I. General Princip les
A. Concept of Remedial law Procedure in general
REMEDIAL LAW
CIVIL PROCEDURE Bar Review Guide 2017 Justice Magdangal M de Leon
The means whereby the court reaches out to restore rights and remedy wrongs, and includes every step which may be taken from beginning to the end of a case (Maritime Company of the Philippines vs. Paredes, 19 SCRA 569 [1967]).
Kinds of procedure 1. As to purpose
a. civil procedure refers to the enforcement of a private right b. criminal procedure refers to the prosecution of an offense 2. As to formality
a. formal procedure requires a set and definite process to be observed in order that the remedy can issue
b. summary procedure where remedy sought is granted without delay, and without the necessity of observing the procedure fixed for ordinary cases
What is civil procedure?
The method of conducting a judicial proceeding to resolve disputes involving private parties for the purpose of enforcing private rights or obtaining redress for the invasion of rights.
Action and suit
In the Philippines, the terms action and suit are synonymous (Lopez vs. Campania de Seguros (16 SCRA 855 [1966])
B. Substantive law as Distinguished from Remedial law
1. Substantive law the law that creates, defines regulates and extinguishes rights and obligations
2. Remedial law the law that provides the procedure or remedy for enforcement of rights and obligations through the courts of justice.
C. Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has the constitutional power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts (Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5], Constitution).
The power of Congress under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions to repeal, alter or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure was taken away in the 1987 Constitution (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999).
1. limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court (SUN]
(a) The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases,
(b) The rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and
(c) The rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5], Constitution). [DIM]
In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and procedure
rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure. (Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 40.)
Procedural and substantive rules
Test whether rule really regulates procedure, the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction thereof.
If it takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal substantive.
If it operates as a means of implementing an existing right procedural, Exs. where to prosecute an appeal or transferring venue of appeal (a) appeals from decisions of Ombudsman in administrative cases be made to CA, or (b) requiring that review of NLRC decisions be filed with CA (St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494 [1998])
2. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules
Inherent power of SC to SUSPEND its own rules or to EXEMPT a particular case from the operation of said rules (pro hac vice) whenever demanded by justice (Rep. vs. CA, 107 SCRA 504 [1981]; De la Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 510 SCRA 103 ).
The right to create rules necessarily carries with it the power to suspend the effectivity of its creation.
The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which the Court itself had already declared to be final (Apo Fruits Corp. vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164195, October 12, 2010).
D. Nature of Philippine Courts 1. Meaning of a court
A court is a tribunal with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law.
The system of courts that interpret and apply the law are collectively known as the judiciary 2. Court as distinguished from a judge
A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as part of a panel of judges. The judge conducts the trial impartially and in an open court. The judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the parties of the case, assesses the credibility of the parties, and then issues a ruling on the matter at hand based on his or her interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgment.
3. Classification of Philippine courts
1. Regular Courts Courts authorized to engage in the general administration of justice.
These courts derive their powers from the Constitution. At the apex is the Supreme Court. Below the Supreme Court are three tiers of lower level courts that initially decide controversies brought about by litigants in the first instance.
a. Supreme Court b. Court of Appeals c. Regional Trial Court d. Municipal Trial Court
2. Special Courts Tribunals that have limited jurisdiction over certain types of cases or controversies that special courts can hear are limited only to those that are specifically provided in the special law creating such special courts. Outside of the specific cases expressly mentioned in the provisions of the statute creating the special court, these courts have no authority to exercise any powers of adjudication.
a. Sandiganbayan b. Court of Tax Appeals c. Sharia Court
3. Quasi Judicial Agencies Technically, judicial powers pertain to and are exercised only by courts. However, the Philippine system of government allows administrative agencies to exercise adjudicatory powers in certain types of controversies, particularly if same would facilitate the attainment of the objectives for which the administrative agency had been created. Unlike regular and special courts, quasi courts do not possess judicial powers. Instead they possess and in fact, exercise what are termed as quasi judicial powers.
4. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction
a. Court of original jurisdiction one where a case is originally commenced 1) Municipal Trial Court
2) Regional Trial Court 3) Court of Appeals 4) Supreme Court
b. Court of appellate jurisdiction one which has power or review over the decisions or orders of a lower court
1) Regional Trial Court 2) Court of Appeals 3) Supreme Court
5. Courts of general and special jurisdiction
a. General jurisdiction courts which take cognizance of all kinds of cases, civil or criminal, except those assigned to special courts and courts of limited jurisdiction
1) Regional Trial Court
b. Special jurisdiction courts which have the power to hear only certain types of cases, or are clothed with special powers for the performance of specified duties beyond which they have no authority of any kind.
1) Sandiganbayan 2) Court of Tax Appeals 3) Sharia Court
6. Constitutional and statutory courts
a. Constitutional those created by the Constitution 1) Supreme Court
b. Statutory those created by the legislature 1) Court of Appeals
2) Regional Trial Court 3) Municipal Trial Court 4) Sandiganbayan 5) Court of Tax Appeals
6) Sharia Court 7. Courts of law and equity
Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity. Hence, both legal and equitable jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal. (. U.S. vs. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321)
However, equity does not apply when there is a law applicable to a given case (Smith Bell Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 530). It is availed of only in the absence of a law and is never availed of against statutory law or judicial pronouncements (Velez vs Demetrio, G.R. No. 128576, August 13, 2002).
8. Principle of judicial hierarchy
Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort from the lower courts to the Supreme Court will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals.
Rationale: (a) to prevent inordinate demands upon the SCs time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and (b) to prevent further overcrowding of the SCs docket.
Thus, although the SC, CA and the RTC have CONCURRRENT jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.
The SC will NOT ENTERTAIN DIRECT RESORT to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction (Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor,455 SCRA 460 [2005]).
9. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability
This principle holds that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders (Lapu lapu Dev and Housing Corp vs. Group Management Corp, 338 SCRA 493). Hence, a RTC has no power or authority to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another Regional Trial Court (Suico Industrial Corp vs; CA, 301 SCRA 212). The principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a co equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review (Villamor vs. Salas, 203 SCRA 540). Exc. Third party claim
The doctrine of judicial stability or non interference in the regular orders or judgments of a co equal court, as an accepted axiom in adjective law, serves as an insurmountable barrier to the competencia of the Makati court to entertain the habeas corpus case on account of the previous assumption of jurisdiction by the Cavite court, and the designation of petitioners as guardians ad litem of the ward. This is based on the policy of peaceful co existence among courts of the same judicial plane. (Panlilio vs. Salonga, G.R. No. 113087, June 27, 1994).
II. General Principles on Jurisdiction Juris and dico I speak by the law.
Power or capacity conferred by the Constitution. or by law to a court or tribunal to entertain, hear and determine certain controversies, and render judgment thereon
A. Jurisdiction over the parties
1. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired
Over person of plaintiff acquired upon filing of complaint or initiatory pleading and paying docket or filing fees;
2. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
Over person of defendant service on him of coercive process in the manner provided by law (summons) or his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal (voluntary appearance).
What is the effect of voluntary appearance?
However, inclusion in a motion to dismiss on other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance (Rule 14, Sec. 20). NOTE:
a. Filing of a motion for reconsideration and appeal is tantamount to voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
b. Any mode of appearance in court by a defendant or his lawyer is equivalent to service of summons, absent any indication that the appearance of counsel was precisely to protest the jurisdiction of the court over the person of defendant (Delos Santos vs. Montesa, 221 SCRA 15 [1993]).
B. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
1. Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter a. subject matter
1. The power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceeding in question belongs.
2. Determined by the LAW IN FORCE at the time of its institution. Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted by any subsequent law placing jurisdiction in another tribunal, except (a) when the law itself so provides or (b) the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment. 3. Matter of legislative enactment which none but the legislature can change. 4. Once jurisdiction is acquired, court RETAINS it until the final determination of the case
5. Never acquired by consent or acquiescence of the parties or by laches, nor by unilateral assumption thereof by a tribunal.
6. Determined by the ALLEGATIONS in the complaint and the CHARACTER of the relief sought.
7. Does not depend on pleas or defenses of defendant in an answer or motion to dismiss.
2. Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision in all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. 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 errors raised by petitioners in their petition for annulment of judgment assail the content of the decision of the trial court and not the courts authority to decide the suit. In other words, they relate to the courts exercise of its jurisdiction, but petitioners failed to show that the trial court did not have the authority to decide the case. (Tolentino vs. Leviste, 443 SCRA 274 [2004]).
3. Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of judgment
An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reversible only by an appeal. Error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment. (Julies Franchise Corporation vs. Ruiz, G.R. No. 180988, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 463.)
4. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined
Conferred by the LAW IN FORCE at the time of its institution. Determined by the ALLEGATIONS in the complaint and the CHARACTER of the relief sought
5. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special competence. (Fajardo vs. Flores, G.R. No. 167891, January 15, 2010)
6. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction
Once jurisdiction attaches it cannot be ousted by the happening of subsequent events
although of such a character which should have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance [the rule of adherence of jurisdiction] (Ramos vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, 41 SCRA 565;. Lee vs. Presiding Judge, MTC of Legaspi City, Br I, 145 SCRA 408).
Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted by any subsequent law placing jurisdiction in another tribunal, except (a) when the law itself so provides or (b) the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment.
Once jurisdiction is acquired, court RETAINS it until the final determination of the case 7. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter
When can the issue of jurisdiction be raised?
General rule jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action may be challenged AT ANY STAGE of the proceedings.
Exception when there is ESTOPPEL.
Party assailing jurisdiction of court must raise it at the first opportunity. While an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be assailed at any stage, a party’s ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in the proceedings. without questioning the jurisdiction until later, especially when an adverse judgment has been rendered (Soliven vs. Fastforms Phils., Inc., 440 SCRA 389 [2004]).
A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after failing to obtain such relief, repudiate such jurisdiction (Salva vs. CA, 304 SCRA 632 (1999).This includes the filing of a counterclaim. Such practice cannot be tolerated for reasons of public policy (Oca vs. CA, 278 SCRA 642 [2002]).
The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to dismiss filed before the filing or service of an answer. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is a ground for a motion to dismiss (Sec. 1[b], , Rule 16). If no motion to dismiss is filed, the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised as an affirmative defense in the answer (Sec. 6, Rule 16).
Under the omnibus motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading like a motion to dismiss shall include all grounds then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived, except lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (Sec. 8, Rule 15).
Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal (Francel Realty Corporation vs. Sycip, 469 SCRA 424 [2005])
Courts may take cognizance of the issue even if not raised by the parties themselves. No reason to preclude the CA, for example, from ruling on this issue even if the same had not been resolved by the trial court (Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. vs., G.R. No. 163445, December 18, 2007). 8. Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor, G.R. No. 140954, April 12, 2005
After recognizing the jurisdiction of the trial court by seeking affirmative relief in their motion to serve supplemental pleading upon private respondents, petitioners are effectively barred by estoppel from challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction. If a party invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot thereafter challenge the court’s jurisdiction in the same case. To rule otherwise would amount to speculating on the fortune of litigation, which is against the policy of the Court.
Salva vs. CA, 304 SCRA 632 (1999)
Facts: Squatters around San Jose Airport in Occidental Mindoro were relocated in NFA lot. Actual occupants of lot filed forcible entry complaint against relocated families and Mindoro Governor Josephine Sato.
Plaintiffs won in MTC. RTC affirmed. Sato filed notice of appeal. CA dismissed appeal for being wrong remedy and ordered entry of judgment. MTC issued writ of execution. Sato filed certiorari and prohibition with CA which was dismissed. Sato filed MR on the ground that MTC had no jurisdiction because the squatters were relocated on a different lot. CA granted MR and dismissed plaintiffs complaint for forcible entry.
Ruling: SC reversed CA decision issue of jurisdiction never raised before MTC, RTC and CA. Raised for the first time in MR. .Party assailing jurisdiction of court must raise it at the first opportunity. While an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be assailed at any stage, a party’s ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in the proceedings. without questioning the jurisdiction until an adverse resolution is issued will bar or estop such party from attacking the court’s jurisdiction. Settled rule: a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after failing to obtain such relief, repudiate such jurisdiction.
In Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy (G.R. No. L 21450 April 15, 1968) the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court that rendered the questioned ruling was held to be barred by estoppel by laches. It was ruled that the lack of jurisdiction having been raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed almost fifteen (15) years after the questioned ruling had been rendered, such a plea may no longer be raised for being barred by laches
In Calimlim vs. Ramirez (G.R. No. L 34362 November 19, 1982) ,despite the fact that the one who benefited from the plea of lack of jurisdiction was the one who invoked the court's jurisdiction, and who later obtained an adverse judgment therein, we refused to apply the ruling in Sibonghanoy. The Court accorded supremacy to the time-honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.
C. Jurisdiction over the issues
1. Authority to try and decide the issues raised by the pleadings of the parties. 2. Conferred by the PLEADINGS or EXPRESS CONSENT of the parties.
3. An issue not duly pleaded may be tried and decided if no timely objection is made by the parties.
4. In certain cases, as in probate proceedings, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred by law.
D. Jurisdiction over the res or property in litigation
Acquired by the court over the property or thing in contest, and is obtained by seizure under legal process of the court.
May result either from the SEIZURE of thing under legal process whereby it is brought into actual custody of law, or INSTITUTION of legal proceedings whereby the power of the court over the thing is recognized and made effective.
E. Jurisdiction of Courts 1. Supreme Court A. Original Jurisdiction 1. Exclusive
Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the following: a. Court of Appeals
b. Commission on Elections En Banc
c. Commission on Audit (Sec. 7, Art. IX A, 1987 Constitution) d. Sandiganbayan
e. Court of Tax Appeals En Banc
f. Ombudsman in criminal and non administrative disciplinary cases 2. Concurrent
a. with Court of Appeals
1) Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the Civil Service Commission
2) Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the National Labor Relations Commission under the Labor Code (Sec. 9, Batas 129 [1983], as amended by Rep. Act No. 7902 [1995], St. Martins Funeral Homes vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494) b. with Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Courts
1) Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto
2) Actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of laws concerning monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Sec. 17, Rep. Act No. 296 [1948], as amended by Rep. Act No. 5440 [1968])
c. with Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts
1) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus relating to an act or omission of a municipal trial court, or of a corporation, a board, an officer or person
2) Petitions for issuance of writ of amparo (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07 9 12 SC or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, effective October 24, 2007)
3) Petitions for issuance of writ of habeas data (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08 1 16 SC effective February 2, 2008)
d. with Regional Trial Courts
Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls (Sec. 5[1], Article VIII, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 21[2], Batas Blg. 129 [1983])
B. Appellate Jurisdiction 1. Ordinary Appeal
From the Court of Appeals, in all criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; or a lesser penalty is imposed for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more severe offense for which the penalty of death is imposed (Sec. 13[c], Rule 124, as amended by A.M. No. 00 5 03 SC, effective October 15, 2004, Sec. 13[b], Rule 124)
2. Petition for Review on Certiorari
a. Appeals from Court of Appeals (Sec. 17, Rep. Act No. 296 [1948], as amended by Rep. Act No. 5440 [1969]; Sec. 5[2], Article VIII, 1987 Constitution; Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
b. Appeals from the Sandiganbayan on pure questions of law, except where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death (Sec. 7, Pres. Decree No. 1606 [1979], as amended by Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997]; Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan, Nos. L 50581 50617, January 20, 1982, 111 SCRA 433; Rule 45, ibid. )
c. Appeals from judgments or final orders of Regional Trial Courts exercising original jurisdiction in the following:
1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;
2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto;
3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue; 4) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. (Sec. 5[2 a, b, c, and e], Article VIII, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 17, Rep. Act No. 296 [1948], as amended; Sec. 9[3], Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983]; Rule 45, ibid. ; Sec. 2[c], Rule 41; Sec. 3[e], Rule 122)
d. Appeals from decisions or final resolutions of the Court of Tax Appeals en banc (Rule 16, Sec. 1, A.M. No. 05 11 07 CTA or The Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals; Sec. 1, Rule 45, as amended by A.M. No. 07 7 12 SC dated December 12, 2007; See also Rep. Act No. 9282 [2004])
3. Petition for certiorari filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment/ final order/ resolution sought to be reviewed against the following: (Rule 64, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
a. Commission on Elections (Sec. 7, Article IX A, 1987 Constitution; Aratuc vs. COMELEC, No. L 49705 09, February 8, 1979, 88 SCRA 251)
b. Commission on Audit (Ibid., 1987 Constitution) 2. Court of Appeals
A. Original Jurisdiction 1. Exclusive
a. Actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 9[2], Batas Blg. 129 [1983]; Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
b. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus involving an act or omission of a quasi judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law (Sec. 4, Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 07 7 12 SC dated December 12, 2007)
2. Concurrent
a. with Supreme Court
1) Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the Civil Service Commission (Rep. Act No. 7902 [1995])
2) Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the National Labor Relations Commission under the Labor Code (Sec. 9, Batas 129 [1983], as amended by Rep. Act No. 7902 [1995], St. Martins Funeral Homes vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494) b. with Supreme Court and Regional Trial Courts
1) Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto
2) Actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of laws concerning monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Sec. 17, Rep. Act No. 296 [1948], as amended by Rep. Act No. 5440 [1968])
c. with Supreme Court, Sandiganbayan, and Regional Trial Courts
1) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus relating to an act or omission of a municipal trial court, or of a corporation, a board, an officer, or person 2) Petitions for issuance of writ of amparo (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07 9 12 SC or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, effective October 24, 2007)
3) Petitions for issuance of writ of habeas data (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08 1 16 SC, effective February 2, 2008)
B. Appellate Jurisdiction 1. Ordinary Appeal
a. Appeals from Regional Trial Courts, except those appealable to the Supreme Court under
b. Appeals from Regional Trial Courts on constitutional, tax, jurisdictional questions involving questions of fact which should be appealed first to the Court of Appeals (Sec. 17, subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Rep. Act No. 296 [1948] as amended, which was not intended to be excluded by Sec. 9[3], Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983])
c. Appeals from decisions and final orders of the Family Courts (Sec. 14, Rep. Act No. 8369 [1997])
d. Appeals from Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases, where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or where a lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed (Sec. 3[c], Rule 122, as amended by A.M. No. 00 5 03 SC, effective October 15, 2004; People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678 87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640)
e. Direct Appeal from land registration and cadastral cases decided by metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, and municipal circuit trial courts based on their delegated jurisdiction
2. Petition for certiorari against decisions and final resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission (A. M. No. 99 2 01 SC; St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 13086, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494; Torres, et. al. vs. Specialized Packaging Development Corp., et. al. , G.R. No.149634, July 6, 2004, 433 SCRA 455)
3. Automatic review in cases where the Regional Trial Courts impose the death penalty (Secs. 3[d] and 10, Rule 122, as amended by A.M. No. 00 5 03 SC, effective October 15, 2004; People vs. Mateo, supra)
4. Petition for review
a. Appeals from Regional Trial Courts in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction (Sec. 22, Batas Blg. 129 [1983]; Rule 42, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Sec. 3[b], Rule 122)
b. Appeals from decisions of the Regional Trial Courts acting as Special Agrarian Courts in cases involving just compensation to the landowners concerned (Land Bank of the Philippines vs. De Leon, G. R. No. 143275, September 10, 2002, 388 SCRA 537)
c. Appeals from awards, judgments, final orders, or resolutions of, or authorized by, quasi judicial agencies in the exercise of their quasi judicial functions. Among these are: CSC, GSIS, NEA, CIAC, SEC, DAR, OP, CBAA, BPTTT, ERC, LRA, CAB, BOI, PAEC, SSS, IC, ECC, Voluntary Arbitrator
d. Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases (A.M. No. 99 2 02 SC; Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 470)
3. Court of Tax Appeals
A. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction
1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;
3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;
4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;
5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government under Sec. 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;
7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under Sec. 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties. B. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified amount claimed shall be tried by the regular courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in the same proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filling of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be recognized.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses0
a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdictions.
b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective jurisdiction.
C. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provided, however, That collection cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:
a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdictions.
b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts, in their respective jurisdiction. (Sec. 7, RA 1125, amended by RA 9282)
4. Sandiganbayan A. Original Jurisdiction 1. Exclusive
a. Violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 [1960] (Anti Graft) , Rep. Act No. RA 1379 [1955] and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII of Revised Penal Code; and other offenses committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office, and private individuals charged as co principals, accomplices, and accessories including those employed in government owned or controlled corporations, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in government, whether in a permanent, acting, or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
a. Officials of the Executive Branch xxx classified as salary grade 27 or higher xxx specifically including xxx
b. Members of Congress xxx c. Members of the Judiciary xxx
d. Members of Constitutional Commissions xxx
e. All other national and local officials classified as salary grade 27 and higher In cases where none of the accused is occupying the above positions, the original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper Regional Trial Court or Metropolitan Trial Court, etc., as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions. (Sec. 2, Rep. Act No. 7975 [1995], as amended by Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997]
In cases where there is no specific allegation of facts showing that the offense was committed in relation to the public office of the accused, the original jurisdiction shall also be vested in the proper Regional Trial Court or Metropolitan Trial Court, etc., as the case may be. (Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999, 310 SCRA 298)
b. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14 A. (Sec. 2, Rep. Act No. 7975 [1995] as amended by Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997]).
c. Violations of Rep. Act No. 9160, or Anti Money Laundering Act of 2001, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9194, when committed by public officers and private persons who are in conspiracy with such public officers.
2. Concurrent with Supreme Court
Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, and injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, including quo warranto arising in cases falling under said Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14 A. (Ibid., as amended by Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997])
3. Concurrent with Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Courts
a. Petitions for writ of amparo and writ of habeas data when action concerns public data files of government offices (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07 9 12 SC or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, effective October 24, 2007; Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08 1 16 SC, effective February 2, 2008)
b. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, relating to an act or omission of a Municipal Trial Court, corporation, board, officer, or person (Sec. 4, Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 07 7 12 SC dated December 12, 2007)
B. Appellate Jurisdiction
Decisions and final orders of Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction under Pres. Decree No. 1606 [1979], as amended, shall be appealable to the Sandiganbayan in the manner provided by Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. (Sec. 5, Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997])
5. Regional Trial Courts A. Original Jurisdiction 1. Civil
a. Exclusive
1) Subject of the action not capable of pecuniary estimation; Actions not capable of pecuniary estimation
1. Where it is primarily for the recovery of a SUM OF MONEY, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation jurisdiction, whether in the MTC or RTC, would depend on the AMOUNT of the claim.
2. Where the basic issue is other than the right to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of the principal relief sought, the subject of litigation may not be estimated in terms of money jurisdiction exclusively of RTC. Exs. Expropriation specific performance support foreclosure of mortgage annulment of judgment
actions questioning the validity of a mortgage
annulment of deed of conveyance rescission
3. While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of pecuniary estimation, the law specifically mandates that they are cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or P50,000.00, if located elsewhere. (Russel vs. Vestil, G.R. No. 119347, March 17, 1999).
2) Actions involving title to, or possession of real property or any interest therein where assessed value of property exceeds P20,000.00 (P50,000.00 in Metro Manila) , excluding forcible entry and unlawful detainer
3) Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where demand or claim exceeds P300,000.00 (P400,000.00 in Metro Manila)
4) Matters of probate, testate and intestate where. gross value of estate exceeds P300,000.00 (P400,000.00 in Metro Manila)
5) Cases not within exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi judicial functions. 6) All other cases where demand exclusive of interests, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigations expenses and cost, or value of property in controversy exceeds P300,000.00 (P400,000.00 in Metro Manila)
7) Additional original jurisdiction transferred under Sec. 5.2. of the Securities Regulation Code.
8) Application for issuance of writ of search and seizure in civil actions for infringement of intellectual property rights (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 02 1 06 SC, effective February 15, 2002)
9) Violations of Rep. Act No. 9160 or Anti Money Laundering Act of 2001, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9194.
b. Concurrent
1) with Supreme Court
Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls (Sec. 21[1], Batas Blg. 129 [1983])
2) with Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto (Sec. 5 [1], Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
3) with Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Sandiganbayan a) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, if they relate to an act or omission of a municipal trial court, corporation, board, officer, or person (Sec. 4, Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 07 7 12 SC, dated December 12, 2007)
b) Petitions for writ of amparo and writ of habeas data (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07 9 12 SC or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, effective October 24, 2007; Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08 1 16 SC, effective February 2, 2008)
4) with metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, and municipal circuit trial courts Application for Protection Order under Sec. 10, Rep. Act No. 9282, unless there is a Family Court in the residence of petitioner.
5) with Insurance Commission
Claims not exceeding PhP 100,000.00 (Sec. 416, Insurance Code [1974], Pres. Decree No. 612 [1975]. Applicable if subject of the action is not capable of pecuniary estimation; otherwise, jurisdiction is concurrent with Metropolitan Trial Court, etc.
2. Criminal
A. Exclusive
Criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or body. (Sec. 20, Batas Blg. 129 [1983]). These include criminal cases where the penalty provided by law exceeds six (6) years imprisonment irrespective of the fine. (Rep. Act No. 7691 [1994]). These also include criminal cases not falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 and higher. (Rep. Act No. 7975 [1995] and Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997]).
But in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine, the Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction if the amount of the fine exceeds PhP 4,000. (Rep. Act No. 7691 [1994] as clarified by Administrative Circular No. 09 94 dated June 14, 1994). B. Appellate Jurisdiction
All cases decided by lower courts (metropolitan trial courts, etc.) in their respective territorial jurisdictions. (Sec. 22, Batas Blg. 129 [1983])
6. Family Courts
A. Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction
1. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age, when one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1903, otherwise known as The Child and Youth Welfare Code; (RA 8369 [Family Courts Act of 1997]) 2. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter; (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 03 04 04 SC, effective May 15, 2003; Sec. 3, A.M. No. 03 02 05 SC, effective April 15, 2003)
3. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof; (Secs. A.20 and B.28, A.M. No. 02 6 02 SC, effective August 22, 2002; See also Rep. Act No. 9523 or An Act Requiring Certification of the Department of Social Welfare and Development to Declare A Child Legally Available for Adoption as a Prerequisite for Adoption Proceedings, Amending for this Purpose Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8552, otherwise known as The Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as The Inter Country Adoption Act of 1995, Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as The Child and Youth Welfare Code, and for Other Purposes, approved on March 12, 2009)
4. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage, and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains; (Sec. 2, A.M. No. 02 11 10 SC, effective March 15, 2003)
5. Petitions for involuntary commitment of a child, for removal of custody against child placement or child caring agency or individual, and for commitment of disabled child; (Secs. 4[b], 5[a][ii], 6[b], A.M. No. 02 1 19 SC, effective April 15, 2002)
6. Cases against minors cognizable under Rep. Act No. 9165, or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002; (See also A.M. No. 07 8 2 SC, effective November 5, 2007)
7. Violation of Rep. Act No. 7610 [1991], otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploration and Discrimination Act, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7658 [1993] and as further amended by Rep. Act No. 9231 [2003];
8. (RA 9775 [Anti Child Pornography Act of 2009]
9. Cases of violence against women and their children under Rep. Act No. 9262, otherwise known as Anti Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, including applications for Protection Order under the same Act;
10 Criminal cases involving juveniles if no preliminary investigation is required under Sec. 1, Rule 112 of Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Sec. 1, A.M. No. 02 1 18 SC, effective April 15, 2002)
7. Municipal Trial Courts/ Metropolitan Trial Courts A . Original Jurisdiction
1. Civil
a. Exclusive
1) Actions involving personal property valued at not more than PhP 300,000.00 (PhP 400,000.00 in Metro Manila)
2) Actions demanding sums of money not exceeding PhP 300,000.00 (Php4000,000.00 in Metro Manila) ; in both cases, exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged, but the filing fees thereon shall be paid.
These include admiralty and maritime cases;
3) Actions involving title or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed PhP 20,000.00 (Php 50,000.00 in Metro Manila) ; 4) Provisional remedies in principal actions within their jurisdiction, and in proper cases, such as preliminary attachment, preliminary injunction, appointment or receiver and delivery of personal property (Rule 57, 58, 59, and 60) ;
5) Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, with jurisdiction to resolve issue of ownership to determine issue of possession;
6) Probate proceedings, testate or intestate, where gross value of estate does not exceed PhP 300,000.00 or in Metro Manila PhP 400,000.00; (Sec. 33, Batas Blg. 129 [1983] as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691 [1994])
7) Inclusion and exclusion of voters. (Sec. 38, Batas Blg. 881, Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines [1985]).
b. Delegated
Cadastral and land registration cases assigned by Supreme Court where there is no controversy or opposition and in contested lots valued at more than PhP 100,000 (Sec. 34, Batas Blg. 129 [1983] as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691 [1994])
c. Special
Petition for habeas corpus in the absence of all Regional Trial Court judges. (Sec. 35, Batas Blg. 129 [1983])
2. Criminal a. Exclusive
1) All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdictions;
2) All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more than six (6) years irrespective of the fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties and the civil liability arising therefrom; provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction. (Sec. 32, Batas Blg. 129 [1983] as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691 [1994])
3) All offenses committed not falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan where none of the accused is occupying a position corresponding to salary grade 27 and higher. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 7975 [1995] and Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997])
4) In cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine not exceeding PhP 4,000, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, etc. have
jurisdiction. (Administrative Circular No. 09 94, dated June 14, 1994)
b. Special
Applications for bail in the absence of all Regional Trial Court judges. (Sec. 35, Batas Blg. 129 [1983])
8. Shariah Courts
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1083 created the Sharia Courts, which have limited jurisdiction over the settlement of issues, controversies or disputes pertaining to the civil relations between and among Muslim Filipinos. Specifically, these controversies require the interpretation of laws on Persons, Family Relations, Succession, Contracts, and similar laws applicable only to Muslims. Despite the seeming exclusivity of the jurisdiction of the Sharia Courts with regard to controversies involving Muslims, the Supreme Court retains the power of review orders of lower courts through special writs (R.A. 6734, Art. IX, Sec.1). This review extends to decisions made by the Sharia Courts
F. Jurisdiction over small claims; cases covered by the rules on Summary Procedure and Barangay Conciliation
Small Claims Cases(A.M. No. 08 8 7 SC, effective October 1, 2008)
All actions which are: (a) purely civil in nature where the claim of relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement or sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of the criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, where the value of the claim does not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) , exclusive of interest and costs.
Rule on Summary Procedure A. Civil Cases
1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered. Where attorney's fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00).
2. All other cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the plaintiff's claim does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) in Metropolitan Manila, exclusive of interest and costs. " (A.M. No. 02 11 09 SC, which took effect on November 25, 2002)
B. Criminal Cases:
1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations; 2. Violations of the rental law;
3. Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
4. Violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) (A.M. No. 00 11 01 SC, which took effect on March 30, 2003)
5. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) , or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
Barangay Conciliation
All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law [formerly P. D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Secs. 399 422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991], and prior recourse thereto is a pre condition before filing a complaint in court or any government offices, except in the following disputes:
[1] Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
[2] Where one party is a public officer or employee and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;
[3] Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
[4] Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents [Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules];
[5] Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
[6] Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one [1] year or a fine of over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) ;
[7] Offenses where there is no private offended party;
[8] Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically the following:
[a] Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention [See Sec. 412 (b) (1) , Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law];
[b] Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived of or on acting in his behalf;
[c] Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the action; and
[d] Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.
[9] Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
[10] Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) [Secs. 46 & 47, R. A. 6657];
[11] Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer employee relations [Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the Department of Labor and Employment];
[12] Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in court [See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459].
G. Totality Rule [Note: This is out of place here] III. Civil Procedure
A. Actions
1. Meaning of ordinary civil actions
Civil action one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong (Rule 1, Sec. 3)
May either be ordinary (Rules 1 56) or special (Rules 62 71) ; both are governed by the rules for ordinary actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for special civil actions.
2. Meaning of special civil actions
One by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong, but subject to specific rules. Examples: interpleader, declaratory relief, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, eminent domain, foreclosure or mortgage, partition, forcible entry, unlawful detainer and contempt.
3. Meaning of criminal actions
One by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law. 4. Civil actions versus special proceedings
Special proceedings a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact.
5. Personal actions and real actions[distinction important in determining venue] Kinds of civil action (As to cause or foundation)
a. personal
Seeks the recovery of personal property, enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. Venue: place where defendant or any of defendants resides or may be found, or where plaintiffs or any of plaintiffs resides, at the election of plaintiff.
Transitory may be filed in any place or places where parties may reside. b. real
Seeks the recovery of real property, or an action affecting title to property or for recovery of possession, or for partition, or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on real property. Venue: province or city where property or any part thereof lies.
Local may be filed in a fixed place, where property or any part thereof lies. 6. Local and transitory actions
Local Action One which is required by the Rules to be instituted in a particular place in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. Ex. Real action.
Transitory One the venue of which is dependent generally upon the residence of the parties regardless of where the cause of action arose. Ex. Personal action.
7. Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem [distinction important in service of summons] Kinds of civil action (As to object)
a. in personam
Action against a person on the basis of his personal liability, or one affecting the parties alone, not the whole world, and the judgment thereon is binding only against the parties properly impleaded.
Exs. forcible entry or unlawful detainer, recover ownership of land, recover damages, specific performance.
b. in rem
Action against the res or thing itself, instead of against the person.
A real action may at the same time be an action in personam and not necessarily an action in rem.
In rem to determine title to land, and the object of the suit is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection against the right sought to be established. Seeks judgment with respect thereto against the whole world. In personam concerns only the right, title and interest of the parties to the land, not the title of the land against the whole world.
Exs. probate proceeding, cadastral proceeding, action affecting personal status of plaintiff (Rule 14, Sec. 15) , insolvency proceeding, land registration proceeding (not necessary to give personal notice to owners or claimants to vest court with
jurisdiction publication of notice brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests court with jurisdiction to hear and decide the case).
Contrast: in personam (a) cases involving auction sale of land for collection of delinquent taxes are in personam mere publication of notice not sufficient; (b) action to redeem, recover title to or possession of real property (not an action against the whole world).
c. quasi in rem
Differs from true action in rem individual is named as defendant, and purpose of proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property.
Neither strictly in personam nor in rem but it is an action in personam where a res is affected by the decision.
Exs. partition, accounting under Rule 69 actions essentially for the purpose of affecting defendants interest in the property and not to render a judgment against him (Valmonte vs. CA, 252 SCRA 92 [1996]).
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION - Art. 33, Civil Code. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
B. Cause of Action
1. Meaning of cause of action
Cause of action defined a cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another (Rule 2, Sec. 2).
Elements of cause of action: 1. legal right of plaintiff
2. corresponding obligation of defendant to respect or not to violate such right 3. act or omission of defendant which violates the legal right of plaintiff constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to plaintiff
2. Right of Action versus Cause of action 1. Cause of action
a. reason for bringing an action
b. formal statement of the operative facts that give rise to remedial rights. c. matter of procedure and is governed by the pleadings filed by the parties d. not affected by affirmative defenses (fraud, prescription, estoppel, etc.) 2. Right of action
a. remedy for bringing an action
b. the remedial right to litigate because of the operative facts c. matter of right and depends on substantive law
d. affected by affirmative defenses (fraud, prescription, estoppel, etc.) 3. Failure to state a cause of action
Elements of a Cause of Action
A cause of action exists if the following elements are present:
1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
3) act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff
for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. (Parañaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 11538; February 16, 1997.)
The fundamental test for failure to state a cause of action is whether, admitting the veracity of what appears on the face and within the four corners of the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for. Stated otherwise, may the court render a valid judgment upon the facts alleged therein? Indeed, the inquiry is into the SUFFICIENCY, not the veracity of the material allegations. If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be presented by defendants. (AC Enterprise vs. Frabelle Properties Corp., G.R. No. 166744, November 2, 2006.)
4. Test of sufficiency of a cause of action
How to determine cause of action by the FACTS ALLEGED in the complaint. Only issue: ADMITTING such alleged facts TO BE TRUE, may the court render a VALID JUDGMENT in accordance with the prayer in the complaint?
In determining whether the complaint states a cause of action, the ANNEXES ATTACHED to the complaint may be considered, they being part of the complaint.
5. Splitting a single cause of action and its effects
Rule 2, Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
Basic rule in filing of action (Rule 2, Secs. 3 4)
1. For one cause of action (one delict or wrong) , file only ONE ACTION or suit. Generally, NO SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION. Reasons: a. to avoid multiplicity of suits; b. to minimize expenses, inconvenience and harassment.
2. Remedy against splitting a single cause of action (two complaints separately filed for one action) defendant may file:
a. motion to dismiss on the ground of
(1) litis pendentia, if first complaint is still pending (Rule 16, Sec. 1 [e])
(2) res judicata, if first complaint is terminated by final judgment (Rule 16, Sec. 1 [f])
b. answer alleging either of above grounds as affirmative defense (Rule 16, Sec. 6) If defendant fails to raise ground on time, he is deemed to have WAIVED them. Splitting must be questioned in the trial court; cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Splitting a cause of action prohibited
May a lessee file with MeTC an action for forcible entry and damages against the lessor and a separate suit with RTC for moral and exemplary damages plus actual and compensatory damages based on the same forcible entry?
NO. Claims for damages sprung from the main incident being heard before MeTC. Unlawful taking or detention of property of another is only one single cause of action regardless of number of rights that may have been violated. All such rights should be alleged in a single complaint as constituting one single cause of action (Progressive Development Corp. vs. CA, 301 SCRA 637 [1999])
The cause of action in the earlier Annulment Case is the alleged nullity of the REM (due to its allegedly falsified or spurious nature) which is allegedly violative of Good lands right to the mortgaged property. It serves as the basis for the prayer for the nullification of the REM. The Injunction Case involves the same cause of action, inasmuch as it also invokes the nullity of the REM as the basis for the prayer for the nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure and for injunction against consolidation of title. While the main relief sought in the Annulment Case (nullification of the REM) is ostensibly different from the main relief sought in the Injunction Case (nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure and injunction against consolidation of title) , the
cause of action which serves as the basis for the said reliefs remains the same the alleged nullity of the REM. Thus, what is involved here is the third way of committing forum shopping, i.e., filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers. (Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No. 191388, March 9, 2011)
6. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action
Joinder of causes of action is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have against an opposing party in one pleading alone. It is not compulsory, but merely permissive. (Rule 2, Sec. 5)
What are the requisites for joinder of causes of action? (Rule 2, Sec. 5)
1. Compliance with the rule on permissive joinder of parties under Rule 3, Sec. 6. Must arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions AND there is a common question of law or fact. Ex. A, owner of a property, can file an ejectment complaint against B, C and D who are occupying his property without his consent. 2. A party cannot join in an ordinary action any of the special civil actions. Reason: special civil actions are governed by special rules. Ex. P500,000 collection cannot be joined with partition because the latter is a special civil action.
3. Where the causes of action are between the SAME PARTIES but pertain to DIFFERENT VENUES OR JURISDICTIONS, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC, provided ONE OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC and the venue lies therein.
Exception: ejectment case may not be joined with an action within the jurisdiction of the RTC as the same comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC.
Unless the defendant did not object thereto, answered the complaint, and went to trial because he is precluded from assailing any judgment against him on the ground of estoppel or laches (Valderrama vs. CA, 252 SCRA 406 [1996]).
N.B. An action for recovery of possession of property is a real action. Thus, it should be filed in the place where the property is located, pursuant to Rule 4, Section 1. (Decena vs. Piquero, G.R. No. 155736, March 31, 2005).
N.B. As to joinder in the MTC, it must have jurisdiction over ALL THE CAUSES OF ACTION and must have common venue.
4. Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, jurisdiction is determined by the AGGREGATE OR TOTAL AMOUNT claimed (totality rule).
N.B. The totality rule applies only to the MTC totality of claims cannot exceed the jurisdictional amount of the MTC.
There is no totality rule for the RTC because its jurisdictional amount is without limit. Exc. In tax cases where the limit is below P1 million. Amounts of P1 million or more fall within the jurisdiction of the CTA.
Misjoinder of causes of action not ground for dismissal of an action
A misjoined cause may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately (Rule 2, Sec. 6).
Note: Unlike splitting of a cause of action, a misjoinder is NOT a ground for the dismissal of an action.
C. Parties to Civil Actions
1. Real Parties in interest; Indispensable parties; Representatives as parties; Necessary parties; Indigent Parties; Alternative defendants
Who are real parties in interest?
A real party in interest is the party who stands to be BENEFITED or INJURED by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Unless authorized by law or the Rules of Court, every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest. (Rule 3, Sec. 2).
A real party in interest PLAINTIFF is one who has a LEGAL RIGHT, while a real party in interest DEFENDANT is one who has a correlative LEGAL OBLIGATION whose act or omission violates the legal right of the former.
Real interest a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.
Minors represented by their parents were held as real parties in interest to file an action to annul timber licenses issued by the state, under the following principles:
a. inter generational responsibility b. inter generational justice
c. right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology
d. minors represent themselves and the generations to come (Oposa vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, July 30,1993)
An action must be brought in the name but not necessarily by the real party in interest. In fact, the practice is for an attorney in fact to bring action in the name of the plaintiff.
Standing to sue or locus standi one who is directly affected by and whose interest is IMMEDIATE AND SUBSTANTIAL in the controversy has the standing to sue. In other words, he is a real party in interest. He has a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.
In a case involving constitutional issues, standing or locus standi means a personal interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain DIRECT INJURY as a result of the government act that is being challenged.
Who are allowed to sue under this concept of locus standi? (Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540 [1995])
1. Taxpayers where there is a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds. 2. Voters to question the validity of election laws because of their obvious interest in the validity of such laws.
3. Concerned citizens if the constitutional question they raise is of transcendental importance which must be settled early.
4. Legislators to question the validity of official action which they claim infringes on their prerogatives as legislators.
Indispensable parties;
Indispensable parties (Rule 3, Sec. 7)
An indispensable party is one without whom NO FINAL DETERMINATION can be had of an action. He shall be joined either as plaintiff or defendant.
His interests in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so bound up with that of the other parties that his LEGAL PRESENCE as party to the proceeding is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY.
Without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality (Servicewide Specialists, Inc. vs. CA, 251 SCRA 70 [1997]).
Examples of indispensable parties:
1. Vendors in an action to annul the sale
2. Lot buyers in an action for reconveyance of parcels of land which had already been subdivided
