Concept of Remedial Law

Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing
rights or obtaining redress for their invasion.
Substantive Law as Distinguished from Remedial Law
Substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights and duties regarding life,
liberty or property which when violated gives rise to a cause of action (Bustos v.
Lucero, 81 Phil. 640).
Remedial law prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and obligations
created by substantive law by providing a procedural system for obtaining redress
for the invasion of rights and violations of duties and by prescribing rules as to
how suits are filed, tried and decided by the courts.
As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are
crimes and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished from
remedial law which provides or regulates the steps by which one who commits a
crime is to be punished.

Judicial power

Constitutional Basis:

Article VIII SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.

Exclusive Powers of the Supreme Court:

Article VIII SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or
the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) 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.

(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest
may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the
consent of the judge concerned.

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional

rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules
shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.

(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the
Civil Service Law.

Cases:

A) Angara vs Electoral Commission

"The Supreme Court emphasized that that in cases of conflict between the several
departments and among the agencies thereof, the judiciary, with the SC as the final
arbiter, is the only constitutional mechanism devised finally to resolve the
conflict and allocate constitutional boundaries. The Court recognized that the
separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. Each
 department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its
jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the
fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution
intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. The
Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government.

The SC further explained that when the judiciary mediates to

allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other
departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but
only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to
determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish
for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and
guarantees to them, which is the power of judicial review."

B) Tolentino vs Comelec
"The SC emphasized its ruling in the case of Angara that the judicial department is
the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper
allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or
constituent units thereof."
The Court explained that power to amend the Constitution or to propose
amendments thereto is not included in the general grant of legislative powers to
Congress (Section 1, Art. VI, Constitution of the Philippines). It is part of the
inherent powers of the people as the repository sovereignty in a republican
state, such as ours (Section 1, Art. 11, Constitution of the Philippines) to make,
and, hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law. Congress may propose
amendments to the Constitution merely because the same explicitly grants such
power. (Section 1, Art. XV, Constitution of the Philippines) Hence, when
exercising the same, it is said that Senators and members of the House of
Representatives act, not as members of Congress, but as component elements of
a constituent assembly. When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their
authority from the Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same
function, (Of amending the Constitution) for their authority does not emanate from
the Constitution they are the very source of all powers of government including
the Constitution itself.
The SC also ruled that the judicial power do not apply only to conflicts of authority
between the three existing regular departments of the government but to all such
conflicts between and among these departments, or, between any of them, on the
one hand, and any other constitutionally created independent body, like the
 electoral tribunals in Congress, the Comelec and the Constituent assemblies
constituted by the House of Congress, on the other.

C) Francisco vs House of Representatives

"The SC also ruled that when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional
boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does
not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the
solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine
conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the
parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and
guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial
supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial review under the Constitution.
However, the power of judicial review is subject to several limitations, namely:
(1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) legal
standing (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the
case."

Political Questions

Cases:
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF
TEODOSIO LANSANG RODOLFO DEL ROSARIO vs Garcia

"Petitioner contends that in issuing Proclamation 889 suspending the writ of

habeas corpus the President acted on relevant facts gathered thru the coordinated
efforts of the various intelligence agents of our government but (of) which the
Chief Executive could not at the moment give a full account and disclosure without
risking revelation of highly classified state secrets vital to its safely and security";
that the determination thus made by the President is "final and conclusive upon the
court and upon all other persons" and "partake(s) of the nature of political
question(s) which cannot be the subject of judicial inquiry,"
"The Court ruled When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state
power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject
is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against
the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the Federal judicial
power extends (Art. 3, sec. 2) and, so extending, the court has all the authority
appropriate to its exercise. ..
Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers underlying our system of
government, the Executive is supreme within his own sphere. However, the
separation of powers, under the Constitution, is not absolute. What is more, it goes
hand in hand with the system of checks and balances, under which the Executive
is supreme, as regards the suspension of the privilege, but only if and when he
acts within the sphere allotted to him by the Basic Law, and the authority to
determine whether or not he has so acted is vested in the Judicial Department,
which, in this respect, is, in turn, constitutionally supreme.

In the exercise of such authority, the function of the Court is merely to check
not to supplant the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he had gone
beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested
in him or to determine the wisdom of his act.

Did public safety require the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus decreed in Proclamation No. 889, as amended? The existence of a rebellion
is obvious, so much so that counsel for several petitioners herein have admitted it.

B)Garcia vs Exec Secretary

The power of judicial review is the power of the courts to test the validity of
executive and legislative acts for their conformity with the Constitution. Through
such power, the judiciary enforces and upholds the supremacy of the
Constitution. For a court to exercise this power, certain requirements must first be
met, namely:

(1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial

power;
(2) the person challenging the act must have standing to challenge;
he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that
he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement;
(3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
possible opportunity; and
 (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the
case.
In this case, The SC ruled that petition fails to satisfy the very first
requirements whichthe existence of an actual case or controversy
calling for the exercise of judicial power. An actual case or
controversy is one that involves a conflict of legal rights, an
assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-
legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of
justice.
As defined by the SC in the case of Taaada vs Cuenco, political
questions refer to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided
by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government.
Thus, if an issue is clearly identified by the text of the Constitution as matters for
discretionary action by a particular branch of government or to the people
themselves then it is held to be a political question.

C)Vinuya vs Romulo
"The SC ruled that It is well-established that "[t]he conduct of the foreign
relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and
legislative--'the political'--departments of the government, and the propriety of what may
be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or
decision."
To be sure, not all cases implicating foreign relations present political questions,
and courts certainly possess the authority to construe or invalidate treaties and executive
agreements. However, the question whether the Philippine government should espouse
claims of its nationals against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter, the
authority for which is demonstrably committed by our Constitution not to the courts but
to the political branches. In this case, the Executive Department has already decided that
it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations
against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951. The wisdom of such decision is not for the
courts to question.

D) Fortun vs Arroyo
"It is evident that under the 1987 Constitution the President and the
Congress act in tandem in exercising the power to proclaim martial law or suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. They exercise the power, not only
sequentially, but in a sense jointly since, after the President has initiated the
proclamation or the suspension, only the Congress can maintain the same based on
its own evaluation of the situation on the ground, a power that the President does
not have.
Consequently, although the Constitution reserves to the Supreme Court the
power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or
suspension in a proper suit, it is implicit that the Court must allow Congress to
exercise its own review powers, which is automatic rather than initiated. Only
when Congress defaults in its express duty to defend the Constitution through such
review should the Supreme Court step in as its final rampart. The constitutional
validity of the Presidents proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ
of habeas corpus is first a political question in the hands of Congress before it
becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the Court.

Declaratory Relief

RULE 63

Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies

Section 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested under a deed,
will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute,
executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation
may, before breach or violation thereof bring an action in the appropriate Regional
Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a
declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.

(1) An action for declaratory relief is brought to secure an authoritative

statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a contract or a statute
for their guidance in the enforcement or compliance with the same (Meralco vs.
Philippine Consumers Foundation, 374 SCRA 262). Thus, the purpose is to seek
for a judicial interpretation of an instrument or for a judicial declaration of a
persons rights under a statute and not to ask for affirmative reliefs like injunction,
damages or any other relief beyond the purpose of the petition as declared under
the Rules.
(2) The subject matter in a petition for declaratory relief is any of the
following:
(a) Deed;
(b) Will;
(c) Contract or other written instrument;
(d) Statute;
 (e) Executive order or regulation;
(f) Ordinance; or
(g) Any other governmental regulation (Sec. 1).
(3) The petition for declaratory relief is filed before there occurs any breach
or violation of the deed, contract, statute, ordinance or executive order or
regulation. It will not prosper when brought after a contract or a statute has already
been breached or violated. If there has already been a breach, the appropriate
ordinary civil action and not declaratory relief should be filed.

Case:
A)REPUBLIC vs HERMINIO HARRY ROQUE
"Case law states that the following are the requisites for an action for
declaratory relief: first, the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed,
will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or
regulation, or ordinance; second, the terms of said documents and the validity
thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction; third, there must have
been no breach of the documents in question; fourth, there must be an actual
justiciable controversy or the ripening seeds of one between persons whose
interests are adverse; fifth, the issue must be ripe for judicial determination;
and sixth, adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms
of action or proceeding.
"A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is
appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or
merely anticipatory. Corollary thereto, by ripening seeds it is meant, not that
sufficient accrued facts may be dispensed with, but that a dispute may be tried at
its inception before it has accumulated the asperity, distemper, animosity, passion,
and violence of a full blown battle that looms ahead. The concept describes a state
of facts indicating imminent and inevitable litigation provided that the issue is not
settled and stabilized by tranquilizing declaration."

B)COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs HYPERMIX FEEDS

CORPORATION
"The requirements of an action for declaratory relief are as follows: (1) there
must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons
whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a
legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue involved must be ripe for judicial
determination.
 Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections

Article VII SECTION 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be

elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at
noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall
end at noon of the same date six years thereafter. The President shall not be
eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded as President and has
served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the
same office at any time.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two consecutive

terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruptionin the continuity of the service for the full term for
which he was elected.

Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and
Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May.

The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified
by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the
Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of
canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of
the election, open all certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of
the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass
the votes.

The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected,
but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of
them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of
both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or
Vice- President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
 Martial law/suspension of writ of habeas corpus

Article VII SECTION 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-

Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary,
he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall
submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting
jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special
session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall
not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a
period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist
and public safety requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following

such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without any
need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by

any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof,
and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution,
nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor
authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected
with the invasion.
 During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested
or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be
released.

Statutory basis of judicial review

Civilcode Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their
violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice
to the contrary.

When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the
former shall be void and the latter shall govern.

Judicial legislations

Civil Code Art. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or

the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.

Art. 9. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the

silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.

Rule making power:Limits

Limitations of the Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court

(1) The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases

(2) They shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade

(3) They shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights (Sec. 5[5],
Art. VIII, Constitution).

(4) The power to admit attorneys to the Bar is not an arbitrary and despotic
one, to be exercised at the pleasure of the court, or from passion, prejudice or
personal hostility, but is the duty of the court to exercise and regulate it by a sound
and judicial discretion. (Andres vs. Cabrera, 127 SCRA 802)

Cases:

A) CLARITA vs BAUSCH & LOMB, INC.

"Article VIII Section 5 (5) of the 1987 Constitution empowers the Supreme
Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all
courts. The limitations to this rule-making power are the following: the rules must
(a) provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases; (b) be uniform for all courts of the same grade and (c) not diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights. As long as these limits are met, the
argument used by petitioners that the Supreme Court, through A.O. Nos. 113-95
and 104-96, transgressed on Congress sole power to legislate, cannot be sustained."

A.O. No. 113-95 designated special intellectual property courts to promote

the efficient administration of justice and to ensure the speedy disposition of
intellectual property cases.

A.O. No. 104-96, on the other hand, was issued pursuant to Section 23 of
BP 129 which transferred the jurisdiction over such crimes from the MTC and
MTCC to the RTC and which furthermore gave the Supreme Court the authority to
designate certain branches of the RTC to exclusively handle special cases in the
interest of the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Accordingly, the RTC
was vested with the exclusive and original jurisdiction to try and decide intellectual
property cases.

Both administrative orders therefore have the force and effect of law, having
been validly issued by the Supreme Court in the exercise of its constitutional rule-
making power. The trial court, being a subordinate court, should have followed the
mandate of the later A.O. 104-96 which vested jurisdiction over the instant case on
the RTC.

BP 129 Section 23. Special jurisdiction to try special cases. The Supreme
Court may designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts to handle
exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases,
urban land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial
bodies and agencies, and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may
determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Judicial Self Restraint

Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages

judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should
hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though
what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate.

Case:

A)Ocampo vs Cabangis

A court rendered a decision in the following words:

Without prejudice to the filing of an extended opinion later, the judgment

appealed from is hereby reversed and the defendant is absolved from the
complaint without special finding as to costs, and twenty days hereafter let
judgment be entered in conformity herewith, and ten days later let the record
be returned to the court wherein it originated, for appropriate action. So
ordered.

No further decision was ever filed.

Two of the four justices who signed the decision are no longer members of this
court. The appellees now seek the cancellation and annulment of the entry of
judgment and the recall of the remittitur and the record of the case to this court.
The motion is made upon the theory that no final judgment has ever been entered,
and that by reason of the changes in the personnel of the court the more extensive
opinion which was contemplated can not now be filed.

Section 15 of Act No. 136 provides that "in the determination of causes all
decisions of the Supreme Court shall be given in writing, signed by the judges
concurring in the decision, and the grounds of the decision shall be stated as briefly
as may be consistent with clearness."
The decision of December 26, 1908, was in writing, and was signed by the four
justice who concurred therein, but no grounds are stated for the decision.

Ruling:

Section 15 of Act No. 136 expresses a proper rule which should be observed by the
court unless there is some substantial reason for departing therefrom, but if such
reason exists, the judicial action can not be controlled by legislative directions. In
holding that this statute is directory, we assume of the court against its judicial
judgment.

There is, however, a broader ground upon which the decision may be placed. The
doctrine is well established in the various States of the Union that the legislatures
have no power to establish rules which operates to deprive the courts of their
constitutional authority to exercise the judicial functions. A constitutional court
when exercising its proper judicial functions can no more be unreasonably
controlled by the legislature than can the legislature when properly exercising
legislative power be subjected to the control of the courts. Each acts independently
within its exclusive field.

Legislatures often enact statutes for the purpose of providing an orderly procedure
for the conduct of public business, but procedure is secondary in importance to
substantive rights, and the nonobservance of such procedure should never be
permitted to affect substantive rights, unless the intention of the legislature is
clearly expressed. It is desirable that courts should state the grounds upon which
their decisions rest, but it possible to conceive of conditions under which strict
compliance with a statute requiring this would be impracticable or even
impossible. Instead of protecting the interest of litigants by securing a prompt and
orderly administration of the law, it would then result in obstructing or stopping
the wheels of the judicial machinery, to the prejudice of all parties.

COnstitutional Protection

1.Constitutional Status

Article VIII SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe,
and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts but may not deprive the Supreme
Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.

No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security
of tenure of its Members.
Cases:

A)CONCHADA vs The Director of Prisons

"the Courts of First Instance for these Islands, which are the ones to which the
appellant refers in the question raised on the appeal, are not constitutional courts,
or courts created by the Constitution, but by the Legislature of the Philippine
Islands, as territory not incorporated into the United States of America and
governed by the Congress of those States through the medium of the Act of July 1,
1902. This Act has come to be the constitution of the Philippine Islands, and the
fact that the creation of said courts was sanctioned by that constitution did not
convert them into constitutional courts in the sense understood and maintained by
petitioner's counsel - that is, in such manner that the Philippine Legislature cannot
act with respect to the division of the judicial territory without awaiting the consent
or approval of Congress, for the simple reason that Congress by virtue of the
constitution of the Philippines did not arrogate to itself or assume any authority on
this point concerning the organization of the judicial power, and, consequently, the
courts have, by virtue of Act No. 2347, replaced or supplanted those that had been
previously established above, are also created by the Legislature by virtue of the
powers which said constitution confers upon it.chan

In conclusion, since Act No. 2347 of the Legislature, whereby the reorganization
of the Courts of First Instance of these Islands was provided for, is not illegal and
null and void, and the said courts are legally constituted by virtue of said
reorganization, the Honorable Judge Isidro Paredes had jurisdiction to try and
sentence the petitioner. Eustaquio Conchada, for the crime of murder and to order,
as he did, the imprisonment of said defendant by virtue of the sentence imposed
upon him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is therefore held that there is no ground for issuing to the Directors of Prisons the
writ ofhabeas corpus applied for the counsel for said petitioner.

B)Fuentes vs The Director of Prisons

"The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is fixed by the Organic Act and cannot be
restricted by an act of the Legislature. Though the Organic Act does not
specifically so provide, it may be conceded that the Legislature has the power to
make reasonable changes in the laws of the procedure of the court, but it cannot by
a statute of procedure prevent a court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction
during the lawful sessions of the court. "
The doctrine is well established in the various States of the Union that the
legislatures have no power to establish rules which operate to deprive the courts of
their constitutional authority to exercise the judicial functions. A constitutional
court when exercising its proper judicial functions can no more be unreasonably
controlled by the legislature than can the legislature when properly exercising
legislative power be subjected to the control of the courts. Each acts independently
within its exclusive field."

C)TOlentino Vs Comelec

"Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to the

Constitution, the members of Congress derive their authority from the
Fundamental Law, it follows, necessarily, that they do not have the final say on
whether or not their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits. Otherwise, they
could brush aside and set the same at naught, contrary to the basic tenet that ours is
a government of laws, not of men, and to the rigid nature of our Constitution. Such
rigidity is stressed by the fact that the Constitution expressly confers upon the
Supreme Court, (And, inferentially, to lower courts.) the power to declare a treaty
unconstitutional. (Sec. 2(1), Art. VIII of the Constitution), despite the eminently
political character of treaty-making power.

In short, the issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress acting as a

constituent assembly violates the Constitution is essentially justiciable not
political, and, hence, subject to judicial review, and, to the extent that this view
may be inconsistent with the stand taken in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, (supra) the
latter should be deemed modified accordingly. The Members of the Court are
unanimous on this point.

2. Statutory Increase of Appellate Jurisdiction

Article VI SECTION 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its
advice and concurrence.

Cases:

A) FABIAN VS DESIERTO, AGUSTIN EN BANC

FACTS:

A complaint sought the dismissal of Agustin for violation of Section 19, R.A. No.
6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and Section 36 of P.D. No. 807 (Civil Service
Decree), with an ancillary prayer for his preventive suspension. The case later led
to an appeal to the Ombudsman - who inhibited himself - and transferred the case
to the Deputy Ombudsman. The deputy ruled in favor of Agustin and in the order
exonerated the private respondents from the administrative charges.
Fabian elevated the case to the SC, arguing that Section 27 of Republic Act No.
6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) that all administrative disciplinary cases, orders,
directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the
Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt
of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for
reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of
the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court.

RULING:
No. Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to this
Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases. It consequently violates the proscription in Section 30, Article
VI of the Constitution against a law which increases the Appellate jurisdiction of
this Court. No countervailing argument has been cogently presented to justify such
disregard of the constitutional prohibition which, as correctly explained in First
Leparto Ceramics, Inc. vs. The Court of Appeals, et al. was intended to give this
Court a measure of control over cases placed under its appellate Jurisdiction.
Otherwise, the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate
jurisdiction would unnecessarily burden the Court.

3. Other Protections
Article VIII

SECTION 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the
Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for
the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.

SECTION 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and
fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of
three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from
the occurrence thereof.
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all
other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc,
including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon.

(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without
the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is
not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or
principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in
division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.

SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest
may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the
consent of the judge concerned.

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional

rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules
shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.

(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the
Civil Service Law.

SECTION 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all
courts and the personnel thereof.

SECTION 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their
continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.
SECTION 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts
shall hold office during good behavior until they reached the age of seventy years
or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court
en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their
dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

SECTION 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established
by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.

Cases:
In Re: Mazano
Facts:
Judge Manzano filed a petition allowing him to accept the appointment by Ilocos
Sur Governor Rodolfo Farinas as the member of Ilocos Norte provincial
Committee on Justice created pursuant to a Presidential Order. He petitioned that
his membership in the Committee will not in any way amount to an abandonment
to his present position as Executive Judge of Branch XIX, RTC, 1st Judicial region
and as a member of judiciary.
Ruling:
The petition is denied. The Constitution prohibits the designation of members of
the Judiciary to any agency performing Quasi-Judicial or Administrative functions
(Sec.12,Art.VIII, 1987 Constitution).

Quasi-Judicial has a fairly clear meaning and Judges can confidently refrain from
participating in the work of any Administrative Agency which adjudicates disputes
& controversies involving the rights of parties within its jurisdiction.

Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over
the conduct & affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of
rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the Legislature or such as
are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence.

Administrative functions as used in Sec. 12 refers to the Governments executive

machinery and its performance of governmental acts. It refers to the management
actions, determinations, and orders of executive officials as they administer the
laws and try to make government effective. There is an element of positive action,
of supervision or control.
B)CAOIBES vs The Honorable Ombudsman

Facts:

On May 23, 1997, respondent Florentino M. Alumbres, Presiding Judge of Branch

255 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman, a Criminal Complaint for physical injuries, malicious mischief for
the destruction of complainants eyeglasses, and assault upon a person in authority.
Alumbres alleged that on May 20, 1997, at the hallway on the third floor of the
Hall of Justice, Las Pinas City, he requested petitioner Judge Caoibes (Presiding
Judge of RTC 253) to return the executive table he borrowed from respondent; that
petitioner did not answer so respondent reiterated his request but before he could
finish talking, petitioner blurted "Tarantado ito ah," and boxed him at his right
eyebrow and left lower jaw so that the right lens of his eyeglasses was thrown
away, rendering his eyeglasses unserviceable. He prayed that criminal charges be
filed before the Sandiganbayan against the petitioner.

Issue: WON the Office of the Ombudsman has jusrisdiction over the case

Ruling: The present case involves two members of the judiciary who were
entangled in a fight within court premises over a piece of office furniture. Under
Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court which is vested
with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel.
Prescinding from this premise, the Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by
itself whether a criminal complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an
administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against
judges and court personnel filed before it, referred to the Supreme Court for
determination as to whether and administrative aspect is involved therein. The
Ombudsman cannot dictate to, and bind the Court, to its findings that a case before
it does or does not have administrative implications.

Adversarial System Overview

The adversarial system or adversary system is a legal system used in the common
law countries where two advocates represent their parties' case or position before
an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to
determine the truth and pass judgment accordingly.

I. Courts and judges

What is a Court

(1) It is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function

of which is the application of the laws to the controversies brought before it as well
as the public administration of justice.

(2) It is a governmental body officially assembled under authority of law at the

appropriate time and place for the administration of justice through which the State
enforces its sovereign rights and powers (21 CJS 16).

(3) It is a board or tribunal which decides a litigation or contest (Hidalgo v.

Manglapus, 64 OG 3189).

Court distinguished from Judge

(1) A court is a tribunal officially assembled under authority of law; a judge is

simply an officer of such tribunal;

(2) A court is an organ of the government with a personality separate and distinct
from the person or judge who sits on it;

(3) A court is a being in imagination comparable to a corporation, whereas a judge

is a physical person ;

(4) A court may be considered an office; a judge is a public officer; and

(5) The circumstances of the court are not affected by the circumstances that would
affect the judge.

Classification of Philippine Courts

(1) Regular courts engaged in the administration of justice are organized into four
(4) levels:

(a) First Level (MTCs, MeTCs, MCTCs) which try and decide (1) criminal
actions involving violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their
respective territorial jurisdiction and offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, and (2) civil actions including ejectment,
recovery of personal property with a value of not more than P300,000 outside MM
or does not exceed P400,000 in MM;

(b) Second Level (RTCs, Family Courts) courts of general jurisdiction; among
the civil actions assigned to them by law are those in which the subject of litigation
is incapable of pecuniary estimation, or involving title to or possession of real
property where the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000 outside MM or
exceeds P50,000 in MM, except actions for ejectment (forcible entry and unlawful
detainer), or where the demand exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and cost, or the value of the personal property
or controversy exceeds P300,000 outside MM or exceeds P400,000 in MM. RTCs
also exercise appellate jurisdiction, to review cases appealed from courts of the
first level;

(c) Third Level (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan) CA is an appellate court,

reviewing cases appealed to it from the RTC, on questions of fact or mixed
questions of fact and law. Appeals to it decided by the RTC in the exercise of
original jurisdiction are a matter of right; appeals with respect to cases decided by
the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction are a matter of discretion.
Occasionally, CA may act as a trial court, as in actions praying for the annulment
of final and executor judgments of RTCs on the ground of extrinsic fraud
subsequently discovered, against which no other remedies lies.

Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over all criminal and civil cases involving graft and
corrupt practices act, and such other offenses committed by public officers and
employees including those in GOCCs in relation to their office. It also has
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of
RTCs whether in the exercise of their own original or appellate jurisdiction over
criminal and civil cases committed by public officers or employees including those
in GOCCs in relation to their office.
(d) Fourth Level (Supreme Court)

A. History of org of judicial system in the phils

B. COurt of law vs court of equity

Nature of Philippine Courts
Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity. Hence, both legal and equitable
jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal. (US v. Tamparong, 31 Phil.
321)

Cases:
A) Muller vs Muller
Facts: Petitioner Elena Buenaventura Muller and respondent Helmut Muller were
married in Hamburg, Germany. Respondent had inherited the house in Germany
from his parents which he sold and used the proceeds for the purchase of a parcel
of land in Antipolo, Rizal. Due to incompatibilities and respondents alleged
womanizing, drinking, and maltreatment, the spouses eventually separated. The
RTC decreed the separation of properties between them but with regard to the
Antipolo property, the court ruled that respondent cannot recover his funds because
the property was purchased in violation of Section 7, Article XII of the
Constitution. Respondent asserts that equity demands that respondent should be
reimbursed of his personal funds.

Issue: WON respondent Helmut Muller is entitled to reimbursement.

Ruling:
There is an express prohibition against foreigners owning land in the Philippines.
"Invoking the principle that a court is not only a court of law but also a court of
equity, is likewise misplaced. It has been held that equity as a rule will follow the
law and will not permit that to be done indirectly which, because of public policy,
cannot be done directly. He who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes
into equity must come with clean hands. The latter is a frequently stated maxim
which is also expressed in the principle that he who has done inequity shall not
have equity. It signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on
the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or
fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.

Thus, in the instant case, respondent cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of
equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought the property despite
the constitutional prohibition."
B)Phil Carpet Mfg. Corp vs Tagyamon

"Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or
should have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to a presumption that the party
entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it. It has been
repeatedly held by the Court that:

x x x Laches is a doctrine in equity while prescription is based on law. Our courts

are basically courts of law not courts of equity. Thus, laches cannot be invoked to
resist the enforcement of an existing legal right. x x x Courts exercising equity
jurisdiction are bound by rules of law and have no arbitrary discretion to disregard
them. InZabat Jr. v. Court of Appeals x x x, this Court was more emphatic in
upholding the rules of procedure. We said therein:

As for equity which has been aptly described as a "justice outside legality," this is
applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or, as in this case,
judicial rules of procedure. Aequetas nunguam contravenit legis. The pertinent
positive rules being present here, they should preempt and prevail over all abstract
arguments based only on equity.

Thus, where the claim was filed within the [four-year] statutory period, recovery
therefore cannot be barred by laches. Courts should never apply the doctrine of
laches earlier than the expiration of time limited for the commencement of actions
at law."

An action for reinstatement by reason of illegal dismissal is one based on an injury

to the complainants rights which should be brought within four years from the
time of their dismissal pursuant to Article 1146of the Civil Code. Respondents
complaint filed almost 3 years after their alleged illegal dismissal was still well
within the prescriptive period. Laches cannot, therefore, be invoked yet. To be
sure, laches may be applied only upon the most convincing evidence of deliberate
inaction, for the rights of laborers are protected under the social justice provisions
of the Constitution and under the Civil Code."
 II Courts vs Judicial Bodies

A) Carino vs CHR

FACTS: On September 17, 1990, a Monday and a class day, some 800 public
school teacher, among them the 8 herein private respondents who were members of
the Manila Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA) and Alliance of
Concerned Teachers (ACT) undertook mass concerted actions to dramatize and
highlight their plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities to
act upon grievances that had time and again been brought to the latters attention.

The respondents were preventively suspended by the Secretary of Education. They

complained to CHR.

ISSUE: WON CHR has the power to adjudicate alleged human rights violations

RULING: No.

The Commission evidently intends to itself adjudicate, that is to say, determine

with the character of finality and definiteness, the same issues which have been
passed upon and decided by the Secretary of Education and subject to appeal to
CSC, this Court having in fact, as aforementioned, declared that the teachers
affected may take appeals to the CSC on said matter, if still timely.

The threshold question is whether or not the CHR has the power under the
constitution to do so; whether or not, like a court of justice or even a quasi-judicial
agency, it has jurisdiction or adjudicatory powers over, or the power to try and
decide, or dear and determine, certain specific type of cases, like alleged human
rights violations involving civil or political rights.

The Court declares that the CHR to have no such power, and it was not meant by
the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or
duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter.

The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative
power is that it may investigate, i.e. receive evidence and make findings of fact as
regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. But
fact-finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to judicial function of a
court of justice, or even a quasi judicial agency or official. The function of
receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a
judicial function, properly speaking. To be considered such, the faculty of
receiving evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy must be
accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to
the end that the controversy be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and
definitely, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law.

B)Simon Jr vs CHR
Facts:
The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued and order, directing the
petitioners "to desist from demolishing the stalls and shanties at North EDSA
pending the resolution of the vendors/squatters complaint before the Commission"
and ordering said petitioners to appear before the CHR.

ISSUE:
Is the issuance of an "order to desist" within the extent of the authority and power
of the CRH?

HELD:
No, the issuance of an "order to desist" is not within the extent of authority and
power of the CHR. Article XIII, Section 18(1), provides the power and functions
of the CHR to "investigate, on its own or on complaint by any part, all forms of
human rights violation, involving civil and political rights".
The "order to desist" however is not investigatory in character but an adjudicative
power that the it does not possess. The Constitutional provision directing the CHR
to provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged
whose human rights have been violated or need protection may not be construed to
confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue an restraining order or writ of
injunction, for it were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so.
Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for
a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued by the Judge in any court in
which the action is pending or by a Justice of the CA or of the SC. The writ prayed
for the petition is granted.

C)Republic vs Asuncion
Facts:
Section 46 of Republic Act No. 6975 provides that "criminal cases involving PNP
members shall be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts." The
principal issue in this case is whether the term "regular courts" includes the
Sandiganbayan. Petitioner maintains that it does not while the respondent Judge
and the intervenor-respondent hold otherwise.

Ruling:
"The terms civil courts and regular courts were used interchangeably or were
considered as synonymous by the Bicameral Conference Committee and then by
the Senate and the House of Representatives. Accordingly, the term regular
courts in Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975 means civil courts. There could have been
no other meaning intended since the primary purpose of the law is to remove from
courts-martial the jurisdiction over criminal cases involving members of the PNP
and to vest it in the courts within our judicial system, i.e., the civil courts which, as
contradistinguished from courts-martial, are the regular courts."
Regular courts are those within the judicial department of the government, namely,
the Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law.

the Sandiganbayan is a regular court and is thus included in the term regular
courts in Section 46 of R.A. No. 6975.

Petitioner's insistence that it is not because, by the Constitution and by the statutes,
the Sandiganbayan is aspecial court and, therefore, not a regular court is
untenable. In the first place, a comparison between the wordsregular and special is
inappropriate since the opposite of the latter is not the former and vice
versa. Specialmeans "designed for a particular purpose; confined to a particular
purpose, object, person, or class," and is, therefore, the antonym of general. With
reference then to the courts, they principally relate to jurisdiction. Thus, there are
courts of general jurisdictionand courts of special jurisdiction. It is, of course,
incorrect to say that only courts of general jurisdiction are regular courts. Courts of
special jurisdiction, which are permanent in character, are also regular courts. The
Sandiganbayan is a court with special jurisdiction because its creation as a
permanent anti-graft court is constitutionally mandated and its jurisdiction is
limited to certain classes of offenses.

D) Biraogo vs PTC
Issue: WON E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ
Ruling: PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or erode their
respective powers. If at all, the investigative function of the commission will
complement those of the two offices. The function of determining probable cause
for the filing of the appropriate complaints before the courts remains to be with the
DOJ and the Ombudsman. PTCs power to investigate is limited to obtaining facts
so that it can advise and guide the President in the performance of his duties
relative to the execution and enforcement of the laws of the land.

RULE 6
Kinds Of Pleadings
Section 1. Pleadings defined. Pleadings are the written statements of the
respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate
judgment. (1a)
Section 2. Pleadings allowed. The claims of a party are asserted in a complaint,
counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-in-
intervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the pleading asserting a claim
against him.
An answer may be responded to by a reply. (n)
Section 3. Complaint. The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff's
cause or causes of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant
must be stated in the complaint. (3a)
Section 4. Answer. An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets
forth his defenses. (4a)
Section 5. Defenses. Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.
(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts
alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his cause or causes of
action.
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while
hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the
claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him. The
affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment,
illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in
bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance. (5a)
Section 6. Counterclaim. A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party
may have against an opposing party. (6a)
Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. A compulsory counterclaim is one which,
being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with
the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's
claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of
whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within
the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof, except
that in an original action before the Regional Trial Court, the counter-claim may be
considered compulsory regardless of the amount. (n)
Section 8. Cross-claim. A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-
party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of
the original action or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may include a
claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-
claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant.
(7)
Section 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-crossclaims. A counter-claim
may be asserted against an original counter-claimant.
A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant. (n)
Section 10. Reply. A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to
deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged by way of
defense in the answer and thereby join or make issue as to such new matters. If a
party does not file such reply, all the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed
controverted.
If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so
alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint.
(11)
Section 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)party complaint. A third (fourth, etc.) party
complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a
person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.) party defendant for
contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his
opponent's claim. (12a)
Section 12. Bringing new parties. When the presence of parties other than those
to the original action is required for the granting of complete relief in the
determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be
brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be obtained. (14)
Section 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)party complaint. A third (fourth,
etc.) party defendant may allege in his answer his defenses, counterclaims or
cross-claims, including such defenses that the third (fourth, etc.) party plaintiff
may have against the original plaintiff's claim. In proper cases, he may also assert a
counterclaim against the original plaintiff in respect of the latter's claim against the
third-party plaintiff.

Parties in Lawsuits

In a civil lawsuit, the person who files the

lawsuit is called the plaintiff, and the person being sued is called the defendant. I
n criminal proceedings, one party is the government, called the state, commonwea
lth, or the people of the United States,
and the other party is the defendant. If
a case is appealed, the person who files the appeal is called the appellant, and the
other side is called either the respondent or the appellee.

VI. VENUE (Rule 4)

(1) Venue is the place or the geographical area where an action is to be filed and
tried. In civil cases, it relates only to the place of the suit and not to the jurisdiction
of the court (Manila Railroad Company vs. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523).

Venue versus Jurisdiction

(1) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case; venue is the place
where the case is to be heard or tried;
(2) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue of procedural law;
(3) Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter;
venue, a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent;
(4) Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may
be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties; and
(5) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is a ground for a motu propio
dismissal; venue is not a ground for a motu propio dismissal except in cases
subject to summary procedure.

Venue of real actions

(1) Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall
be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area
wherein the real property involved or a portion thereof is situated. Forcible entry
and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of
the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is
situated (Sec. 1, Rule 4).

Venue or personal actions

(1) All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides, all at the option of the plaintiff (Sec. 2, Rule 4).

Venue of actions against non-residents

(1) If any of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and
the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said
defendant located in the Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the
court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion
thereof is situated or found (Sec. 3, Rule 4), or at the place where the defendant
may be found, at the option of the plaintiff (Sec. 2).

Jurisdiction

Courts of Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

(1) A court is one with original jurisdiction when actions or proceedings are
originally filed with it. A court is one with appellate jurisdiction when it has the
power of review over the decisions or orders of a lower court
(2) MeTCs, MCTCs and MTCs are courts of original jurisdiction without appellate
jurisdiction. RTC is likewise a court of original jurisdiction with respect to cases
originally filed with it; and appellate court with respect to cases decided by MTCs
within its territorial jurisdiction. (Sec. 22, BP 129)
(3) CA is primarily a court of appellate jurisdiction with competence to review
judgments of the RTCs and specified quasi-judicial agencies (Sec. 9[3], BP 129). It
is also a court of original jurisdiction with respect to cases filed before it involving
issuance of writs of certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and
prohibition. CA is a court of original and exclusive jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgments of RTCs (Sec. 9 [1],[2], BP 129).
(4) The SC is fundamentally a court of appellate jurisdiction but it may also be a
court of original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers
and consuls, and in cases involving petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus (Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII, Constitution). The Supreme Court en banc is not
an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of a division of the Supreme
Court may be appealed.

Courts of General and Special Jurisdiction

(1) Courts of general jurisdiction are those with competence to decide on their own
jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all cases, civil and criminal, of a particular
nature. Courts of special (limited) jurisdiction are those which have only a special
jurisdiction for a particular purpose or are clothed with special powers for the
performance of specified duties beyond which they have no authority of any kind.
(2) A court may also be considered general if it has the competence to exercise
jurisdiction over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It is in the context
that the RTC is considered a court of general jurisdiction.

JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case.

A.Jurisdiction over the Parties

(1) The manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the parties depends
on whether the party is the plaintiff or the defendant
(2) Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by his filing of the complaint or
petition. By doing so, he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
(3) Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is obtained either by a valid
service of summons upon him or by his voluntary submission to the courts
authority.
(4) The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction over the plaintiff and the defendant
applies to both ordinary and special civil actions like mandamus or unlawful
detainer cases.

How jurisdiction over plaintiff is acquired

(1) Acquired when the action is commenced by the filing of the complaint. This
presupposes payment of the docket fees

How jurisdiction over defendant is acquired

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in an action in
personam; it is not a prerequisite in an action in rem and quasi in rem. In an action
in personam, jurisdiction over the person is necessary for the court to validly try
and decide the case, while in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court,
provided the latter has jurisdiction over the res.

(1) By voluntary appearance of the defendant, without service of summons or

despite a defective service of summons. The defendants voluntary appearance in
the action shall be equivalent to service of summons.
(2) Instances when appearance of defendant is not tantamount to voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court: (a) when defendant files the necessary
pleading; (b) when defendant files motion for reconsideration of the judgment by
default; (c) when defendant files a petition to set aside the judgment of default; (d)
when the parties jointly submit a compromise agreement for approval of the court;
(e) when defendant files an answer to the contempt charge; (f) when defendant
files a petition for certiorari without questioning the courts jurisdiction over his
person.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter

(1) It is the power to deal with the general subject involved in the action, and
means not simply jurisdiction of the particular case then occupying the attention of
the court but jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular case belongs.
It is the power or authority to hear and determine cases to which the proceeding is
question belongs.
(2) When a complaint is filed in court, the basic questions that ipso facto are to be
immediately resolved by the court on its own: (a) What is the subject matter of
their complaint filed before the court? (b) Does the court have jurisdiction over the
said subject matter of the complaint before it? Answering these questions
inevitably requires looking into the applicable laws conferring jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction versus exercise of jurisdiction

(1) Jurisdiction if the power or authority of the court. The exercise of this power or
authority is the exercise of jurisdiction.

Error of jurisdiction vs. error of judgment

(1) An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the
court without or in excess of jurisdiction. It occurs when the court exercises a
jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law, or when the court or tribunal although
with jurisdiction, acts in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or jurisdiction.
(2) An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction. 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. Errors of judgment include errors of procedure or mistakes in
the courts findings.
(3) Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal; errors of jurisdiction are
correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Any judgment rendered
without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on
appeal; the only exception is when the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel.
(4) When a court, tribunal, or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the
subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case
is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the
exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing
procedural rules and jurisprudence, errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a
special civil action for certiorari.
How jurisdiction is conferred and determined
(1) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law because it is conferred by law. This
jurisdiction which is a matter of substantive law should be construed to refer only
to jurisdiction over the subject matter. Jurisdiction over the parties, the issues and
the res are matters of procedure. The test of jurisdiction is whether the court has
the power to enter into the inquiry and not whether the decision is right or wrong.
(2) It is the duty of the court to consider the question of jurisdiction before it looks
at other matters involved in the case. If the court finds that it has jurisdiction, it is
the duty of the court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law and to
render a decision in a case properly submitted to it. It cannot decline to exercise its
jurisdiction. Failure to do so may be enforced by way of mandamus proceeding.