2023 BAR REVIEW
REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
& JURISDICTION
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Applicability of the 2019 Amendments to pending cases
The 2019 Amendments shall govern all pending cases commenced before they took effect on
May 1, 2020, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court, their application would not be
feasible or would work injustice, in which case, the procedure under which the cases were filed
shall govern. Here, the case commenced with the filing of the complaint in September 2018 and
remained pending when the 2019 Amendments took effect. As it was, Judge Gill applied Section
12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments when she supposedly resolved motu proprio the affirmative
defense of respondent companies, that is, the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The
records though readily show that when Judge Gill motu proprio resolved the affirmative defenses
on May 22, 2020, the prescribed thirty (30) day period had long expired. ProFriends filed its
answer with affirmative defense in December 2018; PEC and Crisanta Realty on January 3, 2019;
and Amaia on February 27, 2020. Judge Gill should have, therefore, desisted from applying the
2019 Amendments to the case; specifically, Section 12, Rule 8 thereof, because when she did,
the same was no longer feasible. Colmenar vs. Colmenar, G.R. No. 252467, June 21, 2021
A violation of substantive law cannot simply be disregarded.
The procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is considered substantive law and not
merely a procedural technicality. The law requires that the police authorities implementing RA
9165 strictly comply with the chain of custody procedure, although failure to strictly do so does
not, ipso facto, render the seizure and custody over the illegal drugs as void and invalid if: (a)
there is justifiable ground for such noncompliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized evidence were preserved. In this case however, there was total lack of compliance. A
review of the pieces of evidence submitted by the parties show that an inventory report was not
accomplished by any of the police officers. In fact, an inventory report was never mentioned in
all the transmittal documents accomplished by the concerned authorities. Absent the inventory
report, the required presence of the insulating witnesses cannot be considered to have been
complied with. Consequently, rendering a judgment of conviction without being able to establish
that petitioner, along with the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165, were able to
personally see the movement of the seized drugs amounts to a violation of substantive law. Uy
vs. People, G.R. No. 217097, February 23, 2022, J. Hernando
Legal Edge Bar Review
legaledge8@gmail.com
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW
REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
& JURISDICTION
Congress has no authority to encroach upon the rule-making power of the Court.
When Congress passed the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 and, in so doing, took away
from the courts their power to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction (WPI) to enjoin an investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, it
encroached upon this Court's constitutional rule-making authority. Clearly, these issuances,
which are, by nature, provisional reliefs and auxiliary writs created under the provisions of the
Rules of Court, are matters of procedure which belong exclusively within the province of this
Court. Rule 58 of the Rules of Court did not create, define, and regulate a right but merely
prescribed the means of implementing an existing right since it only provided for temporary
reliefs to preserve the applicant's right in esse which is threatened to be violated during the
course of a pending litigation. Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 217126-27,
November 10, 2015
Novelty of the issues alone is not an exemption to the principle of judicial hierarchy.
Generally, a direct invocation of the Court’s original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs
should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor. Thus, in Rama v.
Moises, 812 SCRA 347 (2017), the Court recognized the following exceptions to the strict
application of the rule on hierarchy of courts: (a) when there are genuine issues of
constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time; (b) when the issues
involved are of transcendental importance; (c) cases of first impression; (d) when the
constitutional issues raised are best decided by this Court; (e) when the time element presented
in this case cannot be ignored. Notwithstanding the foregoing, while the Court notes that the
Petition presents, at the very least, a case of first impression, novelty alone cannot cure the
inherent defects of the Petition. Those who seek relief from the Court must comply with its rules.
Mercado vs. Lopena, G.R. No. 230170, June 6, 2018
Special and important reasons must be clearly stated in a petition for certiorari filed before the
Supreme Court.
The invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari has been allowed in
certain instances on the ground of special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition.
Here, Palafox, Jr. filed his Petition directly to this Court despite the concurrent jurisdiction of the
appellate court. Significantly, he did not bother to provide any reason or explanation to justify
his noncompliance to the rule on hierarchy of courts. Further, when he was required to reply to
Sen. Angara's Comment containing the latter's argument on the violation of hierarchy of courts,
Legal Edge Bar Review
legaledge8@gmail.com
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW
REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
& JURISDICTION
he simply manifested his adoption of his previous arguments in the Petition. This constitutes a
clear disregard of the hierarchy of courts and merits the dismissal of the Petition. Palafox, Jr. v.
Mendiola, G.R. No. 209551, February 15, 2021, J. Hernando
The RTC is a co-equal body of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Hence, it has no power
to control the other.
Pursuant to the exercise of its quasi-judicial jurisdiction, the SEC stands as a co-equal body of the
RTC. Hence, all orders and issuances issued by the SEC in the exercise of such jurisdiction may
not be interfered with, let alone overturned, by the RTC. If any or all of said orders are erroneous,
the organic act creating the Commission, Presidential Decree 902-A, provides the appropriate
remedy, first within the Commission itself, and ultimately in this Court. Nowhere does the law
empower any RTC to interfere with the orders of the Commission. Not even on grounds of due
process or jurisdiction. The Commission is, conceding arguendo a possible claim of respondents,
at the very least a coequal body with the RTC. Even as such coequal, one would have no power
to control the other. But the truth of the matter is that only the Supreme Court can enjoin and
correct any actuation of the Commission. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Plast-Print
Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 199308, June 19, 2019
Trial Courts, having the equal authority, should not interfere with their respective cases.
The RTC Br. 10 clearly had no authority or jurisdiction to disturb the final and executory decision
dated August 3, 1990 of the RTC Br. 8, a co-equal court, in Civil Case No. 1465. The Court held
that 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.” Despite this, the RTC Br. 10 acted capriciously and overstepped its jurisdiction
when it ordered the execution pending appeal merely by reason of Patricia’s alleged old age.
Verily, the apparent old age of the [sic] Patricia would certainly not override the doctrine that a
court cannot and should not disturb the orders or judgments of a coequal court, especially since
the said decision is already final and executory. Heirs of Aurio T. Casiño, Sr. vs. Development
Bank of the Philippines, Malaybalay Branch, G.R. Nos. 204052-53, March 11, 2020, J. Hernando
Legal Edge Bar Review
legaledge8@gmail.com
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW
REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
& JURISDICTION
Violation of the doctrine of judicial stability renders proceedings void for lack of jurisdiction.
Trackworks' Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus filed before the RTC of Makati City
was improper and in glaring violation of the doctrine of judicial stability. The RTC of Pasig City's
denial of the injunctive relief sought by Trackworks in its Orders dated January 4, 2010, March
15, 2010 and May 28, 2010 and all other incidents arising therefrom, may not be interfered with
by the RTC of Makati City, a court of concurrent jurisdiction, for the power to open, modify, or
vacate the said orders is not only possessed but is restricted to the court in which the order is
issued. Consequently, the RTC of Makati City has no jurisdiction over Trackworks' petition,
rendering all the proceedings therein, as well as the June 14, 2012 Decision and other orders
issued thereon, void for lack of jurisdiction. Metro Rail Transit Development Corp. vs.
Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising, Vending and Promotions, Inc., G.R. No. 204452, June 28,
2021, J. Hernando
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction.
As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case,
and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the
subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the
jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely
errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. The lack of jurisdiction envisioned
in Rule 47 is the total absence of jurisdiction over the person of a party or over the subject matter.
When the court has validly acquired its jurisdiction, annulment through lack of jurisdiction is not
available when the court's subsequent grave abuse of discretion operated to oust it of its
jurisdiction. Thus, petitioners could avail of either an action for annulment of judgment under
Rule 47, or an action for reconveyance. The proper action would be dependent on the ground
that petitioners would invoke in questioning the July 7, 1980 Order. Unfortunately, petitioners
erroneously filed a petition for annulment of judgment based on the ground of the trial court's
exercise in excess of its jurisdiction, which is not a ground in an action for annulment of judgment.
Heirs of Borras vs. Heirs of Borras, G.R. No. 213888, April 25, 2022, J. Hernando
Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost and continues until the case is terminated.
As courts of general jurisdiction, the RTC ordinarily exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over
civil actions incapable of pecuniary estimation, such as that of accounting, cancellation of
Legal Edge Bar Review
legaledge8@gmail.com
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW
REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
& JURISDICTION
certificates of sale issued in foreclosure proceedings and injunction. Nevertheless, the scope of
such general jurisdiction cannot be extended over matters falling under the special jurisdiction
of another court or quasi-judicial body. Plast-Print invoked the special jurisdiction of the SEC
when it elected to file the SEC’s Petition. It cannot be gainsaid that it was Plast-Print who sought
the suspension of payments in connection with its outstanding financial accommodations with
RCBC. By doing so, Plast-Print necessarily placed the assets securing these financial
accommodations under the SEC’s special jurisdiction. Considering that the SEC already acquired
jurisdiction over the financial accommodations and securities subject of Plast-Print’s subsequent
RTC’s Complaint, the RTC erred when it proceeded to act on it while the SEC’s Petition remained
pending. To stress, jurisdiction, once acquired is not lost, and continues until the case is
terminated. Thus, in cases where, as here, a petition for suspension of payments is filed before
the SEC, it acquires jurisdiction over the action and all matters relating thereto to the exclusion
of the RTC. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Plast-Print Industries, Inc., G.R. No.
199308, June 19, 2019
Concurrence of jurisdiction should follow the hierarchy of courts.
This Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive. It is shared by this
Court with Regional Trial Courts and with the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction
is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute,
unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There
is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also
serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary
writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the
issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the
Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A 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 an established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the
Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive
jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court's docket. Leones vs. Corpuz, G.R.
No. 204106, November 17, 2021, J. Hernando
Jurisdiction over the parties is acquired through voluntary appearance without objection.
A defendant is deemed to have voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court
if they seek affirmative relief from the court. This includes the filing of motions to admit answer,
Legal Edge Bar Review
legaledge8@gmail.com
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW
REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
& JURISDICTION
for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of
default with motion for reconsideration. However, this rule is tempered by the concept of
conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge the
court's jurisdiction over their person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority. A
special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance, but
only when the defendant explicitly and unequivocally poses objections to the jurisdiction of the
court over their person. Applying the foregoing principles to the instant case, the Court finds that
Jorgenetics voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when it filed a motion
for the issuance of a writ of execution and an application for damages against the replevin bond
without objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Jorgenetics Swine Improvement Corp. vs.
Thick & Thin Agri-Products, Inc., G.R. Nos. 201044 & 222691, May 5, 2021, J. Hernando
Whether an action is incapable of pecuniary estimation lies in the principal relief sought.
Where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, the money
claim being only incidental to or merely a consequence of, the principal relief sought, the action
is incapable of pecuniary estimation. This finds support in numerous decisions where this Court
proclaimed that the test to determine whether an action is capable or incapable of pecuniary
estimation is to ascertain the nature of the principal action or relief sought. Thus, if the principal
relief sought is the recovery of a sum of money or real property, then the action is capable of
pecuniary estimation. However, if the principal relief sought is not for the recovery of money or
real property and the money claim is only a consequence of the principal relief, then the action
is incapable of pecuniary estimation. First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. vs. Philippine Bank
of Communications, G.R. No. 202836, June 19, 2018
An action to annul a compromise agreement is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the law. In the instant
case, the subject matter of the complaint before the RTC was the annulment of a Compromise
Agreement which was essentially a Deed of Sale allegedly executed by Maria in favor of the
spouses Somis. In De Ungria v. Court of Appeals, the Court pointed out that an action to annul a
contract and reconveyance is incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus, within the jurisdiction
of the RTC. Thus, the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of Maria's complaint.
Aromin vs. Heirs of Somis, G.R. No. 204447, May 3, 2021, J. Hernando
Legal Edge Bar Review
legaledge8@gmail.com
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW
REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
& JURISDICTION
Mere allegation of an agrarian dispute is enough to vest DAR jurisdiction over the case.
An accion reinvindicatoria is an action to recover ownership over real property, the jurisdiction
of which is within the proper RTC. On the other hand, Section 50 of RA 6657 and Section 17 of
Executive Order No. (EO) 229 vested upon the DAR primary jurisdiction to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters, as well as original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform. Subsequently, EO 129-A was issued wherein the power to
adjudicate agrarian reform cases was transferred to the DARAB, and jurisdiction over the
implementation of agrarian reform was delegated to the DAR regional offices. For DARAB to have
jurisdiction over the case, there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties. In the
instant case, respondents substantially alleged that there existed a tenancy relationship among
the parties in view of their leasehold agreement. Furthermore, respondents' claim that pursuant
to said agreement, she and her husband, Hilario, have been paying the agreed rentals of the
landholdings, to the lessors or Buncio's parents. These allegations suffice for the referral of the
dispute to the DAR. As stated by law, mere allegation of an agrarian dispute is enough. Dy Buncio
vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 206120, March 23, 2022, J. Hernando
Venue is the geographical location where suits are filed, while jurisdiction is conferred by law.
Since the three elements are attendant in this case, Rosello indeed committed forum-shopping.
The argument that the properties are located outside Tacloban City and are thus outside the
jurisdiction of the RTC of Tacloban City cannot be appreciated. Venue is the geographical location
where suits are brought while jurisdiction is conferred by law. Despite the variance in the
wordings of the reliefs, both complaints actually sought for reconveyance. In such a case, the
properties situated in a certain location may be part of the suit involving properties located in
another place. Otherwise, it would result in the splitting of the cause of action and forumshopping, as it did in this case. Asis vs. Heirs of Calignawan, G.R. No. 242127, September 15,
2021, J. Hernando
In small claims, no evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not attached.
Section 6 of the Revised Rules for Small Claims provides: “A small claims action is commenced by
filing with the court an accomplished and verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) in duplicate,
accompanied by a Certification Against Forum Shopping, Splitting a Single Cause of Action, and
Multiplicity of Suits (Form 1-A-SCC), and two (2) duly certified photocopies of the actionable
document/s subject of the claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses and other evidence to
support the claim. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or
Legal Edge Bar Review
legaledge8@gmail.com
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW
REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
& JURISDICTION
submitted together with the Statement of Claim, unless good cause is shown for the admission
of additional evidence.” RCBC Bankard Services Corporation vs. Oracion, Jr., G.R. No. 223274,
June 19, 2019
Failure to comply with barangay conciliation proceedings renders the complaint dismissible.
Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160) or the Local Government Code of 1991, provides that barangay
conciliation proceedings is a pre-condition to filing a complaint in court between persons actually
residing in the same barangay to explore possible amicable settlement. Subject to exemptions, a
party's failure to comply with the requirement of prior barangay conciliation before filing a case
in court would render his complaint dismissible on the ground of failure to comply with a
condition precedent, pursuant to Section 1 (j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. Here, it is undisputed
that Ngo failed to submit the matter to prior barangay conciliation before the filing of his
complaint in court. Moreover, the case is not among those exempted from the requirement of
prior conciliation. Gabelo timely and consistently raised such omission and vigorously invoked
the dismissal of the complaint. All these circumstances justified the dismissal of Ngo's complaint.
Ngo vs. Gabelo, G.R. No. 207707, August 24, 2020, J. Hernando
The court's lack of jurisdiction extends to ancillary writs, such as a preliminary injunction, which
exist only as an incident to an independent action.
A trial court with no jurisdiction over the petition filed therein is likewise devoid of any authority
to act on the application for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) contained in
the same petition. Applying the foregoing, the RTC lacked jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 10-1042
and the void nature of all proceedings arising therefrom extends to the issuance of any ancillary
writs, such as the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and WPI in the instant case. Thus, even
assuming arguendo that the instant Petition has not been rendered moot, it should still be
dismissed since the TRO and WPI issued by the trial court are void for want of jurisdiction. Banco
Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 200642, April 26,
2021, J. Hernando
Legal Edge Bar Review
legaledge8@gmail.com
0942 – 949 91 76
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 8