INTRODUCTION I. INTRODUCTION 1.

Major divisions in law: a) Substantive law a part of law which creates, defines or regulates rights concerning life, liberty or property, or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs. (Primicias vs. Ocampo 49 OG 2230) b) Procedural/Adjective/Remedial Law prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their violation. (Bustos v. Lucero 81 Phil. 640,650) 2) Sources of Remedial law: a) The Constitution b) Laws creating the judiciary c) Laws defining and allocating jurisdiction to different courts d) Rules promulgated by the SC e) circulars, administrative orders, internal rules and SC decisions 3) Scope of Remedial Law: a) Constitution b) Civil Procedure (Rules 1 to 56 and other related laws); c) Provisional Remedies (Rules 57 to 61); d) Special Civil Actions (Rules 62 to 71) e) Special Proceedings (Rules 72 to 109) f) Criminal Procedure (Rules 110 to 127) g) Evidence (Rules 128 to 133) h) Katarungang Pambarangay Law (RA 7160) and Implementing rules i) Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. j)Rules on Small Claims Cases k)Rules on Environmental Cases 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. (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
JBD
1

The power of judicial review is the Supreme Court's power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation unconstitutional. Basic concepts in Remedial Law 1.) Court Describe it. There is a table, a gavel, there is someone sitting there. Then below, there are lawyers sitting down. But actually, what is described is a courtroom and not a court. Similarly, when you are asked to describe a corporation, you will refer to the building, the office, the employees etc. But a corporation, as you know in Persons, is a juridical entity. It is a creature of the law. It is a person under the law but it has no physical existence. A court has no physical existence, only a legal one. Q: What is a court? A: A court is an entity or body vested with a portion of the judicialP 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. 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. Jurisdiction will be discussed in the following parts.
JBD
2

2.) Judge Just as corporations cannot act without its officers, a court cannot function without a judge. But do not say that the court and the judge mean the same thing. The judge is the person or officer who presides over a court. Q: Distinguish court from judge. A: The following are the distinctions: 1.) Court is the entity, body, or tribunal vested with a portion of the judicial power, while judge is the person or officer who presides over a court. 2.)Judges are human beings they die, they resign, they retire, they maybe removed. The court continues to exist even after the judge presiding over it ceases to do so. In the Supreme Court, for example, the justices presiding over it are not the same justices who presided it in the early part of this century yet the Court in some decisions states that as early 1905, WE have already ruled such as such Why do they use WE? They are talking about the court, they are not talking about themselves. The court is continuous. It does not die alongside with the justices who presided on it.
3.)

The two concepts may exist independently of each other, for there may be a court without a judge or a judge without a court. (Pamintuan vs. Llorente, 29 Phil. 342)

3.) Hearing and Trial Hearing is not synonymous with trial. The words hearing and trial have different meanings and connotations. Trial may refer to the reception of evidence and other processes. It embraces the period for the introduction of evidence by both parties. Hearing, as known in law, 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)
JBD
3

HIERARCHY OF THE COURTS In the 1996 BAR: One of the questions in Remedial Law was: State the hierarchy of the Courts in the Philippines. a.) Regular courts SUPREME COURT COURT OF APPEALS REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS MetTC MTCC MTC MCTC

Note: MetTC- In Manila MTCC- cities outside Manila e.g. Cebu, Davao MTC- municipalities such as Minglanilla, Argao MCTC- circuitized areas because it is impractical and expensive to maintain one MTC in every municipality. b.) Special courts There are also Special Courts which are also considered part of the judiciary. These are: 1. Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125) 2. Sandiganbayan (PD 1486 as amended) 3. Sharia District Courts and the Sharia Circuit Courts (PD 1083 , also known as the Code of Muslim Personal Law); 4. Family Courts Policy of Judicial Hierarchy This policy means that a higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts. While it is true for example that the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent original jurisdiction to issue writs of Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandfamus, such concurrence does not accord litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which the application for the writ may be directed. The application should be filed with the court of lower JBD
4

level unless the importance of the issue involved deserves the action of the court of the higher level.

Classification of courts in general. A: Generally, courts may be classified as: 1.) Constitutional and Statutory Courts; 2.) Superior Courts and First-Level courts (inferior courts); 3.) Courts of Original jurisdiction and Courts of Appellate jurisdiction; 4.) Civil Courts and Criminal Courts; 5.) Courts of law and Courts of equity; Courts of record; probate Courts; Land Registration Courts; Ecclesiastical Courts; Military Courts
4.)

CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS vs. STATUTORY COURTS Q: Distinguish Constitutional Courts from Statutory Courts. A: CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS are created directly by the Constitution itself, while STATUTORY COURTS are created by law or by the legislature. The first cannot be abolished by Congress
without amending the Constitution while the second can be so abolished by just simply repealing the law which created them.

In our country, there is only one Constitutional court the Supreme Court. Even the Sandiganbayan is not considered a Constitutional court because it was not created by the Constitution directly. The 1973 Constitution, particularly Art. XIII, Section 5 ordered the then National Assembly to create a special court to be known as the Sandiganbayan which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in governmentowned or controlled corporations in relation to their office as may be determined by law.. It was law that created the Sandiganbayan (PD 1486). The CA, RTC, and the MTC are created by the Congress. So there is only one Constitutional court. All the rest, from the CA down and all other special courts, are only creatures of Congress.
JBD
5

In political law, the power to create carries with it the power to abolish. That is why, BP 129 abolished all existing courts at that time (CFI, CA, Juvenile and Domestic courts, etc.) and RTC, IAC, MTC were created. That was the judicial reorganization of 1980 under BP 129. But there is only one court which the Batasan Pambansa could not touch the Supreme Court. SUPERIOR COURTS vs. FIRST-LEVEL COURTS Q: Distinguish superior courts from inferior courts. A: SUPERIOR COURTS, otherwise known as courts of general jurisdiction, are those which take cognizance of all kinds cases, whether civil or criminal, and possess supervisory authority over lower courts. The refer to these courts which have the power of
review or supervision over another lower court.

INFERIOR COURTS, otherwise known as courts of special or limited jurisdiction, are those which take cognizance of certain specified cases only. (14 Am. Jur. 249) They are those which, in
relation to another are lower in rank and subject to review and supervision of the latter.

Q: What courts are superior or inferior? A: It DEPENDS from what viewpoint you are looking at it. If you are looking from the viewpoint of the Constitution, there is only one superior court the Supreme Court. From the viewpoint of other laws, the Court of Appeals (CA) maybe inferior to the SC but it is a superior court for it exercises supervision over RTC. In the same manner that the RTC might be inferior to the SC and the CA but it has also power of supervision over MTC. The jurisdiction of the RTC is varied. It is practically a jack of all trade. The RTC has also the power of supervision over MTC. A superior court may therefore handle civil, criminal cases while an inferior court may try specified cases only. The SC, CA including the RTC are considered as superior courts. The MTC is a first-level (inferior) court so that its power is limited to specified cases despite of the law which expanded
JBD
6

the jurisdiction of the MTC. It does not have any supervisory authority over any lower court. ORIGINAL COURT vs. APPELLATE COURT Q: Distinguish original court from appellate court. A: ORIGINAL COURTS are those where a case is originally commenced, while APPELLATE COURTS are those where a case is reviewed. (Ballentine's Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 91) So, if you are filing a case for the first time, that case is filed in an original court. But the case does not necessarily end there. You may bring the case to the appellate court which has the power to change the decision of the original court. Q: Is the SC an original or appellate court? A: The SC is both an original and an appellate court. The SC has original jurisdiction on cases of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, etc. There are certain cases where one may file directly to the SC. Q: Is the CA an original or appellate court? A: The same is true with the CA. It is both original and appellate court. (Section 9, BP 129) When we study the jurisdiction of the CA, you will see that it is both an original and an appellate court. There are cases which are elevated to it from the RTC, but there are also cases which are filed there for the first time like an action for annulment of an RTC judgment. Q: How about the RTC? Is the RTC an original or appellate court? A: The RTC is also both original and appellate court. You can file certain cases there for the first time, and there are also decisions of the MTC which are appealable to the RTC. Q: How about the MTC? Is the MTC an original or appellate court? A: The MTC however, is a 100% original court. It is the lowest court in the hierarchy. There are no cases appealed to it. There is no such animal as barangay court. The barangay captains do not decide cases, they only conciliate.
JBD
7

CIVIL COURTS vs. CRIMINAL COURTS Q: Distinguish civil courts from criminal courts. A: CIVIL COURTS are those which take cognizance of civil cases only, while CRIMINAL COURTS are those which take cognizance of criminal cases only. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Ballentine's Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 301) All the courts in the Philippines are both civil and criminal courts. They can handle both types of cases. The SC decides civil and criminal cases. The same is true with the CA, RTC and MTC. So, in the Philippines, there is no such thing as a 100% criminal court or civil court. During the 70's there was the old Circuit Criminal Court. As the name implies, it is purely a criminal court. But with other courts, this was abolished by BP 129. With the abolition of those special courts, all their powers were transferred to the present RTC. Right now, there is no such thing as a 100% civil court or a 100% criminal court. So, all our courts are both civil and criminal courts at the same time. COURTS OF LAW vs. COURTS OF EQUITY Q: Distinguish Courts of Law from Courts of Equity. A: COURTS OF LAW are tribunals administering only the law of the land, whereas COURTS OF EQUITY are tribunals which rule according to the precepts of equity or justice, and are sometimes called courts of conscience. (Ballentines Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 303) Courts Of Law dispose cases according to what the promulgated law says while Courts Of Equity adjudicate cases based on the principles of equity. Principle of equity means principles of justice, fairness, fair play or of what is right and just without inquiring into the terms of the statutes.

JBD

Q: Are the Philippine courts, courts of law? Or courts of equity? Do they decide cases based on what the law says or based on the principle of justice and fairness? A: In the Philippines, our courts, original or appellate, are both courts of law and of equity. (U.S. vs. Tamparong 31 Phil. 321) In the case of substantive law, there is a thin line which divides the principle of law from the principle of equity because principles of equity are also found in the principles of law. Equity is what is fair and what is just and equitable. Generally, what is legal is fair. As a matter of fact under the Civil Code, when the law is silent, you decide it based on what is just and fair, thus, the saying EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW. In the Philippines you cannot distinguish sometimes the principle of law and the principle of equity because principles of equity are also written in the law. Example: The principles of estoppel, laches or solutio indebiti are no longer purely principles of equity since they are also found in our law. Under the Civil Code, when there is no applicable law, courts still have to decide according to customs and general principles. ESTOPPEL. Estoppel is an equitable doctrine which means that it is not fair that you disown your own representation after misleading somebody. But if you look at the Civil Code, there is a chapter on estoppel. So if you apply estoppel, you cannot say that you are applying a principle not found under the law. LACHES It is considered to be the half-brother of prescription because it means if you delay a certain right then you must have no right. That is more of equity, rather than of law. SOLUTIO INDEBITI.

JBD

No one should enrich himself at the expense of another. That is a principle of equity. But if you look at the Civil Code, it's there! ALONZO vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT May 28, 1987, J. Cruz HELD: The question is sometimes asked, in serious inquiry or in curious conjecture, whether we are a court of law or a court of justice. Do we apply the law even if it is unjust or do we administer justice even against the law? Thus queried, we do not equivocate. The answer is that we do neither because we are a court both of law and of justice. We apply the law with justice for that is our mission and purpose in the scheme of our Republic. COURTS OF RECORD Those whose proceedings are enrolled and which 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 Those which have jurisdiction over settlement of estate of deceased persons. LAND REGISTRATION COURTS Those which have jurisdiction over registration of real properties under the Torrens System.

INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT Before we leave the concepts of courts, we must know that the courts of justice have what we call inherent powers. Just like the State have certain inherent powers, namely; Police power, power of taxation, and power of eminent domain. Their very existence automatically necessitates existence of these powers. Q: What are the inherent powers of the court?
JBD

the

10

A: Section 5 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 5. Inherent powers of courts. Every court shall have the power: (a) to preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence; (b) to enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority; (c) to compel obedience to its judgments orders, and processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out of court, in a case therein; (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; (e) to compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending therein; (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 existence of its powers; (g) to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice; (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. SITUATION: Suppose I have the power to decide and I render a decision. I want to enforce the decision, how do I enforce? Well, usually the law provides for the procedure. Q: But suppose the law does not provide for any manner to enforce? For example a judge has rendered a decision, and the law is silent on how to enforce it, do you mean to say that the order is unenforceable because the law is silent?
JBD
11

A: NO. Section 6 of Rule 135 answers the question. SEC 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or a judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and all other means to carry it into effect maybe 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 these rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of said law or rules. What Section 6 is trying to say is that when courts have the power to decide, they have the power to enforce. And if the law is silent, judges have to think of how to do it provided they conform to the spirit of the rule. So they should not make the order useless simply because there is no rule. That is part of their power. ENFORCEABILITY OF COURT WRITS AND PROCESSES Another provision that should be emphasized is Section 3 of the Interim Rules. Question: The court of Cebu issues a writ or a process. Can that writ or process be enforced in Manila? What is the extent of the enforceability of a writ issued by a court? Under Section 3, Interim Rules: 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.
JBD
12

A: Under Section 3 of the Interim Rules, you have to distinguish what kind of writ or process you are talking about: a) If it is a writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, injunction, it can be enforced anywhere within the region. So at least, RTC can enforce it within the region and it cannot enforce those writs outside the region. EXAMPLE: If you are illegally detained, you can ask the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Now, a person is detained in Cagayan de Oro and the family is here in Cebu City. They filed a petition for habeas corpus here in Cebu City. Is it proper? No. Cebu City belongs to the 7th Judicial Region while Cagayan de Oro is in the 11th or 12th Judicial Region. The law is very clear: writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction issued by a trial court may be enforced in any part of the region. b) Section 3 further says, all other writs are enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. Suppose the MTC issues a warrant for the arrest of the accused in the criminal case, and he fled to Baguio City, such warrant can be enforced there. This includes summons, writs of execution or search warrants.
ASPECTS OF REMEDIAL LAW Q: Give the two (2) aspects of Remedial Law. A: There are 2 aspects of Remedial Law: 1.) PUBLIC ASPECT one which affords a remedy in favor of the State against the individual (e.g. criminal procedure) or in favor of the individual against the State (e.g. habeas corpus) on the other hand, 2.) PRIVATE ASPECT one which affords a remedy in favor of an individual against another individual, like the rules on civil procedure. (Gamboas Introduction to Philippine Law, 6th Ed., pp. 97-99)

JBD

13

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAW ON CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE PHILIPPINES The origin of our law on procedure is American. Forget the law on procedure during the Spanish regime. But the first known ancestor of the law on Civil Procedure was the old Act 190, otherwise known as the Code of Civil Procedure, which was enacted on August 7, 1901 by the United States and Philippine Commission. And that was the law until 1940 because on July 01,1940 the SC enacted the Rules of Court which we now call the Old Rules of Court. That continued for another 24 years until January 01, 1964 when the SC enacted the Revised Rules of Court repealing the Old Rules of Court. And that continued for another 33 years until July 01,1997 where the SC enacted and which took effect on that day (July 01, 1997) the New Rules on Civil Procedure. SUMMARY: 1.) First Law August 07, 1901 Act 190 Code of Civil Procedure (40 years) 2.) Second Law July 01, 1940 Old Rules of Court (24 years) 3.) Third Law January 01, 1964 Revised Rules of Court (33 years) 4.) Fourth Law July 01, 1997 New Rules of Civil Procedure. SOURCES OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Well of course the sources are almost the same as the prior law. The old Rules of Court is also a source. Many provisions were taken from the 1964 Rules, substantive law like the Civil Code and jurisprudence. And of course SC circulars. Many circulars are now incorporated under the new rule. So those are the main sources. SOURCES: 1.) Previous Rules of Court; 2.) Jurisprudence; 3.) New Civil Code; 4.) SC Circulars RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT The Rules of Court (1940, 1964, 1997) have all been enacted by the SC. It is law, not enacted by Congress but enacted by the SC. Q: What is the authority of the SC to enact a law when actually the role of the judiciary is only to interpret the law? Is this not a violation of the separation of powers? JBD
14

A: The authority of the SC in enacting the prior rules and the present rules is what you call its rule-making power which provision was found in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Based on the present law, the rule-making power of the SC is expressed in Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph [5] which is substantially the same as the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions which states that: the SC "shall promulgate the rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts. LIMITATIONS TO THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SC The Constitution has also placed limitations on these powers. As currently worded, one limitation provided for by the Article is the rules of procedure to be enacted by the SC "shall provide for a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. The second one is: the rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade. And the third is: the rules shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. LIMITATIONS : 1. 2. 3. The Rules of Court shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases; The Rules of Court shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade; and The Rules of Court shall not diminish, modify or increase 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. Those are the limitations. With that we are now ready to tackle the 1997 rules on civil procedure.

-oOo-

JBD

15