule 4, Rules of Court).
●
The action is a personal action. The nature
of the action is one to compel the
recognition of the validity of the award by
seeking a declaration that the cancellation
of the award is null and void. The issue
does not involve title to the property or any
interest therein.
Discussion:
The Supreme Court said that the action is a personal
action. Why? Because it does not seek; does not
involve any title, possession, ownership, or privity of
real estate. The action is just to compel the recognition
of the validity of the award by seeking a declaration
that the cancellation of the award is null and void. So,
it is a personal action. Therefore, the venue depends
on the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant at the
option of the plaintiff. It does not depend on the
location of the property.
1:02:03-1:05:53
EXERCISES:
ISSUE: Real or Personal Action?
●
●
SIGNIFICANCE: A real action is “local”,
i.e., its venue depends upon the location of
the property involved in the litigation.
“Actions affecting title to or possession of
real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court
which has jurisdiction over the area
wherein the real property involved, or a
portion thereof is situated (Sec. 1, Rule 4,
Rules of Court).
On the other hand, a personal action is
“transitory”, i.e., its venue depends upon
the residence of the plaintiff or the
defendant at the option of the plaintiff. A
personal action may be commenced and
tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides or where the
defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides, or in the case of a
non-resident defendant, where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff (Sec.
2, Rule 4, Rules of Court).
●
●
●
An action to foreclose a real estate
mortgage. REAL or PERSONAL?
o REAL. It is an action founded
on an interest in real property.
An action to foreclose a chattel mortgage
or pledge. REAL or PERSONAL?
o PERSONAL. The basis is an
interest in personal property.
An action to compel the mortgage to
accept payment of mortgage debt and to
release the lots mortgaged. REAL or
PERSONAL?
o PERSONAL. Plaintiff’s title is
not in question. (HERNANDEZ v.
RURAL BANK OF LUCENA, 81
SCRA 75)
Discussion: Again, your question should be, is there
any issue about the title, possession, ownership or
privity of a real estate. If there is none, then it is a
PERSONAL ACTION. Here, there is no question as to
the title. It was just compelling the mortgagee to
accept the payment.
RULING:
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 171
ownership which could also be with the RTC or
MTC. That’s for jurisdiction.
TEST
●
If the trial court cannot decide the case
without ruling on the title over real
property, it is a REAL ACTION. Otherwise,
it is a PERSONAL ACTION.
Now, the question is, where should A file the
case? Venue. Venue is determined based on the
nature of the case- a real action or a personal
action. Here, duha man iyang gina pray, naay
real naa pud personal. So where do we file the
case?
Navaro vs Lucero 10 Phil 146
THIRD TYPE: MIXED ACTION
●
An action partaking of the two-fold nature
of real and personal actions, having for its
object the demand and restitution of real
property, and personal damages for a
wrong sustained.
Discussion: An action partaking of the two-fold nature
of real and personal actions – so mixed. I’m not saying
that it's hybrid but in one case, there is a possibility
that you are asking for a lot of reliefs. So, having for its
object the demand and restitution of real property, and
personal damages for a wrong sustained. Ex.
Recovery of possession, cancellation of title but with
damages
EXAMPLE
●
●
A files a case against B for recovery of
possession (real) with a prayer for
damages (personal).
Where should A file the case? Where he
resides or where the property is situated?
1:05:54-1:09:44
In one case filed, there are two reliefs prayed forrecovery of possession and prayer for damages.
Lahi tong discussion na before under jurisdiction,
as ana court ifile ang case- RTC, MTC?
Here, what is the main relief prayed for? Is this
an action for damages or an action for recovery
of property? Because if property is involved,
there are 3 situations it could be forcible entry or
unlawful detainer na MTC; it could be an action
for recovery which is pwede RTC or MTC
depending on the assessed value of the
property; it could be an action involving
Where several or alternative reliefs are prayed
for in the complaint, the nature of the action as
real or personal is determined by the primary
object of the suit or by the nature of the
principal claim. Thus, where the purpose is to
nullify the title to real property, the venue of the
action is in the province where the property
lies, notwithstanding the alternative relief
sought, recovery of damages, which
predicated upon a declaration of nullity of the
title.
REVIEW: REAL ACTIONS versus ACTIONS
INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION
The RTC exercises exclusive original
jurisdiction in civil actions where the subject of
the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
The RTC also has jurisdiction in civil cases
involving title to, or possession of, real
property or any interest in it where the
assessed value of the property involved
exceeds P20,000.00.
If it is below P20,000.00, it is the first level
court or MTC which has jurisdiction.
Discussion:
If it is a real action, as to jurisdiction, the
jurisdiction is based on the assessed value of the
property involved. P20,000 or less then outside
Metro Manila, MTC, beyond that, RTC. P50,000
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 172
or less within Metro Manila, MTC, beyond that,
RTC.
If it is an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation, RTC. We don’t look at the value
since there is no value involved.
Answer: It depends also because there can be
actions which are incapable of pecuniary
estimation na real action because what is
involved would be the title. There’s privity of real
estate here.
Insofar as real action is concerned, it is relevant
when the issue is title, possession, ownership,
privity of real estate. This will tell us insofar as
the venue is concerned. Asa ang venue, it is the
location of the property.
Going back to the case of Russel vs. Vestil, diba
if you remember, the Supreme Court here
enumerated actions that are incapable of
pecuniary estimation. Let’s just review.
If it is incapable of pecuniary estimation, we are
not talking of any real property here, so the
venue here is dependent on the residence of the
plaintiff or defendant at the option of the plaintiff.
ACTIONS INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY
ESTIMATION ACCORDING TO RUSSELL
1:09:45-1:13:35
●
●
A real action or an action involving title to
real property means that the plaintiffs
cause of action is based on a claim that
he owns such property or that he has the
legal right to have exclusive control,
possession, enjoyment, or disposition of
the same.
Recall as well that in Russell versus
Vestil, G.R. No. 119347, March 17, 1999,
the Supreme Court enumerated the
actions that are considered incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
DISCUSSION: Now, insofar as real action is
concerned, it is relevant when the issue is title,
possession, ownership, and privity of real estate.
So, this will tell us, in so far as the venue is
concerned, kung asa ang venue. It is the location
of the property.
If it is incapable of pecuniary estimation, we are
not talking of any real property here. So, the
venue here is dependent on the residence of the
plaintiff or defendant at the option of the plaintiff.
Question: If an action, which is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, is it necessarily a personal
action? Can it also be a real action? Because
when you say incapable of pecuniary estimation,
as to jurisdiction, RTC. But, as to venue, unsa
man ang venue if its incapable of pecuniary
estimation?
●
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. An action
that at first blush seems to be real action
for forcible entry is incapable of pecuniary
estimation if it is actually one for specific
performance to compel the private
respondents, as lessors, to comply with
their obligations under the lease contract
and return the possession of the leased
premises (AMORGANDA VS. COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. No. 80040, September
30, 1988).
DISCUSSION: Kung the main or principal action
reliefs sought is just for the performance of one’s
obligation in the contract, it is a personal action.
So, an action in this case of Amorganda versus
Court of Appeals, at first blush seemed to be a
real option for forcible entry. The relief sought
here was to compel the private respondents, as
lessors, to comply with their obligations under
the lease contract and to return the possession
of leased premises.
So, the subject matter here, the lease premises,
is a real property. Pero, if you look at the relief
sought which is to comply with their obligations
under the lease contract and return the
possession of the leased premises. The
Supreme Courts here have said that even if
there's a real property involved here but, as I
said, not all cases where there's real property is
automatically a real action. Tan-awon nato kung
unsa gyud principal relief sought. So, to compel
the lessors, to comply with their obligations
under the lease contract, it is actually one for
specific performance. So, it is not a real action,
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 173
but it is a personal action.
wants/demands support.
So, the venue here would again depend on the
residence of the parties at the option of the
(*1:12:36 tribute). So, this is also discussed in
the case of Russel that a specific performance is
a personal action.
ACTIONS INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY
ESTIMATION ACCORDING TO RUSSELL:
●
RECISSION. It is considered as a
counterpart
of specific performance
(LAPITAN versus SCANDIA, INC., G.R. No.
L-24669, July 31, 1968).
DISCUSSION: If recession is just the relief
sought and the ultimate goal is not to recover
real property then, it is considered as personal
action. So, it is actually the counterpart of
specific performance. Pareho silag nature.
●
In the case of Russel, it is classified as incapable
of pecuniary estimation.
But it does not follow na if it is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, it is already personal. It
could also be real.
●
●
●
●
●
SUPPORT
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
ACTIONS
QUESTIONING
THE
VALIDITY
OF
A
MORTGAGE
(BUNAYOG versus TUNAS, G.R. No. L12707, December 23, 1959)
DISCUSSION: Support. Diba we discussed this
already na incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Ngano man? Bisag mangayo ka ug kwarta sa
support na kaso but it is not actually capable of
pecuniary estimation because the amount of
support varies. It may increase or decrease
depending on the means of the person obliged to
give support and the necessity of the person who
supports or demanding for support.
Annulment of judgment
Not capable of pecuniary estimation because
there is no amount involved here.
●
Actions questioning the validity of a
mortgage (Bunayog vs. Tunas, GR
no. L-12707, Dec. 23, 1959)
It is not capable of pecuniary estimation because
you are just dealing with a question of whether or
not the mortgage is valid.
●
ACTIONS INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY
ESTIMATION ACCORDING TO RUSSELL:
Foreclosure of mortgage
Annulment of deeds of conveyance
and recovery of the price paid
It is not capable of pecuniary estimation because
what is involved here is the annulment of deeds
of conveyance.
*Going back to FORECLOSURE OF
MORTGAGE:
Roldan vs. Sps. Barrios
GR No. 214803 | April 23, 2018
Facts: The sps. Barrios obtained a loan from the
Alona Roldan in the amount of P250K. The loan
was secured by a real estate mortgage over a
parcel of land in Aklan. Because they failed to
pay, Alona was constrained to file a complaint for
foreclosure of mortgage against the sps. Barrios
before the RTC.
The RTC dismissed the case because, based on
the allegations of the complaint, the land subject
of the foreclosure only had an assessed value of
P13, 380 and it is thus the MTC that has
jurisdiction.
(*because for it to be under RTC, the assessed
value must be beyond P20K if it is outside Metro
Manila)
1:13:36-1:17:26
.. means of the person obliged to give support
and the necessity of the person who
Alona filed a petition for certiorari directly before
the SC alleging grave abuse of discretion when
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 174
the RTC ordered the dismissal of the foreclosure
case. She argued that, based on Russel vs
Vestil, foreclosure of mortgage is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation which is within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC.
Ruling:
As to the issue of direct resort to the SC
A strict application of the rule of hierarchy of
court is not necessary when the cases brought
before the appellate courts do not involve factual
but legal questions. Since petitioner raises a
pure question of law pertaining to the court’s
jurisdiction on complaint for judicial foreclosure of
sale, we would allow petitioner’s direct resort to
us.
Clearly, the last paragraph clarified that while
civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest
therein, are also incapable of pecuniary
estimation as it is not for recovery of money,
the court’s jurisdiction will be determined by
the assessed value of the property involved.
This is the last paragraph. An action for
foreclosure of mortgage is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, but it’s also a real action
because it involves real properties. So in the
determination of jurisdiction, we base on the
assessed value of the real property involved. In
this case of Barrios, ha.
As to the issue of nature of action
Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of
non-payment of the mortgage indebtedness and,
therefore, the foreclosure suit is a real action so
far as it is against property, and seeks the
judicial recognition of a property debt, and an
order for the sale of the res. As foreclosure of
mortgage is a real action, it is the assessed
value of the property which determines the
court’s jurisdiction. Considering that the
assessed value of the mortgaged property is only
P13, 380, the RTC correctly found that the action
falls within the jurisdiction of the first level court.
The SC said that, yes, it is correct, an action for
foreclosure of mortgage is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation and therefore, within the
jurisdiction of the RTC. We are not persuaded. In
the Russell case, we held:
While actions under Sec. 33 (3) of BP
129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation,
the law specifically mandates that they are
cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where
the assessed value of the real property involved
does exceed P20K in Metro Manila, or P50K, if
located elsewhere. If the value exceeds P20K or
P50K as the case may be, it is the RTCs which
have jurisdiction under Sec. 19 (2).
Although I also made a comment before, na
kung i-analyze jud nimo mas gwapo siya iclassify as a personal action ang foreclosure of
mortgage because here the creditor is not
actually claiming the property. In fact, it will be
sold at a public auction, and only the proceeds of
the sale will be given to the creditor. But there’s
the ruling of the SC that it’s incapable of
pecuniary estimation and a real action.
Now classification of civil actions as to object of
the action. Ganina as to cause or foundation,
karon as to object. So ang classifications here
would be in rem, in personam, or quasi in rem.
When you say object of the action, actually and
ultimate na imong tan-awon is who will be bound
by the judgment of the court in these kinds of
actions. Will it only be the parties? Or only the
property involved in the action? Or will it be the
whole world?
As to Object of the Action
In Rem, In Personam and Quasi in Rem
1:17:27 to 1:21:17
An action in personam is directed against
specific persons on the basis of their personal
liabilities and seeks personal judgment, while
an action in rem is directed against the thing
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 175
or property or status of a person and seeks
judgments with respect thereto as against the
whole world.
AS TO OBJECT OF THE ACTION
● IN REM, IN PERSONAM AND QUASI
IN REM
So ang action in personam against a specific
person jud. Like collection of a sum of money.
File ka ug action against A. Your action is really
directed against A. And A will be made to pay, of
course. So it seeks personal judgment.
- An action in personam is directed against
specific persons on the basis of their personal
liabilities and seeks personal judgements,
while action in rem is directed against the thing
or property or status of a persona and seeks
judgements with respect thereto as against the
whole world.
Sa action in rem, for example, registration of
land or cadastral proceedings. They are actions
in rem. The action is directed against the
property. Or maybe declaration of nullity of
marriage. It’s also in rem. It’s directed against the
status. So in these actions, the judgment binds
the whole world.
Ang in personam, binding lang siya against the
parties. Kung dili ka party in the case, dili ka
bound by the decision in that case. Pag in rem
gani, bound ka, like land registration. “Wala man
ko niapil sa proceeding in court for the
registration of the title over the land, so dili nako
gina respeto iyang title.” No, it’s binding against
the whole world. Declaration of nullity, “Dili man
ko participant diha, so di ko bound.” No, binding
siya against the whole world. That’s the nature of
an action in rem.
As to Object of the Action
In Rem, In Personam and Quasi in Rem
An action quasi in rem names a person as
defendant, but its object is to subject that
person’s interest in a property to a
corresponding lien or obligation.
Action Quasi In Rem: Like foreclosure of
mortgage, ang imohang goal is to have the real
property, for example...
Bolo 1:21:18-1:25:08
- An action quasi in rem names a person a
defendant, but its object is to subject that
person’s interest in a property to a
corresponding lien or obligation
Ang imuhang goal, is to have the real property
for example, which is mortgage, be subjected to
the jurisdiction and custody of the court and to
have that property sold at public auction and the
proceeds of that property be used to pay the
debt.
Actually, wala nimo gipugos si debtor na sya
mismo ang mubayad, ang iyahang property
gisubject nimo to a lien. But still because he is
the owner of that property, the action for
foreclosure of property should be directed
against the debtor. Siya gihapon ang defendant
in that case but the ultimate relief here is to
subject his property to a lien or obligation. So,
this is an action quasi in rem.
·
In an action in personam, no one
other than the defendant is sought to be
held liable, not the whole world.
- Example: Action for reconveyance; an action
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 176
for a sum of money; an action for damages; an
action for specific performance; an action for
rescission [Gomez vs CA, 425 SCRA 98]
In an action in personam, it is only the defendant
who is made liable, dili iya igsuon, lolo, lola,
silingan, siya lang jud. So, not the whole world.
Example, naa siyay property, pero you are
saying na dili na iyaha, akua na siya, so giforge
lang niya amuang pirma, pero wala ko nipirma
ug anything, so you are asking for the
reconveyance of a property. That action is in
personam. You file the case against the person
because he will have the obligation to make the
reconveyance. It is not in rem, it will not bind the
whole world. All other persons who are not
parties to the case are not bound by the decision
in the action.
Action for sum of money, again, it is in
personam, directed against one who owes
money. Action for damages, in personam, so as
action for specific performance and action for
rescission. So these are actions in personam
directed against the person, the one who
borrowed money, the one who caused the
damages or the one who was negligent or the
one who was the contracting party as discussed
in the case of Gomez vs CA.
●
rem [In Re ESTATE OF JOHNSON,
39 Phil 156]
A land registration proceeding is an
action in rem. Hence, the failure to
give a personal notice to the owners of
the land is not a jurisdictional defect. It
is the publication of such notice that
brings in the whole world as a party in
case and vests the court with
jurisdiction.
In a land registration which is a proceeding in
rem, you don’t serve summons to the entire
world, isa isahon nimo tanan tao sa kalibutan
tagaan nimo ug summons because mao mana
ang nature sa in rem, binding against the whole
world. You do not serve individual summons to
bind the whole world, what is required in actions
in rem would only be publications. So,
publication serves as the notice to the whole
world. So, for as long as you have complied with
that requisite, then the court has already
acquired jurisdiction over the case.
·
So, they seek personal liabilities or personal
judgements.
ACTION IN REM
● An action in rem is directed against the
thing or property or status of a person
and seeks judgements with respect
thereto as against the whole world. An
action in rem is an action against the
thing itself instead of against the
person.
● A cadastral proceeding is an action in
Cases involving auction sale of
land for the collection of
delinquent taxes is an action in
personam. Mere publication of the
notice of delinquency does not
suffice. Notice by publication
although sufficient in proceedings
ins rem does not satisfy the
requirements of proceedings in
personam [Talusan vs Tayag,
356 SCRA 263]
In this case of Talusan vs Tayag, auction sale of
lane for the collection of delinquent taxes,
1:25:09 - 1:28:56 KHAYZEE
·
Cases involving an auction sale of
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 177
land
for the
collection
of
delinquent taxes is an action in
personam. Mere publication of the
notice of delinquency does not
suffice. Notice by publication
although sufficient in proceedings
in rem does not satisfy the
requirements of proceedings in
personam (Talusan vs Tayag)
·
The probate of a will is a
proceeding in rem, because the
order of a probate is effective
against all persons wherever
residing (In re Estate of Johnson)
(Talusan vs.) Tayag, option sale of land for the
collection of delinquent taxes. Is this an action in
personan or action in rem?
kay mag matter siya kung in personam siya
dapat, but padalan gyud nimo ug notice
individually ang mga tag-iya sa properties, sa
katong mga taxpayers nga wala nagabayad ug
taxes.
Pero kung it is in rem, enough na ang notice
enough na ang publication as notice but the
Supreme Court said that this case is actually an
action in personam okay because here you are
seeking for the obligation or liability of the
delinquent taxpayers. so mere publication of
the notice of delinquency does NOT suffice you
have to serve them personally with notices as a
requirement to acquire jurisdiction over their
person.
What is the meaning of proceeding in rem?
You don't need to serve summons or notices
to all the heirs kay wala man gani ka kabalo
kanang namatay basig daghan kaayo na siyay
anak sa gawas wa ta kaila. Okay, so how can
you possibly serve summons or notices to all of
them? kato lang known na heirs, pero katong
unknown, no need.
so what is required in a probate of will is
PUBLICATION. So i publish sa newspaper na
there's a proceeding for the probate of the will of
this person if you're interested party you may
appear and file your opposition or whatever. So,
kung naay decree ang court, allowing the will to
probate and then later on nahibalan nimo nga
hala gi allow ang will unya anak man ko pero wa
man ko naapil diha.
Dili valid ang will kay wala man ko na notify, no,
it's not required na kinahanglan ka individually i
notify notice by publication is sufficient to confer
jurisdiction in the probate court and binding
against the whole world. So even if he did not
participate in the probate proceedings, you are
bound by the decision or the decree of the
probate court.
probate of a will it is a proceeding in rem kay
what is the probate of a will? familiar man siguro
mo unsa nang last will and testament kanang
mamatay na ta 'nya paghuman feeling nato nga
mag away man ni akong mga anak sa magbuhat
kog last will and testament para ibahin bahin na
nako sa ilaha and akoang property so the will dili
na siya effective as is it has to go through a
process of probate, so mag file kag petition for
probate of the will in court, the court will
determine if the will is valid. That is a proceeding
in rem.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 178
January 11, 2021 - ONLINE
LECTURE
ACTION QUASI IN REM
A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought
against persons seeking to subject the
property of such persons to the discharge of
the claims assailed. In an action quasi in rem,
and individual is named as defendant and the
purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
interests therein to the obligation or loan
burdening the property.
Unlike an action in personam which is directed
personally against the defendant, for example
seeking to enforce his personal liability; here, in
an action quasi in rem, although we make the
person as a defendant, but he will not be the one
directly paying the claim.
For example, the ultimate objective of the case is
to subject the property of that person to a lien or
burden (i.e., in a mortgage) insofar as the
property itself, which is a subject of a mortgage,
is concerned, here the property is subject to an
encumbrance or a lien. The property will be the
one to be sold at a public auction and the
proceeds will be used to pay off the debts of the
debtor. If the proceeds of the sale of the property
is insufficient, that will be the time when the ‘in
personam’ aspect will be relevant. If you seek a
deficiency judgment against the debtor, you want
him to be personally liable for the deficiency,
then that becomes ‘in personam.’
Actions quasi in rem deal with the status,
ownership, or liability of a particular property
but which are intended to operate on these
questions only as between the particular
parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain
or cut-off the rights or interests of all possible
claimants. (Domagas v. Jensen, 448 SCRA
664; Bar Q 1994)
The object of an action quasi in rem is the sale
or disposition of the property whether by
attachment, foreclosure, or any other form of
remedy. (Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca,
37 Phil. 921)
When you say ‘quasi in rem,’ what is settled here
is only the obligation of the defendant. Again, if
you file an action for foreclosure against A,
seeking to foreclose the property of A, the
judgment here is limited to the property itself
insofar as the quasi in rem feature is concerned.
But again, because it is not ‘in rem’ the judgment
in that case is not binding against the whole
world. If there will be a third party who claims
that the property foreclosed belongs to him, that
third person who is not a party in the
proceedings, is not bound by the decision of the
court in the foreclosure. The decision is only
binding between the parties in the case. It does
not cut off the rights or interest of all possible
claimants.
The object of an action quasi in rem is the sale or
disposition of the property whether by
attachment, foreclosure, or any other form of
remedy.
Attachment is a form of provisional remedy
where while the case is still ongoing, you want
the properties of the debtor to be in custodia
legis so that the debtor cannot sell or dispose of
the properties. If the plaintiff wins the case, the
properties will be used to answer for the debt. In
attachment, there is no specific property involved
here. All properties of the debtor may be
attached. There is no prior contract between the
parties. If there is already a ground for
attachment like the debtor is in the act of
absconding, you may file for attachment to put
his properties in custodia legis.
In foreclosure, the property has been used as a
collateral for the payment of the debt in a
contract or agreement before the case was
instituted. Upon non-payment of the debtor, the
property may be foreclosed upon the filing of
judicial foreclosure of mortgage. That is directed
against the property.
06:13-12:26
Examples
(a) action for partition;
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 179
Manila kay MTC, over that kay RTC. Metro Manila
50,000 or less MTC, and if over 50,000 RTC.
(b) action for accounting;
- Such action are essentially for the
purpose of affecting the defendant’s
interest in the property and not to render a
judgement against him. (Valmonte vs. CA,
252 SCRA 92)
(c) attachment
(d) judicial foreclosure of mortgage
Judicial Foreclosure under Rule 68, it is also what we
call a special civil action. Meaning although
applicable ang Ordinary or Regular Rules of
Procedures sa foreclosure of mortgage. But primarily
kung unsa tung specific provision under Rule 68, then
they will be applied in so far as Judicial foreclosure of
mortgage is concerned.
So why do we have the characterize the action
whether it is a real action, a personal action, quasi in
rem, or personam or in rem?
In an action for partition, this refers to the interest of
the defendants in the property.
Significance of Characterization
When you file an action for accounting, your
essentially affecting the defendant interest in the
property and not to render a judgement against the
defendant, only for him to render an accounting.
The distinction is important to determine
whether or not jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is required and consequently to be
employed.
Those are example of actions quasi in rem.
Summary: Judicial Foreclosure
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
necessary for the court to validly try and decide a
case against said defendant where the action is
one in personam but not where the action is in
rem or quasi in rem.
It is a special action under Rule 68.
It is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
(Russel vs. Vestil, GR no. 119347, March 17, 1999)
It is also a real action. Thus, the determination of
jurisdiction is subject to the assessed value of the
property. (Roldan vs. Spouses Barrios, GR no.
214803, April 23, 2018)
Because if it is a personal action then you will have to
determine kung unsa ba na siya. Incapable of
pecuniary estimation or capable of pecuniary
estimation. And then unsa man ang atoang ginarecover here? Is it personal property? Whats the
value of the personal property involved? It will
determine the jurisdiction.
In so far as a real action naman, when jurisdiction is
concerned. What is the assessed the value of the
property? That would tell us which court has
jurisdiction.
It is an action quasi in rem.
Now please remember again na controversial jud
ning Judicial Foreclosure. We also discussed tha an
action for judicial foreclosure is a personal action if
you are seeking to foreclose real property, real estate
mortgage, but it is also incapable of pecuniary
estimation. But for the purpose of determining
jurisdiction, because it is a real action, then we have
to consider the assessed value of the property to be
foreclosed. If it is 20,000 or less outside Metro
In so far as venue naman, when personal action is
concerned. It depends on the residence of the
plaintiff or residence of the defendant at the option
of the plaintiff. But if it’s a real action, ang venue will
depend on the location of the property. That’s why
we have to know kung as to foundation unsa na siya.
As to object naman, why do we need know whether
it is personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. Ang important
here is whether or not jurisdiction is obtained.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 180
Unsa man ng element sa jurisdiction. Jurisdiction
over the subject matter, jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant, jurisdiction over the res, and
jurisdiction over the issue. Kani siya more on the
jurisdiction over the person and jurisdiction over the
res. When it comes into questions in persona, in rem,
or quasi in rem, and to determine whether unsang
klase na summons na atong issue kay defendant.
Under the element of jurisdiction, kinahanglan jud na
we acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter, over
the parties, over the res, and the issues. Why?
Because if the court hears and decides a case without
jurisdiction that decision and all proceedings
conducted in the court would be considered as null
and void. It would not be binding and can be assailed
at any time.
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is also
very important when the case is in personam. Why?
Because when we say in personam you are seeking to
enforce personal judgement against the defendant.
You are trying to enforce his personal liability. How
can he do that if the court does not acquire
jurisdiction over his person.
As discussed in the case of Ejercitio vs. M.R. Vargas
Construction, G.R. no. 172595, April 10, 2008.
Ejercitio vs. M.R. Vargas Construction, G.R. no.
172595, April 10, 2008
In an action in personam, personal service of
summons on the defendant is the preferred mode
of service, that is, by handing a copy of the
summons of the defendant in person.
12:27 – 18:39 DEROGONGAN
We will discuss that in Rule 14, how do you serve
summons to the defendants. Because service of
summons is one way for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
Ang preferred mode of service of summons is by
personal service. When you say personal service, you
mean ihand nimo sakanya personally ang summons.
There are other modes of service pero naay
requisites. You have to observe those requisites
before you can proceed to the other service of
summons like substituted service, service by
publication, and other modes. Dili na siya basta basta
kay naay conditions. So ang preferred is personal
service of summons if it is an action in personam.
Although under Rule 14, there is another way of
acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant in a personal action. Kung voluntarily he
appeared before the court and he submitted himself
to the jurisdiction of the court, in that case, any
defect in the service of the summons made by the
sheriff is no longer an issue because of the voluntary
appearance and voluntary submission of the
defendant to the jurisdiction of the court.
(Actions in personam under Rule 14 will be
thoroughly discussed when we reach Rule 14. Below
is merely an overview.)
So naa may modes of service na for example ang
defendant ay resident of the Philippines, or a
resident of the Philippines pero temporarily out of
the Philippines, or resident of the Philippines tapos
dili pud siya out of the Philippines pero wala ka
kabalo asa siya, or non-resident defendants. So naay
specific modes of service and how do you serve
summons upon them. Again, you have to follow the
rules on the service of summons for the court to
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
If the case is purely a personal action and it is in
personam, meaning you are seeking personal
judgment against the defendant, but the defendant is
not a resident of the Philippines and you are not also
attaching any of his properties, it is impossible for
you to acquire jurisdiction over him. Even if you
follow the rules on the service of summons, our court
processes are not effective outside the jurisdiction of
the Philippines although naay mga service of
publication but kana siya mag-apply lang siya kung
naay res involved in the action. Like you’re attaching
properties, you are foreclosing and naa siya sa
abroad, the service of summons upon him, for
example by publication, it is still required but it is not
to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant but as an element of due process. What is
important is that the court acquire jurisdiction over
the res here in the Philippines pero if it is purely an
action in personam, walay res involved in the
Philippines and the defendant is abroad, then there is
no way for which the court can acquire jurisdiction.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 181
The court cannot proceed in that case. We will
discuss more on that when we go to Rule 14.
Spouses Yu vs. PACLEB
GR 172172, February 24, 2009
Binding effect of action in personam
●
●
A proceeding in personam is a proceeding
to enforce personal rights and obligations
brough against the person 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.
The purpose of a proceeding in personam
is to impose, through the judgment of a
court, some responsibility or liability
directly upon the person of the
defendant.
Take note that A proceeding in personam is a
proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations
brought against the person 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.
Like for example, recovery of possession of real
property. It is as to foundation, it is a real action
because it involves possession or title to real
property. But as to object, is that an action in
personam, is it in rem or quasi in rem. What do you
seek in that case? What is your relief prayed for in
that case? You want to recover this real property
from A. Do you subject his property to a burden? Like
in a foreclosure of mortgage. Actually, you are asking
the court to order the defendant to deliver to you a
real property, so it is an action in personam. Because
you are seeking the enforcement of a personal
liability although that personal liability consists in the
defendant delivering to you a real property. The
purpose is to impose through the judgment of the
court some responsibility or liability directly upon the
person of the defendant.
(18:40-24:52) - Esmael
sJanuary 11, 2021
the purpose is to impose through the judgment of
the court some responsibility or liability directly upon
the person of the defendant.
Action for Specific Performance
It is a personal action but as to object, it is also in
persona. You want A to pay to you a sum of money,
for example 1 million. It is one seeking to enforce
personally from A the payment of that amount. Or
you want A to comply with his obligations in the
contract. So again, that is an action in persona.
An action for specific performance praying for the
execution of a deed of sale in connection with an
undertaking in a contract. Again, you will be
compelling the defendant to execute a deed of sale.
So that is again seeking from the defendant the
performance of an obligation. Seeking personal
judgment, seeking personal liability. So that is action
in personam.
So please remember, this is very important also,
when you say in personam, if the case is in
personam, the judgment is in personam, it is binding
only among the parties to the case. If you are not a
participant in that case, you cannot be held liable in
the case. The judgment of the court is not binding
against persons who are not impleaded in the case.
When you say impleaded, meaning party siya,
defendant sya or plaintiff sya, or intervenor. Why?
because it will also violate their right to due process.
Before judgment should be rendered against you,
you should have the opportunity to be heard.
So for example, A files a case against B for the
recovery of property, and after presentation of
evidence, the court said, 'ok B you are hereby
directed to deliver to A this property'. And then X is
also claiming ownership over that property. Is the
judgment of the court in that case directing B to
deliver to A already conclusive against X? Can that
judgment of the court na wala na, it already settles
finally the issue of ownership over the property na si
A gyud ang tag -iya that's why B is ordered to deliver.
NO. Because in so far is X is concerned, he's not a
party to the case. He's not impleaded and he's not
given any opportunity to present evidence to prove
his ownership. So it cannot be binding against. So
that's the nature of an action in personam.
18:40-24:52
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 182
Biaco vs. Countryside Rural Bank
For actions in rem or quasi in rem
In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided
that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either:
1. by the seizure of the property under legal process
whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law
(writ of attachment issued by the court, etc).
But here again the purpose is not to acquire
jurisdiction, like for example non-resident na diay
siya, you cannot really acquire jurisdiction over his
person but you need that to comply with the rules on
due process.
The same thing in action in rem: land registration
proceedings. This action in rem is binding against the
whole world. So, what you need to do is still the
court needs to acquire jurisdiction but here what
involve are all possible persons by publication, not
summons.
24:53-31:05 Cham
Here, there is already a legal process whereby the
property is seized and placed under custodial legis; or
2. as a result of the institution of legal proceedings in
which the power of the court is recognized and made
effective.
Again, an action for foreclosure of mortgage. By the
fact that the plaintiff filed an action for foreclosure of
mortgage, jurisdiction over the res is acquired, and
the power of the court is recognized and made
effective.
ACOSTA ET. AL VS SALAZAR
G.R. No. 161034
June 30, 2009
FACTS:
So kung muingon ta na in an action in rem or quasi in
rem, it is not important to acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant, so long as the court
acquires jurisdiction over the res; would this mean
that summonses are not required to be served in
action in rem or quasi in rem? kay di man kaha
importante na maka acquire ta ug jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant? Diba it is acquired by 1)
serving summons to the defendant, or 2) by his
voluntary appearance or submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.
The case was petition for the cancellation of the
entries annotated at the back of the original
certificate of title # 40287. Here, no summons were
served. On the supposation of the petitioners, this
was an action in rem. So we really need to know
what is the characterization of the case as to
object.
So di na ba kailangan ug summons? Of course not! I
explained this already before.
RULING: NO
Summons must still be served upon the defendant
even if it is an action in rem or quasi in rem, not for
the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but
merely to satisfy the requirements of due process. So
kung magforeclose ka ug mortgage, which is an
action quasi in rem, you still need to serve summons
upon the defendant. But of course, for example si
defendant wala diri sa Philippines, he cannot be
located, you resort to other modes of service. Ifollow
gihapon nimo ang rule sa summons.
ISSUE: Is this an action in personam, quasi in-rem
or in rem?
The court said that this is an action in personam.
On the poture that the case was a land registration
proceeding which is a proceeding in rem, here the
plaintiff did not implead the heirs mentioned in the
annotation. When you say registration of land
under Torrens System, it is a proceeding in rem.
You are affecting the entire world. When the land
is registered under your name, the court will
decree that you are the owner of such land and
that is binding against the whole world. Such
proceeding in rem dealing with a tangible res,
which is the land, may be instituted and carried to
judgment without personal service upon the
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 183
claimants within the state or notice by mail to
those outside of it. Jurisdiction is acquired by virtue
of the power of the cur over the res.
IN
PERSONAM
IN REM
DISCUSSION:
However, for example: A filed for registration of title,
so it is in rem. Eventually, there is a decree made by
the court: " this will be registered under the name of
A." Now later on, let say X, nagpaannotate of an
adverse claim over the land, maybe contract to sell.
And then, gusto ipatanggal ni ang annotation. Can he
do that without informing X? The answer is NO.
Because there is already an INTEREST of X which is
affected.
So here, the cancellation of entries annotated at the
back of the title or to have been directed to a specific
person. So it is no longer an action in rem. It is one
directed against a specific party. so here, you have to
notify or to serve summon upon the party which is
directly affected or to be affected by the judgment of
the court; if the court will say, "this court hereby
orders the cancellation of the annotation." It would
be X who cause the annotation be affected. It is not
the entire world because only X is directly affected,
so that is an action in personam.
Here, there are successors-in-interest who have
acquired different portions of the property over the
years. Insofar these persons are concerned, it is in
personam insofar the portions acquired by these
persons; it is quasi in rem. The nature of quasi in rem
and in personam is insofar as the binding effect; they
are the same as to the binding effect only against the
parties to the case, they do not bind the entire world.
31:06 - 37: 18 Seruela
DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACTIONS IN PERSONAM, IN
REM AND QUASI IN REM
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 184
QUASI IN IN
REM
Is directed
against
specific
persons on
their
personal
liabilities and
seeks
personal
judgments
Is directed
against the
thing or
property or
status of a
person
Is one brought
against
persons
seeking to
subject the
property of
such persons
to the
discharge of
the claims
assailed.
Binds only
the parties to
the action
Binds the
whole world
Requires
jurisdiction
over the
person
Requires
jurisdiction
over the res
Services of
summons is
jurisdictional
Service of summons is not
required to obtain jurisdiction
but merely to satisfy the
requirement of due process
Requires
personal
service of
summons to
the
defendant to
acquire
jurisdiction
(or by his
voluntary
appearance)
Jurisdiction is acquired either:
Binds only the
parties to the
action
Requires only
jurisdiction
over the res to
bind the
person
1. By the seizure of the
property under legal
process whereby it is
brought into actual
custody if the law;
(example is writ of
attachment) or
2. As a result of the
institution of legal
proceedings, in which the
power of the court is
recognized and made
effect
(example is filing of a
case for foreclosure
of mortgage)
A foreign
judgment in
an action in
personam is
presumptive,
not
conclusive, of
a right as
between the
parties and
their
successors by
a subsequent
title.
(Meaning if
there is an
action in
personam
against the
defendant
abroad and
that
judgment is
sought to be
enforced
here in the
Philippines, it
can still be
questioned
by the
defendant.
Presumptivel
y it is valid
but the
defendant
can still
present
evidence to
the contrary.)
A foreign
judgment in
an action in
rem is
deemed
conclusive
upon the
title to the
thing.
(When you
say
conclusive
you cannot
present
evidence to
the
contrary. It
is binding
against the
whole
world)
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 185
Same
treatment as
action in
personam
●
●
We will discussed this foreign judgment
when we go to Rule 39, insofar as
implementation, because Rule 39 refer to
execution of judgment. This is where foreign
judgment enters, because when you say
foreign judgments, the aspect that will be
affected here in the Philippines would only
be the enforcement because the case was
heard abroad. However, as to the
enforcement, if it will be enforced in the
Philippines then we follow the rule as to the
implementation.
Please remember also that there can be
combinations of actions. When you say
personal, we are referring to the
foundation, personal or real action.
When you say in rem, quasi in rem, in
personam, we are referring to the
object. So it does not follow that, if
personal it is in personam, or if it is real
action, it is in rem, it does not follow. It
depend of what kind of action.
Exercises
●
Think about actions that are:
o PERSONAL and IN PERSONAM
o PERSONAL and IN REM
Bayot v Bayot
o REAL and IN PERSONAM
G.R. No. 155635, November 7, 2008
●
It is essential that there should be an
opportunity to challenge the foreign
judgment, in order for the court in this
jurisdiction to properly determine its
efficacy. In this jurisdiction, our Rules of
Court clearly provide that with respect to
actions in personam, as distinguished
from actions in rem, a foreign judgment
merely constitute prima facie evidence
of the justness of the claim of a party
and, as such, is subject to proof to the
contrary.
37:19 – 43:31 Espuerta
Exercises
-
Think about actions that are:
o PERSONAL and IN PERSONAM
§ Action for damages –
so when you say
damages, you are not
referring
to
title,
ownership,
or
possession
of
real
property, its personal.
IN PERSONAM because
it is directed against the
defendant. You are
seeking
personal
judgements against the
defendant. You want
him to pay damages.
Combinations
●
An action in personam is not necessarily a
personal action. Nor is a real action
necessarily an action in rem. An in
personam or an in rem action is a
classification of actions according to the
object of the action, A personal and real
action is a classification according to
foundation
o PERSONAL and IN REM
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 186
§ Declaration of nullity
of marriage – you are
not claiming title to or
possession
of
real
property or any interest,
you just want your
marriage to be declared.
You are filing that
against, for example,
your husband. So, it’s
PERSONAL. BUT, it is IN
REM,
because
the
decree of the court in
that
proceeding
is
binding against the
whole world. Dili pwede
na inyuhang annulment
kay
binding
only
between sa inyuha
duha, dili pwede sa
gawas. So si X, dili man
siya apil sa kaso, dili sila
annulled, so far X is
concerned.
o REAL and IN PERSONAM
§
Forcible entry,
unlawful
detainer,
recovery of possession –
Diba real actions man ni
sila?
Because
they
involve title to or
possession in interest in
real property or privity
of real estate. Pero,
they are IN PERSONAM
(meaning binding lang
siya against the parties)
kay you are seeking
from the defendant the
recovery
of
the
property, siya man ang
mu-deliver so property.
You
are
seeking
personal liability, or you
are seeking personal
judgements. Persons or
parties not impleaded in
the case are not bound
by that case, by the
decision of the court in
that action.
o REAL and IN REM
§ Proceedings under the
Property
Registration
Decree but not an
action for reconveyance
which is personal – Land
registration: because it
involves
title
to
property. And it is IN
REM because binding to
the whole world ang
decree ni court ordering
the registration of the
land under the name of
this specific applicant.
Action for declaration of nullity of marriage
An action for the declaration of nullity of
a marriage is a personal action (Tamano vs.
Ortiz, 291 SCRA 685; Romualdez-Licaros vs.
Licaros, 401 SCRA 762) because it is not
founded on real estate. It is also an in rem
action because the issue of the status of a
person is one directed against the whole
world. One’s status is a matter that can be set
up against anyone in the world. On the other
hand, an action for damages is both a
personal action and an action in personam.
Although possible nga sa declaration of nullity,
ang court magliquidate sa property regime of
the spouses, but it is just incidental to the case.
The real controversy here is whether or not the
marriage is null and void and should be declared
as such. It is binding against the whole world
because one’s status can be set up against
anyone in the world.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 187
Now, in the case of Salandanan vs. Sps. Mendez.
Diba as we’ve said, when you say in personam,
the judgement of the court that case is binding
only against the parties to the case. Those who
are not impleaded are not bound by the
decision. But there are cases where even if
you’re not a party to the case, you can be bound
by a judgement in personam.
Salandanan vs. Sps. Mendez
GR No. 160280, March 13, 2009
When non-party may be bound by a
judgement in personam
A judgement directing a party to deliver
possession of a property to another is
personam (but it is also a real action). xxx Any
judgement therein is binding only upon the
parties properly impleaded and duly heard or
given an opportunity to be heard. Even a nonparty may be bound by the judgement in an
ejectment suit where he is any of the
following: (a) trespasser, squatter or agent of
the defendant fraudulently occupying the
property to frustrate the judgement; (b) guest
or occupant of the premises with the
permission of the defendant; (c) transferee
pendente lite; (d) sublessee; (e) co-lessee; or
(f) member of the family, relative or privy of
the defendant.
a) Trespasser, squatter or agent of the
defendant fraudulently occupying the
property to frustrate judgment;
So katong mga gipanginvite ni defendant nga
“dali mo diri magtukod tag barong2x”. Apil to
sila. They are bound by the judgment.
b) Guest or occupant of the premises with
the permission of the defendant;
Iyahang mga bisita or mga boarders niya. Apil
sad na sila. They are also bound.
c) Transferee pendente lite;
So example, during the pendency of the case, gi
transfer ni X (defendant) kay Y (third party) ang
property. Y is bound by the judgment.
d) Sublessee;
Kung si X nagparenta siya, bound pud tong nag
renta.
e) Co-lessee; or
f) Member of the family, relative or privy
of the defendant.
But before you are bound, as discussed in the
case of Flyod vs. Gonzales, et al. (G.R. No.
169047, Nov. 3, 2008), a hearing is A MUST to
determine the character of such possession.
Example:
43:32 – 49:44 - RYAN
Continuation of Salandanan v. Sps. Mendez
Even a non-party may be bound by the
judgement in an ejectment suit where he is any
of the following:
Like gitransfer ni X sa imo ang property
pendente lite. So naa ka diha sa property then ni
ingon si A (plaintiff) nga pahawaon pud ka.
Moingon is plaintiff (sa court) “pahawaa pud na
siya kay successor-in-interest na siya or privy na
siya ni X (defendant)”.
But in reality wala gyud kay idea. Dili ka lessee,
dili ka guest, dili ka member of the family. In
fact, you are an innocent purchaser for value.
Lahi ang rule pag innocent purchaser for value.
As innocent purchaser for value, lahi imong
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 188
defenses. Kung unsa man tong defenses ni X, dili
ka bound ato kay innocent purchaser for value
man ka.
So, let us say, naa nay judgment sa case
between A and X. Dili ka bound by that
judgment bisan pag niingon didto sa previously
mentioned rule nga bound ang mga transferee
pendente lite or successors-in-interest. That is
because you are not merely a privy or a mere
successor-in-interest but you are an innocent
purchaser for value.
action because it must be filed in the court
which has territorial jurisdiction of the place
where the property or a portion thereof is
situated.
An example of a transitory action is a
personal action.
Transitory action is a personal action
because again it depends upon the residence
of the plaintiff or the defendant.
So court hearing IS A MUST to determine the
character of your possession because you are
not impleaded in the case.
Another classification of action as to the place of
filing.
LOCAL or TRANSITORY ACTIONS
LOCAL ACTION – is one which must be brought
in a particular place.
An example of a local action is real action
because it must be filed in the court which has
territorial jurisdiction of the place where the
property or a portion thereof is situated.
TRANSITORY ACTION – an action which follows
the party wherever he may reside.
49:45 - 59:33 - JOE
Now another classification of actions as to the place
of filing of the action.
Local or Transitory Actions
A local action is one which must be
brought in a particular place. A transitory
action is an action which follows the party
wherever he may reside.
-
An example of a local action is a real
SPECIAL PROCEEDING
(b) A criminal action is one by which the State
prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law. (n)
(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a
party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact. (2a, R2)
Now let’s go to special proceedings. Let’s go to the
other distinctions because first if you remember our
previous lecture we distinguished a civil action from a
special civil action. So and then we classified actions
according to foundation according to object
according to whether transitory or local. Now we
distinguished civil actions from criminal actions
although it’s already mentioned in Rule 1.
So a criminal action is one by which the state
prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law so as to distinguish from a civil
action, when you say civil action individuals against
other individuals. Although there are cases na
individual against an agency, tribunal like in an
special civil actions certiorari and prohibition
mandamus. So in a civil action we are only talking of
civil liability walay imprisonment walay fines walay
accessory penalty or civil indemnification,
disqualification pero sa criminal action as a general
rule aside from the criminal liability na imprisonment
fines, accessory penalties naa pud civil liability. It is
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 189
because under Article 100 of the RPC every person
criminally liable is also civilly liable. So ang criminal
action is governed by the rules on criminal procedure
which you already discussed in civil action governed
by civil procedure which we are now discussing.
Now, a special proceeding as distinguished from a
civil action naman in a special proceeding wala kay
kalaban it’s just a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status a right or a particular fact. Ang
special proceedings these are the ones mentioned
under Rule 72 Section 1 of the Rules of Court. So mao
ni sila. Settlement of the estate of deceased persons
kinang namatay na siya and then okay lang kung
walay properties na wala kay i-settle pero kung datu
siya or naa siya properties you need to file cases noh
to settle the estate kay nay mga utang na imong heirs
lahi ug claim so settlement of estate.
Escheat unsa man ng escheat kina na siyang if a
person dies niya wala siyay last will and testatement
niya wala siya heirs kung mo ingon kag wala siyay
heirs wala siyay relatives in the direct line kinang
direct line mga papa mga parents, grandparents,
great grandparent pataas or children , grandchildren
or great grandchildren ug wlaay siyay relatives within
fifth consanguinity so his considered who have died
without heirs. Unsa may mahitabo sa iyang mga
properties karun asa maadto? It will be taken by the
state by a procedure here is escheat proceedings that
is a special proceeding.
Guardianship and custody of children so again special
proceeding gihapon na siya. Trustees, adoption,
rescission and revocation of adoption, hospitalization
of insane persons, habeas corpus, change of name,
voluntary dissolution of corporations, judicial
approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural
children, constitution of family home, declaration of
absence and death, cancellation or correction of
entries in the civil registry these are special
proceedings.
What are the special proceedings under the Rules
of Court?
Rule 72, Sec. 1. Subject matter of special
proceedings. Rules of special proceedings are
provided for in the following cases:
(a)
Settlement of the estate of deceased
persons;
(b) Escheat;
(c)
Guardianship and custody of children;
(d) Trustees;
(e) Adoption;
(f)
Rescission and revocation of adoption;
(g)
Hospitalization of insane persons;
(h) Habeas corpus;
(i)
Change of name;
(j)
Voluntary dissolution of corporations;
(k)
Judicial approval of voluntary recognition
of minor natural children;
(l)
Constitution of family home;
(m) Declaration of absence and death;
(n) Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil
registry.
DISTINCTIONS: ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS AND
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Action is the act by which one sues another in
a court of justice for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress
of a wrong. Special proceeding is the act by which
one seeks to establish the status or right of a party,
or a particular fact. Hence, an action is
distinguished from special proceeding in that the
former is a formal demand of a right by one
against another, while the latter is but a petition or
a declaration of a status, right or fact.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 190
So as to distinguish no when you say civil action
whether ordinary or special civil action so one
sues another in court for the enforcement or
protection of a right or the prevention or redress
of a wrong. Diba we discussed that but when you
say special proceeding you always seek to
establish a status or a right or a particular fact.
So here in a civil action this is a formal demand
you file a complaint but in a special proceeding
you just file a petition for the declaration of a
status of a right. Like for example civil action
mag file kag case against A for specific
performance okay you file a complaint so naa
kay kalaban you want himeto perform. But in a
special proceeding like adoption wala kay
kalaban diha gusto lang nimo ipa declare si child
as having a status of one who is legally available
for an adoption and then proceedings para you
will be legally adopted and who be considered as
the legitimate child of the adopters so walay
kalaban walay kaaway in a special proceeding.
Table showing the distinction between ordinary civil
actions and special proceedings again when you say
ordinary civil actions a formal demand of one is right
in a court of justice in a manner prescribed by the
court or the law so these are the one we discuss in
civil procedure.
Ordinary Civil Actions
Special Proceedings
An action is a formal
demand of one’s right
in a court of justice in
the manner prescribed
by the court or by law.
A special proceeding in
an
application
or
proceedings
which
establish the status or
right of a party, or a
particular fact.
Pleadings are required.
No formal pleadings
required unless the
statute expressly so
provides. In special
proceedings,
the
remedy
is
granted
generally
upon
an
application or motion.
Special proceeding it is an application or proceeding
to establish the status or right of a party or a
particular fact that will be governed by the rules on
special proceedings which you will discuss in third
year second sem. Now in ordinary civil actions
pleading is required when you say pleading we have
the complaint, answer we have the reply third fourth
etc. party complaint, cross claim so those are
examples of pleading nay specific form prescribed by
the Rules of Court kung unsa ang pleadings.
We will discuss this also special proceeding no formal
pleadings are required unless the statutes so provide
so in special proceedings the remedy is granted by a
petition, application or motion. In civil actions they
can be tried by courts of general jurisdiction special
proceedings can only be tried by courts of special or
limited jurisdiction so like for example declaration of
nullity of marriage only the family court adoption
family court so dili lang court of general jurisdiction
acting in general capacity.
Probate courts they hear and decide proceedings for
the settlement of the state of a deceased person or
probate proceedings so limited lang gyud ang ilang
jurisdiction they cannot take cognizance of issues
which are outside of their jurisdiction like for
example in a probate court it cannot take cognizance
of issues pertaining to ownership of property
although it may be involved but dili gyud siya
conclusive meaning even if the probate court will
touch upon issues of ownership but the same issue
can be raised in another proceeding instituted
precisely for that purpose walay res judicata. Now, in
ordinary civil action there are two definite adverse
parties: the party who demands a right which is
called the plaintiff or the complainant and the other
whom against the right is sought is called the
defendant. In a special proceedings lahi ang tawag sa
ilaha so there is a definite party petitioner the one
who files the petition or who makes the application
but there’s no definite adverse party because the
proceeding is binding against the whole world. So
directed against the whole world like you want to
have your marriage declared as null and void
although ang imohang kalaban filan nimo imong bana
or asawa noh pero its actually directed against the
whole world. Adoption proceedings so these are
some examples of special proceedings. So in ordinary
civil action as I have said there is a complaint but in a
special proceeding there is a petition. So example sa
distinction in the case of Natcher vs. Court of Appeals
here the Supreme Court discuss na an action for
reconveyance and annulment with damages is a civil
action whereas actions relating to settlement of the
estate of a deceased person such as advancement of
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 191
property made by the decedent partake of the
nature of a special proceeding which concomitantly
need the application of the specific rules as provided
in the rules of court.
55:55 - 59:32
(NASABI NA ITO SA TAAS PARANG NASALI NI JOE)
There are two definite
adverse parties: the
party who demands a
right, called a plaintiff,
and the other whom
the right is sought,
called a defendant.
While there is a definite
party petitioner (the
one who files the
petition/application),
there is no definite
adverse party as the
proceeding is usually
considered to be
against the whole
world. (read example
below)
A complaint is filed
A petition is filed.
DISTINCTIONS: ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS AND
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
●
Action is the act by which one sues
another in a court of justice for the
enforcement or protection of a right or
the prevention or redress of a wrong.
Special proceeding is the act by which one
seeks to establish the status or right of a
party, or a particular fact. Hence, an
action is distinguished from special
proceeding in that the former is a formal
demand of a right by one against another,
while the latter is but a petition or a
declaration of a status, right or fact.
ORDINARY CIVIL
ACTIONS
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
An action is a formal
demand of one’s right
in a court of justice in
the manner prescribed
by the court or by the
law
A special proceeding is
an application or
proceeding to establish
the status or right of a
party, or a particular
fact (to be governed by
the Rules on Special
Proceedings)
Pleadings are required
No formal pleadings are
required unless the
statute expressly so
provides. In special
proceedings, the
remedy is granted
generally upon an
application or motion.
Can be tried by courts
of general jurisdiction
DISCUSSION: For declaration of nullity of marriage or
adoption, only the Family Court has jurisdiction.
Probate Courts hear and decide proceedings for the
settlement of the estate of a deceased person or
probate proceedings- limited lang ang ilahang
jurisdiction. They cannot take cognizance on issues
outside their jurisdiction. Example: a probate court
cannot take cognizance of cases pertaining to
property, although it may be involved. But dili gyud
sya conclusive. Meaning, even if the probate court
will touch upon issues on ownership, the same issue
can be raised in another proceeding, instituted
precisely for that purpose - there will be no res
judicata.
While there is a definite party petitioner (the one who
files the petition/application), there is no definite
adverse party as the proceeding is usually considered
to be against the whole world.
EX: Like you want to declare your marriage null and
void, file-an nimo imong bana/asawa pero it is
actually directed against the whole world. The same
is true for adoption proceedings. These are examples
of special proceedings.
kate
59:33-1:03:05
Can only be tried by
courts of special or
limited jurisdiction
(read discussion below)
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 192
Natcher vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 133000, October 2, 2001.
An action for reconveyance and annulment of title
with damages is a civil action, whereas matters
relating to settlement of the state of a deceased
person such as advancement of property made by
the decedent, partake the nature of a special
proceeding, which concomitantly requires the
application of specific rules as provided for in the
Rules of Court.
Clearly, matters which involve settlement and
distribution of the estate of the decedent fall
within the exclusive province of the probate court
in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
FOR EXAMPLE: You are filing a case because you
want to recover your inheritance against your sibling.
Maybe your inheritance consists of a parcel of land
so you file a case for reconveyance, so you want the
property returned to you, and maybe annulment of
title because the land was titled under the name of
your sibling, but the premise in your filing of the
complaint is that you are one of the heirs of the
property and the land registered under the name of
your brother is your inheritance and he has to convey
that to you because it is not his but yours. Although
he is entitled to an inheritance, he already has more.
The properties titled under his name are already
more than his rightful inheritance. That's your prayer.
But what is that? Is that a civil action or a special
proceeding? The Supreme Court said matters which
involve settlement and distribution of the estate of
the decedent (or the deceased) fall within the
exclusive province of the probate court in the
exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
In that case, if you filed an ordinary civil action
against your brother for reconveyance and
annulment of title, it will be dismissed because the
regular courts do not have jurisdiction over matters
pertaining to the termination of shares, advancement
in inheritance. It cannot be decided by regular courts.
You should not file a civil action. You should file the
special proceeding with the probate court. Special
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the
deceased because the land cannot be reconveyed to
you just by following the Rules, or just by using the
applicable laws that are within the jurisdiction of the
probate court. Before you can say that share is yours,
you must first determine the total estate of the
decedent, the debt, and what is left for distribution
among the heirs, are you really a child of the
decedent, is your brother really an heir, were there
properties given to you during the lifetime, and then
that's where it will be determined if the properties
acquired by the brother were really in excess and you
were deprived.
chiara
1:03:06-1:06:38
Ang imong brother tinood ba jud siya na anak, naa ba
gipanghatag sa inyuha during the lifetime (of the
deceased). And the diha pa ma compute if sobra bas
a iyaha and ikaw ba deprived. It is only the probate
court that can do that.
In Ching vs. Rodriguez, nag file siya og ordinary civil
action before the regular courts. The caption of his
case was for “Disinheritance, Declaration of Nullity of
Payment and Waiver, and the Affidavit of
Extrajudicial Settlement, Deed of Absolute Sale,
Transfer Certificate of Title, with prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ
of Preliminary Injunction.”
In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the
defendant Ramon misrepresented himself as the son
of the decedent when, in truth and in fact, dili siya
anak. He was just adopted in the sense that his birth
certificate was merely simulated. Dili man na siya
legal adoption diba. As also discussed in Criminal
Law, simulation of birth is a crime. Ang proper
procedure is dapat mag file for petition for adoption.
Anecdote on Simulation of Birth
Ma’am shares a story that a client recently called her
up to make an affidavit saying that the client was
adopting a child and Ma’am explained that this was
not allowed because the proper procedure was to file
a Petition for Adoption. Although there are those na
ibutang nila diretso ilang pangalan sa birth certificate,
which is not allowed. This is simulation of birth. So,
dili gyud nako himoon ang affidavit unya notaryuhan
pa gyud.
Here, the allegation in the complaint was murder of
the decedent. The decedent here actually died of
stab wounds. So Ramon was allegedly one of the
suspects. So ipa disinherit daw siya and ang Affidavit
of Extrajudicial Settlement should be declared null
and void.
Gi-file ni siya sa regular court as an ordinary civil
action. The defendendant here said walay jurisdiction
ang regular court because it is only the probate court
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 193
who can determine who are the heirs of the
decedent, whether or not the waiver of hereditary
rights is valid, the status of the heir [is valid], and
whether the property is conjugal or exclusive
property of the deceased spouse. Dapat sa probate
court daw gi-file. So the defendant prayed for the
dismissal of the action.
●
The petitioners argue that only a probate
court has the authority to determine (a)
who are the heirs of a decedent; (b) the
validity of a waiver of hereditary rights;
(c) the status of each heir; and (d)
whether the property in the inventory is
conjugal or the exclusive property of the
deceased spouse. Further, the extent of
Antonio's estate, the status of the
contending parties and the respondents'
alleged entitlement as heirs to receive the
proceeds of Antonio's CPPA now in
Metrobank's custody are matters which
are more appropriately the subjects of a
special proceeding and not of an ordinary
civil action.
The Supreme Court said here, how do you determine
whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the case?
Based on the allegations in the complaint. When you
look at the allegations in the complaint here, it
actually makes out an ordinary civil action because it
just prayed for reconveyance of property and
annulment of title, plus damages. Although there is
an inclusion of a prayer for disinheritance, the
Supreme Court said that when you say
disinheritance, it can only be a question when there
is a will.
HELD: An action for reconveyance and annulment
of title with damages is a civil action, whereas
matters relating to settlement of the estate of a
deceased person such as advancement of property
made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a
special proceeding, which concomitantly requires
the application of specific rules as provided for in
the Rules of Court. 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.
1:06:39-1:10:11 Marianne
Although there is an inclusion in the caption in
the prayer of disinheritance, the SC said that
when you say disinheritance, it could only be a
question when there is a will. When you go to
succession in 3rd year, a valid disinheritance can
only be made in a valid will. However it was
never alleged in the complaint that there’s a will,
wherein Ramon is disinherited.
So, the SC here made a distinction between a
special proceeding and an ordinary civil action.
We already discussed the distinction.
Under Article 916 of the NCC, disinheritance
can be effected only through a will wherein the
legal cause therefore shall be specified. This
Court agrees with the RTC and CA that while
the respondents in their complaint sought the
disinheritance of Ramon, no will or any
instrument supposedly effecting the disposition
of Antonio’s estate was ever mentioned.
Hence, despite the prayer for Ramon’s
disinheritance, Civil Case No. 02-105251 does
not partake of the nature of a special
proceeding and does not call for the probate
court’s exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
Under Article 916 of the NCC, disinheritance can
be effected only through a will wherein the legal
cause therefore shall be specified. So here, while
in the complaint, there is an inclusion of the
inheritance of Ramon, no will or any instrument
supposedly affecting the disposition of Antonio’s
estate was ever mentioned. Despite the prayer
for Ramon’s disinheritance, it does not partake of
the nature of a special proceeding and does not
call for the probate court’s exercise of its limited
jurisdiction.
If you read the complaint, it was just for the
reconveyance and annulment of title.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 194
HEIRS OF YAPTINCHAY V. DEL ROSARIO
GR 124320, March 2, 1999
·
Can a declaration of heirship be made in a
civil action?
o
NO. The trial court
cannot make a declaration of
heirship in the civil action for
the reason that such a
declaration can only be made
in a special proceeding.
that someone died and then he left heirs; he has
obligations. So, you’re praying that in the
meantime that the estate has not yet settled; we
are still to determine his obligations and settle it.
We will appoint an administrator who will oversee
the estate of the decedent.
Now, someone opposed that petition. He filed a
motion to dismiss for lack of compliance of a
conditional precedent on the ground that Article
222 of the Civil Code was not followed.
What is that provision about?
Can a declaration of heirship be made in a civil
action?
I think we discussed this already. It cannot be
done because again the declaration of heirship is
within the jurisdiction of the probate court. The
settlement of estate is under the probate court,
part of the settlement of the estate is the
declaration of heirship so that the probate court
can determine to whom should the estate be
distributed, so if you are not an heir, you are not
entitled in the participation. So it should be made
in a special proceeding.
MANALO vs. CA
GR 129242, January 16, 2001
·
Pilar Vda. De Manalo filed a Petition for
Issuance
of Letter
of
Administration,
Settlement and Distribution of Estate. The
oppositors filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
compliance of a conditional precedent on the
ground that Article 222 of the Civil Code was
not followed.
Here, it is a petition for issuance of letters of
administration, settlement and distribution of
estate. Clearly, it is a special proceeding.
Now, someone opposed, what is the object in the
settlement of estate? Actually, you just alleged
·
Art. 222. No suit shall be filed or
maintained between members of the same
family members of the same family unless it
should appear that earnest efforts toward a
compromise have been made, but that the
same have failed, subject to the limitations in
Article 2035.
Remember, if it is an ordinary civil action and
then suits between the members of the family
there should be an allegation that despite
earnest efforts, the conflict was not settled.
So that allegation was not included for the
settlement of the estate according to the
oppositor – it is also a ground for dismissal of the
action. Dapat tagaan gihapon nato siya ug
chance nga magsettle kay members lang
gihapon na sila sa same family so lain kayo nga
mag abot sila ug korte, mag away-away.
HELD:
·
Article 222 is applicable only to ordinary
civil actions. The provision is applicable only to
ordinary civil actions which are essentially
adversarial and involve members of the same
family. The petition in this case is a special
proceeding.
So, is that applicable? The SC held that Art. 222
is only applicable to ordinary civil actions which
are essentially adversarial and involve members
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 195
of the same family.
death an ordinary civil action or a special
proceeding?
1:10:12-1:13:44
What is that provision about?
Art. 222. No suit shall be filed or maintained
between members of the same family unless it
should appear that earnest efforts toward a
compromise have been made, but that the
same have failed, subject to the limitations in
Article 2035.
Remember: Pag ordinary civil actions then suits
between members of the family, there must be
an allegation that despite earnest efforts, wala
jud na settle.
So wala daw na siya nakabutang sa petition for
the settlement of the estates, according to the
oppositors, kay ground sad ni siya for dismissal
of the action. Dapat tagaan nato siya ug chance
to settle since they are members of the same
family.
We encountered the term “presumptive death” in
persons and family relations. This is when your
spouse was missing for how many years and you
are planning to get married again. Dili ka sure
kung buhi pa siya or patay na siya and you
cannot presume on your own that your spouse is
already dead. So, it will be declared by that
court.
If ordinary lang, it will be 4 years. If it is
extraordinary, 2 years. You have to file a petition
for declaration of presumptive death.
This is also present in succession. Naay tao na
daghan kayo siyang properties unya kamo kay
wala moy makaon unya wala na pud siya
nagpakita sa inyuha. You don’t know whether he
was still alive or not. After 10 years, you can be
presumptively dead. Considered presumptively
dead for the purpose of succession.
1:13:45-1:17:17
REPUBLIC vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 163604, May 6, 2005
Is that applicable?
The SC said No.
●
Art. 222 is applicable only ordinary civil action.
Civil actions are essentially adversarial so if it
involved members of the same family, as much
as possible, we have to settle that between and
among themselves at first. Kung wala na gyud
pag-asa, then that’s the time we file it in the
court.
But here, this is not a civil action. this proceeding
is not adversarial. Settlement of estate is not
adversarial because it is a special proceeding.
Therefore, Art. 222 is not applicable. You do not
need to allege that earnest efforts towards a
compromise have been made, but the same
have failed.
REPUBLIC vs. CA
GR. 163604 May 6, 2005
-
Is an action for declaration of presumptive
death an ordinary civil action or a special
proceeding?
❏ Take note that Rule 72, Sec.
1(m) includes “declaration of
absence and death” as one of
the special proceedings.
❏
However, under Article 41, par. 2
of the Family Code, for the
purpose of contracting the
subsequent marriage under the
preceding paragraph, the spouse
present must institute summary
proceedings for the declaration of
presumptive
death
of
the
absentee,without prejudice to the
effect of the reappearance of the
absent spouse.
Is an action for declaration of presumptive
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 196
DISCUSSION:.So, after 10 years, he can be
considered as presumptively dead for the
purpose of succession. Katong mga heirs nga
mabilin pwede na sila magbahin-bahin sa
iyahang properties. Or after 5 years, if he
disappeared at the age of 75 years.
Question: Unsa man na special proceeding or
ordinary civil action?
Answer: Rule 72, Sec. 1(m) includes
“declaration of absence and death” as one of the
special proceedings.
However, Under Article 41 of the Family Code,
for the purpose of contracting subsequent
marriage, the spouse present must institute a
summary proceeding as provided in the Code for
the declaration presumptive death without
prejudice to the effect of a reappearance of the
absent spouse.
Lahion nato ha. For the purpose of remarriage,
you have to institute a proceeding for the
declaration of presumptive death but that will not
be covered by the rules of court. It will be
governed by the Family Code. It’s a summary
proceeding.
Now, under the Rules of Court, the declaration of
absence and death, this is what we call a special
proceeding. But for the purpose of declaration of
death, in succession actually, it’s not required na
magfile ka ug petition in court for the declaration
of absence and presumptive death if mao lang
na siya imuhang purpose na just to declare him
presumptively dead. Because according to the
Supreme Court, it is already presumed by law.
You can already invoke that.
For example, naa kay claim sa SSS. Nawala
imuhang simbako imong asawa or bana more
than 10 years na siya. So, under Article 390 and
391 of the Civil Code, presumptive death na
kung nag-arise na to siya na circumstances he’s
already considered as presumptively dead. The
SSS here cannot refuse give the death benefits
unless, you filed first a petition in court for the
declaration of presumptive death. Di na siya
required as clarified by the Supreme Court.
Pero kung naay pa kay another purpose aside
from the declaration of the presumptive death
then, it’s a special proceeding. It will be governed
by the Rules of Court. Again, for the purpose of
remarriage, it’s a summary proceeding under the
Family Code.
ISSUE:
The principal issue in this case is whether a
petition for declaration of the presumptive
death of a person is in the nature of a special
proceeding. If it is, the period to appeal is 30
days and the party appealing must, in addition
to a notice of appeal, file with the trial court a
record on appeal to perfect its appeal.
Otherwise, if the petition is an ordinary action,
the period to appeal is 15 days from notice or
decision or final order appealed from and the
appeal is perfected by filing a notice of appeal
(Section 3, Rule 41, Rules of Court).
DISCUSSION: Lahi ang mag-apply nga rules. If
it is a special proceeding, the appeal is 30 days.
The party appealing must in addition to a notice
of appeal file it with the trial court and file a
record in appeal to perfect its appeal. If the
petition is an ordinary action, the period to
appeal is 15 days from notice or decision or final
order appealed from.
Diha pud magmatter. You have to know if special
proceeding ba siya or ordinary civil action kay
lahi-lahi pud an reglementary period to appeal.
HELD:
If it is a
petition for the declaration of
presumptive death
for purposes of
succession, it is a special proceeding. If it is a
summary proceeding for declaration of
presumptive death for the purpose of
remarriage, it is an ordinary action.
1:17:18 – 1:20:50
Held:
If it is a petition for declaration of presumptive
death for purposes of succession, it is a
special proceeding.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 197
If it is a summary proceeding for declaration of
presumptive death for purpose of remarriage,
it is an ordinary action.
If it is a summary proceeding for declaration of
presumptive for purpose of remarriage, it is an
ordinary action governed by the Family Code –
so the period to appeal is 15 days (not 30 days).
There is no doubt that the petition (in this
case) is a summary proceeding under the
Family Code, not a special proceeding under
the Revised Rules of Court appeal which calls
for the filing of a Notice of Appeal from the trial
court’s order sufficed.
within the reglementary period and imo pag file).
The petitioner hereby gives notice that he/she is
appealing from the order of the court dated xx.” –
So mao na sya ang notice of appeal.
Pero ang record on appeal man gud, if it is a
special proceeding, extensive na ang record on
appeal – murag gi summarize jud nimo ang kaso
ana. You have to cite what happened in the
case, what pleadings are filed, you have to cite
the decision, the reasons why the decision is
wrong. Taas sya, that is why 30 days is given if it
is a special proceeding because the SC
considers the extensive nature of the record on
appeal.
Again, because it is a summary ordinary
proceeding, it does not require the filing of a
record on appeal. The mere filing of a notice of
appeal would be sufficient to perfect the appeal.
Liquidation of an insolvent corporation
Also, it does not require a record on appeal – it
just calls for a notice of appeal.
Why? Because lahi man gud ang hitsura anang
Notice of Appeal.
So kung muingon ka’g summary proceeding sya
under the Family Code, it will be governed by
Rules on Ordinary Civil Actions. So, 15 days to
appeal.
A petition for liquidation of an insolvent
corporation should be classified a special
proceeding and not an ordinary action. Such
petition does not seek the enforcement or
protection of a right nor the prevention or
redress of a wrong against a party. It does not
pray for affirmative relief for injury arising from
a party’s wrongful act or omission nor state a
cause of action that can be enforced against
any person. (Pacific Banking Corporation
Employees’ Organization vs. CA, 242 SCRA
492 (1995); Natcher vs. CA, 366 SCRA 385
(2001))
And for you to appeal, you merely have to file a
notice of appeal.
Q: Why is this classified as a special
proceeding?
Ang notice of appeal, pwede ra na sya isa kapage na document. Muingon lang ka na,
“petitioner (o kung adverse party man ka)
received a copy of the order of the court on this
date (*date needs to be alleged to know if it is
Because wa man kay kalaban aning liquidation
of an insolvent corporation. You merely seek for
the declaration of that corporation having the
status of an insolvent corporation.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 198
Following that, you liquidate its assets, then you
determine its creditors so that you will know kung
pila nalang sa assets ang naa. Kay even if you
say insolvent, naa man gihapon na syay assets.
Kaya lang its liabilities kay mas daghan na kaysa
saiyang assets. Pag daghan na ang utang kaysa
sa assets, syempre dili tanan imong mabayran.
Okay lang kung mas daghan imong assets kaysa
sa utang – walay problema kay mabayran man
na nimo tanan.
That is why you have to institute insolvency
proceedings para insolvent na sya – kulangan na
jud iyang assets to pay off its obligations. So naa
nakay priorities ana.
liquidation of an insolvent corporation. Kani naman is
interim rules for intra-corporate controversies. Unsa
man ang nature of these cases? Are these special
proceedings or are these ordinary civil actions? RTC
gihapon ni sila diba.
These cases either seek the recovery of
damages/property or specific performance of an act
against a party for the violation or protection of a
right. Kani man gud intra-corporate controversies,
naa ka’y kaaway diri. It’s either ikaw ug imong
kauban na stockholders, or ikaw ug ang members of
the board, or ikaw ug another corporation. So nay
controversy here. So when you say special
proceeding, there is no controversy. You just seek to
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. So
ordinary civil action siya.
A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC
Effective: September 4, 2001
1:20:51 – 1:24:23 Millan
I don’t know if you have already encountered the
rules on concurrence on preference of credits. Dira
man gud i-determine kinsa ang preferred creditors.
A petition for liquidation of an insolvent
corporation should be classified as a special
proceeding and not an ordinary action. Such
petition does not seek the enforcement or
protection of a right nor the prevention or redress
of a wrong against a party. It does not pray for
affirmative relieve for injury arising from a party’s
wrongful act or omission nor state a cause of
action that can be enforced against any person.
[Pacific
Banking
Corporation
Employees’
Organization v. Court of Appeals, 242 SCRA 492
(1995); Natcher v. Court of Appeals 366 SCRA 385
(2001)].
A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC
Effective: September 4, 2001
The cases covered by the Interim Rules for IntraCorporate Controversies should be considered as
ordinary civil actions. These cases either seek the
recovery of damages/property or specific
performance of an act against a party for the
violation or protection of a right. XXX
So remember katong sa pikas na we discussed
On the other hand, a petition for rehabilitation,
the procedure for which is provided in the Interim
Rules of Procedure on Corporate Recover, should
be considered as a special proceeding. It is one
that seeks to establish the status of a party or a
particular fact.
Pareha ni siya sa katong liquidation of an insolvent
corporation. Wala ka’y kaaway. There’s no
controversy but the corporation is, again, insolvent, it
needs rehabilitation, it needs receivership, so it’s a
special proceeding. It seeks to establish the status of
a party or a particular fact. So here, you seek to
establish the status of the corporation as insolvent or
distressed or needing rehabilitation. This is not an
ordinary civil action.
Arbitration
Under the Special Rules of Court on Alternative
Dispute Resolution (Special ADR Rules), all
proceedings under the Special ADR Rules are
special proceedings. (Rule 1.2)
Under Republic Act 9285, or the Alternative
Dispute Resolution Law (ADR Law), proceedings for
recognition and enforcement of an arbitration
agreement or for vacation setting aside, correction
or modification of an arbitral award, and any
application with a court for arbitration assistance
and supervision shall be deemed as special
proceedings.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 199
1:24:24-1:27:56 BOLO
Read second paragraph of the slide
You remember your obligations and contracts diba in
a contract you stipulate there the terms and
conditions. You remember the rule on mutuality of
contract? What do you mean on the rule of mutuality
of contract?
That the contract is binding against both parties. As a
consequence of that, neither party, on his or her
own, can declare the termination of the contract,
modification or the amendments.
you cannot go to court directly para magfile ug kaso.
You have to exhaust the process of arbitration. So,
mao ni siya ang governed sa RA No. 9285, kaya lang
be careful because ang arbitration wala pay
accredited arbitrators diri sa Davao City. Naa lang na
siya sa Manila karon. Unya, mahal ang arbitration. I
think naa ko isa ka case noh bayad pa lang sa
arbitrator 3M na. And then, kung imong client kay
naa lang 1 hectare na yuta. I was a lawyer of a
multinational company so syempre we entered into a
contracts with farmers. We lease their lands. Naay
ubang tig 1 hectare.
khayzee
So dili pwede na, si A ug si B nag enter into a
contract. Sunod si A magbuot na cancelled na ang
contract or kung lease man na siya magingon si lessor
na itaas ang rental unya walay escalation clause sa
contract ingon lang na 10k per month, magbuot lang
siya na 10k. He cannot modify or amend the contract,
dapat because the contract is a product of mutual
consent, anything in the contract should be by reason
of mutual (consent), kung naa kay ienforce na
outside sa provisions sa contract, dapat mu consent
si pikas.
There is also a provision if you remember na, party
cannot decide on his own the validity of the contract
but you can refer that to a third party. So example of
that is an arbitration clause in a contract. Usual ni
siya sa mga contract. So for example noh if and when
you become lawyers and you will be asked to draft
contracts for your clients so part ni siya usually sa
mga contract, naay arbitration clause.
Unsa man ng arbitration clause?
Like, in case of any issue or controversy, arising from
the implementation and interpretation, enforcement
of this contract, such issue or controversy or conflict
shall be referred to an arbitrator or a panel of
arbitrators who shall decide and whose decision shall
be binding and final and executory. Mao na siya ang
usual provision sa arbitration clause.
So, kung naay ingana na clause ang inyong contract,
1:27:57-1:31:29
My client was a multinational. We entered into
contracts with farmers to lease their lands. Before pa
ko naabot, naa na tong arbitration clause.
“Arbitration shall be held in a proper venue in Hong
Kong…” mga ana. So kung imong cliente wala nag
basa sa contract prima diretso kay five years ang
lease, dako pud na siya na kwarta sa rentals. Unya
pag magka problema na, magfile ka og kaso; unya dili
man diay ka pwede magfile og kaso kay mag
arbitration pa ka and muadto pa ka Hong Kong para
lang mag arbitration. Lisud magfile og case.
This is arbitration – it is a special proceeding.
It will not be governed by the rules on ordinary civil
actions.
So, kung naay award napud ang arbitration and ipaenforce nato, that is also a special proceeding. It is
not governed by the ordinary rules of court.
Section 4, Rule 1
Rule 1, Section 4. In what case not applicable. —
These Rules shall not apply to election cases, land
registration,
cadastral,
naturalization
and
insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein
provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 200
value.
convenient.
DISCUSSION: So aside from what we have discussed
so far on where we do not apply the rules on
ordinary civil action, so above are the other cases of
special proceedings:
Election cases - the COMELEC has its own rules of
procedure
Land registration – Naa puy rules of procedure ang
Register of Deeds. Aside from that, if it is a case to be
filed in court, like judicial application for titling, lahi
pud ang rules. Naa gihapon sa Rules of Court pero dili
sa Rules on Civil Procedure.
DISCUSSION: Ang issue diri was the presentation of
evidence.
Sa ordinary civil actions man gud, as a general rule,
evidence not offered shall not be considered in court.
Unsa man nang “offer”? Kung naa ka kaso, diba mag
tawag ka og witnesses. So if testimony, tao ang
imong ipa testify. Before he testifies, i-offer nimo
iyang testimony. So, “Your Honor, I am offering that
testimony of Juan dela Cruz for the purpose of
proving the existence of a contract, etc.” Kung wala
ka nag-ingon og any offer, walay pulos iya testimony,
bisan pa 10 hours siya nag testify in court.
Cadastral proceedings – the same as in land
registration
Naturalization – dili ang rules of court ang mag apply
1:31:30 - END (Althea)
Insolvency – you have the Interim Rules for IntraCorporate rehabilitation
…wala to syay pulos iyahang testimony, bisan
pag ikapulo pa sya ka oras nagtestify in court,
wala to syay pulos. You will learn that in your
evidence.
Other cases not herein provided for, except by
analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient – what are these cases?
See the case of Ong Chia versus Republic.
Ong Chia vs. Republic
GR No. 127240, March 27, 2000
Naturalization proceedings
Ong Cha was granted naturalized citizenship by
Regional Trial Court. For the first time on appeal,
the Solicitor General presented evidence showing
that Ong Chia is not fit to be a Filipino citizen
because he violated or fell short of legal
requirerements relating to naturalization. Ong Hcia
objected to such evidence on the ground that the
documents, which had merely been annexed by
the State to its appellant’s brief and not having
been presented and formally offered as evidence,
are mere scraps of paper devoid of any evidentiary
During the course of the testimony, nag identify
syag documents. Katong mga documents
naman, ioffer pud to nimo sya separately.
Although apil sya sa testimony ni witness, and
the testimony was already offered, pero you
need to also formally offer separately the
documents. Before, in writing na sya, 'formal
offer of documents'. Pero karon, verbal na under
the new rules. Although kung daghan pud kaayo
kay documents na ioffer, the court will allow you
to make a written formal offer kay mahurot ang
ibuok adlaw sa court kung sige lang kag present
verbally.
Kung wala ka nag formal offer, bisan pag giidentify siya, gi-mark during the testimony, dili na
siya iconsider sa court. That's the general rule,
although there are exceptions, but again, seldom
lang gina allow sa court ang exception.
Now in this case, walay formal offer of evidence.
So nagpresent sya ug witnesses, pero katong
mga documents to support the petition for
naturalization, wala giformally offer. So according
to the oppositor, they are mere scraps of paper
devoid of any evidentiary rule. Is that proper?
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 201
Basis for Ong Chia's contention: Rule 132,
Section 34 of the Rules of Court
Section 34. Offer of evidence - The Court shall
consider no evidence which has not been
formally offered. The purpose for which the
evidence is offered must be specified.
The Supreme Court said here:
The rule on formal offer of evidence is not
applicable to the present case. Why? Because
this is a petition for naturalization. The only
instance when the rules may be applied by
analogy or suppletorily is when it is
"practicable and convenient". That is not the
case here because reliance upon the documents
presented by the State for the first time on
appeal in fact appears to be the more practical
and convenient course of action considering the
decisions in naturalization proceedings are not
covered by the rules on res judicata. (It doesnt
mean ha na pag gi-approve ang imong petition
for naturalization, res judicata na na sya.
Meaning, even if it attains finality it cannot be
modified anymore. Subject gihapon na for
review. kay basin diay after mo naapprove kay
diha pa nigawas imong kabuang, so pwede
gihapon na sya marevoke. So it's not subject to
the rule on res judicata).
Consequently, a final favorable revocation of the
grant of naturalization does not preclude the
State from later on moving for the revocation of
the grant of naturalization on the basis of the
same documents. So dili sya mag apply kay this
is not an ordinary civil action. Ang formal offer is
required only as a general rule in ordinary civil
actions, also in criminal cases ah. Pero not in
naturalization proceedings. So katong Section 4,
all proceedings in the rules of court. But
naturalization is not under the rules of court.
filing of the complaint in court. Diha pa sya
considered commenced. Why do we have to
state this under the Rules of Court? Is it not
obvious ba na kanus-a sya nacommence and
why do you need to know nganong kanus-a sya
nacommence? Because we have the rule on
prescription of actions. So kung nagfile ka ug
case 11 years after the cause of action accrued,
wala na, dismissible on the ground of
prescription. That's why you have to know when
technically is a civil action commenced.
Now, for example naay additional defendants na
gi-implead, so naulahi, gi-amend nimo imong
complaint. So as to him (the additional
defendant), the complaint is deemed initiated on
the date as of the filing of your amended
complaint.
So kung for example sa pagfile nimo ng
complaint against kay A, within the prescriptive
period pa sya, and then pagfile nimo ug
compalint against kay B kay nilampas na diay
(kay lahi man ang determination diba?) So it is
possible na as to B prescribed na, but not in the
case against A. So irrespective of whether the
motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied
by the court.
So a civil action is commenced by the filing of the
complaint in court. So that's the principle that you
have to remember. And of course it's not just the
commenced by the filing of the action. Even if
you filed an action in court, pero wala ka
nagbayad sa docket fees in civil actions, dili
gihapon na considered as commenced.
There is no such thing as a free beef, though.
When a prospective litigant wishes to invoke the
judicial power to afford him relief form, he has to
pay.
(end of January 11 lecture)
COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION
Section 5. Commencement of action. - A civil
action is commenced by the filing of the original
complaint in court. If an additional defendant is
impleaded in a later pleading, the action is
commenced with regard to him on the date of the
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of
whether the motion for its admission, if
necessary, is denied by the court.
So kanus-a sya nag start? It say na from the
JANUARY 13, 2021 PART 1
0:00-05:31
COMMENCEMENT
Section 5. Commencement of action. — A civil
action is commenced by the filing of the original
complaint in court. If an additional defendant is
impleaded in a later pleading, the action is
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 202
commenced with regard to him on the dated of
the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of
whether the motion for its admission, if necessary,
is denied by the court.
We discussed this last meeting. Again, we have to be
careful because filing a case will also determine
whether or not the action has already prescribed
because filing a case is one of the ways by which the
prescriptive period for actions shall be tolled or
interrupted.
A civil action is commenced by the filing of the
original complaint in court.
There is no such thing as a free beer, though.
When a prospective litigant wishes to invoke the
judicial power to afford him relief from, he has to
pay: DOCKET FEES.
From jurisprudence, it is not only the institution of
the complaint which will commence the action. Aside
from the filing the complaint, the docket fees must
also be paid. This is also part of determining whether
or not a case or complaint has been successfully
instituted in court.
So what are these docket fees? These are fees which
the litigants have to pay to the court for the
institution for certain actions. Different docket fees
are required for different actions.
RECALL THE TOTALITY RULE:
In determining the jurisdiction of the trial courts,
the claim shall exclude interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s, litigation expenses, and
costs. However, the amount of the demand shall
be the totality of the claims in all the causes of
action, irrespective of whether the causes of action
arose out of the same or different transactions.
When we discussed jurisdiction, for example you
have a claim for specific performance or damages, in
determining jurisdiction, you only have to look at the
main action exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses, and costs. These are not
included in determining whether or not a certain
court has jurisdiction. However, these expenses are
included if the case instituted is purely for damages.
If there are several claims against one defendant, all
claims should be added up.
The rule is different insofar as the computation of
docket fees is concerned. The main action including
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in
determining the docket fees. The main action plus all
other ancillary and incidental actions.
05:32-11:02
While the claim shall be exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses, and costs, the
determination of the docket fees to be paid
shall include these items.
Question:
How important is the payment of the proper
docket fees in the prosecution of a civil case?
So kung naa kay claim for interest, penalties,
damages, whether moral damages, exemplary
damages, temperate damages, etc. apil na sila in
the determination of docket fees. So remember
ha mao na siya ang difference.
So how important is the payment of the proper
docket fees in the prosecution of a civil case?
For example wala ka kabayad ug docket fees or
maybe incomplete or insufficient ang docket fees
na imong gibayaran. What will be its effect in the
case? Will the case be dismissed?
So please remember.
Pretty Darn Important!
It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading but the payment
of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial
court with jurisdiction over the subject matter
or nature of the action. The same rule applies
to permissive counterclaim, third-party claims
and similar pleadings, which shall not be
considered filed until and unless the filling fee
prescribed therefor is paid.
Why? Because without payment of docket fees,
the court is deemed to not have acquired
jurisdiction. Therefore, it is as if no case
instituted. It is not only in the complaint, it also
important when it comes to permissive
counterclaims third party claims, cross claims
and similar pleadings.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 203
A counterclaim is when A filed case against B, so
B is required to answer. B in his answer he also
includes a claim against A. So nibalos siya, that
a counterclaim. We have two kinds of
counterclaim, permissive and compulsory
counterclaim. Permissive counterclaim kana na
siyang even if wala nimo gi-alleged or gi-raise sa
case, pwede ra ka mag file ug separate case for
that. Permissive claim require payment of docket
fees. Kung Compulsory na siya, meaning u have
no option but to raise that counter claim in the
same case filed against you otherwise you are
barred from claiming that forever, but compulsory
counterclaims wala na siyay docket fees.
So these are considered not instituted or not filed
until the filing fees or the docket fees are paid.
We have the history of nonpayment of docket
fees. Is it really that strict if wala ka nakabayd ug
docket fees or kulang imong gibayad na docket
fees dismiss jud imong kaso? So we start here
with the case of Manchester Dev’t Corp versus
CA.
the petitioner did not pay the additional docket
fees until the case reach the Supremec Court.
Held:
The docket fee should be assessed by
considering the amount of damages as
alleged in the original complaint. The rule
is well-settled that a case is deemed filed
only upon payment of the docket fees
regardless of the actual date of filing in
court. In the present case, the trial court
did not acquire jurisdiction over the case
by the payment of insufficient docket fee.
Neither can the amendment of the
complaint therby vest jurisdiction upon the
court. For all legal purposes, there is no
such original complaint that was duly filed
which could be amended. Consequently,
the order admitting the amended complaint
and all subsequent proceedings and
actions taken by the trial court are null and
void.
Manchester Dev’t Corp vs. CA, GR No. L75919, May 7, 1987
Counsel for the Petitioner filed the original
complaint but omitted from the prayer any
specification of the amount of damages
although the amount over P78 million was
alleged in the body of the complaint. He was
ordered to amend the complaint which he did
but specified the amount of damages in the
body the complaint in the reduced amount of
P10,000,000 but still, no amount of damages
was specified in the prayer. As a result,
Petitioner paid insufficient docket fees.
Petitioner did not pay any additional docket fee
until the case was decided by the Supreme
Court.
Kung magpacompute man kag docket fees,
kanang tigcompute sa docket fees dli niya na
basahun imong complaint. Iya ra ng basahon
imong prayer, didto na sisya magbased sa
computation sa docket fees. So wala man siyay
nakita na damages sa prayer, so didto ra siya
nagbased kung unsa ra toy g.file didto. Therefore
insufficient ang nacompute na docket fees. So
The Supreme Court here reiterated the rule that
a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the
docket fees, regardless of the actual date of filing
in court. For example, you filed a case in court
and at the time you file the case kay within the
prescriptive period paka, for example quasi-delict
prescribed in four years from the time the cause
of action accrued. Pag file nimo sa imong
complaint naa pkay 3 years and 8 months, so
wala pa naglapse and pwede pa. Pero wala ka
nagbayad or kulangan imong gibayad na docket
fees.
11:03 – 16:33 Derogongan
Later nadaganan ang kaso, nadaganan tui, lagpas na
ug 4 years. Unsay effect ana kay di ka nagbayad ug
docket fees within the prescriptive period? Your case
is not deemed to have been instituted. Here, the SC
said “the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over
the case by the payment of insufficient docket fee.
Neither can the amendment of the complaint
thereby vest jurisdiction upon the court.”
Amendment meaning you change the allegations in
your complaint. The SC said you cannot amend
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 204
because you did not pay the full amount of the
docket fees. Therefore, ang effect ana it is as if you
did not file the complaint in court. The court did not
acquire jurisdiction over your case. There is no case
filed technically so how can there be an amendment.
You cannot amend a non-existing complaint. So, the
order admitting the amended complaint and all
subsequent proceedings and actions taken by the
trial court are null and void. Kay kulang ang binayad
na docket fees.
·
·
Actually here, nasuko ang SC sa counsel.
The Court cannot close this case without making
the observation that it frowns at the practice of
counsel who filed the original complaint in this
case of omitting any specification of the amount of
damages in the prayer although the amount of
over P78 million is alleged in the body of the
complaint. This is clearly intended for no other
purpose than to evade the payment of the correct
filing fees if not to mislead the docket clerk in the
assessment of the filing fee. This fraudulent
practice was compounded when, even as this
Court had taken cognizance of the anomaly and
ordered an investigation, petitioner through
another counsel filed an amended complaint,
deleting all mention of the amount of damages
being asked for in the body of the complaint. It
was only when in obedience to the order of this
Court of October 18, 1985, the trial court directed
that the amount of damages be specified in the
amended complaint, that petitioners’ counsel
wrote the damages sought in the much reduced
amount of P10M in the body of the complaint but
not in the prayer thereof. The design to avoid
payment of the required docket fee is obvious.
Here in the amended complaint, they deleted
entirely the mention of the amount of damages being
asked for in the body of the complaint. Parang gyud
na “naay” kasong gifile, so walaon nato itong prayer
for damages, kato nalang main action ang atong
ipabilin total ang gi-assess man sa docket clerk ay
kato mang based sa main action, mao natoy may
assessment for docket fees kaya lang kulang lagi kay
walang assessment as to damages. So ana si SC wais
diay ka. Here, the SC said even if you amended the
complaint, wala na siyay effect because again, by
non-payment of the correct amount of docket fees,
the complaint was deemed not instituted, the court
did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.
·
The Court serves warning that it will take
drastic action upon a repetition of this
unethical practice.
To put a stop to this irregularity,
henceforth all complaints, petitions,
answers and other similar pleadings
should specify the amount of damages
being prayed for not only in the body of
the pleading but also in the prayer, and
said damages shall be considered in the
assessment of the filing fees in any case.
Any pleading that fails to comply with this
requirement shall not be accepted nor
admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged
from the record.
The court acquires jurisdiction over any
case only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fee. An amendment of
the complaint or similar pleading will not
thereby vest jurisdiction in the court,
much less the payment of the docket fee
based on the amounts sought in the
amended pleading.
Mao itong ruling sa Manchester. Medyo strikto ang
ruing sa SC on that case so far as non-payment or
insufficient payment of docket fees is concerned. No
jurisdiction, no complaint filed.
Sun Insurance vs Asuncion
GR 79937-38, Feb. 13, 1989
·
In the body of the original complaint, the
total amount of damages sought
amounted to about P50M. In the prayer,
the amount of damages was not stated.
The action was for the refund of the
premium and the issuance of the writ of
preliminary attachment with damages.
The amount of only P210,000 was paid for
the docket fee. On January 23, 1986,
private respondent filed an amended
complaint where the prayer asked that he
be awarded no less than P10M damages
but in the body of the compliant the
amount
was
approximately
P44,601,623.70. Said amended complaint
was admitted and the plaintiff was
reassessed the additional docket of
P39,786.00 based on his prayer of not less
than P10M in damages, which he paid.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 205
Diri, murag nag lenient si SC. In the body of the
original complaint, the total amount of damages
sought amounted to about P50M. pareha ginahapon
ha, naay allegation in the body of the complaint but
in the prayer, the amount of damages was not stated
just like in the Manchester Case. The action was for
the refund of the premium and the issuance of the
writ of preliminary attachment with damages. Ang
gibayad na docket fee is only P210. Subsequently, the
private respondent, katong complainant here, filed
an amended complaint, with the prayer asked to be
awarded no less than P10M damages. P10M ang
kanyang gibutang sa prayer pero ang sa body sa
complaint gimention niya na ang kanyang damages is
P44,601,623.70.
the docket fee ude is obvious, not only in the filing of
the original complaint, but also in the filing of the
second amended complaint.
16:34-22:04 - ESMAEL
So how about in this case? The Supreme Court said, a
more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for
considering that unlike Manchester, the complainant
here demonstrated his willingness to abide by the
rules by paying the additional docket fees as
required. So the promulgation of the decision in
Manchester must have had that sovereign influence
on the complainant who does pay the additional
docket fee as ordered by the respondent. So
pagkabalo nya sa ruling ng Manchester na strikto,
sige kara kara silag bayad sa docket fees.
So lahi. Although naa na siyay gimention sa prayer,
pero mas gamay sya compared sa amount alleged in
the body of the complaint. So the amended
complaint was submitted and the plaintiff was
reassessed additional docket fees. so nahimo na siya
karon to P39,786. So gikan sa 210 pesos, dako ug
ambak diba? Because of his prayer of damages in the
amount of not less than 10 Million.
And then subsequent to that, nagbuhat napud syag
supplemental complaint. So after amending the
supplemental complaint, we will explain in Rule 10
unsa nang amended complaint as distinguished from
a supplemental complaint. So here, nag allege na pud
syag additional claim of 2 Million in damages. So
here, P64,601,629 ang total claim. So nagbayad na
pud sya ug additional docket fees na P80,396. Gikan
sa 210 nahimo na pud syag P80,396. And then after
promulgation of the decision of the court, the
plaintiff once again assessed additional docket fees.
So niabot na sa SC, and then the manchester case
was decided by the Supreme Court, so here,
nagbayad na pud syag additional P62,132.92 as
docket fees. So nakabayad na syag total na P182,824.
But kulang na gihapon na sya kay iyahang claim total
is P64,601,620.70 so dapat ang docket fees nya
based on Rules of Court, katong assessment, it
should be P257,810.
So, unsa man ang effect ani?
However there is a difference, because in the
Manchester case, even during the pendency of the
case before the Supreme Court, gahi gud ug ulo si
plaintiff there. The plaintiff did not pay any additional
docket fees until the case was decided by the
Supreme COurt. So due to the fraud committed on
the government, the Supreme Court held that the
court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.
Again the amended complaint could not have been
admitted because the original complaint was null and
void.
However, diba nag allege si defendant na kulang
gihapon tong gibayad ni plaintiff na docket fee. But
the Supreme Court said, this is a matter which the
Clerk of Court of the lower court should determine,
and thereafter, if any amount is found due, the
docket clerk must require the private respondent to
pay the docket fees. So mao to ang Ruling sa Sun
Insurance case. These are the guidelines that you
must remember in this case.
Again, it is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiator pleading, but payment of the
prescribed docket fee that vest a court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the
action.
So how about kung nagfile ug petition or complaint
but without payment of docket fees or insufficient
ang payment docket fees, does it mean that the court
should dismiss the case?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court said the principle in Manchester
can very well be applied in the present case. The
pattern and the intent to defraud the government of
The Supreme Court here clarified ha, which you
should remember and which is still applicable as of
now: Where the initiator pleading is not
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 206
accompanied by the payment of the docket fee, the
court may allow the payment of the fee within a
reasonable time, but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. So
again, balik ta sa quasi-delict na case, you should file
that within four years from the time that the right of
action accrued.
CHAM 22:05 -27:35
Like 3 years and 8 mos, wala pa siya nagprescribe so
you can still file, wala ka nagbayad or kulangan imung
gibayad na docket fees, the court will not
immediately dismiss your case but it will give you
time to pay the correct amount but it should be done
before the expiration of the prescriptive period.
Kung molampas ka sa 4 years, the actions will be
barred by statute of limitation. So, you should perfect
all of the conditions for your right of action before
the lapse of the prescriptive period or reglementary
period. Like in cases naa bitaw mga appeals. In
appeals, docket fees are also necessary. So, it
possible, when you file an appeal like in 15 days, wala
ka nakabayad sa correct amount of the docket fees,
okay lang malate basta wala ka nilampas og 15 days
from the time you received the copy of the judgment
or decision appealed from.
Both the institution of the original complaint and the
filing of the docket fees are required for the court to
acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case.
The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims,
third party claims and similar pleadings which are not
considered file until and unless the filing fee
prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow
payment of the said fee within the reasonable time
but also in no case beyond the prescriptive or
reglementary period.
Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the
claim, by the filing of the appropriate pleading and
the payment of the prescribed fee but subsequently
the judgment awards a claim not specified in the
pleadings. Is this possible?
- This happens when even if not allege in the pleading
but maybe during pre-trial or trial, without objection
on the part of other party, the plaintiff for example
presents evidence on other claims; the court can
award that damages. Or the same has been left for
the determination by the Court, like, nagspecify ka sa
imung complaint og rentals, the case therefor is
recovery of possession and then in your prayer, kung
naa ka sa possession you can rent it out for
10k/month but the defendant withold it from you,
you have been deprived of that amount. So as of the
time of filing, you will allege how much you have lost.
Aside from that, it will still run while you file your
complaint. So ang computation sa docket fee is from
the time of filing of the complaint. And the rest, what
is the rule even if was specified but the same has
been left for the determination by the court, the
additional filing fee shall constitute a lien on the
judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the clerk of
court or duly authorized deputy to enforce such lien
and assess and collect the additional fee. So, in the
decision of the court, di ba naay monetary award? ...
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 207
(27:36-33:07) - Seruela
Tacay, et al v RTC
●
●
●
Additional Rules on docket fees for real
actions with prayer for damages
Where the action involve real property
and a related claim for damages as well,
the legal fees shall be assessed on the
basis of both (a) the value of the property
and (b) the total amount of related
damages sought. The court acquires
jurisdiction over the action of the filing of
the initiatory pleading is accompanied by
the payment of the requisite fees, or if the
fees are not paid at the time of the filing
of the pleading, as of the time of full
payment of the fees within such
reasonable time as the court may grant,
unless, of course, prescription has set in
the meantime.
This case involves a real action with prayer
for damages. In real action with regards to
jurisdiction (recovery of tile or ownership, or
possession of real property), the basis, aside
from forceable entry and unlawful detainer
which is under the MTC, would be the
assessed value of the property. The claims for
damages is not included in determining the
jurisdiction. So 20,000 less outside Metro
Manila is MTC, 50,000 less within Metro
Manila is MTC, otherwise is the RTC. This is
with regard to jurisdiction. How about in so
far as the determination of the docket fees is
concerned? if it is real action such the
recovery of possession of a parcel of land
plus damages, claiming damages of 5 Million
aside from praying the recovery of the
possession of or title of property? In the
docket fees, everything is included in the
computation, such as the value of the real
property plus the damages which you are
claiming. All of those are included in the
computation of the correct amount of docket
fees. That is the rule.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 208
●
The court acquires jurisdiction over the
action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is
accompanied by the payment of the
requisites fees, or, if the fees are not paid at
the time of the filing of the pleadings, as of
the time of full payment of the fees within
such reasonable time as the court may grant,
unless, or course, prescription has set in the
meantime.
TACAY case Continuation:
●
But where the fees prescribed for an
action involving real property have been
paid, but the amounts of certain of the
related damages being demanded are
unspecified, the action may not be
dismissed. The court undeniably has
jurisdiction over the action involving real
property, acquiring it upon the filing of the
complaint o similar pleading and payment
of the prescribed fee. And it is not
divested of that authority by the
circumstance that it may not have
acquired
jurisdiction
over
the
accompanying claims or damages because
of lack of specification thereof
● Here, and docket fees na nacompute lang sa
court based sa real property, walay naassessed for the prayer of damages, kay
although they mentioned that they are
praying for damages pero no amount was
specified for damages. Shall the court
dismissed the case? The court said NO. The
court undeniably has the jurisdiction over the
action involving the real property, acquiring it
upon the filing of the complaint or similar
pleading and payment of the prescribed fee,
And it is not divested of that authority by the
circumstance that it may not have acquired
jurisdiction over the accompanying claims or
damages because of lack of specification
thereof
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 209
●
Kung wala jud nagbayad si plaintiff sa
docket fees corresponding to the damages
pero nagbayad man suta docket fees
corresponding for the prayer for recovery of
possession. So we will not dismissed the
entire case, the court can just, mao ni and
possible remedy sa court, the court applying
also the case of Sun Insurance, the court
upon motion may allow a reasonable time for
the payment of the correct docket fees, but
again within the prescriptive period, we are
talking about prayer for damages. Or, if dli
mobayad si plaintiff, wala niya gi-amend
iyang complaint, in such a way nga ispecificy
niya ang amount of damages, the court can
just expunge or delete or disregard the
prayer for damages because the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over that, insofar as the
plaintiff did not pay the docket fees for that
aspect of the complaint. We will just then
focus to the recovery of possession. So these
are the possible consequences.
Ayala Corp., et al. v Madayag
●
●
●
TACAY case Continuation:
●
What should be done is simply to
expunge those claims for damages as to
which no amounts are stated, which is
what the respondent courts did, or
allow, on motion a reasonable time for
the amendment of the complaints so as
to allege the precise amount of each
item of damages and accept payment of
the requisite fees thereof within the
relevant prescriptive period.
The
amended
and
supplemental
complaint in the present case, therefore,
suffers from the material defect in failing
to state the amount of exemplary
damages prayed for.
As ruled in Tacay, the trial court may
either order the said claim to be
expunged from the record as it did not
acquire jurisdiction over the same or on
motion, it may allow, within a reasonable
time, the amendment of the amended
and supplemental complaint so as to sate
the precise amount of the exemplary
damages sought and require the payment
of the requisite fees therefor within the
relevant prescriptive period.
This case has the same ruling in the case
of Tacay, either to:
1.
Expunge.
2.
But before you expunge, on
motion, you allow the plaintiff, within
the reasonable time, to pay the docket
fees within the prescriptive period.
We also have the case of
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 210
Heirs of Hinog v Melicor
●
●
While the payment of the prescribed
docket fee is a jurisdictional
requirement, even its non-payment at
the time of filing does not
automatically cause the dismissal of the
case, as long as the fee is paid within
the
applicable
prescriptive
or
reglementary period, more so when
the party involved demonstrates a
willingness to abide by the rules
prescribing such payment. Thus, when
insufficient filing fees were initially paid
by the plaintiffs and there was no
intention to defraud the the
government the Manchester rule does
not apply.
The same ruling applies in the case of
the Heirs of Hinog v Melicor. Again,
remember ang ruling jud karon is
payment of docket fees is still
jurisdictional.
33:09 – 38:38 Espuerta
Payment of Docket Fees is still jurisdictional. It is
required in addition to the institution of the
complaint , but it doesn’t mean na if docket fees
are not paid or insufficiently paid, automatic
dismissal na ang consequence, no. Still give
time, a reasonable time upon motion of the
plaintiff to pay the correct amount of the docket
fees within the prescriptive period.
In the case of Proton Pilipinas et al. versus
Banque, similar ni siya sa akong gimention
before na there are instances where at the time
of the filing of the complaint, we cant really
compute. Even if we allege those monetary
claims, we cannot compute accurately. Like
here, accrued interest were claimed. Ang
interest, for example if you are claiming for a
sum of money, you will claim accrued interest at
the time when the case is filed. So when you say
accured, diba already earned but not yet
collected. But again, even if you file the case, dili
man na mubayad dayun pagka ugma si
defendant. Naay uban diha maskin naa nay
decision sa kaso dili gihapon mubayad, so dili ka
sure. Mag-run dyud nang interest, even if the
case has already been instituted. Diha lang na
mahuman ang running of the interest kung
mubayad na si defendant. That is something
which you’re not sure. So here, it can only be
determined after a final judgement has been
handed down. Of course at the time of the
institution of the case, even if pag abot sa
decision, millions na ang interest, mas dako pa
kaysa sa principal, but of course at the time of
the institution of the case, the plaintiff could not
have paid those interest because they could
have not yet been determined at the time of the
filing of the complaint.
Pursuant to Section 2 , Rule 141 of the Rules
of Court, as amended by Administrative
Circular No. 11-94, respondent should be
made to pay additional fees which shall
constitute a lien in the event the trial court
adjudges that it is entitled to interest accruing
after the filing of the complaint.
So katong mg ana-accrue na after the filing of
the complaint na dili ma-determine at the time of
the institution of the case, lien to sila sa whatever
judgement the plaintiff obtains in the case.
Sec. 2 Fees as lien – Where the court in its
final judgement awards a claim not alleged, or
a relief different or more than that claimed in
the pleading, the party concerned shall pay the
additional fees which shall constitute a lien on
the judgement in satisfaction of said lien. The
clerk of court shall assess and collect the
corresponding fees.
In the case of Ayala Corporation vs. Madayag,
the Supreme Court said na katong interpretation
of the Rule in Sun Insurance regarding awards of
claim not specified in the pleading, this court
clarified the same refers only to damages arising
after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading
to which the additional filing fee therefor shall
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 211
constitute a lien. So, meaning kung halimbawa at
the time of the filing of the complaint, naa na mg
ana-accrued interest, kabalo naman ka pila
interest from the time nangutang unya na default
until time of the filing of the case, pero wala mo
siya gi-allege or gi-allege man nimo sa body,
pero wala man nimo gi-include sa prayer and
correct amount of the interest.
(38:39 – 44:09) - Ryan
INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES
What rule shall apply? Dili nato gamitun nang
rule sa Ayala Corporation vs Madayag ug katong
sa Section 2 of Rule 141 na anong ana whatever
favourable decision that the acquire in that case,
katong correct amount of damages
corresponding to those interest which was
mention in the body of the complaint which was
proved in the trial but was not alleged in the
prayer unya wala na-compute ug docket fees, dili
na siya lien. Its either the court will consider it as
not filed, expunged siya from the record, or kung
wala pa naglampas ang prescriptive period,
pwede pa ka tagaan ug reasonable time, upon
motion. Ikaw mag-move ana, dili ang court
magbuot ana, it should be the plaintiff that would
ask, otherwise the court can expunged that from
the records. So kani siya, katong lien, again
remember kato tung mag-arise after the
institution of the complaint kay dili na sila madetermine at the time of the institution of the
complaint. So dapat, as the lawyer for the party,
you should allege in the prayer the amount of
damages claimed.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 212
Section 6. Construction – These Rules shall be
liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.
Remember: The rules of court are to be
LIBERALLY CONSTRUED.
Dili kaayo ta strict sa application of the rules.
Substantive law is superior to procedural law. If
the strict application of the rules will result in
defeating the substantive rights of the litigant,
dapat palabawon nato ang substantive law in
order to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive
disposition of every action.
There are several cases which have similar
pronouncements.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 213
ANSON TRADE CENTER INC., v. PACIFIC
BANKING CORPORATION, G.R. No. 179999,
March 7, 2009
Litigation is not a game of technicality, in
which one more deeply schooled and skilled
in the subtle art of movement and position
entraps and destroys the other. It is rather a
contest in which each contending party fully
and fairly lays before the court the facts in
issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial
and indecisive all imperfection of forms and
technicalities of procedure, asks that justice
be done upon the merits.
Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not won by a
rapier’s thrust. Technicality, when it deserts
its proper office as an aid to justice becomes
its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves
scant consideration from courts.
But I’m telling you ha. This is not an excuse for
you not to study the rules. You should really, if
not master, be well-acquainted with the Rules of
Court. Because there were several cases which
were won and lost just because of technicality.
Example:
Under the Rules of Summary Procedure,
motions for reconsideration are not allowed.
They are prohibited pleadings. So, your remedy
to APPEAL the decision of the court, if you are
aggrieved.
I have encountered several lawyers, that despite
that rule, nag MR. Definitely, that is not allowed.
That is prohibited. Ok lang kung marealize nila
ilang mali within 15 days, kay maka appeal pa
sila. Pero kung nilampas na ug 15 days unya
wala pa na resolve sa court ang ilahang motion.
Then mga 1 month pa after niingon si court nga
“this is a prohibited pleading.” You can no
longer appeal because the filing in a pendency
of a motion for reconsideration will NOT
suspend the running of the reglementary period.
That is technicality but it will be prejudicial to
your client.
Another example is formal offer of exhibits.
Even if you have presented testimonial evidence
or documentary evidence pero wala ka nag
formal offer, kanang formal offer istorya (verbal)
ra na ha “Your Honor, I am offering the contract
of sale as Exhibit A for the purpose of proving
the existence of the contract of sale between A
and B.” Let us say kana nga contract of sale gi
identify na siya during the trial. Nakadungog si
judge nga giidentify unya nakita.
Pero kung wala nimo na gi formally offer as
evidence, it will not be considered by the court.
That is under the Rules of Court.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 214
Daghan ug napildi ana nga kaso tungod lang kay
wala nag formal offer of exhibits. I encountered
a criminal case I was handling. Ang fiscal wala
nag formal offer sa iyahang evidence (medical
certificate), although gi identify to sa iyahang
witness. Ang kaso physical injuries unya wala gi
offer ang medical certificate. So unsay basis sa
court nga naay injury? Nga wala man to in
record ang medical certificate kay wala man gi
formally offer.
So even if jurisprudence says nga it is not a
game of technicality, but YOU HAVE TO BE
TECHNICAL.
Halimbawa, naay muduol nga client kay naa
siyay nadawat nga complaint. Ang una nimong
tan-awon ana is dili ang substance first. Tanawon nimo kung naa bay technical loopholes
nga makita nimo sa complaint. Imo nang I raise
tanan. Even sa criminal cases, bisan pag imong
client guilty kaayo, dili lang sa itsura, guilty jud
siya based sa documents. Then makita nimo sa
information nga naay mga technicalities nga
wala na comply. You can file a MOTION TO
QUASH THE INFORMATION. So, technicality is
very important.
44-10 - 49:35 JOE
technicality and the rule should be liberally
construed.
REDENA VS. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 146611, February 6, 2007
- It is equally settled, however, that this Court’s
power to liberally construe and even to suspend
the rules, presupposes the existence of substantial
rights in favor of which, the strict application of
technical rules must concede.
Discussion: In this case the Supreme Court also
mentioned na it is equally settled however that this
courts power to liberally construe and even to
suspend the rules presupposes the existence of
substantive rights in favor of which the strict
application of technical rules must concede.
TAGABI, ET AL. VS. TANQUE
He received a complaint ang una nimong tan-awon is
dili ang substance first tanawon nimo kung naa bay
mga technicalities mga loopholes nga makita nimo sa
complaint anha na nimo siya i-raised kay even sa
criminal cases although it is not our duty to judge our
clients even the guilty ones deserve representation.
So kung fo example guilty kayo akong client dili lang
jud sa itsura kung dli guilty jud siya based on the
documents pero makita nimo sa information for
example kinang sa fiscal naa gyud mga technicalities
nga wala na comply so you can file a motion to quash
the information. So it’s very important although
again it’s not a game of technicality. So the Rules of
Court are to be liberally construed. So the Rules of
procedure may not be used to abuse as instruments’
for the denial of substantial justice. So you should not
just invoke the letter of the rules without regard to
their real spirit and intent. So this is what you have to
remember so kung for example ikaw during the trial
nakalimot ka sa rules so you can invoked this noh nga
in the interest of substantial justice your honor blah
blah….. Because the rules of court are not games of
G.R. No. 144024, July 27, 2006
- Procedural rules are not to be belittled or
dismissed simply because their non-observance
may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s
substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required
to be followed except only for the most persuasive
of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a
litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the
degree of his thoughtlessness is not complying
with the procedure prescribed.
Discussion: In this case of Tagabi vs. Tangue
procedural rules so here general rule procedural
rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply
because their non-observance may have resulted in
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 215
prejudices to a party’s substantive rights. Like rules
they are required to be followed except only for the
most persuasive of reasons when they may be
relaxed to relieve a litigant of a justice not
commensurate
with
the
degree
of
his
thoughtlessness not complying with the procedure
prescribed. So when you ask for the liberality from
the court you can cite the rules na the construction
of the rules of court. Pero sa in reality ha ang general
rule is you follow the rules. Only when there is
ground for you to invoke the interest of justice when
it is really apparent na the substantive rights of your
clients will be prejudiced if it is the application of the
rules would be made then you can invoke the
exception. Pero when it comes to the Supreme
Courts sa Court of Appeals very strict ang Supreme
Court mag file kag petition it is not even sure na
pwede na ipa comment pa imong kalaban. Pwede na
without you without the Supreme Court requiring
your comment i-dismiss na deretso imong kaso
because for example diba sa Supreme Court kuan
lang legal questions or questions of law so this
petitions calls for the re-examination of evidence and
the court is not a trier of facts so the case will be
dismissed. So wala man lang ka first based, so very
strict although the rules says na liberal construction
but you have to as much as possible be very familiar
with the rules.
I will not discuss specific cases here because when
we go to the different rules daghan tag cases ma
encounter gihapon wherein the rules on liberality of
construction are also explained there by the Supreme
Court as we go along. So again just remember that
this is the principle rules of procedure is not intended
to promote or to defeat substantive justice so it must
not be applied in a very rigid or technical sense.
Exception is that while rules of court should be
liberally construed the provisions in the manners in
perfecting an appeal are strictly applied. Kinang
appeals dapat within the reglementary period na
siya, motion for reconsideration you cannot ask for
extension for filing a motion for reconsideration very
strict na sila. Exception very exceptional
circumstances lang jud nga gina allow sa courts nga
pwede paka mag appeal even beyond the
reglementary period but very exceptional. So kung
ikaw practicing lawyer be very aware of the
reglementary periods. Louy kayo ang clients nga ma
pildi lang napildi man siya kay mao gani mag appeal
ka pero didto nalang jud siya kutob wla na kay lain
mabuhat kay you forgot about the rules on the
reglementary periods.
49:35 - 55:00 Zea
RULE 2
Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. - Every
ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of
action.
Section 2. Cause of action, defined. - A cause of
action is the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another.
Q: What are ordinary civil actions? Those which are
not specified under the Rules of Court as special civil
actions.
TAKE NOTE: Under Sec. 1 every ordinary civil action
must be based on a cause of action.
You cannot have a case na walay cause of action. It
can be dismissed or worse, you can be held liable for
damages by the other party na nagpataka lang ka file
og case. Tanang tao naay right to file a case but it
should be with a cause of action.
Q: What is a cause of action? What is the
requirement insofar as civil actions is concerned?
Q: What are the elements of a cause of action?
DEFINITION AND ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF
ACTION
● A cause of action is the act or omission by
which a party violates a right of another.
It is the delict or the wrongful act or
omission committed by the defendant in
violation of the primary right of the
plaintiff. (Universal Aquarius Inc vs QC
Human Resources Management)
Case:Spouses Fernandez vs Smart
Communications, Inc GR No 212885. July 17, 2019
Three essential elements of a cause of action:
a. A RIGHT in favor of the plaintiff by
whatever means and under whatever law
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 216
b.
c.
1.
2.
3.
it arises or is created;
An OBLIGATION on the part of the named
defendant to respect or not to violate
such right; and
An ACT OR OMISSION on the part of the
named defendant violative of the right of
the plaintiff or constituting a breach of
the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff
for which the latter may maintain an
action for recovery of damages or other
relief. (VIOLATION.)
A RIGHT in favor of the plaintiff by whatever
means and under whatever law it arises or is
created;
Ex: In a contract of loan, the lender gave
P100,000 to the borrower. There is a RIGHT
created on the part of the creditor by reason
of the contract of loan. It is created. The
basis is the contract.
An OBLIGATION on the part of the named
defendant to respect or not to violate such
right;
DISCUSSION: Under the loan contract, the
defendant has the obligation to pay and not
just to forget the loan. Iyaha gyud ng
undertaking to pay on or before the date
stipulated and all the interest mentioned in
the contract.
An ACT OR OMISSION on the part of the
named defendant violative of the right of
the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the
obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for
which the latter may maintain an action for
recovery of damages or other relief.
(VIOLATION.)
DISCUSSION: If it is a contract of loan, what
is the act or omission on the part of the
defendant that will violate the right of the
plaintiff creditor? It is non-payment or
default on the part of the debtor.
NOTE: These are all essential for there to be a cause
of action. Without a cause of action, you cannot
invoke the aid of the court.
●
It is only upon the occurrence of the last
element that a cause of action arises,
giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an
action in court for recovery of damages or
other appropriate relief. *(Universal
Aquarius Inc vs QC Human Resources
Management)
DISCUSSION: Dapat tanan to siya present. Kay kung
naa lang kay right unya walay violation, you cannot
enforce the right because there is nothing to redress
as there was no violation.
Informally, there is a fourth essential element.
●
●
According to Dean Inigo, it is DAMAGE.
According to Dean Espejo, “if there is no
damage sustained, no suit can be
maintained.” Why?
kate
54:41-59:41
Informally, there is a fourth essential element.
According to Dean Inigo, it is DAMAGE. And,
according to Dean Espejo, "if there is no damage
sustained, no suit can be maintained. "Why?"
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA. It means a loss or
damage for which there is no legal remedy. In
other words, even if there is violation of a right,
but the law does not consider it as an actionable
injury, the plaintiff cannot file a claim.
Damnum absque injuria is damage for which there is
no legal remedy. Even if reality, you suffered
damages, even if there is a violation of a right, but
the law does not consider it as an actionable injury.
Without damage, you cannot recover if you are the
plaintiff.
Why would the law not consider such violation
actionable?
Because there is deemed to be no breach of a legal
duty.
For example:
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 217
BPI Express Credit Card vs. Court of Appeals
Breach of promise to marry per se. It is not
actionable although the feelings of the jilted lover
may have been wounded.
Gambling debts. They are not actionable at law. In
these cases, the parties are deemed to be in pari
delicto so the courts will leave them as they are. A
person who seeks to enforce a gambling debt does
not come to court with clean hands.
De minimis non curat lex. The law does not deal
with trifles.
Breach of promise to marry per se. Is it actionable?
Is there a violation of a right? Although in reality,
there is damage, moral damage, sleepless nights,
moral shock, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
mental anguish. For example, someone promised to
marry you, and then that person broke the promise,
you feel all those things, sleepless nights, mental
anguish, serious anxiety, moral shock, and
besmirched reputation. Can you sue based on that?
No. It's not an actionable wrong, if it's breach of
promise to marry per se.
It's a different situation if there has already been
wedding preparations, invitations have been sent
out, there are already hotel reservations, etc., and
then the person does not show up the wedding, and
you spent for everything. There will definitely be an
actionable wrong there.
Gambling debts. You gambled and you won, but the
other person did not pay you. Can you sue for
recovery of sum of money? No. They are not
actionable at law. In these cases, the parties are
deemed to be in pari delicto so the courts will leave
them as they are. A person who seeks to enforce a
gambling debt does not come to court with clean
hands.
* Remember the clean hands doctrine: He who
comes to court must come with clean hands. If you
are also at fault, then it's possible that you will not be
allowed to recover, or your claim for damages will be
offset by the wrong that you have also committed.
De minimis non curat lex. This refers to small issues.
The court does not deal with trifles.
296 SCRA 260
Atty. T has a BPI credit card but he failed to pay his
bill. He was asked to issue a check for P15,000,
otherwise his credit will be cut off. Atty. T issued a
postdated check. BPI sent him a letter to inform
him that his credit card was temporarily
suspended and asked him to refrain using the
credit card. Atty. T used the credit card which was
not honored by Cafe Malate where he was treating
his friends. Atty. T said that he was humiliated by
the incident and so filed an action for damages
against BPI Express Credit Card.
59:42 - 1:04:42 Chiara
According to Atty Ty, he was humiliated by the
incident. So he filed an action for damages against
BPI Express Credit Card. Do you think Atty. Ty’s action
against BPI will prosper? Naa ba siyay cause of action
against BPI?
Supreme Court: NO.
●
In order that the plaintiff may maintain an
action for the injuries of which he
complaints, he must establish that such
injuries resulted from a breach of duty
which the defendant owed to the plaintiff
a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and
legal responsibility by the person causing
it. Thus, there can be damage without
injury in those instances in which the loss
or harm was not the results of a violation
of a legal duty. In such cases, the
consequences must be borne by the
injured person alone, the law affords no
remedy for damages resulting from an act
which does not amount to a legal injury or
wrong. These situations are often called
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA.
DISCUSSION: Although in reality, he suffered
damages, but that was not the kind of damage which
the law recognises where he plaintiff is allowed to
recover. Because in the first place, there was no
violation of duty on the part of BPI.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 218
Take note:
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA is related to the Latin
maxim DAMNUM SINE INJURIA ESSE POTEST.
-
There may be damage or loss inflicted
without any act being done which the law
deems an injury.
I am not requiring you to memorise the Latin maxims
(.1% it will be asked in the Bar). Ma’am makes a joke
that you can use the Latin in case you decide to
become faith healers.
Please remember in the case of Sps. Chu vs. Benelda:
SPS. CHU vs. BENELDA ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
CORP. G.R. No. 142313, March 1, 2002
Test to determine sufficiency of cause of action
-
The test of the sufficiency of the facts
found in a petition as constituting a cause
of action is whether or not, admitting the
facts alleged, the court can render a valid
judgment upon the same in accordance
with the prayer thereof.
DISCUSSION: How do you know that you have a
sufficient cause of action? Because if you file a civil
action, your complaint will be tested based on these
guidelines (see above).
The test of the sufficiency of the facts found in a
petition as constituting a cause of action is whether
or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can
render a valid judgment upon the same in
accordance with the prayer thereof.
Your complaint must recite all the elements of a
cause of action
So, say you are filing a case. Of course, kung mu-file
ka og kaso, pabor gyud na tanan sa imo ang imong icite sa imong complaint. So, when you file a
complaint, your complaint should recite all the
elements of a cause of action. Because mao na siya
ang basis ni court in determining if you are entitled to
relief and if the defendant is really obligated to
perform whatever performance you want them to do
as prayed for in the complaint. So, assuming for the
sake of argument na tinood jud to tanan sa
complaint, are you entitled to relief? Mao na siya ang
basis.
Why do we say “assuming for sake of argument?”
Because the defendant will have to answer the
complaint. So he will have an opportunity to dispute
the allegations. But in determining kung baa ba gyud
ka sufficient cause of action, sa complaint nimo dapat
complete tanan ang elements. Mao na siya ang iprove during the trial of the case.
For example, your complaint is deficient, although
nag-cite ka nga naa kay right. Pero wala ka nagmention of any obligation on the part of the
defendant. And then you alleged that there is
violation of your right and that you suffered
damages. Can the court render judgment against the
defendant here? NO. Why? Insufficient man among
action based on a reading of your complaint.
1:04:43-1:09:43
Wala ma’y obligation kaha si defendant so nganong
kinahanglan si defendant mubayad saimong
damages? So dapat kompleto tanan even if you
sighted an obligation on the part of the defendant,
pero wala pud kay gimention na right on your part.
So, you cannot also recover for damages because for
all we know, dili diay to imohang right but the right of
another person. So, you are not a real party in
interest to file the complaint. All of the elements
should be found in the complaint itself.
ASIA BANK, INC. v. EQUITABLE BANK
GR 190432, April 25, 2017
·
The test to determine whether a complaint
states a cause of action against the defendants is
this:
o Admitting hypothetically the
truth of the allegations of fact
made in the complaint, may a
judge validly granny the relief
demanded in the complaint?
That is why when we go to defenses, one of the
affirmative defenses is failure to state a cause of
action – that is a ground for dismissal of a complaint.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 219
Assuming for the sake of argument that tinuod to
tanan ang giingon ni plaintiff sa iyahang complaint,
but still, it does not state a cause of action, kay
because not all of the elements of a cause of action is
present in the complaint. So, it is susceptible to
dismissal. Because even if we go through the process
of trial, you cannot validly grant a relief based on the
allegations of the complaint kay kulang man siya.
SPOUSES
ZEPEDA
CORPORATION
v.
CHINA
BANKING
GR 17275, October 9, 2006
·
To be take into account are only the material
allegations in the complaint; extraneous facts and
circumstances or other matters aliunde are not
considered. The court may consider in addition to
the complaint the appended annexes or
documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or
admissions in the records.
Actually, this has been also modified by the amended
Rules – which took effect 2020. Karun man gud sa
complaint, before the amendment, ultimate facts
lang ang imong i-cite sa complaint. When we say
ultimate facts, kato lang facts which constitutes your
cause of action, dapat kompleto lang gihapon siya.
But evidentiary matters, extraneous facts, legal
arguments need not be mentioned in the complaint.
So mubo lang actually ang complaint.
Pero karun, because of the amendment you have to
cite everything, even evidentiary facts must be
mentioned. Kay ang ginaconsider sa SC ngano mag
file-file man kag kaso bisan pag you cited all the
elements of your cause of action, but you cannot
prove it naman diay. Kay wala kay evidence. That is
why the present rule is that – you have to state also
the evidentiary facts. And then you already have to
attach judicial affidavits, sa una dili ni siya required
but now required siya. All the documents to be
presented must be stated na in the complaint. Unlike
before, dili siya kailangan kay kani unta na
requirement sa pre-trial brief naman ni siya pero
karun naan a dapat ni sya sa complaint.
And, the witnesses presented under supposed
testimony dapat i-mention n apud nimo sa
complaint. So, mas strikto karun ang requirements sa
court as far as the complaint is concerned.
So, not only the ultimate facts but all the relevant
facts in relation to your complaint. But again, very
important na the complaint must sufficiently state
and allege the elements of a cause of action.
·
In determining whether the elements of a
cause of action are present or whether they have
been sufficiently alleged, the inquiry is therefore
confined to the four corners of the complaint (see
ASIA BREWERY, INC. v EQUITABLE PCI, GR 190432,
APRIL 25, 2017)
So, didto lang jud ta sa complaint mag tan-aw naa ba
jud cause of action. Dili nato tan awon ang
allegations sa answer sa defendant – wala na’y labot.
Didto lang jud, kung naa bay elements of a cause of
action which are present. Kay bisan pa ug naay kay
for example, naa kay complaint, and the defendant
filed an answer and for example that would
necessitate a filing of a reply. Halimbawa sa imong
complaint kulang imong cause of action and then in
your reply – gidugang nimo didto kay na realize nimo
nga kulang diay.
1:09:44-1:14:44
It will not be effective in curing the defect na in
the complaint itself, not all the elements of a
cause of action are alleged. Dapat sa complaint
lang ka mutan-aw.
SUMMARY
THE RULE:
Only the allegations of the complaint are
considered in order to determine:
FIRST:
SECOND:
Whether all the
elements of a
cause of action
Whether the court
has
jurisdiction
over the subject
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 220
are present.
matter.
We just recently discussed that it is only the
allegations of the complaint are considered in
order to determine.
First, if all of the elements of a cause of action
are present.
But if you remember, we discussed also in
jurisdiction, in determining whether or not the
court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the complaint. How do know whether or not the
court has jurisdiction? By the allegations in the
complaint regardless of any defense raised by
the defendant in his answer. We only focus in the
complaint.
Two items ang mag depend sa allegtions in the
complaint. In determining:
1.
Whether or not there is a cause of action.
2. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the case.
To clarify, it does not follow that if the complaint
sufficiently and completely alleges all the
elements of a cause of action, naa na gyud
cause of action si plaintiff.
Ang complaint lang ang sufficient that if we
hypothetically admit all the allegations in the
complaint, assuming na tinuod tong naa sa
complaint, naa jud siyay cause of action.
But whether or not the plaintiff has cause of
action in reality, that will be determined by the
evidence presented during the trial. If you want
to question the complaint because the complaint
itself, as worded, dili complete ang recital niya,
you have to raise the affirmative defense of
failure to state of cause of action.
For example, feeling nimo gwapo kayo
pagkabuhat sa iyang complaint but it doesn’t
mean na tinuod iyang complaint kay kabalo ka
na pataka lang na siya ug ingon dira. So wala
gyud na siyay cause of action in reality.
Here, the ground for dismissal is not failure to
state the cause of action. You cannot move for
the dismissal of the case if after the plaintiff has
presented evidence, there is no cause of action-
maybe he did not prove the right on his part;
maybe he did not prove that the defendant has
the obligation; maybe he did not prove that there
was a violation; or maybe he did not prove that
there were damages suffered. Here, the
defendant can move to dismiss the case on the
ground that there is no cause of action on the
part of the plaintiff. That can be done by
“demurrer to evidence.”
Similarity of Cause of Action and Subject
Matter: in determining whether or not the
complaint sufficiently alleges the cause of action
or whether or not the court has jurisdiction over
the subject matter, you only have to look at the
four corners of the complaint.
DISTINCTIONS
CAUSE OF ACTION
SUBJECT MATTER
A cause of action is
the act or omission by
which a party violates
a right of another
(defined in Rule 2). It
is he delict or the
wrongful act or
omission committed
by the defendant in
violation of the
primary right of the
plaintiff.
The subject matter is
the item with respect
to which the
controversy has
arisen, or concerning
which the wrong has
been done, and it is
ordinarily the right, the
thing, or the contract
under dispute.
[Bachrach Corp. vs
CA GR 128349, Sep
25,1998]
For example, in a breach of contract, the
contract violated is the subject matter while the
breach thereof by the obligor is the cause of
action.
Again, when we say cause of action, all the four
elements must be present for you to have a
cause of action.
Actually, when we talk about cause of action, it is
the reason or the WHY.
1:14:45-1:19:45
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 221
DISCUSSION: …so, it is the reason why you are
filing the case.
DISCUSSION: We actually discussed this in
jurisdiction.
But the subject matter, it is the what. What are
you claiming in the case? Claiming for a sum of
money. You are claiming that the defendant
should perform delivery of property and
damages. So, it is the item. It is one which is to
be performed.
Now, we have to make a distinction between
cause of action and subject matter because they
are different matters.
So, in a breach of contract for example, what is
the cause of action? What is the subject matter?
For example, A and B enter into a contract and
B violated the contract. So, the cause of action of
A is the breach. Naa siyay right of course. Under
the contract, he has the right and there’s an
obligation on the part of the defendant for there
was a violation. There were damages suffered so
that will be the cause of action.
Now, the subject matter when the case if filed is
actually the contract violated and that is the
subject matter of the case. So here, it is the one
to be enforced. Mao nang imong ginapangayo sa
court to enforce the contract so that is the
subject matter.
In determining jurisdiction, the court will based
on the subject matter. Kay specific performance
so, it is incapable of pecuniary estimation in
general and the jurisdiction is on the RTC.
I’m sure you remember this case. Here, it was a
case for quasi-delict, tort or culpa aquiliana. You
know that in your obligations and contracts.
Second year pa man mo so last year pa to
unless, dugay na kayo to na panahon no.
So here, a case for quasi-delict diba? But the
case was filed with the RTC. Ang demand here
is for damages based on quasi-delict. Now, the
jurisdiction of the RTC was questioned for
according to the defendant, we should base on
the value of the damages claimed, the
jurisdictional amount. But according to the judge,
no for this is a case for quasi-delict and this is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. So, it is
proper na ang plaintiff filed the case before the
RTC because the fault or negligence in quasidelict cannot be subject of pecuniary estimation.
Question: What is the subject matter of the
action? Because that will determine whether the
court has jurisdiction. Is it the quasi-delict? Is it
the fault or negligence which is the subject
matter?
INIEGO versus PURGANAN, ET. AL.
G.R. No. 166876, March 24, 2006
●
According to respondent Judge, what he
referred to in his assailed Order as not
capable of pecuniary estimation is the
cause of action, which is a quasi-delict,
and not the amount of damage prayed
for. From this, respondent Judge
concluded that since fault or negligence
in quasi-delicts cannot be the subject of
pecuniary estimation, the RTC has
jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals
affirmed respondent Judge in this
respect.
●
ISSUE: Is the fault or negligence the
subject matter or the cause of action?
HELD:
Respondent Judge’s observation is erroneous.
What must be determined to be capable or
incapable of pecuniary estimation is not the
cause of action, but the subject matter of the
action. A cause of action is "the delict or
wrongful act or omission committed by the
defendant in violation of the primary rights of
the plaintiff." On the other hand, the "subject
matter of the action" is "the physical facts, the
thing real or personal, the money, lands,
chattels, and the like, in relation to which the
suit is prosecuted, and not the delict or wrong
committed by the defendant."
DISCUSSION: The judge here is wrong.
What must be determined to be capable or
incapable of pecuniary estimation is not the
cause of action. Quasi-delict is the cause of
action and is the why. Why are filing the case
because of quasi-delict.
But what are you asking from the court is the
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 222
subject matter.
for damages.
A cause of action is the delict or wrongful act, or
omission committed by the defendant in violation
of the primary rights of the plaintiff. On the other
hand, the subject matter of the action is "the
physical facts, the thing real or personal, the
money, lands, chattels, and the like, in relation to
which the suit is prosecuted, and not the delict or
wrong committed by the defendant.
DISCUSSION: Although again, the Supreme
Court said that fault or negligence is not capable
of pecuniary estimation, but it is not the subject
matter. It is the cause of action.
HELD:
Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts
are primarily and effectively actions for the
recovery of a sum of money for the damages
suffered because of the defendant’s alleged
tortious acts. The damages claimed in such
actions represent the monetary equivalent of
the injury caused to the plaintiff by the
defendant, which are thus sought to be
recovered by the plaintiff. This money claim is
the principal relief sought and is not merely
incidental thereto or a consequence thereof. It
bears to point out that the complaint filed by
private respondent before the RTC actually
bears the caption "for DAMAGES."
DISCUSSION: The damages claimed in such
actions represent the monetary equivalent of the
injury caused to the plaintiff by the defendant,
which are thus sought kay purely damages lang
man gud to na case. It’s not merely incidental
thereto.
The damages actually are the subject matter. So,
you base the jurisdiction on the subject matter. In
this case, it’s a money claim so based on the
monetary value of the claim.
(1:19:46 – 1:24:46)
.. It is not a subject matter, it is a cause of action.
Note: Jurisdiction is based on the subject matter
– not on the cause of action.
INIEGO vs. PURGANAN
•
The subject matter of the action is the
relief sought which is recovery of damages. The
cause of action, which is the act or omission by
which the defendant violated the right of the
plaintiff, was his fault or negligence.
HELD:
Fault or negligence, which the Court of
Appeals claims is not capable of pecuniary
estimation, is not actionable by itself. For such
fault or negligence to be actionable, there
must be a resulting damage to a third person.
The relief available to the offended party in
such cases is for the reparation, restitution, or
payment of such damage, without which any
alleged offended party has no cause of action
or relief. The fault or negligence of the
defendant, therefore, is inextricably intertwined
with the claim for damages, and there can be
no action based on quasi-delict without a claim
•
The judge erefore confused subject
matter for cause of action.
DISTINCTIONS
CAUSE OF ACTION
SUBJECT MATTER
It is the basis of a civil action (Rule 2, Sec. 1)
It is the basis of jurisdiction
It does not matter if the cause of action is
capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation
If the subject matter is incapable of
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 223
pecuniary estimation, jurisdiction is lodged with
the RTC
A cause of action need only exist in civil action
(Rombe vs. Asiatrust, GR No. 164479, Feb. 13,
2008) Every action or proceeding has a subject
matter
It is the “why” of an action (Arba vs. Nicolas, GR
No. 168394, October 6, 2008) It is the “what” of
an action or proceeding
Whether one has a cause of action depends on
law, contract, quasi-contract, delict, quasi-delict
(*sources of obligations)To determine subject
matter, reference is made to law – BP 129, RA
7691
When a court takes cognizance of a cause of
action when none actually exists, it commits an
error of judgment (*Remedy to correct an error of
judgment – appeal)
When a court takes
cognizance of a subject matter not conferred
upon it by law, it commits an error of jurisdiction
Where a cause of action does not exist, a
complaint was vulnerable to dismissal on the
ground of lack of or failure to state a cause of
action under the old incarnation of rules. At
present, lack of or failure to state a cause of
action are considered affirmative defenses only
Where jurisdiction over the subject
matter does not exist, a complaint is vulnerable
to dismissal on the ground that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim
under both the old and current incarnation of the
Rules
Under the unamended Rules, a dismissal on the
ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of
action is without prejudice to refilling in the same
court A dismissal on the ground that the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter bars
the refiling of the complaint in the same court
(1:24:47 to 1:29:47) Millan
Distinctions:
Cause of Action
Subject Matter
When a court takes
cognizance of a cause of
action
when
none
actually
exists,
it
commits an error of
judgment.
When a court takes
cognizance of a subject
matter not conferred
upon it by law, it
commits an error of
jurisdiction
Where a case of action
does not exist, a
complaint
was
vulnerable to dismissal
on the ground of lack of
or failure to state a
cause of action under
the old incarnation of
the rules. At present,
lack of r failure to state
a cause of action are
considered affirmative
defenses only.
Where jurisdiction over
the subject matter does
not exist, a complaint is
vulnerable to dismissal
on the ground that the
court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter
of the claim under both
the old and current
incarnation
of
the
Rules.
Under the unamended
Rules, a dismissal on the
ground
that
the
complaint fails to state
a cause of action is
without prejudice to
refiling in the same
court.
A dismissal on the
ground that the court
has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter bars
the refiling of the
complaint in the same
court.
That can be questioned even if it is final and
executory, because the proceedings in the court
conducted without jurisdiction are null and void.
On the 2nd distinction
For cause of action:
Kung ang iyahang recital sa iyang complaint is
incomplete ang cause of action, it is dismissible based
on the affirmative defense of failure to state a cause
of action. Kung halimbawa naman, gwapo ang pagka
present sa iyang complaint, kompleto ang cause of
action pero again as I said during the presentation of
evidence, the plaintiff was not able to prove al the
elements of his alleged cause of action, the complaint
can be dismissed on the ground of lack of cause of
action by way of demurrer to evidence. So
dismissible siya. But again, these defenses can be
waived.
For subject matter:
Where jurisdiction over the subject matter does not
exist, a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal on the
ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter. This defense can be raised at anytime
and as a general rule, it is not barred by waiver or
estoppel.
On the 3rd distinction
For cause of action:
When the complaint is dismissed because of failure
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 224
to state a cause of action in the complaint, the action
is without prejudice to refiling in the same court. For
example, gi-dismiss sa court kay kulanga ang imong
recital sa imong complaint, wala nimo na allege
properly ang violation committed by the defendant
or the obligation, so gi dismiss because of failure to
state a cause of action.
Ma refile pa ba na nimo na kaso? YES. Ma refile pa na
siya. Asa man nimo siya ma refile? In the same court?
Meaning with the RTC also? Yes. If the jurisdiction
really is with the RTC. Ma refile pa siya in the same
court, meaning in the same RTC. But you cannot say
na i-refile nako siya sa Branch 4 kay inig mag file baya
tag kaso, i-raffle lang na siya kung maadto ba siya sa
Branch 1, 2, or 3. But still it is with the RTC.
For subject matter:
If the complaint is dismissed on the ground that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the case, can you refile the case? YES, but you cannot
refile it on the same court. Kay diba gi-dismiss na gani
ni RTC kay wala ko’y jurisdiction, unya imo napud ifile sa akoa karon? You refile it, but in the proper
court. So that is when the dismissal is due to lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Commonalities:
Cause of Action
Subject Matter
Only the allegations of the complaint will be
examined in determining whether there is a cause
of action and whether the court has jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
Both are used in determining whether or not res
judicata exists (i.e., identity of causes of action and
identity of subject matter).
Concept of res judicata
There’s a previous case filed, and the case was
decided on the merits, and the decision of the court
became final and executory. After that case, you
cannot file another case involving the same cause of
action or involving the same subject matter.
Pero karon you want to have another relief kay
napildi man ka sa first case, na final na siya, wala na
ka’y mabuhat, nag file napud ka ug bag-o. That 2 nd
action is barred by what we call res judicata. The first
case constitutes res judicata which bars the refiling of
another case based on the same cause of action and
the same subject matter.
REVIEW
The rule:
Only the allegations of the complaint are
considered in order to determine:
(1) Whether all the elements of a cause of action
are present*
(2) Whether the court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter
*this has an exception
Kuehne 1:29:48- 1:34:48
REVIEW
THE RULE:
•
Only allegations of the complaint are
considered in order to detertmine:
•
First: Whether all the elements of a
cause of action are present. (There is an
exception to this one)
•
Second: Whether the court
jurisdiction over the subject matter
has
It is only the allegations in the complaint which
are considered in order to determine whether or
not there is a cause of action mentioned in the
complaint or whether or not the court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
But in so far as the cause of action is concern,
naay exception, naay instance nga dili lang sa
complaint gina tanaw whether or not all the
elements of a cause of action are present.
TEGIMENTA
BUENSALIDA
CHEMICAL
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 225
PHILS
VS
before the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC.
(GR No 176466, June 17, 2008)
The Court of Appeals correctly relied not only
on the face of the complaints, but also on the
position papers submitted by respondent in
determining the causes of action raised in the
two cases. It correctly observed that a
complaint in a case filed before the NLRC
consists only of a blank form which provides a
checklist of possible causes of action that the
employee may have against the employer. The
check list was designed to facilitate the filing of
complaints by employees and laborers even
without the intervention of counsel. It allows
the complainant to expediently set forth his
grievance in a general manner, but is not
solely determinative of the ultimate cause of
action that he may have against the employer.
XXX
Thus, the complaint is not the only document
from which the complainant’s cause of action
is determined in a labor case. Any cause of
action that may not have been included in the
complaint or position paper, can no longer be
alleged after the position paper is submitted by
the parties. In other words, the filing of the
position paper is the operative act which
forecloses the raising of other matters
constitutive of the cause of action. This
necessarily implies that the cause of action is
finally ascertained only after both the
complaint and position paper are properly
evaluated.
In labor cases, as stated in the case of
Tegimenta, I will explain to you unsa nang filing
sa labor case, illegal dismissal, money claims
like back wages, separation pay, so based on
Employer-employee relationship, you file that
When you file a labor case, actually pag file nimo
sa complaint, di paka kailangan ug lawyer ana,
ngano man? Muadto lang ka didto, ang
procedure ana, mufile ka didto ug reklamo, at
first, di pa na siya idocket, SENA pana sya so
kanang murag reconciliation pana sya, husayon
pa mo ana. So, kung dili jud mo mahusay, walay
pag-asa, then, naay order or certification na
iahatag na pwede naka mag file ug kaso. So,
when you file a case, balik nasad ka sa office
tong receiving, tagaan napud kag laing form, isa
ra ghapon na page although back-to-back unya
iacomplish na nimo na form, ballpen lang, imo
pangalan, imo position, pila imo sweldo, imo
employer, unsa imo relief na gina pangayo.
Mao ni siya ang complaint, although verified na,
kailangan nimo pirmahan and then you subscribe
before the officer there. Mao ni sa labor cases,
lahi ni siya sa complains sa ordinary civil action
which I said na very exhaustive labi na sa mga
amendments sa rules na taas na gyud kaayo, so,
siguro with the amendment sa rules no malahi na
jud ang concept sa acceptance fee sa mga
practitioners like us, kay sauna magbuhat kag
complaint, simple lang pero karon murag once
makabuhat kag complaint, kompleto na ang
kaso. So, for example magwithdraw man ka sa
kaso, ang musunod sa imo na lawyer wala na
siya buhaton actually katy gibuhat na nimo tanan
when you instituted the complaint. You, have to
charge diffirently sa acceptance karon.
Sa labor, kato lang, checklist lang, so,
magrequire naka ug lawyer kung magfile namo
ug position paper. After you file the complaint
before the LA, paatubangon napud mo ana sa
imohang employer, and murag second round of
conciliation and then if dili jud mo masettle, then
that is the time where the parties would be
simultaneously required to submit their position
papers.
So, sa position papers, diha na, legal na na siya
exhaustive na na siya. So there, ang question
lang kay in this case naay mga reliefs prayed
and naay mga causes of action na wala na
mention or naay mga elements na wala na
mention in the complaint, katong form pero didto,
naay mga additional casues of action na gi
allege na in the position paper.
Supposedly if it is under the rules, ordinary civil
actions, dapat the complaint itself should already
specify and recite all your causes of actions.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 226
Dapat sa complaint jud na sya makita. Pero, in
labor cases, its not required it is possible na
additional causes of action may be interposed in
the position papers of the parties and then diha
lang pud. All other causes of action which are not
interposed or alleged in the position paper are
already barred and already excluded.
This is an exception to the rule na the cause of
action supposedly should be ascertained only
based on the allegations in the complaint. But, in
labor cases, pwede pa diay na katong complaint
di pa to sya kompleto, narecite ra sa cause of
actions. Pwede pa siya madagdagan sa position
paper.
Khayzeee 1:34:49- end
Thus, the complaint is not the only
document from which the complainant’s cause
of action is determined in a labor case. Any
cause of action that may not have been included
in the complaint or position paper, can no longer
be alleged after the position paper is submitted
by the parties. In other words, the filing of the
position paper is the operative act which
forecloses the raising of other matters
constitutive of the cause of action. This
necessarily implies that the cause of action is
finally ascertained only after both the complaint
and position paper are properly evaluated.
to this one.
going back here, kaning sa second whether the
court has jurisdiction over the subject matter,
diba we discussed na, it is also determined
based on the allegations in the complaint,
regardless of any possible defendant-defenses
that may be raised by the defendant, diba, mao
na ang rule. Can you remember the exception
here? exception is under Republic Act No. 2700.
When it is alleged that there is an ongoing
dispute, and then the parties are farmers,
tenants, farm workers, 'kay, So here, the court
will look into the allegations of the defendant. But
then again, in that case, which you discussed,
there's a need to prove on the part of the
defendant, na the defendant is a farm worker
farmer or tenant pero katong that it is an agrarian
dispute it's enough na i-allege niya.
But that's just the first requisite. The second
requisite is he has to prove that he is a farm
worker, tenant, or farmers. So again, but that's
an exception, noh, to the rule na, in determining
jurisdiction over the subject matter. We only look
at the allegations in the complaint 'kay, so kato
siya, we also look into the allegations of the
answer and the evidence presented by the
defendant.”
JANUARY
LECTURE
….Labor cases, pwede pa diay na katong
complaint, di pa to siya kompleto. Na recital sa
cause of actions, pwede pa siya madagdagan sa
position paper and”
THE RULE:
Only the allegations of the complaint are
considered in order to determine:
First: whether all the
elements of a cause
of action are present.
Second:
Whether the court has
jurisdiction over the
subject matter
18,
2021
-
RECORDED
00:00 - 04:57
Continuation of Rule 2
We now continue with what we discussed in Rule 2.
We defined what is a cause of action. I already
mentioned this to you.
In other actions, example, a special civil action, does
it need a cause of action? How about a special
proceeding?
A: Actually, there are civil actions where cause of
action is required. There are also instances where it is
not required.
In special proceedings, you don’t need a cause of
action because you do not have an opponent.
There is an exception
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 227
Ex: In rehabilitation proceedings, as discussed in
Rombe vs Asiatrust Devt Bank, these proceedings
“seek to establish the inability of the corporate
debtor to pay its debts when they fall due so that a
rehabilitation plan is necessary. It does not seek a
relief from an injury caused by another party. Thus, a
petition for rehabilitation need not state a cause of
action”
what its net value is and its liabilities. After
paying all the liabilities, the distribution of
the residual shares, katong nabilin, to all
those who are entitled to it.
A cause of action must exist at the time of filing of
a complaint.
●
The term “cause of action” applies only to civil
actions.
●
●
Strictly speaking, it is only in civil actions
that one speaks of a cause of action. The
term does not apply to special
proceedings which seeks to establish a
status, a right or a particular fact.
Rehabilitation proceedings seek to
establish the inability of the corporate
debtor to pay its debts when they fall due
so that a rehabilitation plan is necessary. It
does not seek a relief from an injury
caused by another party. Thus, a petition
for rehabilitation need not state a cause of
action (ROMBE vs ASIATRUST
DEVELOPMENT BANK, GR No. 164479,
Feb. 13, 2008)
●
Unless the plaintiff has a valid and
subsisting cause of action at the time his
action is commenced, the defect cannot
be cured or remedied by the acquisition
or accrual of one while the action is
pending, and a supplemental complaint or
an amendment setting up such afteraccrued cause of action is not permissible.
(SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO, INC vs
C. HARRIS ET AL. GR NO. L-45543, May 17,
1939)
REMEMBER: The cause of action must exist
at the time of the filing of the complaint. Dili
pwede nga at the time of the filing of the
case, wala pa kay cause of action, wala pay
violation, wala pay damages. All of the
elements of a cause of action must already
be complete at the time when you filed the
case.
In this case of Montañer vs Shari’a District Court
MONTAñER VS SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT GR NO.
174975, January 20, 2009
● Unlike a civil action which has definite
adverse parties, a special proceeding has
no definite adverse party. A special
proceeding has one definite party, who
petitions or applies for a declaration of a
status, right, or particular fact, but no
definite adverse party. In case for
settlement of estate, the estate of the
decedent is not being sued for any cause
of action. As a special proceeding, the
purpose of the settlement of the estate of
the decedent is to determine all the
assets of the estate, pay its liabilities, and
to distribute the residual to those entitled
to the same.
●
Even if, example, subsequently at the time you filed
the case wala pa kay cause of action, then
subsequently it matured so naa na kay cause of
action. It will not cure the defect that at the time you
filed the case you did NOT have a cause of action.
As discussed in Surigao Mine Exploration vs Harris:
Unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of
action at the time his action is commenced, the
defect cannot be cured or remedied by the
acquisition or accrual of one while the action is
pending, and a supplemental complaint or an
amendment setting up such after-accrued cause of
action is not permissible.
EX: Settlement of estate, the estate of the
decedent - kanang namatay, you are not
suing anyone for a cause of action. You are
merely establishing the status of this estate,
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 228
Right of action
PHILAMGEN versus SWEET LINES
G.R. No. 87434, August 5, 1992
What is a right of action?
Cause of action vs. Right of action
●
The term “right of action” is the right to
commence and maintain an action. The
right of action springs from the cause of
action, but does not accrue until all the
facts which constitute the cause of action
have occurred. (Spouses Borbe et al, vs
Calalo GR NO. 1525572, October 5, 2007)
REMEMBER: You may have a cause of action. But you
may no longer have a right of action. It does not
mean that if you have a cause of action, you can
already win the case. It is possible that your right of
action is already lost.
The SC said that the right of action SPRINGS FROM
the CAUSE OF ACTION. But, there are still facts which
must be present, conditions you need to comply
before you have a right of action.
Ex: In quasi delict, because of negligence of B,
damage was caused to A. So all the elements of a
cause of action are already present. Supposedly,
pwede na maka-file og cause of action against B.
However, under the law on prescription it is said that
for quasi delict you need to institute the case within
4 years from the time the cause of action accrues.
So, if you were able to file the case within four years,
then you have a right of action. One of the
conditions required to complete the right to file the
case is that your cause of action must not have yet
prescribed.
(ended at 04:57)
Kate 4:57-9:36
For example, it has prescribed, it has already been 60
years, and that's the only time you file a case for
damages based on quasi-delict, although you may
have a cause of action for quasi-delict, but your right
of action has already lapsed and barred by
prescription. You no longer have a right of action.
That's the distinction.
A right of action is the right to presently enforce a
cause of action, while a cause of action consists of
the operative facts which give rise to such right of
action. The right of action does not arise until the
performance of all conditions precedent to the
action and may be taken away by the running of
the statute of limitations, through estoppel, or by
other circumstances which do not affect the cause
of action. Performance or fulfillment of all
conditions precedent upon which a right of action
depends must be sufficiently alleged, considering
that the burden of proof to show that a party has a
right of action is upon the person initiating the
suit.
TAKE NOTE: The right of action does not arise until
the performance of all conditions precedent to the
action and may be taken away by the running of the
statute of limitations through estoppel or by other
circumstances which do not affect the cause of
action. Performance or fulfillment of all conditions
precedent upon which a right of action depends must
be sufficiently alleged.
Aside from prescription, if the case is covered by the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law, you must also allege
in the complaint that prior referral to the barangay
was resorted to and that the same has failed and
there is a certification to file action, or if it is a suit
involving members of the same family, you must
allege that earnest effort towards a compromise had
been made but the same had failed. That is part of
your right of action.
These are not included in the elements of a cause of
action. Remember there are four elements of a cause
of action, but aside from these elements, you must
also have a right of action.
Distinctions
RIGHT OF ACTION
CAUSE OF ACTION
The right to presently
enforce a cause of action.
The act or omission by
which a party violates a
right of another.
A remedial right [1]
A formal statement of the
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 229
belonging to some
person.
operative facts that give
rise to such remedial
right. [2]
A matter of right and
depends on the
substantive law [3]
A matter of statement
and is governed by the
law of procedure (i.e.,
whether or not a cause of
action exists is
determined by examining
the allegations in the
complaint) [4]
There is a right of action if
the same is allowed by
remedial law. If there is
no remedy provided,
there can be no redress.
There is a cause of action
if the same arises from
substantive law.
Arises after the
performance or
fulfillment of all
conditions precedent.
Arises the moment a right
is violated.
Affected by the statute of
limitations.
Not affected by the
statute of limitations. For
as long as a right is
violated, a cause of action
exists.
●
The Law on Prescription, under the New
Civil Code.
[4]
[1]
Remedial right means the right to have a violation
of your rights be remedied. You can institute a case,
you can bring your case before the court so that your
rights may be enforced or a violation of your right
can be addressed. You can seek to redress.
[2]
Meaning, all of the elements of a cause of action
are present and then because you have these
elements of a cause of action, then you can now file a
case in court to enforce your rights, to redress a
wrong or a violation.
[3]
For example:
●
●
Katarungang Pambarangay Law which
requires the condition precedent that you
need a certification to file an action if the
case falls under the jurisdiction of the
barangay conciliation system.
Under the Civil Code, earnest efforts
towards a compromise must be made if the
case involves a suit between members of
the same family.
Meaning, whether or not you have a sufficient
cause of action aside from the acts themselves that
you have this right because you entered into a
contract, and there is a violation made by the
defendant because he did not pay his obligation and
because of that there are damages. Aside from those
events, you also need to state these elements of the
cause of action in your pleading. It is governed by the
law of procedure because we have to examine
whether or not the complaint sufficiently states a
cause of action before you can reach Round 1.
9:37-14:17 Chiara
Before ka maka round 1, tan-awun sa nato. Kung
wala, it is susceptible to dismissal.
There is a right of action if the same is allowed by
remedial law. If there is no remedy provided, there
can be no redress.
As discussed, a right of action is a matter of right on
the substantive law. For example, the barangay
reconciliation is mandated by law. Can you still
proceed even without the requisite certification to
file action? If there is a remedy provided for, if there
are exceptions, you can. If it is allowed by remedial
law.
In cause of action, there is a cause of action if the
same arises from substantive law. So, whether or not
you have a cause of action, aside from the allegations
in the complaint (which is a matter of remedial law),
there must be a right itself that must be created by
substantive law. Like, under the New Civil Code, as
learned in ObliCon, there are five sources of
obligations. So, if such obligation is provided for by
law, and there is a violation of it, then you have a
cause of action. But if wala siya giprovide under the
NCC, even if you suffer damages, if it is not provided
that the source of the damage is any one of the five
sources under the law, then you do not have a cause
of action.
The right of action arises after the performance or
fulfillment of all conditions precedent. Whereas,
cause of action arises the moment a right is violated.
The right of action is affected by the statute of
limitations. It can prescribe. It can be barred.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 230
But the cause of action is not affected by the statute
of limitations. Why? Because for as long as your right
is violated, there is always a cause of action. BUT
whether you can enforce this cause of action before
the courts, that matter is answered by the rule on the
right of action. You can always have a cause of action,
but your right of action can be barred. You can lose
your right of action.
Rule 2, Section 3
THE RULE AGAINST SPLITTING A CAUSE OF
ACTION
Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. – A
party may not institute more than one suit for a
single cause of action. (3a)
ILLUSTRATION:
- In an action based on a quasi-delict, the
act or omission is the failure of the
defendant to exercise due diligence
required by the circumstances. It may
lead to personal bodily injury requiring
hospitalization expenses, professional
fees and to a claim for other damages.
These claims cannot be prosecuted
individually. Rather, because there is only
one delict (the negligence of the
defendant), there is only one cause of
action.
- If the plaintiff files separate cases to
prosecute his several claims individually,
he violates the rule against splitting a
cause of action.
You cannot split or divide into as many cases as you
can think of. As much as possible, we have to prevent
the filing of multiple suits. Multiplicity of suits is
actually frowned upon because it results into the
clogging of the court’s dockets. And when court
dockets are clogged, cases take forever to conclude.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Example: In an action based on a quasi-delict, the act
or omission is the failure of the defendant to exercise
due diligence required by the circumstances.
In a quasi delict, there is a degree of diligence
required by the circumstances, but you fail to meet
that. For example, in common carriers, you are
required to exercise extraordinary diligence, but you
only exercised ordinary or slight diligence. And
because of that, damage was caused. Then there is
now a cause of action based on quasi delict.
It may lead to personal bodily injury requiring
hospitalization expenses, professional fees and to a
claim for other damages. These claims cannot be
prosecuted individually. So, daghan ka possible
claims.
Please remember, you only have one cause of action
– the quasi delict.
14:18-19:03
You cannot split your cause of action into many suits
like you cannot prosecute a separate suit for
hospitalization expenses. For example, you sought for
professional health – sa mga doctor nimo, aside from
the expenses sa hospital. So, you’ll again another
case for professional fees and then because you were
not able to sleep, you suffered mental anguish,
serious anxiety, etc, - file na pud ka ug separate
action for damages. YOU CANNOT DO THAT –
because you only have one cause of action.
So, if you file a case, you pray for all these reliefs. You
don’t have several of cause of actions here, you only
have several reliefs. LAHI NG RELIEF OR PRAYER AND
CAUSE OF ACTION. Kung isa lang imong cause of
action, bisan pag daghan ka ug prayer/relief – isa lang
ka kaso imong i-file.
If you file separate cases to prosecute your claims
individually – you now VIOLATE THE RULES AGAINST
SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION.
ILLUSTRATION
•
On January 14, 2020, Maja, the
debtor, obtained a loan from the creditor,
Pia, in the amount of P280,000.00.
Because Pia doubted Maja’s credit, the
former required the latter to give a
collateral for the loan. Maja thus put up
her house as security for the debt. The
parties promptly executed a contract of
loan with real estate mortgage over
Maja’s property.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 231
•
If Maja defaults, take note that
Pia, as a secured creditor, has two
remedies:
–
Pia can file an action for
collection; or
–
She can file an action for
foreclosure of the mortgage.
So, you have two contracts here: the loan and the
accessory contract – Real Estate Mortgage.
Now, in a loan secured by a real estate mortgage, ang
matabo dira, IF the debtor DEFAULTS in the payment
of the obligation, naay remedies ang creditor:
1.
File an action for collection ;
2.
File an action for foreclosure of the mortgage.
BUT these are ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES. YOU
CANNOT HAVE BOTH. You choose only one. If you
choose to file an action for collection, you abandon
your security OR choose to foreclose the mortgage.
Can Pia sue for both collection and
foreclosure?
•
NO. In loan contracts secured by
a real estate mortgage, the rule is that the
creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of
action against the debtor-mortgagor, i.e.,
to recover the debt, through the filing of a
personal action for collection of sum of
money or the institution of a real action
to foreclose on the mortgage security
(MARILAG versus FERNANDEZ, G.R. No.
201892, JULY 22, 2015).
Can the creditor sue for both collection and
foreclosure? NO. Because these are alternative
remedies you can file one. WHY? Because you only
have A CAUSE OF ACTION against the debtor, and
that is for the recovery of the debt. Although you
have TWO POSSIBLE REMEDIES – personal action for
remedies or foreclosure of mortgage BUT, YOU ONLY
HAVE ONE CAUSE OF ACTION.
THUS. . .
•
There is only one cause of action
because there is only one violation of
Pia’s right (the right to paid).
•
The personal action for collection
of sum of money and the real action to
foreclose on the mortgage security are
the remedies by which Pia can seek
redress for Maja’s violation of her right.
•
Stated otherwise, the nonpayment of the debt is the cause of action
while collection or foreclosure are the
possible subject matters of Pia’s suit.
QUADRA versus COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 147593, July 31, 2006
•
Splitting a cause of action is the
act of dividing a single cause of action,
claim or demand into two or more parts,
and bringing suit for one of such parts
only, intending to reserve the rest for
another separate action. The purpose of
the rule is to avoid harassment and
vexation to the defendant and avoid
multiplicity of suits.
Just take note of this case of Quadra v. CA, again it
clarifies or explains what is a cause of action.
•
“the act of dividing a single cause
of action, claim or demand into two or more
parts, and bringing suit for one of such parts
only, intending to reserve the rest for
another separate action. The purpose of the
rule is to avoid harassment and vexation to
the defendant and avoid multiplicity of
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 232
claim them all in one suit.
suits.”
What will happen if, for example, you only
claimed the hospitalization expenses? Then,
those other claims are barred forever because
you cannot institute them separately. That is one
effect.
PRIVATE versus MAGADA
G.R. No. 149489, June 30, 2006
• For a single cause of action or violation of a
right, the plaintiff may be entitled to several
reliefs. It is the filing of the separate complaints for
these several reliefs that constitutes splitting of the
cause of action. This is what is prohibited by the
rule. When there is only one delict or wrong, there
is but a single cause of action regardless of the
number of rights violated belonging to one person.
All such rights should be alleged in a single
complaint, otherwise they are barred forever.
The SC said, even if you have a single cause of action
or violation of a right, you may be entitled to several
reliefs. So, you cannot file two cases based on a
single cause of action but you can in a SINGLE SUIT,
CLAIM SEVERAL CLAIMS.
19:04-23:49
PRIVATE versus MAGADA
G.R. No. 149489, June 30, 2006
For a single cause of action or violation of a
right, the plaintiff may be entitled to several
reliefs. It is the filing of the separate
complaints for these several reliefs that
constitutes splitting of the cause of action. This
is what is prohibited by the rule. When there is
only one delict or wrong, there is but a single
cause of action regardless of the number of
rights violated belonging to one person. All
such rights should be alleged in a single
complaint, otherwise they are barred forever.
Kung naa man diay kay claim for hospitalization,
for professional fees, and damages, you should
IF PIA FAILES IN HER CASE TO
FORECLOSE, CAN SHE THEN SUE FOR
COLLECT?
NO. The two remedies are alternative, not
cumulative or successive, and each remedy is
complete by itself. Thus, if the creditormortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate
mortgage, he waives the action for the
collection of the unpaid debt, except only for
the recovery of whatever deficiency may
remain in the outstanding obligation of the
debtor-mortgagor after deducting the bid price
in the public auction sale of the mortgaged
properties (MARILAG versus FERNANDEZ,
G.R. No. 201892, JULY 22, 2015).
Discussion: Going back to that creditor, who
may file an action for collection of some of
money or foreclosure of mortgage. Again,
alternative lang ang iyahang remedy because he
only has 1 cause of action.
You cannot also, in one case, ask for collection
and ask for foreclosure because the law
expressly says na alternative remedies.
If you remember in Art 1191, recission or specific
performance, so you cannot file against the
debtor an action for recission at the same time,
an action for specific performance. You can
choose between any of them but not both.
For example, you filed an action for collection
then you are considered to have waived the
mortgage. If you choose to foreclose on the
mortgage, what happens if the mortgaged
property is insufficient in value to pay off all
obligations? There is was we call deficiency
judgment in a foreclosure of mortgaged. You
can still recover whatever deficiency after
deducting the big\d price in the public auction
sale of the mortgaged properties as discussed in
Marilag vs Fernandez.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 233
EFFECT OF SPLITTING
Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action;
effect of. — 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. (4a)
Discussion: We now know what is splitting.
Again, even if there is 1 cause of action then you
filed different cases. You have to remember that
you can have several prayers but you can only
lump these prayers in 1 case if the source of
these prayers/reliefs is only a single cause of
action.
What is the effect if you split your cause of
action? Sec 4.
Meaning, your case may be dismissed.
For example, quasi-delict lang imung cause of
action but you filed 3 cases:
1.
Claiming hospitalization expenses
2.
Claiming for professional fees
3.
Claiming for damages.
What is the effect?
The splitting or the filing of several cases
simultaneously is ground for the dismissal of the
action.
Discussion:For
example,
you
filed
simultaneously 3 cases based on quasi-delict.
The pendency of the others will be ground for the
dismissal of the action.
Pwede pud na igifile nimo una katong
hospitalization expenses na claim and then after
you filed. Pending pa siya, nag filed an action for
profession fees and another action for damages.
Still, that would be considered as litis pendentia
because there is still a pending case but you
instituted all other cases which are similar to the
pending case. The filing of one is available as a
ground for the dismissal of the others.
23:50-28:35
For the dismissal of the others, what would be the
cases which will be dismissed? We will discuss that
when we go to affirmative defense.
The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the
theory that a party is not allowed to vex another
more than once regarding the same subject matter
and for the same cause of action. This theory is
founded on the public policy that the same subject
matter should not be the subject of controversy in
courts more than once, in order that possible
conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake
of the stability of the rights and status of persons,
and also to avoid the costs and expenses incident
to numerous suits. Consequently, a party will not
be permitted to split up a single cause of action
and make it a basis for several suits as the whole
cause must be determined in one action.
DISCUSSION: We already discussed the underlying
principle of litis pendentia.
Splitting a cause of action amounts to:
Splitting a cause of action amounts to:
Litis pendentia, which is a ground for the
dismissal of a civil action. It refers to that
situation wherein another action is pending
between the same parties for the same cause
of action, such that the second action
becomes unnecessary and vexatious.
“the filing of one XXX is available as a
ground for the dismissal of the others.”
●
Res judicata, which is another ground for
the dismissal of a civil action. It holds that
a final judgment on the merits by a court
of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of
the rights of the parties in all later suits on
points and matters determined in the
former suit. It rests on the principle that
parties should not to be permitted to
litigate the same issue more than once.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 234
●
“XXX a judgment upon the merits in any
one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of the others.”
ways:
1)
filing multiple cases based on the
same cause of action and with the
same prayer, the previous case not
having been resolved yet (where the
ground for dismissal is litis pendentia);
2)
filing multiple cases based on the
same cause of action and the same
prayer, the previous case having been
finally resolved (where the ground for
dismissal is res judicata); and
3)
filing multiple cases based on the
same cause of action but with
different prayers (splitting of causes of
action, where the ground for dismissal
is also either litis pendentia or res
judicata).
DISCUSSION: Now, aside from litis pendentia,
splitting a cause of action could also amount to res
judicata.
Question: What is res judicata as distinguished from
litis pendentia?
Answer: In res judicata, for example, there is already
a case filed and then the case was decided on merits.
It became final and executory. Another case based on
the same cause of action, although it may pray for
another relief or remedy, but the cause of action is
still the same, nagfile na pud ka subsequently. That
second case can be dismissed because of res
judicata.
The finality of the first case is a ground for the
dismissal of the subsequent one. It rests on the
principle that parties should not to be permitted to
litigate the same issue more than once. This what we
mean by a judgment upon the merits in any one is
available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
DISCUSSION:
1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action and with the same prayer, the previous case
not having been resolved yet (where the ground for
dismissal is litis pendentia)
Splitting a cause of action amounts to:
●
A mode of forum shopping by filing multiple
cases based on the same cause of action, but
with different prayers. Forum shopping is the
institution of two or more actions or
proceedings involving the same parties for the
same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, on the supposition that one or the
other court would make a favorable
disposition. (YAP versus CHUA, G.R. No.
186730, June 13, 2012)
DISCUSSION: This is actually similar to litis pendentia
but the difference is that forum shopping even the
lawyer can be held administratively liable. This is
frowned upon.
COLLANTES versus COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 169604, March 6, 2007
●
Forum shopping can be committed in three
Explanation: Here, it’s forum shopping but the
ground for dismissal is litis pendentia.
2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action and the same prayer, the previous case having
been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal
is res judicata)
Explanation: Here, the ground for dismissal is res
judicata.
3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action but with different prayers (splitting of causes
of action, where the ground for dismissal is also
either litis pendentia or res judicata)
Explanation: Just to make it appear na lahi sila na
kaso but again ang iyahang source is same cause of
action lang gihapon. The ground for dismissal could
be litis pendentia or res judicata depende kung uang
kaso diha humanag decide sa court.
So again, these are forms of forum shopping and if
there is forum shopping, the case can be dismissed,
and the lawyers can be held administratively liable.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 235
If the forum shopping is not considered willful and
deliberate, the subsequent cases shall be dismissed
without prejudice on one of the two grounds
mentioned above.
DISCUSSION: If the forum shopping is not considered
willful and deliberate, siguro no wala lang kay idea na
forum shopping jud diay to, the subsequent cases
shall be dismissed without prejudice on one of the
two grounds mentioned above. This means that
pwede na ang ubang actions katong subsequent ones
i-dismiss. Katong 1st nimo na gi file, for example it is
litis pendentia, you filed several cases may be
simultaneously or successively based on the same
cause of action pero silang tanan pending pa. The
other subsequent cases can be dismissed. So, naay
mabilin na lang katong first kung dili willful or
deliberate imong forum shopping.
However, if the forum shopping is willful and
deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two)
actions shall be dismissed with prejudice
DISCUSSION: So, tana sila ma dismiss. Walay mabilin
and then with prejudice, you cannot refile again.
destination as contracted and was called a Filipino
moron during the bumping off.
To know if you have causes of action na separate and
distinct from each other, see if you have different
sources of obligations because it is possible na a
single act or omission can give rise to several causes
of action. Isa lang sya ka-insidente.
Example:
A is passenger of a bus. While on board, paspas
kaayo magpadalagan – beyond the speed limit. And
then there is another car na nakipag race sa race.
And because of that, there was a collision whereby A
suffered injuries.
Here, it is only one incident but how many cases can
the passenger file here?
28:36-33:15
How many causes of action accrued in that particular
incident?
Even with prejudice, you cannot refile again.
We have quasi-delict, fault or negligence.
Even if when you file the first case (pending pa sya),
and then you file the 2nd, 3rd .. cases (pending
gihapon tanan), and actually there is still no decision
for any of those cases filed but the forum shopping is
willful and deliberate - all of those cases will be
dismissed and you cannot refile. So, walay nabilin
saimoha. Imbes naniguro ka na atleast man lang
siguro sa kadaghan na cases na akong gi file, naa jud
tay maigo didto, karon wala nalang hinuon. It is the
consequence of forum shopping.
On whose part? Kay kinsa pwede i-file against ang
quasi-delict case?
The rule is different when there are several cause
of action.
For example, a passenger of an airline was bumped
off of his first-class reservation in favor of a
Caucasian passenger. Thus, he did not reach his
Kay bus driver.
But how about the owner of the bus? The bus
company? Pwede pud ba sya kasohan?
Yes, because the basis of employer’s liability is failure
to observe due diligence in the selection and
supervision of his employee. (Quasi-delict)
Aside from that, the passenger can also file a case for
quasi-delict against sa driver sa car na nakipag race sa
bus because he was also negligent.
That is why you have to implead everyone na you are
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 236
seeking relief against.
ANALYSIS
Aside from quasi-delict, you can also file an action
based on breach of contract of carriage.
Against whom?
Against the owner of the bus because the passenger
was not carried safely to his destination.
There is also an obligation arising from delict.
Ngano man?
Because the act of racing by the bus driver was a
reckless imprudence.
Under the RPC, there is a criminal case of reckless
imprudence resulting to physical injuries.
And as a consequence of that criminal case, there is
also a civil liability arising from delict.
So that is another cause of action.
33:16-38:02 Millan
You are not splitting here because you can base your
claim upon separate and distinct sources of
obligations, even if there’s only one incident.
In this example also, a passenger of an airline was
bumped off of his first class reservation in favor of a
Caucasian passenger. Thus, he did not reach his
destination as contracted and was called a Filipino
moron during the bumping off.
Here, there are three causes of action because
there were three violations committed:
(1) There was a breach of contract of carriage
(2) There was a violation of Article 19, in
relation to Article 21, of the law on
human relations
(3) There is a violation of the law on
defamation (because he was called a
moron in the presence of the other
passengers)
Although the acts complained of arose during the
same period of time, it does not mean that you are
absolutely required to lump them into one cause
of action.
In this case, you can apply the rule on joinder of
causes of action. You cannot split but you can
unite.
So what will happen here?
(1) You may file three separate cases:
You can actually file one case for breach of
contract of carriage; one case for damages
based on violation of Article 19 in relation to
Article 21 on human relations; and one case
for damages based on defamation.
(2) You may also choose to lump all of them in one
case.
So under the Rule on Causes of Actions, if you only
have one cause of action, you cannot split your cause
of action. But if you have several causes of actions,
you can unite your causes of action, but subject to
the rule on joinder of causes of actions, and joinder
of parties.
Principle to Remember
The question of whether a cause of action is single
and entire or separate is not always easy to
determine and the same must often be resolved,
not by the general rules, but by reference to the
facts and circumstances of the particular case.
The true rule, therefore, is whether the entire
amount arises from one and the same act or
contract which must thus be sued for in one
action, or the several parts arise from distinct and
different acts or contracts, for which a party may
maintain separate suits.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 237
So actually class, it’s not easy to determine whether
or not you have a single cause of action or several
causes of actions. You have to consider the facts and
circumstances of the particular case.
Again, as I said, even if there is only one incident, but
that incident could give rise to several causes of
actions, if you can predicate your claim on a different
source of obligation. There are also cases na the
incidents happen on several or different occasions.
So kani, mas dali siya i-determine nga naa ka’y
separate cause of action kay the incident that
happened on this particular date is a separate cause
of action from the incident which happened on
another date.
But, for example, ang imohang cause of action is
based on a contract, then daghan violations of that
contract made on different occasions, but because
your cause of action is the breach of that single
contract, then you only have one cause of action. But
if based on the stipulation on that contract that there
are acts to be done on separate occasions also, then
each separate occasion, when there is a breach
committed, is different from the others.
So let’s just discuss the different scenarios. So again,
it’s possible na general rule: kung isa lang ka
situation/act, there is only one cause of action. But
there are cases na a single act or omission can give
rise to several causes of actions.
Kung isa lang pud imohang contract, general rule: isa
lang gyud na ka cause of action. But there are also
cases na it could give rise to several causes of actions.
So let’s discuss:
Rules to determine singleness of a cause of action
Rule No. 1: A contract embraces only one cause of
action because it may be violated only once, even
if it contains several stipulations (ONE CONTRACTONE CAUSE)
Rule No. 2: A contract which provides for several
stipulations to be performed at different times
gives rise to as many causes of action as there are
violations (ONE VIOLATION-ONE CAUSE)
Rules to determine singleness of a cause of action
Rule No. 3: Do not apply Rule No. 2 if there is
stipulation or repudiation.
Rule No. 4: All obligations which have matured at
the time of the suit must be integrated as one
cause of action in one complaint. Those not so
included would be barred.
Read Rule No. 3
Katong one stipulation-one cause, we will not apply
that in Rule No. 3 if there is a stipulation or a
repudiation
Read Rule No. 4
RULE NO. 1
• A contract embraces only one cause of action
because it may be violated only once, even if it
contains several stipulations (ONE CONTRACT-ONE
CAUSE).
-First stipulation: Maja borrowed money from Pia
in the amount of 100,000; Second stipulation:
interest at 10%. Maja did not pay.
-Pia cannot sue on the 100,000 as principal and sue
separately on the amount of 10000 as interest.
This is splitting of a cause of action.
38:03-42:49 BOLO
Read Rule No. 2
So, now we have the examples.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 238
Read the slide.
RULE NO. 2
What are the remedies available to Pia?
Pia can of course collect the principal amount. Not
only that, she can collect the interest.
Can Pia sue separately on the principal and then
another suit for the interest let’s say 10,000 interest?
NO because there is only 1 contract. If you file
separate causes to sue the principal and the interest.
This is splitting a cause of action. There’s only 1
contract, therefore, there is only 1 cause of action,
even if there are several stipulations in the contract.
•A contract provides for several stipulations to be
performed at different times gives rise to as many
causes of action as there are violations (ONE
VIOLATION-ONE CAUSE)
•Where a contract is to be performed periodically,
as by installments, each failure to pay an
installment constitutes a cause of action and can
be subject of a separate suit as the installment falls
due, or can he included in the pending or
supplemental pleading
QUIOQUI vs BAUTISTA
Read 1st bullet.
•Non-payment of a loan secured by mortgage
constitutes a single cause of action. The creditor
cannot split up this single cause of action into two
separate complaints, one for payment of the debt
and another for the foreclosure of the mortgage. If
he does so, the filing of the first complaint will bar
the second complaint.
This is also related to what we have already discussed
and then we have this case. Katong loan secured by a
mortgage. Again, diri alternative imohang remedy
but you only have 1 cause of action, which is the nonpayment of the loan but you can file for a collection
for a sum of money or foreclosure. You cannot file 2
cases based on one single cause of action.
Otherwise, it will be splitting, and the filing of the 1st
complaint will bar the 2nd complaint.
Lahi pud ni siya sa katong rule no 1. Kay kato
although there are several stipulations pero wala
nakabutang nga naay different periods of
performance ang kada stipulation.
Pero kani, there is a contract to be performed
periodically. For example, by installment. For
example, there is a contract of loan to be paid
installment. Each failure to pay an installment,
constitutes a cause of action and can be subject of a
separate suit as the installment falls due.
Example
•Maja borrowed money from Sarah in the amount
of 750,000. The amount, as per, contract, is
payable in three equal annual installments or
250,000 each from 2019 to 2021. Maja did not pay
in 2019. Sarah can sue Maja for such breach.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 239
anticipated default in 2020 or 2021.
The action will be dismissed on the
ground of prematurity in as much as
the obligations to pay in 2020 and
2021 are still not due and
demandable.
•Subsequently, in 2020, Maja also did not pay so
Sarah can again sue Maja in 2020.
Read the slide.
So, there is already a cause of action for that
installment (2019)
For bullet No. 2, that again is another cause of action.
Can Sarah sue Maja for the whole amount in 2019?
• No. Sarah cannot, in 2019, sue for an anticipated
default in 2020 or 2021. The action will be
dismissed on the ground of prematurity inasmuch
as the obligations to pay in 2020 and 2021 are still
not due and demandable.
“Sara already has a cause of action against Maha for
collection of the 2019 installment. can also Sarah
include already the anticipated default in 2020 and
2021? Ah, siguro di pud ni mubayad sa iyahang
utang. Ah, sa iyang installment June 2020 or 2021
apilon nalang nako. Can that be done? No, because
the action will be dismissed on the grounds of
prematurity Why? kay wala pa man kay cause of
action for the installments due in 2020 or 2021? Diba
what are the elements of a cause of action you have
a right. now, your right to be paid of the 2020
installment will only arise in 2020. So definitely wala
pa mo'y violation wala pa'y damages. Okay, so the
action is actually premature. 'Kay, the obligations to
pay in 2020 and 221 are still not due and not
demandable.”
Exception to Rule No. 2
Now for example, balik the sa katong 1st situation.
Diba the loan is payable in 3 equal annual
installments. So, 250,000 pesos each. 2019, 2020,
2021. Nagdefault si Maja for the 2019 installment
and therefore as we said, Sarah already has a cause
of action against Maja for collection of the 2019
installment
●
Do not apply rule 2 if there is
STIPULATION or REPUDIATION
“Okay, now, there's an exception to rule number
two, which is our rule number three, do not apply
Rule number two if there is a stipulation or
reputation. Let's explain that in subsequent slides.”
STIPULATION
●
42:50-47:30-Khayzee
Amount in 2019?
●
No. Sarah cannot, in 2019, sue for an
Maja borrowed money from Sarah in
the amount of P750,000. The
amount, as per contract, is payable in
three equal annual installments or
P250,000 each from 2019 to 2021.
The contract also contained a
stipulation that, in the event that
Maja should fail to pay one
installment, the whole debt will be
demandable at once.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 240
“Okay, so, same gap on a contract noh, maja
borrowed 750,000 from Sarah to be paid in three
equal annual installments 250,000 each 2019 2020
2021. Now, the contract also contains a stipulation
that in the event, that Maja should fail to pay one
installment the whole debt will be due and
demandable at once.”
Clause in a contract?
●
This is known as an ACCELERATION
CLAUSE. An acceleration clause is a
stipulation that, on the occasion of
the debtor’s default, the whole sum
remaining unpaid automatically
becomes due and payable. [LUZON
DEVELOPMENT BANK v.s.
CONQUILLA. G.R. No. 163338,
September 21, 2005]
“What do we call this type of stipulation or clause in
a contract? I believe na you already learned this also
on your obligations and contracts. This is what we
call an acceleration clause. Okay. It is a stipulation
stating that on the occasion of the debtor's default,
the whole sum remaining and paid automatically
becomes due and demandable has also discussed in
this case of Luzon, development bank versus
Conquilla.”
If there is an acceleration clause, and Maja
defaults in the payment of the installment due in
2019, Sarah should include in the suit the due and
demandable installments for year 2020 and 2021.
“Okay. So if there is an acceleration clause and Maja
defaults in the payment of the installment due in
year 2019, Sara should already include in the suit the
due and demandable installments for year 2020 and
2021. He cannot file separate suits for each
installment that would now be considered as
splitting. “
Okay. So if there is an acceleration clause and Maja
defaults in the payment of the installment due in
year 2019, Sara should already include in the suit the
due and demandable installments for year 2020 and
2021. He cannot file separate suits for each
installment that would now be considered as
splitting.
REPUDIATION
●
An unqualified and positive refusal
to perform a contract, though the
performance thereof is not yet
due, may, if the renunciation goes
to the whole contract, be treated
as a complete breach which will
entitle the injured party to bring
his action at once (Blossom and
Company vs Manila Gas Corp GR
No. L-32958)
Repuduation It is an unqualified and positive refusal
to perform a contract though the performance there
all is not yet due. So it may, if the renunciation goes
through the whole contract, be treated as a complete
breach, which will entitle the injured party to bring
his action at once as discussed in the the case of
blossom and company incorporated versus Manila
gas Corporation. Okay example.
EXAMPLE
Maja borrowed money from Sarah in the amount
of P750,000. The amount as per contract is
payable in 3 equal annual installments or P250,000
each from 2019 to 2021. In 2019, Sarah demanded
payment. Maja refused to pay and told Sarah that:
“I will not pay you ever. Shet! Never! I never ever
made utang with you. Kiver!! Everrrrr!!!!!”
So again, Maja borrowed money from Sarah in the
amount of 750,000. As per contract amount is
payable in three equal annual installments or
250,000 each from 2019 to 2021. wala siya
acceleration clause ha. now, in year 2019, When the
first installment fell due. Sara demanded payment
from Maha and then maja said "Unsay utang? I do
not owe you anything I will not pay you ever, 'kay
never" 'kay so wala, iyahang gi repudiate ang entire
contract. Okay. So mag file karon si Sarah, a case
against my Maja in year 2019. Pwede na ba ni apilon
ang installments due for 2020 and 2021. She can
already include. why? because there's no
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 241
repudiation of the entire contract by repudiatoin "Di
ka na ka expect na in year 2020 mag bag-o napud ug
isip si Maja so kung maningil ka ana in 2020, maningil
na pud 250,000. Mao lagi na si Maja, kagahi ba nimog
ulo. Di ba gi ingnan tika na wa koy utang sa imoha. So
maningil napud ka karon unya mao napud ang iyang
dialogue in 2021. Okay, so here, wala na, okay, you
can sue for the entire amount involved in the
contract.
RULE NO. 4
All obligations which have matured at the time of
the suit must be integrated as one cause of action
in one complaint. Those not so included would be
barred.
Rule number four, all obligations which must which
have matured at the time of the suit must be
integrated as one cause of action in one complete
those not sa included would be deemed would be
barred.
47:31-52:48 Gennard
EFFECT
By denying the existence of the debt, Maja is
repudiating the existence of the debt. Sarah should
not wait anymore for 2020 or 2021 to sue on these
installments. She has the right to expect that Maja
will raise the same defense in 2020 or 2021.
RULE NO. 4
All obligations which have matured at the time of
the suit must be integrated as one cause of action
in one complaint. Those not so included would be
barred.
EXAMPLE
Maja borrowed money from Sarah in the amount
of P750,000. The amount, as per contract, is
payable in three equal annual installments or
P250,000 each from 2019 to 2021. Maja did not
pay in 2019. Sarah did not sue then. Maja did not
also pay in 2020. Sarah can sue Maja in 2020 for
the failure to pay for two years. If Sarah sues only
for the second installment in 2020, the claim for
2019 is barred.
Again, in the previous rule, there is only one contract
of loan but there are three installments that are due
under that contract. Kunyare yearly gasingil si Sarah
til 2021 pero wala gihapon nibayad si Maja. Now
there are 3 installments due, as we said before na
each installment is separate and distinct from the
other, so pwede si creditor maka file ug different
case for each installment which became due and
demandable and for which the debtor defaulted.
However, such rule applies only if at the time that
the creditor sued, only one installment is due and
demandable.
If for example by the time that the creditor sues,
several installments have become due and
demandable, the creditor MUST SUE FOR ALL
INSTALLMENTS
THAT
BECAME
DUE
AND
DEMANDABLE. So if mukaso najud si Sarah, she has
to include all her claims against Maja based on that
same contract. So in 2021, 3 installments have
become due and demandable. Therefore, filing one
case for one installment is not an option because as
of the time the action is instituted, all those
installments under the same contract have become
due and demandable. Sarah should sue for all. If she
only sues for one installment, the other installments
will be considered as barred because by then, she is
considered as splitting her cause of action.
JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. - A party
may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or
otherwise, as many causes of action as he may
have against an opposing party, subject to the
following conditions:
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
actions or actions governed by special
rules;
c. Where the causes of action are between
the same parties but pertain to different
venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 242
d.
be allowed in the Regional Trial Court
provided one of the causes of action falls
within the jurisdiction of said court and
the venue lies therein; and
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.
Joinder of causes of action refers to two or more
causes of actions that a party would like to join in
one case. This is governed by Section 5.
DEFINITION
By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a joinder
of causes of action, is meant as the uniting of two
or more demands or rights of action in one action,
the statement of more than one cause of action in
one complaint. It is the union of two or more civil
causes of action, each of which could be made the
basis of a separate suit, in the same complaint,
declaration, or petition.
52:49-58:05
So actually, you have several cause of actions here,
either against one party or against different parties
but you are joining them all and you are only filing
one case. So isa lang ka docket number ang caso but
there are several cause of actions involved in one
complaint.
Nature
A party is generally not required to join in one suit
several distinct cause of action. The joinder of
separate cause of action, where allowable, is
PERMISSIVE and NOT MANDATORY in the absence
of a contrary statutory provision, even though the
causes of action arose from the same factual
setting and might under applicable joiner rules be
joined.
The rule allows na pwede nimo siya i-join kau mas
actually economical on the part of the parties
because you don’t pay separate docket fees for each
case. And then maghearing kung dili siya i-join lahilahi na siya ug hearing date, and taga hearing
mubayad man kag appearance fee sa imong lawyer,
so masdaku kag bayaran. Whereas if isa lang siya ka
case, although you have several cause of action, isa
ra na siya ka appearance fee.
So the joinder of separate cause of action where
allowable is permissive and not mandatory. You are
not compelled to join them all. Unlike kung isa lang
imong cause of action and then you have several
prayers, you are mandated to file only one case
because you only have one cause action. So lahi ng
prayers, lahi pud ng cause of action. Pero kung
daghan kag cause of action, allowed i-join. Although
pwede pud na imo i-separate.
Application
Maja obtained several loans from Sarah, namely:
On January 1, 2019, 500,000 due on
December 31, 2021;
On January 1, 2020, 500,000 due also on
December 31, 2021; and
On January 1, 2021, 500,000 due also on
December 31, 2021.
Maja did not pay any of these loans.
How many cause of action?
There are three separate cause of action so Sarah
may file three separate cases.
Can Sarah file just one case?
Yes Sarah is allowed to do so under the
rule on joinder of causes of action.
Is Sarah required to file just one case?
No. The rule on joinder of causes of action
is permissive and not mandatory. The plaintiff has
the option to apply the rule or not.
Ultimate Joinder is not allowed.
While the rule allows a plaintiff to join as
many separate claims as he may have, there
should nevertheless be some unity in the problem
presented and a common question of law and fact
involved, subject always to the restriction thereon
regarding jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties.
Unlimited joinder is not authorized.
Our rule on permissive joinder of causes
of action, with the proviso subjecting it to the
correlative rules on jurisdiction, venue and joinder
of parties and requiring a conceptual unity in the
problems presented, effectively disallows
unlimited joinder.
Types of Joinder
“in the alternative or otherwise”
There may be:
1. Alternative Joinder; or
2. Cumulative Joinder.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 243
In an Alternative joinder, here you are not claiming
against both. You are just claiming against anyone of
them, alternately or alternatively. Example.
Alternative joinder
Maja rode on the bus operated by Sarah.
The bus collided with the jeepney operated by Pia.
Maja sustained minor injuries.
In this case, Maja has two possible cause
of action: one for culpa contractual (breach of
contract of carriage) against Sarah and one for
culpa aquilana (quasi-delict against Sarah and Pia
under Art. 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code).
However, Maja is not certain who among the
drivers or operators were actually negligent.
Sarah’s liability here is what we call precarious
liability under Art. 2180.
58:06 – 1:03:22 DEROGONGAN
If you are the employer, you should exercise due
diligence in the selection and supervision of your
employees. So kung ang imong employee for
example, here, was negligent, as the employer you
are solidarily liable with your employee. However
here, Maja is not certain on who among the drivers
and operators were actually negligent.
Maja, sue both Sarah and Pia to recover damages.
From whom? To either Sarah or Pia or both. Depende
kung kinsa ang negligent. Take note here that the
plaintiff is seeking relief from whoever was negligent.
This is related to Rule 3, Section 13, which states
that:
Sec. 13. Alternative defendants. – Where the plaintiff
is uncertain against who of several persons he is
entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as
defendants in the alternative, although a right to
relief against one may be inconsistent with a right of
relief against the other. (13a)
that the pronouncement in the action for
recognition is a condition precedent to
the grant of relief in the action for
support.
Here, pwede nga, if we are taking of joinder of causes
of actions, imuhang causes of actions both nimo siya
ginaclaim, dili na siya alternative. Or against several
parties, A and B, or Pia and Sarah, you are claiming
from both Pia and Sarah, not merely against Pia or
Sarah. That’s cumulative.
Here, example, Maja’s son sues Nestor for
compulsory recognition as illegitimate child and
support. Unsa man ang kanyang causes of actions
here? We have compulsory recognition as illegitimate
child and support. And not or. These are pursued
cumulatively. It can even be said that the
pronouncement in the action for recognition is a
condition precedent to the grant of relief in the
action for support. Diba because the basis of support
is your filiation and not just anyone na makita nimo
sa tala na mangayo ka for support. Murag kang
beggar. There should be a basis. Both cumulative.
Requisites of Joinder
While joinder of causes of action is largely left to
the option of a party litigant, Section 5, Rule 2 of
our present Rules, allows causes of action to be
joined in one complaint conditioned upon the
requisites in Section 5.
Depende ra na sa parties if ilahang i-join ang ilahang
causes of actions or he will file separate cases for
each cause of action. However, we have to follow the
rules on joinder. Dili pud pwede na ikaw lang
magbuot if i-join nimo. Naay requisites for a party to
join several causes of actions. That’s the codal
provision.
Cumulative Joinder
·
·
Maja’s son sues Nestor for compulsory
recognition as an illegitimate child and
support. There are two causes of action:
one for recognition AND one for support.
Note that these causes of action are
pursued cumulatively. It can even be said
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 244
(A) The party joining the causes of action shall
comply with the rules on joinder of parties.
·
Rule 3, Section 6. Permissive joinder
of parties. – All persons in whom or
against whom any right to relief in
respect to or arising out of the same
transaction or series of transactions is
alleged to exist, whether jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, may,
except as otherwise provided in these
Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as
defendants in one complaint, where
any question of law or fact common
to all such plaintiffs or to all such
defendants may arise in the action;
but the court may make such orders
as may be just to prevent any plaintiff
or
defendant
from
being
embarrassed or put to expense in
connection with any proceedings in
which he may have no interest.
First requisite. The party joining the causes of action
shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties. Take
note ha, kani siya na requisite will only apply if you
are filing against several parties. For example, you
are going to join them all in one action. Kung
halimbawa, isang party lang ang imuhang kalaban,
ofcourse, there is no need to comply with the rules
on joinder because there are no parties to be joined,
only one. So kani siya ang requisite.
Now, what are the rules on joinder of parties? Mao ni
siya sa Rule 3, Section 6. All persons in whom or
against whom any right to relief in respect to or
arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, may, except as
otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or
be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any
question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs
or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but
the court may make such orders as may be just to
prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being
embarrassed or put to expense in connection with
any proceedings in which he may have no interest.
Mao ni siya ang requisite. Kung ijoin nimo ang several
parties where you have separate causes of actions,
pwede. Naa kay separate causes of actions, A against
B, against C. Mao ni sila ang mga defendants. Not
one cause of action ha, kundi separate cause of
actions, A separate against B, separate against C.
Pwede sila ijoin but take note, there should be a
question of fact or law common to all such plaintiffs
or to all such defendants in the action. Naa dapat
common question of fact or law.
1:03:23-1:08:39 - Althea
Di pwede na lahi or far-fectched ang imong cause of
action against A. Dapat nay commonality.
SAME EXAMPLE AS ALTERNATIVE JOINDER (PPT)
Maja rode on the bus operated by Sarah. The bus
collided with the jeepney operated by Pia. Maja
sustained minor injuries.
In this case, Maja has two possible causes of action:
1.
one for culpa contractual (breach of contract
of carriage) against Sarah and
2.
one for culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict against
Sarah and Pia under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the
Civil Code).
However, Maja is not certain who among the drivers
or operators were actually negligent.
In this example, Maja may, in one complaint, sue
both Sarah and Pia and recover damages from either
Sarah or Pia or both. Take note that the joinder of
Sarah and Pia in one complaint is allowed because
there is a question of law or fact common to both
such defendants (i.e., who is negligent?).
So, pwd i-join ni Maja ang case na iyang i-file against
Sarah and Pia. Although here alternative lang iyang
joinder, but still, it is a joinder.
SPS. PEREZ versus HERMANO
G.R. No. 147417, July 8, 2005
Held: It is well to remember that the joinder of
causes of action may involve the same parties or
different parties. If the joinder involves different
parties, as in this case, there must be a question of
fact or of law common to both parties joined, arising
out of the same transaction or series of transaction.
(b)
The joinder shall not include special civil
actions or actions governed by special rules;
•
You cannot join a civil action with another
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 245
action which is governed by special rules;
•
You cannot join an ordinary civil action with
a special civil action;
•
You cannot join an ordinary civil action with
a special proceeding;
•
You cannot join two special civil action
because joinder of action refer only to ordinary civil
action;
•
You cannot joint a civil action governed by
the regular rules with a civil action which governed
by the summary rules.
The reasons for this prohibition may be summed up
as follows:
•
TO AVOID CONFUSION. Rules of procedure
for special civil actions and actions governed by
special rules are peculiar to the latter. The same
cannot be applied to an ordinary civil action.
•
TO AVOID JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES. Actions
governed by special rules are, more often than not,
cognizable by quasi-judicial tribunals. There can be
no joinder where one of the issues to be tried
pertains to a tribunal of special jurisdiction.
TERAÑA versus DE SAGUN
G.R. No. 152131, April 29, 2009
So the joiner of the two actions is specifically
enjoined by Section 5 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
CABALLES vs. COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. 163108 - February 23, 2005
A petition for the writ of habeas corpus, which is a
special proceeding cannot be joined with a special
civil action for certiorari. These two remedies are
governed by different sets of rules.
READ the following cases:
PEYER vs. MARTINEZ, et. al.
GR No. L-3500 - January 12, 1951
RE: Application to pronounce husband as an
absentee with action to transfer the management of
conjugal assets to the wife
BRIZ vs. BRIZ, et.al.
Held: In forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases, the
only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental
value or the reasonable compensation for the use
and occupation of the leased property. The reason
for this is that in such cases, the only issue raised in
ejectment cases is that of rightful possession; hence,
the damages which could be recovered are those
which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere
possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and
occupation of the property, and not the damages
which he may have suffered but which have no direct
relation to his loss of material possession.
GR No. 18413 - September 20, 1922
An action for reimbursement or for recovery of
damages may not be properly joined with the action
for ejectment. The former is an ordinary civil action
requiring a full-blown trial, while an action for
unlawful detainer is a special civil action which
requires a summary procedure. The joinder of the
two actions is specifically enjoined by Section 5 of
Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
GR No. 173399 - February 21, 2017
RE: An action for declaration of heirship with an
action to recover the land subject of partition and
distribution proceeding
CENTRAL BANK BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS vs. BANCO
FILIPINO
RE: Joiner that does not comply with the requisites
(What are the consequences?)
SALVADOR vs. PATRICIA, INC.
GR No. 195834 - November 9, 2016
CHAM 01:08:38-01:13:56
The joinder of the action for injunction and the
action to quiet title is disallowed by the Rules of
Court, the first being an ordinary suit and the latter a
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 246
special civil action under Rule 63. Clearly, under
Section 5 (b), Rule 2, “the joinder shall not include
special civil actions or actions governed by special
rules.”
REMEMBER:
There can be a joiner in the RTC even if some of the
cases should have been filed with the MTC, as long as
you comply with the Rules on Joinder. Pero dili
pwede na sa MTC nimu i-join ang cases na
supposedly cognizable sa RTC.
What is the effect if there is an improper joinder?
Consequently, the RTC should have severed the
causes of action (bulagon dapat nya)
Pwede ka magsagol ug MTC and RTC cases sa RTC,
but not MTC and RTC cases in the MTC.
How?
EXAMPLE No. 1
Upon motion (of defendant) or motu proprio, and
tried them separately, assuming it had jurisdiction
over both. Meaning: I-docket na sya separately; dili
lang isa ka-docket number. Lahi jud na sya na kaso,
although the same court will hear it.
Such severance is pursuant to Section 6, Rule 2 of the
Rules of Court. xxx
Maja is a squatter on two lots owned by Bangs. Bangs
therefore has two causes of action against Maja, one
for each lot. The assessed value of Lot A is P15,000
while that of Lot B is P100,000. Assume that more
than one year had already elapsed since Maja
entered the property of Bangs.
For both lots, Bangs cannot file an action for forcible
entry anymore. For Lot A, Bangs must file an ordinary
action for recovery of possession against Maja before
the MTC, but for Lot B, she should file it before the
RTC.
BELO MEDICAL GROUP vs. SANTOS and BELO
TAKE NOTE:
GR No. 185894 - August 30, 2017
Interpleader cannot be joined with declaratory relief.
They are both special civil actions. Joiner applies only
to ordinary civil actions.
Under Section 5 (c) of Rule 2, the causes of action
between the same parties but pertaining to different
jurisdictions can be joined in the RTC.
WHY?
3RD REQUISITE
Because one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTC. So here, Bangs may join the
two cases in the RTC.
Joinder in the RTC
1:13:57- 1:19: 14 Seruela
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same
parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
Regional Trial Court, provided one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and
venue lies therein.
Example No. 2
Maja is a squatter on two lots owned by
Bangs. Bangs therefore has two causes of
action against Maja, one for each lot. The
assessed value of Lot A is P15,000 while that
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 247
of Lot B is P100,000. Assume that less than
one year had elapsed since Maja entered the
Lot A but more than one year since she
entered Lot B.
Answer: Thus for Lot A, Bangs must file an
action for forcible entry against Maja before
the MTC and, for Lot B, she should file an
action for recovery of possession before the
RTC.
Discussion:
For Lot A, Bangs must file an action for forceable
entry because all the requisites were present. Where
is then the jurisdiction for forcible entry? It is the
MTC. For Lot B, since it is already for more than one
year it should be an ordinary action for recovery of
possession. Since the assessed value is P100,000,
then, the jurisdiction should be with the RTC.
special rules.
·
Take note that forcible entry is a special
civil action under Rule 71 and governed by the
Summary Rules.
Discussion:
As we have just discussed the Joinder shall not
include civil actions or actions governed by special
rules. The Forcible entry case is a special civil action
which is governed by the Summary Rules, therefor, it
cannot be joined with the RTC with the ordinary civil
action for recovery of possession.
Example No. 3
Maja has two cause of action against Bangs. The
first one is for moral damages in the amount of
P59,000 for violation of her right to privacy. The
other one is an injunction under Article 26 of the
Civil Code on the same invasion of property.
Note:
Under Rules 2, Section 5(c), the cause of action
between the same parties but pertaining to
different jurisdiction can be joined in the RTC
because one of the cause of action falls within the
jurisdiction of the Same.
Note that an action for damage is cognizable by
the MTC because of the amount, Note also that
the action for injunction is cognizable by the RTC,
being an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Thus, Bangs may join the two case in the
RTC?
Under these facts…
Discussion:
So again, following Rule 2 Section 5(c), are we saying
that Bangs may joined the two cases in the RTC, both
the forcible entry and an action for recovery of
possession?
The cause of action between the same parties but
pertaining to different jurisdiction can be joined in
the RTC because one of the cause of action falls
within the juruisdiction of the same. Maja can
therefore join the two cases before the RTC.
Discussion: can the actions be joined? Yes, even if
they pertain to different jurisdiction, they can be
joined. Where? In the RTC.
WRONG
·
(B) the joinder shall not include the
special civil actions or actions governed by
Example No. 4
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 248
Lastly as a requisite:
Maja is a squatter on two lots owned by Bangs
– one in Davao and the other in Digos, Bangs
therefore has two causes of action against Maja,
one for each lot. The assessed value for both lot is
the same – P200,000 each. Assume that more
than one year had already elapsed since Maja
entered the property.
Restatement of the Totality Rule
·
(d) where the claims in all the cause of
action are principally for recovery of money,
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
jurisdiction
For Lot A, Bangs must file an accion publiciana
in Davao (RTC) and for Lot B, it is also an accion
publician in Digos (RTC).
Patranco v Standard
Discussion
G.R. No. 140746, March 16, 2005
It is an action for recovery of possession or accion
Publiciana. Actually since it is a real action, the action
as for the venue must be instituted in the place
where the real property is located. So Lot A must be
filed in Davao and because the assessed value is
more than P20,000. For Lot B, the accion publiciana
must be filed with Digos City.
·
In 1984, Gicale was driving his jeepney
when he was bumped by a bus owned by
Pantranco. The bus sped away. Gicale
reported the incident to the police and also to
the insurer of jeepney, Standard insurance.
·
The total cost of the repair was
P21,415.00, but respondent Standard paid
only P8,000.00. Gicale shouldered the balance
of P13,415.00
Joinder
Under Rule 2, Section 5(c), the causes of action
between the same parties but pertaining to
different venues can be joined in the RTC of either
venue.
Discussion:
So, Bangs can join the two action in either the
RTC of Davao or the RTC of Digos.
This was before the amendment brought by RA
7961. So, this case was still under BP 129
1:19:15 – 1:24:32 Espuerta
Note:
There must be at least one cause of action the
jurisdiction of which falls within the RTC. If both
are MTCs, there can be no joinder, In the latter
case, two separate actions must filed. Take note
also that the cause of action of the same plaintiff
must be against the same defendant.
Discussion: the first paragraph refers to two causes
of action pertaining to different venues or different
jurisdictions. Here the joinder should be with the
RTC.
PANTRANCO versus STANDARD
GR No. 140746, March 16, 2005
In 1984, Gicale was driving his jeepney when
he was bumped by a bus owned by Pantranco. The
bus sped away. Gicale reported the incident to the
police and also to the insurer of the jeepney,
Standard Insurance.
-
The total cost of the repair was P21,415.00,
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 249
but respondent Standard paid only P8,000.00.
Gicale shouldered the balance of P13,415.00
Here, this happened in 1984, so ang jurisdiction
amounts here is different pa kaysa sa karon. This was
decided before the amendment brought about by RA
7961. So purely BP 129 pa ni siya
Thereafter, Standard and Gicale demanded
reimbursement from Pantranco and its driver, but
they refused. This prompted responednts to file
with the RTC of Manila a complaint for sum of
money.
In their answer, Pantranco and its driver
specifically denied the allegations in the complaint
and averred that it is the MTC, not the RTC, which
has jurisdiction over the case due to the amounts
claimed by each plaintiff (Gicale for P13,415 and
Standard for P8,000). They also insist that the RTC
has no jurisdiction over the case since the cause of
action of each respondent did not arise from the
same transaction and that there are no common
questions of law and fact common to both parties.
Actually, duha ang parties nagjoin as plaintiffs,
so dili na siya joinder as defendants but joinder of the
plaintiffs, Standard ang Gicale.
So kung muingon ka na RTC has jurisdiction over
claims exceeding P20,000, so katong below P20,000,
MTC lang to siya dapat.
RULING
In this case, there is a single transaction
common to all, that is, Pantranco’s bus hitting the
rear side of the jeepney. There is also a common
question of fact, that is, whether petitioners are
negligent. There being a single transaction
common to both respondents, consequently, they
have the same cause of action against petitioners.
So, proper ang joinder here. Actually, they have
the same cause of action, so joinder of parties.
Corollarily, Section 5(d), Rule 2 of the same
Rules provides that 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.
This paragraph embodies the TOTALITY RULE
as exemplified by Section 3(1) of BP 129 which
states, among others, that “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 the causes of action,
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose
out of the same or different transactions.
NOTE
In 1984, the RTC still had jurisdiction over
claims exceeding P20,000. This case happened
before RA 7961 which amended BP 129 and
expanded the jurisdiction of the several courts.
Let me clarify first ha, the Totality Rule. For
example, ikaw si plaintiff, isa lang ka. Daghan ka
causes of action against one defendant. So under the
Totality Rule, the basis of determining the jurisdiction
shall be the total of all the amounts you are claiming
against the same defendant, although you cause of
actions are sepearat and distinct from each other.
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 250
And although they arise out of… they do not arise out
of the same transaction occurrence. Just have here a
case of joinder of cause of action.
Now if it is a joinder of parties like A, B, and C
are filing a case against X. So again, under the Totality
Rule in determining the jurisdiction of the court, you
have to add all of the claims of A, B, and C. But
because we’re talking here of joinder of parties, aside
from joinder of cause of action, it is required na
under the rule on joinder of parties na the claims of
A, B, and C must arise out of the same transaction or
occurrence. So, there must be a common question of
fact or law.
Here, naa gyud common question of fact or law
according to the Supreme Court because even if
Standard bases its claim under the insurance contract
but the reason for that is the incident, the negligence
of Pantranco and its driver.
-
So here, we follow the Totality Rule.
2005
Misjoinder of causes of action and parties do not
involve a question of jurisdiction of the court to
hear and proceed with the case. They are not even
accepted grounds for dismissal thereof.
Instead, under the the Rules of Court, the
misjoinder of causes of action and parties involve
an implied admission of the court’s jurisdiction. It
acknowledges the power of the court, acting upon
the motion of a party to the case or on its own
initiative, to order the severance of the misjoined
cause of action, to be proceeded with separately
(in case of misjoinder of causes of action); and/or
the dropping of a party and the severance of any
claim against said misjoined party, also to be
proceeded with separately (in case of misjoinder of
parties).
1:24:33 - 1:29:44 - Eborde
Continuation..
PANTRANCO V. STANDARD
Here we follow the TOTALITY RULE. Although
Standard’s claim is 8,000, kung siya lang MTC, Gicale
is 13,415.00, kung siya lang MTC gihapon because
less than 20,000. But if you total these claims, it’s
already 21,415.00. Under that time when this case
was instituted, above 20,000 falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
So, here, clearly it is the RTC who has the jurisdiction
over the case.
What is the effect if there is a misjoinder?
Section 6. Misjoinder of cause of action – Misjoinder
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.
And misjoinder dili siya ground for dismissal, dili pud
sila affirmative defenses.
So for example, there is a case of misjoinder of
action. Like you misjoined your cause of action. Idrop lang to siya, but it will not be dismissed if within
the jurisdiction siya sa same court. I-docket lang to
siya separately and will be heared separately. It will
be proceeded with separately. Dapat naay hearing
for that separately.
Kung halimbawa, misjoinder of parties. I-drop lang
pud siya sa case and proceeded with separately.
ADA v. BAYLON, G.R. No. 182435, August 13, 2012
Here there was a misjoinder of causes of action.
REPUBLIC v. HERBIETO, G.R. No. 156117, May 26,
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 251
Why? Because the action for partition was joined
with action for rescission of a donation inter vivos.
So ang action for partition is a special civil action
governed by Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. Action
for rescission is an ordinary civil action. You cannot
join an ordinary civil action with a special civil
action. Lahi-lahi na sila ug procedure. (in joining
causes action) There should be a uniform
procedure. That is why you joined para convenient
siya.
So kung gi join nimo pero lahi-lahi man diay sila ug
procedure, di sila ma hearing at the same time, it
defeats the purpose of joinder. The purpose here
is to avoid confusion in determining what rule
should govern the conduct of the proceeding, as
well as the determination of the presence of
requisite elements of each particular cause of
action.
Now, because there was a misjoinder of causes of
action, should the court dismiss the case?
The Supreme Court said NO. It is not a ground for
dismissal. Indeed, the courts have the power have
the power, acting upon the motion of a party to
the case or sua sponte, to order the severance of
the misjoined cause of action to be proceeded
with separately. However, if there is no objection
to the improper joinder or the court did not motu
proprio direct a severance, then there exists no
bar in the simultaneous adjudication of all the
erroneously joined causes of action.
1:29:50 - end JOE
It should be emphasized that the foregoing
rule only applies if the court trying the case
has jurisdiction over all of the causes of action
therein notwithstanding the misjoinder of the
same. If the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over a misjoined cause of action,
then such misjoined cause of action has to be
severed from the other causes of action, and
if not severed, any adjudication rendered by
the court with respect to the same would be
of nullity.
What if the court tried the case has no jurisdiction
over some of the misjoined causes of action like
again diba we said na a forcible entry case and an
ordinary action for recovery of possession cannot be
joined because the forcible entry case is a special civil
action and governed by the summary rules. While a
recovery of possession of real property case action
publiciana is governed by the ordinary rules and the
jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of
the property. Assuming na kato siya is properly
within the RTC kay more than 20 thousang ang
assessed value sa property joined with the forcible
entry case in the RTC. Here obviously number 1
improper ang joinder so there is a misjoinder of
cause of action. And then what will happen here we
cannot apply the rule na the court can just proceed
with the case because there is no objection.
Why? Because in the first place improper ang joinder
so dapat dili gyud sila i-join and the MTC case the
forcible entry is obviously not within the jurisdiction
of the RTC. So even if the RTC proceeds with the case
in hearing the two cases forcible entry and recovery
of possession against one defendant like for example
defendant B even if walay nag object sa ilahang duha
si plaintiff ug defendant wala, but the court thus not
obtain jurisdiction over such misjoined cause of
action. Any adjudication rendered by the court with
respect to the same would be a nullity.
Now lahi tong mga cases na atong gi discuss na
joinders of the case in the RTC even if one case is
within the MTC ang jurisdiction pwede siya ma joined
sa case with the RTC as long as the joinders made in
the RTC but that presupposes that all the requisites
for a proper joinder are present. Here, dili present
ang other requisites dili proper joinder kay again the
one which is joined is a special civil action so in the
first place walay reasons for the joinder so dili nato
ma apply ang rule nga joinder can be done in the
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 252
RTC. So here the adjudication of the forcible entry
case which is misjoined in the RTC with the recovery
of possession case is a nullity.
RELATED RULE
Rule 3, Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of
parties. – Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of
parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties
may be dropped or added by order of the court on
motion of any party or on its own initiative at any
stage of the action and on such terms as are just.
Any claim against a misjoined party may be
severed and proceeded with separately.
Discussion: In relation to misjoinder we have the
related rules in Rule 3, Section 11 so misjoinder and
non-joinder of parties neither misjoinder nor nonmisjoinder is a ground for dismissal of an action.
Parties may be dropped or added by the order of the
court on motion of any party or on its own initiative
at any stage of the action and on such terms as are
just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be
severed and proceeded with separately. So klaro diri
it’s not a ground for dismissal of an action. We will
discuss this again when we go to Rule 3.
different cause of action so you can actually file
separate cases. Pero in the middle of the trial pwede
mo ingon si court nga even if there based on
separate cause of action but it is a common question
of fact or law the court can order a joint hearing or
trial of those matters or issues. This would respect to
consolidation.
In Section 2 of Rule 31 naman we have separate
trials.
Section 2. Separate trials. – The court, in
furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice,
may order a separate trial of any claim, crossclaim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or
any separate issue or of any number of claims,
cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party complaints
or issues.
Discussion: So pwede pud niya i-separate ang trial
even gi joined siya in one case but the court can
order separate trial of any of those issues involved in
the case. Okay so this would be all for Rule 2.
Nothing follows.
We also have this Rule in Section 1 of Rule 31. So we
are looking here in a severance portion.
Consolidation or Severance
Section 1. Consolidation. – When actions involving
a common question of law or fact are pending
before the court, it may order a joint hearing or
trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions;
it may order all the actions consolidated, and it
may take such orders concerning proceedings
therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or
delay.
Discussion: So here pwede its possible na when you
file the case wala kay joinder giisa-isa jud nimo ug file
ang kaso although they arise out of the same
transaction or reference and then they involved a
common question of fact or law pero based on
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE A.Y. 2020-2021 PAGE 253