Civil Procedure: General Principles of Civil Procedure (September 7, 2023)
Remedial law: rules which provide the system for the protection of rights, the prevention of the violation of such rights and the means of redress for such violations. Such rules also provide the methods for the enforcement of obligations recognized by law and lay out the procedure by which suits are filed, tried, and decided upon by the courts of justice.
- It is a branch of law that prescribes the methods of enforcing rights and obligations created by substantive law.
- It provides a procedural system for obtaining redress for the invasion of rights and violations of duties. It a
- lt also prescribes rules as to how suits are filed, tried and decided upon by the court.
1. Major Divisions in Law
- Source: Congress, Ex: Civil Code
- Operation: Prospective
- Sources:
- General Rule: Supreme Court, Ex: Administrative Matters
- Exception: Congress, Ex: BP 129 on Jurisdiction
- Operation:
- General Rule: Retroactive, no vested rights in the rules of procedure
- Exceptions:
- The statute itself expressly or by necessary implication provides
- Applying it to pending proceedings would impair vested rights
- Not be feasible or would work injustice
- Naturalization
- Insolvency proceedings
- Cadastral Cases
- Land Registration
- Election Cases
- Other cases not provided for in the Rules of Court
2. Sources of Remedial Law
- A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC (Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
- Circulars and administrative issuances of the Supreme Court
- 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
- Statutes passed by the Legislature
3. Scope of Remedial Law
- Civil Procedure (Rules 1-71)
- Special Proceedings (Rules 72-109)
- Criminal Procedure (Rules 110-127)
- Rules on Evidence (Rules 128-133 (23 & 24)
- Special rules of procedures from circulars issued by the Supreme Court
- Ex: Summary Procedure, Small Claims Cases
- Ordinary civil actions (Rules 1-56)
- Provisional remedies (Rules 57-61)
- Special civil actions (Rules 62-71)
4. Judicial Power
Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution:
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.
- Power to Settle Actual Controversies
- Power of Judicial Review
Sec. 5 (5), Art. VIII,1987 Constitution:
- The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the:
- protection and enforcement of constitutional rights;
- pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts;
- admission to the practice of law;
- integrated bar; and,
- legal assistance to the underprivileged.
- (Limitations) 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.
- For a more simplified and inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases, the Supreme Court has the power to:
- amend (overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law)
- repeal
- or even establish new rules
- When the compelling reasons so warrant it or when purpose of justice requires, the courts have the power to:
- relax
- or suspend technical or procedural rules
- or to except a case from their operation.
- What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the court.
- The existence of special or compelling circumstances;
- The merits of the case;
- A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
- suspension of rules;
- A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and
- The rights of the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
5. Basic Concepts in Remedial Law
- Concept of Court
Q: What is a court?
A: A court is an entity or body vested with a portion of the judicial power. (Lontok vs. Battung, 63 Phil. 1054)
Q: Why ‘portion’ only?
A: This is because the Constitution provides that “the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court (SC) and in such other lower courts as may be established by law.” (Art. VIII, Section 1, 1987 Constitution)
Q: What is the reason that the law creates different courts?
- The reason that the law creates different courts is to divide the cases or judicial power among them so that one court may not be burdened with so many cases.
- So, judicial power is not exercised only by one court, but by several courts. There is a division of labor and this division is done thru delineating jurisdiction among courts.
- Attribute:
- A court is the entity, body, or tribunal vested with a portion of the judicial power.
- A judge is the person or officer who presides over a court.
- Life:
- The court is continuous. It does not die alongside with the justices who presided on it.
- Judges are human beings — they die, they resign, retire, they maybe removed.
- Independence:
- There may be a court without a judge.
- There may be a judge without a court. (Pamintuan vs. Llorente)
Q: Distinguish a hearing from a trial.
Hearing is not synonymous with trial.
Trial
- Trial may refer to the reception of evidence and other processes.
- It embraces the period for the introduction of evidence by both parties.
Hearing
- It is not confined to trial but embraces the several stages of litigation, including the pre-trial stage.
- A hearing does not necessarily mean presentation of evidence.
- It does not necessarily imply the presentation of oral or documentary evidence in open court but that the parties are afforded the opportunity to be heard. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 133)
6. Hierarchy of Courts
1. Regular Courts
- Supreme Court
- Court of Appeals
- Regional Trial Courts
- First-level Courts
- Metropolitan Trial Court
- Ex: Metro Manila
- Municipal Trial Court
- Ex: Narra, Culion
- Municipal Trial Court in Cities
- Ex: Puerto Princesa City
- Municipal Circuit Trial Court
- Ex: Taytay-San Vicente
- Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125)
- Sandiganbayan (PD 148, as amended)
- Shari'a District Courts and the Sharia Circuit Courts (PD 1083 Code of Muslim Personal Law)
- Family Courts
Doctrine of the Hierarchy of Courts
- The doctrine on hierarchy of courts is a practical judicial policy designed to restrain parties from directly resorting to a higher court when relief may be obtained before the lower courts.
- It is grounded on the need to prevent inordinate demands upon the higher court‘s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to prevent the congestion of the higher court‘s dockets.
- General Rule: Where courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter, such concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant the party seeking relief the absolute freedom to file the case in court of his choice. Pursuant to the doctrine, the case must be filed first to the lowest court possible having appropriate jurisdiction.
- Exceptions: The following are the exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts:
- When genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be addressed immediate;
- When the case involves transcendental importance;
- When the case is novel;
- When the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the higher court;
- When time is of the essence;
- When the subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ;
- When there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;
- When the petition includes questions that may affect public welfare, public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice;
- When the order complained of was a patent nullity; and
- When the appeal was considered as an inappropriate remedy. (Aala vs. Mayor Uy)
- Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must remain to be so in order for it to satisfactorily perform its constitutional functions, thereby allowing it to devote its time and attention to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction and preventing the overcrowding of its docket. (Dy v. Bibat-Palamos)
- The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until finally disposes of the case (Baritua vs. Mercader)
Case: Mendoza, et al. vs. Villas, et al., G.R. No. 187256, Feb. 23, 2011
Facts:
- In the 2007 barangay elections, Constancio F. Mendoza won as Punong Barangay of Balatasan (Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro).
- Liwanag Herato won the highest votes for Barangay Kagawad.
- Mayor Enrilo Villas was the incumbent Mayor at the time.
- The MTC disqualified Mendoza for having already served three (3) consecutive terms for the same position and declared Herato as Punong Barangay.
- Villas requested Land Bank of the Philippines to decline to honor any transactions by Mendoza in behalf of the barangay.
- Mendoza filed a petition before the RTC for mandamus to release barangay funds to render necessary, basic public services to the inhabitants of the barangay.
- The RTC dismissed the petition based on the COMELEC resolution disqualifying Mendoza as a candidate.
- Mendoza filed a direct recourse to the Supreme Court.
Issue: WoN the disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants the outright dismissal of the petition. YES.
7. Classification of Courts in General
General Classification of Courts
- Constitutional and Statutory Courts
- Supreme Court is the only Constitutional Court
- BP 129 could not abolish Supreme Court
- Q: Is Sandiganbayan constitutional or statutory court? Statutory. An establishing law was necessary to create Sandiganbayan.
- Superior Courts and First-Level courts (Inferior courts)
- Superior Courts
- courts of general jurisdiction
- courts which have the power of review or supervision over another lower court
- Inferior Courts
- courts of special or limited jurisdiction
- courts which take cognizance of certain specified cases only
- Courts of Original Jurisdiction and Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction
- Original Jurisdiction
- courts which take cognizance of a cause at its inception
- Ex: MTC, lowest court in the hierarchy
- Appellate Jurisdiction
- courts where cases are reviewed
- Civil Courts and Criminal Courts
- Courts of Law and Courts of Equity
- Courts of Law
- courts which administer only the law of the land
- Appellate Jurisdiction
- courts which rule according to the precepts of equity or justice
- Philippines courts, original or appellate, are both courts of law and of equity
- Others
- Courts of Record
- courts where proceedings are enrolled and are bound to keep a written record of all trials and proceedings handled by them
- RA 6031 mandates all MTCs to be Courts of Record
- Probate Courts
- courts which have jurisdiction over settlement of estate of deceased persons
- Land Registration Courts
- courts which have jurisdiction over registration of real properties under the Torrens System
- Ecclesiastical Courts
- Military Courts
8. Precepts of Equity
Equity is the principle by which substantial justice may be attained in cases where the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate.
Art. 9, New Civil Code No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.
Art. 10, New Civil Code: In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of the laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.
Cases can be decided on the basis of law or equity.
Equity means a sense of justice or fairness, and Philippine courts are courts of law and/or equity. The two systems of jurisprudence - law and equity - have merged.
- Ex:
- Estoppel
- Laches
- Solutio indebiti
9. Nature of Philippine Courts
- Philippines courts, original or appellate, are both courts of law and of equity.
10. Inherent Powers of the Court
Section 5 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court:
Inherent powers of court. — Every court shall have power: (8) PPCC-CACA
- To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
- To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority;
- To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out of court, in a case pending therein;
- 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 compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending therein;
- 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;
- To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice;
- 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.
- 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 comfortable to the spirit of the said law or rules.
11. Enforceability of Court Writs and Processes
CPM-QHI
Under Section 3, Interim Rules (BP 129):
Sec. 3. Writs and Processes.
- a) Writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction issued by a regional trial court may be enforced in any part of the region.
- b) All other processes whether issued by the RTC or MetTC, MCTC, and MTC may be served anywhere in the Philippines, and, the last three cases, without a certification by the judge of the RTC.
12. Aspects of Remedial Law
Public Aspect
- one which affords a remedy in favor of the State against the individual
- Ex: Criminal Procedure
- or one which affords a remedy in favor of the individual against the State
- Ex: Habeas Corpus
Private Aspect
- one which affords a remedy in favor of an individual against another individual
- Ex: Civil Procedure
(Gamboa’s Introduction to Philippine Law, 6th Ed., pp. 97-99)
13. Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court and its limitations
Sec. 5 (5), Art. VIII,1987 Constitution:
- The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the:
- protection and enforcement of constitutional rights;
- pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts;
- admission to the practice of law;
- integrated bar; and,
- legal assistance to the underprivileged.
- (Limitations) 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.
Substantive rights are created by substantive law so the Rules of Procedure should not increase, diminish or modify them. In effect, the Rules of Court should not amend the substantive law. It can only interpret substantive law but should not change it completely.
A vested right is defined as "one which is absolute, complete and unconditional, to the exercise of which no obstacle exists, and which is immediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon a contingency...."
Case: Aquino vs. Aquino, G.R. Nos. 208912 & 209018, Dec. 7, 2021
Facts:
- Amadea Angela K. Aquino claims to be a nonmarital child of Arturo Aquino, who was a marital child of Miguel Aquino, Angela’s grandparent.
- Angela stated Arturo died before she was born on October 9, 1978. While her parents were not married, they did not suffer from any impediment to marry. Her parents were planning to marry before Arturo died.
- Angela seeks to inherit from the estate of Miguel through her right of representation, hence, Article 982 of the Civil Code—which does not make any distinctions or qualifications as to the birth status of the “grandchildren and other descendants”—shall apply.
- Article 982, New Civil Code: The grandchildren and other descendants shall inherit by right of representation, and if any one of them should have died, leaving several heirs, the portion pertaining to him shall be divided among the latter in equal portions
14. Concept of Jurisdiction in General
Jurisdiction
- It is the power and authority of the court to hear, try, and decide the case.
- It includes the authority to execute its decision.
- Juris - law ; Dico - to speak = “I speak by the law.” = “I speak with authority.”
- Jurisdiction includes not only the powers to hear and decide a case, but also the power to enforce the judgment.
✅whether the court has the power to enter into the inquiry
❌whether the decision is right or wrong
- Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and they may act accordingly by dismissing the action even though the issue of jurisdiction is not raised or not even suggested by counsel.
- The entire proceedings would be null and void.
- It may be raised at any stage of the proceeding, even for the first time on appeal.
15. Jurisdiction and Exercise of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction—the authority to hear and decide a case.
Exercise of Jurisdiction—any act of the court pursuant to such authority, including the decision and its consequences.
- The authority to decide a case, not the decision rendered, is what makes up jurisdiction.
- Where there is jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, the resolution of all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction. (Herrera vs. Barreto)
Q: Why is it important to distinguish jurisdiction from exercise of jurisdiction?
A: A court acting as such may commit errors or mistakes and questioned later before a higher court. The procedure or remedy in case of a mistake or error would be dependent on whether it is an error of jurisdiction or an error in the exercise of jurisdiction also known as error of judgment.
Example: A case of murder was filed in the MTC. The accused files a motion to quash because MTC has no jurisdiction over cases of murder. But the court denied the motion to quash. What is the error committed? Error of Jurisdiction.
Suppose the case for murder is filed in the RTC where the court has jurisdiction. But in the course of the trial, it committed mistakes like the court misinterpreted or misapplied the provision of the RPC or the Indeterminate Sentence Law. What error is committed? Error of Judgement. Is the proceeding null and void? No.
16. Error of Jurisdiction vs. Error of Judgment
- Attributes:
- Error of Jurisdiction
- When a court takes cognizance of a case over the subject matter of which it has no jurisdiction, or
- Acts in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
- Error of Judgment
- Errors which the court may commit in the exercise of such jurisdiction, like errors of procedure or mistakes in the court's findings
- Effect:
- Error of Jurisdiction
- null and void
- voidable
- Error of Judgment
- valid or binding unless corrected
- Review:
- Error of Jurisdiction
- Certiorari (extraordinary writ)
- Error of Judgment
- Appeal
17. Types of Jurisdiction
- On cases tried:
- General Jurisdiction
- the power of the court or tribunal to hear, try and decide all kinds of cases except those prohibited by law;
- only the RTC
- Special or Limited Jurisdiction
- means the power of the court to hear, try and decide certain type of cases
- On the nature of the cause:
- Original Jurisdiction
- power of the court to take cognizance of a case at its inception or commencement
- Appellate Jurisdiction
- power vested in a superior court to review and revise the judicial action of a lower court.
- On the nature and extent of exercise:
- Exclusive Jurisdiction
- no other courts or tribunal has the same jurisdiction over a particular case
- Concurrent or Coordinate Jurisdiction
- equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter
- the court obtaining jurisdiction first retaining it to the exclusion of the others, but the choice of court is lodged in those persons duly authorized to file the action.
- On situs:
- Territorial jurisdiction
- exercised within the limits of the place where the court is located.
- ex: writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
- Extra-territorial jurisdiction
- exercised beyond the confines of the territory where the court is located.
- ex: writ of execution
18. Elements of Jurisdiction in Civil Cases
- The authority of the court to entertain a particular kind of action, or
- Administer a particular kind of relief depending on the issues raised;
- It may refer to the power of the court over or to bind the parties, or
- Over or to bind the property which is the subject of the litigation.
So there are what we call elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases, otherwise, the proceeding will be illegal. These elements are:
- Jurisdiction over the subject matter
- Jurisdiction over the person of the parties to the case;
- Jurisdiction over the res; and
- Jurisdiction over the issues.
a) Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter
- Power of the court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.
- Jurisdiction over the nature of the action.
- In criminal cases you have light, less grave and grave offenses.
- In civil cases we have such actions as:
- actions for sum of money
- actions not capable of pecuniary estimation
- real and personal actions
- action in rem
- action in personam
- The Court may dismiss the case.
- The court cannot refer the case to another court.
- The judgment is void.
- If the jurisdictional defect is apparent on the face of the record, it may be subject to collateral attack.
- The judgment is no judgment at all.
- Direct attack
- Ex: petition for annulment of judgment
- Collateral attack
- Indirect attack
- What is the nature of the action filed?
- Does the court have authority to try and determine that class of actions to which the one before it belongs?
- Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, either by the Constitution or a statute.
- It is never acquired by:
- consent or submission of the parties or by their laches
- agreement of the parties
- waiver
- or failure to object (silence)
- It cannot be subject of agreement of the parties.
- It cannot be acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act or omission of the parties.
- It cannot be conferred by acquiescence by the court.
- It is determined by the allegations in the complaint
- Exception: In ejectment cases in which the defendant averred the defense of the existence of tenancy relationship between the parties (See: Ignacio vs. CFI of Bulacan, 42 SCRA 89 below)
- As well as by the character of the relief sought
- This is regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein
- Caption of the case is not controlling
- Defenses and evidence do not determine jurisdiction
- The amount awarded does determine jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction over the subject matter
- Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is the proper ground for a motion to dismiss.
- This is broad enough to include the “nature of the action.”
- Subject or subject matter of the action
- The physical facts, the things real or personal, the money, lands or chattels and the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted and not the delict or wrong committed by the defendant.
- Examples:
- Declaration of nullity of marriage: the marriage of the parties involved
- Foreclosure of mortgage: the thing or subject of the action is the property mortgaged
- Specific performance or rescission of contract: the contract involved that is the subject matter of the action.
i) Cases: Ignacio vs. CFI of Bulacan, 42 SCRA 89
Facts:
- The landholding in question was owned by Felizardo Lipana and tenanted by Alipio Marcelo until his death in December 1962.
- Two cases related to the landholding were pending in the Court of Agrarian Relations at the time of Alipio Marcelo's death. A third case was filed by Maximo Marcelo, the surviving son of Alipio, against Felizardo Lipana and Magdalena dela Cruz, praying that he, Maximo be declared as entitled to succeed to the tenancy and status of the deceased.
- One of the allegations of Lipana in his answer to the complaint was that he "signified his intention to recognize as his tenant Magdalena dela Cruz who is the widow of Alipio Marcelo", an admission that as far as Lipana was concerned it was Magdalena who had the right to succeed the deceased Alipio as tenant.
- A compromise agreement was eventually reached between Maximo Marcelo and Felizardo Lipana, with Maximo surrendering his rights over the landholding to Lipana.
- Magdalena dela Cruz filed a complaint against Lipana in the Court of Agrarian Relations, asserting her right as a tenant. (CAR Case No. 1221)
- Lipana in turn went to the Municipal Court of Plaridel, Bulacan on an action for "Ejectment and Forcible Entry" against Magdalena dela Cruz and her husband Lorenzo Ignacio, alleging that he, Lipana, had been placed in possession of the landholding by the provincial sheriff of Bulacan by virtue of the order of the CAR. (Civil Case No. 235)
- The Municipal Court issued an order against Magdalena dela Cruz and her husband, Lorenzo Ignacio, to vacate the premise in question and remove their house therefrom, based on Lipana's claim of possession.
- The Court of First Instance affirmed the decision of the Municipal Court.
- The court noted that these cases essentially revolve around a tenancy dispute, and the issue of actual possession was not resolved by the Court of Agrarian Relations.
- The decision and writ of execution only affected Maximo Marcelo's claim as a tenant and did not address Magdalena dela Cruz's right to possession.
- The court concluded that the ejectment case intruded upon the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
- The decision of the Court of First Instance in the two cases was set aside.
The facts show clearly that these cases proceed from and involve essentially a tenancy dispute. Before Civil Case No. 235 was filed in the Municipal Court of Plaridel three cases involving the same landholding had already been filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations. The cases, however, was dismissed together, without the issue of actual possession having been resolved, by virtue of the compromise agreement entered into between Maximo and Lipana. Magdalena dela Cruz thereafter filed her complaint — CAR Case No. 1221 — to have herself declared the lawful tenant of the landholding.
While it is true that the jurisdiction of the court in a suit for ejectment or forcible entry is determined by the allegations in the complaint, yet where tenancy is averred as a defense and, upon hearing, is shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. The decision of the CAR, it should be remembered, was rendered upon a compromise agreement between Maximo Marcelo and Felizardo Lipana. The right of Magdalena dela Cruz, who was a co-defendant was not touched upon in said agreement.
IFor all intents purposes, therefore, the decision and writ of execution effected only the claim of Maximo Marcelo as tenant and actual possession of the portion of the land on which he was working by virtue of the provisional arrangement ordered by the CAR. Since the tenancy dispute remained unresolved with respect to Magdalena dela Cruz and was actually the subject of litigation in CAR Case No. 1221, the filing of the ejectment case was an intrusion upon the jurisdiction of said court.
Salmorin vs. Zaldivar, G.R. No. 169691, Jul. 23, 2008
Facts:
- Dr. Pedro Zaldivar entered into an agreement with Pedrito Salmorin, designating him as the administrator of Lot No. 7481-H with a monthly salary of ₱150.
- Salmorin allegedly failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, leading Zaldivar to terminate his services and file a complaint for unlawful detainer against Salmorin.
- Salmorin claimed the existence of a tenancy relationship between them, arguing that the case was an agrarian matter.
- MCTC: Dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, considering it an agrarian dispute.
- RTC: Ruled in favor of Zaldivar upon appeal, stating that there was no tenancy relationship.
- CA: Upheld the RTC decision.
Zaldivar’s complaint concerned the unlawful detainer by Salmorin of the subject lot. This matter is properly within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
The allegation of tenancy in Salmorin’s answer did not automatically deprive the MCTC of its jurisdiction. Contrary to the findings of the MCTC, both the RTC and the CA found that there was no tenancy relationship between Salmorin and Zaldivar. A tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. . In this case, the RTC and CA correctly found that the third and sixth elements, namely, consent of the landowner and sharing of the harvests, respectively, were absent.
ii) Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction and Exceptions thereto
- It means that one’s 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.
- 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.
- Thus, when RA No. 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of the first level courts, said courts acquired jurisdiction over cases that under BP 129 were originally within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
- But cases pending already with the RTC at the time of the effectivity of the law were not affected by such new law unless the parties by agreement, pursuant to Sec. 7 therein, agreed to transfer the pending cases from the RTC to the lower courts especially those which have reached the pre-trial stage.
- In an action for ejectment, if the defendant voluntarily surrenders the premises subject of the action to the plaintiff, the surrender of the property does not divest the court of jurisdiction.
- 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. Also, 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.
Exception to the Rule of Adherence/Continuity of Jurisdiction
- When there is an express provision in the statute on retroactive application; or
- When the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment; or
- When the statute is curative.
- Issuance of the amendatory decree which is in the nature of a curative statute with retrospective application to a pending proceeding and cures that lack of jurisdiction.
- Ex: While the CFI has no jurisdiction over a complaint for damages arising from the dismissal of a radio station manager which was filed on August 2, 1976, PD 1367 vesting the court with jurisdiction over such type of cases cured the lack of jurisdiction of the trial court at the time the instant claim was filed before it.
Q: How jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired by the court?
- It is conferred by law applicable at the time of the commencement of the action; and
- Jurisdiction must be properly invoked by filing the complaint or information.
iii) Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
- Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within its jurisdiction and also of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge and experience of said tribunal in determining technical and intricate matters of fact.
- Where a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of fact are involved, then relief must be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court.
- It applies “where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body, in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.”
Example: Damages is claimed arising from the collision between the claimant's vessel and that of another. Such claim can of course be determined by the courts. But in order to enforce such claim before the courts, there must be a determination of which vessel is at fault. This is issue is placed within the special competence of the Maritime Industry Authority or Philippine Coast Guard which administrative body regulates sea travel.
Two-fold Purpose:
- Desire for uniformity
- Reliance on administrative expertise
Case: Paat vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 167
Facts:
- Private respondent Victoria de Guzman's truck was seized by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) personnel in Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya, due to the lack of required documents for concealed forest products in the truck.
- Jovito Layugan, the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) in Aritao, issued an order of confiscation on giving the owner of the truck 15 days to explain why it should not be forfeited. Private respondents did not submit the required explanation.
- Regional Executive Director Rogelio Baggayan of DENR ordered the forfeiture of the truck, citing Section 68-A of Presidential Decree No. 705 as amended by Executive Order No. 277.
- Private respondents filed a letter of reconsideration of the order, which was denied.
- They then brought the case to the Secretary of DENR while simultaneously filing a replevin suit (Civil Case 4031) against Layugan and Executive Director Baggayan in the Regional Trial Court.
- Layugan and Baggayan filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that private respondents had not exhausted administrative remedies.
- RTC: Denied the motion, leading to a petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners with the Court of Appeals.
- CA: Upheld the trial court's decision, ruling that the case involved a purely legal question.
It is important to point out that the enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations and the protection, development and management of forest lands fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. By the very nature of its function, the DENR should be given a free hand unperturbed by judicial intrusion to determine a controversy which is well within its jurisdiction. The assumption by the trial court, therefore, of the replevin suit filed by private respondents constitutes an unjustified encroachment into the domain of the administrative agency's prerogative. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. The Secretary of DENR is directed to resolve the controversy with utmost dispatch.
iv) Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction
- It involves the inherent or implied power of the court to determine issues incidental to the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.
- A court may determine all questions relative to the matters brought before it, regulate the manner in which a trial shall be conducted, determine the hours at which the witnesses and lawyers may be heard, direct the disposition of money deposited in court in the course of the proceedings, appoint a receiver an grant an injunction, attachment or garnishment.
v) Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-Interference
General Rule: No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction or to pass upon or scrutinize and much less declare as unjust a judgment of another court.
This doctrine applies to administrative bodies as well.
Exception: The doctrine of judicial stability does not apply where a third party claimant is involved.
Case: Rombe Eximtrade vs. Asiatrust Dev’t. Bank, GR 164479, Feb. 13,
2008
Facts:
- Rombe Eximtrade (Phils.), Inc. filed a petition for the Declaration of a State of Suspension of Payments with Approval of Proposed Rehabilitation Plan with RTC Branch 7.
- A Stay Order was issued by RTC suspending all claims against Rombe.
- The Securities and Exchange Commission and other creditors, BPI and Asiatrust Development Bank opposed the petition.
- The RTC Branch 7 dismissed the case, lifting the Stay Order, due to Rombe's misrepresentations and insolvency.
- Since Rombe did not appeal, Asiatrust Development Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings against Rombe's properties in RTC Branch 15.
- Rombe sought to annul documents related to the foreclosure and requesting a Temporary Restraining Order and injunction.
- RTC Branch 15: Granted the TRO, which was challenged by Asiatrust.
- CA: Ruled in favor of Asiatrust, annulling the RTC's orders granting the TRO.
- Rombe filed a petition with the Supreme Court, challenging the CA's decision.
There is no interference by one co-equal court with another when the case filed in one involves corporate rehabilitation and suspension of extrajudicial foreclosure in the other.
The rehabilitation case is a special proceeding which is summary and non-adversarial in nature. The annulment of foreclosure case is an ordinary civil action governed by the regular rules of procedure under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Being dissimilar as to nature, purpose, and reliefs sought, the order granting the injunctive writ in the annulment of foreclosure case, therefore, did not interfere with the order dismissing the rehabilitation petition and lifting the Stay Order.
More importantly, it cannot be argued that the RTC, Branch 15 intervened with the rehabilitation case before the RTC, Branch 7 when the former issued the injunctive writ since the rehabilitation petition was already dismissed on which eventually attained finality. There was no rehabilitation case pending before any court to speak of. Hence, the Malolos, Bulacan RTC, Branch 15 did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the January 8, 2003 Order.
vi) Estoppel by Laches
Art. 1431, Civil Code: Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
Estoppel means you cannot disown your act by which you have misled another while laches means abandonment of a right for failure to assert it for a long time.
General rule: Objection on jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised even for the first time on appeal.
Exception: Estoppel by laches.
Estoppel by laches is failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do what ought to have been done earlier.
- The failure to act warrants the presumption that one has abandoned his right or that he had acquiesced to the correctness and fairness of what has been resolved.
- The doctrine of estoppel is based on public policy intended to discourage stale claims.
- Estoppel is not a question of time unlike the statute of limitations.
- It is rather based on the inequity or unfairness of permitting a claim to be asserted at a time such claim is presumed to have been abandoned.
- The Supreme Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting one’s case for decision, and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if it is not.
- The fact pattern common among those cases wherein the Court invoked estoppel to prevent a party from questioning jurisdiction is a party’s active participation in all stages of a case, including invoking the authority of the court in seeking affirmative relief and questioning the court’s jurisdiction only after receiving a ruling or decision adverse to his case for the purpose of annulling everything done in the trial in which he has actively participated.
- “A party who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court over a particular matter to secure affirmative relief cannot be permitted to afterwards deny the same jurisdiction to escape liability.”
Case: Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 (1968)
Facts:
- In June of 1948, the Judiciary Act of 1948 was passed.
- Exactly a month after its passage, Spouses Serafin Tijam and Felicitas Tagalog initiated a civil case in the CFI-Cebu against the spouses Magdaleno Sibonghanoy and Lucia Baguio to recover P1,908.00.
- A writ of attachment was initially issued against the defendants' properties but was later dissolved upon the filing of a counter-bond by the defendants and Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc.
- The CFI ruled in favor of the Sps. Tijam and issued a writ of execution against the defendants and Manila Surety, respectively.
- Manila Surety objected to the lack of demand and sought affirmative relief by requesting that its liability be lifted. The writ was initially denied, but after proper demand, it was eventually granted.
- Manila Surety moved to quash due to lack of required summary hearing but such was denied.
- In 1962, or 14 years later, Manila Surety appealed in the CA.
- CA: Affirmed CFI decision.
- The following year, Manila Surety then filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the CFI Cebu did not acquire jurisdiction over the case as the Judiciary Act of 1948 placed actions where the demand does not exceed P2000 in the inferior courts, not the CFI.
Issue: WoN Manila Surety is barred from raising the jurisdictional issue by laches. YES.
The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law, and as the lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, a party may be barred by laches from invoking this plea for the first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the active participation of said party invoking the plea.
Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. It is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape penalty.
b) Jurisdiction Over the Parties
- Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the power of the court to make decisions that are binding on persons.
- It is the legal power of the court to render a personal judgment against the party to an action or proceeding.
- As to Plaintiff*:
- Filing of the complaint or petition.
- By doing so, he submits himself/herself to the jurisdiction of the court.
- As to Defendant*:
- Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required in an action in personam.
- However, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required in an action in rem or quasi in rem.
- Only the court should acquire res.
- As to Action of the Defendant:
- waiver
- consent
- lack of objection by the defendant
- Action in personam: action against a person in basis of his personal liability
- Action in rem: action against the thing itself
- Action quasi in rem: an individual is named as a defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property
- Action in personam: there is a specific defendant and the judgment is applicable only to defendant, ex: specific performance
- Action in rem: motion is applicable to everyone
- Action quasi in rem: purpose is not to impose liability on defendant but on property
- by a valid service of summons upon him or
- by his/her voluntary submission to the court’s authority
- when seeking affirmative relief
- except in motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction
- when the defendant’s counsel files the corresponding pleading thereon;
- when the defendant files a motion for reconsideration of the judgment by default;
- when the defendant files a petition to set aside the judgment of default;
- when the defendant and plaintiff jointly submit a compromise agreement for the approval of the court;
- when the defendant files an answer to the contempt charge;
- when the defendant files a petition for certiorari without questioning the court’s jurisdiction over his person.
c) Jurisdiction Over the Res
- It is the power to bind the “thing”.
- Res is the Latin word for “thing.”
- It is applied to an object, subject matter (not nature of the action), status, considered as the defendant in the action or as the object against which, directly, proceedings are taken.
Q: Define jurisdiction over the res.
Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the property which is the subject of the action.
- This type of jurisdiction is necessary when the action is one in rem or quasi in rem.
- When the action is action in personam, the jurisdiction over the res is not sufficient to authorize the court to render judgment against the defendant. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person is required.
Q: How is jurisdiction over the res acquired.
It is acquired either by the:
- the seizure of the property under legal process whereby it is brought into actual or constructive custody of the court or
- as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.
Q: Why is jurisdiction over the res important?
Sometimes it is a substitute for jurisdiction over the person.
- There are instances when the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant like when he is abroad. But if the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, the case may go on. Even if the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, jurisdiction over the res becomes a substitute over the person.
- In the example of action for compulsory recognition, even if the defendant is a non-resident who is out of the country the object of litigation is status here in the Philippines, then acquisition of jurisdiction over the res confers jurisdiction to the court even if the defendant is abroad. The res here is the thing or object or status against which or in relation to which the judgment can be enforced.
- Acquisition of jurisdiction over the res by actual seizure is exemplified by an attachment proceeding where the property is seized at the commencement of the action or at some subsequent stage in the action. It is also acquired through a legal provision which authorizes the court to exercise authority over a property or subject matter such as suits involving a person’s status or property located in the Philippines in actions in rem or quasi in rem.
Q: How is jurisdiction over the res acquired in Land Registration Cases or Probate Proceedings?
- By compliance with procedural requisites, such as publication.
Q: What is the extent of relief that may be awarded in action in rem and quasi in rem?
- Any relief granted in rem or quasi in rem actions must be confined to the res, and the court cannot lawfully render judgment against the defendant.
d) Jurisdiction Over the Issues
Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties.
- An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision.
- Where there is no disputed point, there is no issue.
Two issues:
- Issue of law
- Issue of fact
- when allegation in the complaint is specifically denied in an answer
Q: How Jurisdiction Over the Issues Is Conferred and Determined?
- Jurisdiction over the issue is conferred and determined by the allegations in the pleadings of the parties.
- The pleadings present the issues to be tried and determine whether not the issues are of fact or of law.
- An issue arise because a material allegation of a claiming party is specifically denied by the defending party.
- Sec. 2, Rule 18: Jurisdiction over the issue may be determined by the stipulation of the parties during pre-trial.
- The parties enter into stipulation of facts and documents or enter into an agreement simplifying the issues of the case.
- Sec. 5, Rule 10: Jurisdiction over the issue may also be conferred by waiver or failure to object to the presentation of evidence on the matter not raised in the pleading.
- The parties try with their express or implied consent issues not raised by the pleadings. The issues tried shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.
- An issue not duly pleaded may be validly tried and decided by the court as long as there is no objection from the parties.
- Complaint and Answer
- As to definition:
- Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter:
- power to hear and try a particular case
- Jurisdiction Over the Issues:
- power of the court to resolve legal questions involved in the case
- As to conferment:
- Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter:
- by law
- Jurisdiction Over the Issues:
- by the pleadings
- by the express (stipulation) consent of the parties
- by the implied (failure to object to evidence) consent of the parties
- As to acquisition:
- Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter:
- upon filing the complaint
- Jurisdiction Over the Issues:
- upon filing of the answer which joins the issues involved in the case
Comments
Post a Comment