INTRODUCTION

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition
INTRODUCTION

The first thing that we will take up in Civil Procedure are basic concepts. We are going to discuss
the legal concept of courts. As you will know, whenever we talk of procedural law, we have no
choice but to involve courts in our discussion.
Lets try to have a mental picture of courts. If I (Dean Iigo) say courts, please tell me the
scene that comes into your mind. What do you see? There is a table, a gavel, there is someone
sitting there. Then below, there are lawyers sitting down. That is how everybody pictures a court.
But actually, what was pictured out was a courtroom and not a court.
Similar example: How can you picture a corporation? 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. But what you see in a corporation is a building and people who are running the office
business. Well, that is the office of the corporation.
A corporation cannot run without people running it. But a corporation can own properties, kaya
you see the building, the office, the equipments there. The president or the vice-president are the
officers of the corporation. But the officers are not the corporation; they run the affairs of the
corporation. Ganoon din ang court. 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 judicial power. (Lontok vs. Battung,
63 Phil. 1054)
Q: Why portion only?
A: This is because the Constitution provides that the judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court (SC) and in such other lower courts as may be established by law. (Art. VIII, Section
1, 1987 Constitution.
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. It is like a cake. You slice the cake into parts
this part is for you, this part is mine. So, kanya-kanya tayo ng trabaho. You cannot put the burden
only in one court.
For example, you want to sue your debtor for not paying a loan. You mean to tell me that you
will go to the SC? All cases in the Philippines will have to filed there? NO. You cannot do it. You have
to start from certain courts in you city or municipality.
Ngayon, pag-sinabi mo kung saan ako mag-file, sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) ba? O sa Municipal
Trial Court (MTC)? Of course, depende yan on how much you are claiming. If you are claiming so
much, dito ka. If you claim is lower, dito ka naman. Why is that? Because each has its own work.
Each one has its own portion what is yours is yours, what is mine is mine.
Thus, each court has its own jurisdiction and may only try cases within its jurisdiction. No court
has all the power of the judiciary but only a portion of it. So there is a division of labor.
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:

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

INTRODUCTION

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. 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.
2.) 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)
EXAMPLE: The present Supreme Court (SC), 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.
Q: Classify courts in general.
A: Generally, courts may be classified as:
1.) Superior Courts and First-Level courts (inferior courts);
2.) Courts of Original jurisdiction and Courts of Appellate jurisdiction;
3.) Civil Courts and Criminal Courts;
4.) Courts of law and Courts of equity;
5.) Constitutional Courts and Statutory Courts.
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.
FIRST-LEVEL COURTS (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)
Q: What courts are superior or inferior?
A: It DEPENDS on what viewpoint you are looking. If you are looking from the viewpoint of the
Constitution, there is only one superior court the Supreme Court.
From the real viewpoint, 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 the jurisdiction of the MTC. It is already at the bottom. Wala ng under pa sa
kanya.
In 1996 Bar: Explain the hierarchy of courts in the Philippines. Practically, the judicial level is
being asked by the examiner.
ORIGINAL COURT vs. APPELLATE COURT
Q: Distinguish original court from appellate court.
A: ORIGINAL COURTS are those where a case is commenced, while APPELLATE COURTS are
those where a case is reviewed. (Ballentine's Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 91)

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

INTRODUCTION

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. Some people have the impression that you
cannot file a case there for the first time that you have to file it somewhere else, then doon (SC)
mo i-akyat. But when we study the jurisdiction of the SC, we will be able to know that it is not only
an appellate court, but also an original 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.
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.
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 thing with the CA, RTC and MTC.
So, in the Philippines, there is no such thing as a 100% criminal court or civil court. Unlike
before, during the 70's there are some special courts which were existing but were abolished by BP
129. There was the old Circuit Criminal Court. As the name implies, it is purely a criminal court.
But 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 only administering 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 law says I will decide your case by what
the law says. Yan ang court of law! When we say Courts Of Equity, it adjudicates cases based on the
principles of equity. Principle of equity means principles of justice, fairness, fair play.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

INTRODUCTION

Q: Are the Philippines courts, courts of law? Or courts of equity? Do they decide cases based on
what the law says? or, do they decide cases based on the principle of justice and fairness?
A: In the Philippines, our courts are both courts of law and of equity. 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. Kaya nga may kasabihan na 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 principle of estoppel, laches or solutio indebiti. One cannot
say that they are 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.
Example: ESTOPPEL. Estoppel is an equitable doctrine that it is not fair that you disown your
own representation after misleading somebody. But if you look at the Civil Code, meron mang
chapter diyan ba! estoppel! So if you apply estoppel, you cannot say that you are applying a
principle not found under the law.
Example: LACHES the half-brother of prescription if you delay a certain right then you must
have no right. That is more of equity, rather than of law.
Example: SOLUTIO INDEBITI. 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!
The SC, when deliberating, focuses more on justice and equity where reason can always be
found. The SC once said that equity follows the law. In the case of:
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.
So the SC described itself both as a court of law and court of equity. I have already talked with
so many justices of the SC before. And I asked them on how do they deliberate on cases when
somebody files an appeal or petition. They told me, if you want to convince the SC to hear your
case because the tendency of some lawyers is that they will file their petition and they will cite
the law. Meaning, backed-up by statutory provisions ba. A justice of the SC told me that that is a
wrong approach. Do not tell us what is the law. We know more law than you do! When you file a
petition, fairness must be on your side! Because when we deliberate and we agree that your side
seems to be the correct one, to decide on your favor is more than just to decide on the other side.
Then, we will even look for the law to support our decision. So, you don't have to tell us what is the
law, we will look for it. And if there is no law, we will make it for you, by interpreting because we
are a court more of equity than of law. But when we look on the equity, we will look for the law and
chances are, there is the law to follow.
CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS vs. STATUTORY COURTS

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

INTRODUCTION

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.
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 ordered Congress to create Sandiganbayan. It was law
that created Sandiganbayan (PD 1486). There is a provision in the 1973 Constitution which says,
There should be created a Sandiganbayan.
The CA, RTC, and the MTC are created by the Congress. Thus, Congress has the power to abolish
the said courts but it can never abolish the Supreme Court.
So there is only one Constitutional court. All the rest, from the CA down and all other special
courts, are only creatures of Congress. 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, Juvenille, etc.) and
RTC, IAC, MTC were created. That was the judicial reorganization of 1980 under BP 129. But there is
only court which the Batasan Pambansa could not touch the Supreme Court.
They have no power to abolish the SC because it is created by the Constitution. Pareho lang
tayong tabla eh. Congress is also created by the Constitution. So if you want to abolish the SC, you
must call for a constitutional convention to change the Constitution.
INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT
Before we leave the concepts of courts, you must know that the courts of justice have what we
call inherent powers. Just like the State have certain inherent powers, whether written or not, these
things are understood to have them Police power, power of taxation, and power of taxation.
Courts have also inherent powers. Their very existence automatically necessitates the existence
of these powers. Now, that was already asked in the Bar before what are the inherent powers of
the court?
Q: What are the inherent powers of the court?
A: Section 5 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court of the 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.
There are many powers enumerated. Some of them are common sense. Every court has the
power to see to it that everything of his order is enforced; to compel obedience to his order.
Common sense yan. You are inutile if you cannot even enforce your own judgment! So I've been
telling some judges here, eh. Sometimes we talk about this: they say, it seems that I don't have the

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

INTRODUCTION

power under the Rules of Court. It's beyond my power. I made a decision but I cannot see how was
it enforced.
Parang pampalakas-loob ang Rule 135, Section 5 because you can see there the powers that
you do not know you have. These are inherent eh hindi puwedeng alisin sa iyo iyan. Otherwise,
maging inutil ka I have the power to decide but I do not know how to enforce my decision. That is
a sign of impotence (Charles, pinaringgan ka ni Dean!). As a matter of fact, the next section
(Section 6, Rule 135) tells us how to carry out your judgment. If you do not know how to carry out
your judgment because the law is silent, Section 6 says, look for a way. Hanapan mo ng paraan!
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?
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 you have the power to decide, you have the power
to enforce. And if the law is silent, you have to think how to do it. Be creative. Provided you
conform with the spirit of the rule. So you do not make the order useless simply because there is no
rule. In other words, try to look for a way on how to enforce your judgment. That is part of your
power.
ENFORCEABILITY OF COURT WRITS AND PROCESSES
Another provision that I want to emphasize before we leave this subject of court is Section 3 of
the Interim Rules.
Question: The court of Davao will issue a writ or a process. Can that writ or process be enforced
in Cebu or Manila? Or only in Davao? Or only in Region IX? Hanggang saan ba ang enforceability ng
aking writ or processes? You have to distinguish what kind of writ or process you are talking about.
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, MTC, and MTC may be served anywhere in
the Philippines, and, the last three cases, without a certification by the judge of the RTC.
Q: What is the area of enforceability of writs and processes of the courts?
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.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

INTRODUCTION

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

EXAMPLE: If you are illegally detained, you can ask the court to issue a writ of habeas
corpus. Now, a person is detained in Bansalan and the family is here in Davao City. They
filed a petition for habeas corpus in Makilala, North Cotabato. Makilala is in Region 12 and
the RTC of Bansalan is part of the 11th judicial region. Thus, the judge in Makilala cannot
issue the writ of habeas corpus due to the fact that Bansalan belongs to the 11th judicial
region while Makilala is in the 12th judicial region. The RTC of Tandag, Surigao is Region 12
and therefore can issue a writ of habeas corpus to be enforced in Makilala which is
hundreds of miles away because they are of the same judicial region. And yet the RTC of
Bansalan cannot issue a writ to be enforced in Makilala, North Cotabato, which is the next
town, because that is not part of their 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.
-oOo-

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA