Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

INTRODUCTION

I. General Principles

1. Concept of remedial law

Major divisions in law (Substantive Law as Distinguished from Remedial Law):


a) Substantive law – a part of law which creates, defines or regulates rights
concerning life, liberty or property, or the powers of agencies or
instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs. (Primicias vs.
Ocampo 49 OG 2230)

b) Procedural/Adjective/Remedial Law – prescribes the method of enforcing


rights or obtaining redress for their violation. (Bustos v. Lucero 81 Phil.
640,650)

c) Procedure in general
The means whereby the court reaches out to restore rights and remedy wrongs, and
includes every step which may be taken from beginning to the end of a case
(Maritime Company of the Philippines vs. Paredes, 19 SCRA 569 [1967]).

Kinds of procedure
1. As to purpose
a. civil procedure – refers to the enforcement of a private right
b. criminal procedure – refers to the prosecution of an offense
2. As to formality
a. formal procedure – requires a set and definite process to be observed in order
that the remedy can issue
b. summary procedure – where remedy sought is granted without delay, and
without the necessity of observing the procedure fixed for ordinary cases

d) Sources of Remedial law:


a) The Constitution
b) Laws creating the judiciary
c) Laws defining and allocating jurisdiction to different courts
d) Rules promulgated by the SC
e) circulars, administrative orders, internal rules and SC decisions

e) Scope of Remedial Law:


a) Constitution
b) Civil Procedure (Rules 1 to 56 and other related laws);
c) Provisional Remedies (Rules 57 to 61);
d) Special Civil Actions (Rules 62 to 71)
e) Special Proceedings (Rules 72 to 109)
f) Criminal Procedure (Rules 110 to 127)
g) Evidence (Rules 128 to 133)
h) Katarungang Pambarangay Law (RA 7160) and Implementing rules
i) Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
JBD 1
j)Rules on Small Claims Cases
k)Rules on Environmental Cases

II. RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

JUDICIAL POWER includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
(Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)

The power of judicial review is the Supreme Court's power to declare a law, treaty,
international or executive agreement, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance or regulation unconstitutional.

Rule-making power
The Rules of Court (1940, 1964, 1997) have all been enacted by the SC. It has the
binding effect of law but it is not enacted by Congress but by the SC.

Q: What is the authority of the SC to enact a law when actually the role of the
judiciary is only to interpret the law? Is this not a violation of the separation of
powers?

A. The Supreme Court has the constitutional power to promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5], Constitution).
The power of Congress under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions to repeal, alter or
supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure was taken away in the
1987 Constitution (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19,
1999).

1.) LIMITATIONS TO THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SC


[SUN]
(a) The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases,
(b) The rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and
(c) The rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. (Art. VIII, Sec.
5[5], Constitution). [DIM]

Substantive rights are created by substantive law so the Rules of Procedure


should not increase, diminish or modify them. In effect, the Rules of Court
should not amend the substantive law. It can only interpret substantive law but
should not change it completely.

2.) Test to determine whether a rule abridges, enlarges or modifies any


substantive right-
In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and
procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right, the
test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process for
JBD 2
enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly
administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule
takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the
right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a
means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure.
(Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295
SCRA 40.)

Exs. where to prosecute an appeal or transferring venue of appeal – (a) appeals from
decisions of Ombudsman in administrative cases be made to CA, or (b) requiring that
review of NLRC decisions be filed with CA (St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC, 295
SCRA 494 [1998])

3. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules


Inherent is the power of SC to SUSPEND its own rules or to EXEMPT a particular case
from the operation of said rules (pro hac vice ) whenever demanded by justice (Rep. vs.
CA, 107 SCRA 504 [1981]; De la Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 510 SCRA 103).
The right to create rules necessarily carries with it the power to suspend the effectivity of
its creation. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and
compelling as to alter even that which the Court itself had already declared to be final
(Apo Fruits Corp. vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164195, October 12, 2010).

III. Nature of Philippine Courts


1. Meaning of a court
A court is a tribunal with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and
carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in
accordance with the rule of law.
The system of courts that interpret and apply the law are collectively known as the
judiciary

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.
There is a division of labor and this division is done thru delineating
jurisdiction among courts. Jurisdiction will be discussed in the following parts.

2. Court as distinguished from a judge


A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as part of a
JBD 3
panel of judges. The judge conducts the trial impartially and in an open court. The judge
hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the parties of the case,
assesses the credibility of the parties, and then issues a ruling on the matter at hand based
on his or her interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgment.

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.

The following are the distinctions:


1.) Court is the entity, body, or tribunal vested with a portion of the
judicial power, while judge is the person or officer who presides over
a court.
2.)Judges are human beings – they die, they resign, they retire, they
maybe removed. The court continues to exist even after the judge
presiding over it ceases to do so. In the Supreme Court, for example, the
justices presiding over it are not the same justices who presided it in the
early part of this century yet the Court in some decisions states that “as
early 1905, ‘WE’ have already ruled such as such…” Why do they use
‘WE’? They are talking about the court, they are not talking about
themselves. The court is continuous. It does not die alongside with the
justices who presided on it.

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

3.) Hearing and Trial

Hearing is not synonymous with trial. The words “hearing” and “trial” have
different meanings and connotations. Trial may refer to the reception of
evidence and other processes. It embraces the period for the introduction of
evidence by both parties. Hearing, as known in law, is not confined to trial but
embraces the several stages of litigation, including the pre-trial stage. A
hearing does not necessarily mean presentation of evidence. It does not
necessarily imply the presentation of oral or documentary evidence in open court
but that the parties are afforded the opportunity to be heard. (Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 133)

4. Classification of Philippine courts

1. Regular Courts - Courts authorized to engage in the general administration of justice.


These courts derive their powers from the Constitution. At the apex is the Supreme Court.
Below the Supreme Court are three tiers of lower-level courts that initially decide
controversies brought about by litigants in the first instance.
a. Supreme Court
JBD 4
b. Court of Appeals
c. Regional Trial Court
d. Municipal Trial Court

2. Special Courts - Tribunals that have limited jurisdiction over certain types of cases or
controversies that special courts can hear are limited only to those that are specifically
provided in the special law creating such special courts. Outside of the specific cases
expressly mentioned in the provisions of the statute creating the special court, these
courts have no authority to exercise any powers of adjudication.
a. Sandiganbayan
b, Court of Tax Appeals
c. Shari’a Court

3. Quasi-Judicial Agencies - Technically, judicial powers pertain to and are exercised


only by courts. However, the Philippine system of government allows administrative
agencies to exercise adjudicatory powers in certain types of controversies, particularly if
same would facilitate the attainment of the objectives for which the administrative agency
had been created. Unlike regular and special courts, quasi-courts do not possess judicial
powers. Instead they possess and in fact, exercise what are termed as quasi-judicial
powers.

4. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction

ORIGINAL COURTS are those where a case is originally commenced, while


APPELLATE COURTS are those where a case is reviewed. (Ballentine's Law
Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 91)

So, if you are filing a case for the first time, that case is filed in an original
court. But the case does not necessarily end there. You may bring the case to the
appellate court which has the power to change the decision of the original court.

Q: Is the SC an original or appellate court?


A: The SC is both an original and an appellate court. The SC has original
jurisdiction on cases of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, etc. There are certain
cases where one may file directly to the SC.

Q: Is the CA an original or appellate court?


A: The same is true with the CA. It is both original and appellate court.
(Section 9, BP 129) When we study the jurisdiction of the CA, you will see that it
is both an original and an appellate court. There are cases which are elevated to it
from the RTC, but there are also cases which are filed there for the first time like
an action for annulment of an RTC judgment.

Q: How about the RTC? Is the RTC an original or appellate court?


A: The RTC is also both original and appellate court. You can file certain cases
there for the first time, and there are also decisions of the MTC which are
appealable to the RTC.

JBD 5
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.

a. Court of original jurisdiction – one where a case is originally commenced


1) Municipal Trial Court
2) Regional Trial Court
3) Court of Appeals
4) Supreme Court

b. Court of appellate jurisdiction – one which has power or review over the decisions
or orders of a lower court
1) Regional Trial Court
2) Court of Appeals
3) Supreme Court

5. Courts of general and special jurisdiction


a. General jurisdiction – courts which take cognizance of all kinds of cases, civil or
criminal, except those assigned to special courts and courts of limited jurisdiction
1) Regional Trial Court

b.Special jurisdiction – courts which have the power to hear only certain types of cases,
or are clothed with special powers for the performance of specified duties beyond which
they have no authority of any kind.
1) Sandiganbayan
2) Court of Tax Appeals
3) Shari’a Court

6. Constitutional and statutory courts

CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS are created directly by the Constitution itself,


while STATUTORY COURTS are created by law or by the legislature. The
first cannot be abolished by Congress without amending the Constitution
while the second can be so abolished by just simply repealing the law which
created them.

In our country, there is only one Constitutional court – the Supreme Court.
Even the Sandiganbayan is not considered a Constitutional court because it was
not created by the Constitution directly. The 1973 Constitution, particularly Art.
XIII, Section 5 ordered the then National Assembly to create a special court to be
known as the Sandiganbayan which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and
civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses
committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-

JBD 6
owned or controlled corporations in relation to their office as may be determined
by law.. It was law that created the Sandiganbayan (PD 1486).

The CA, RTC, and the MTC are created by the Congress.

So there is only one Constitutional court. All the rest, from the CA down and
all other special courts, are only creatures of Congress.
In political law, the power to create carries with it the power to abolish. That
is why, BP 129 abolished all existing courts at that time (CFI, CA, Juvenile and
Domestic courts, etc.) and RTC, IAC, MTC were created. That was the judicial
reorganization of 1980 under BP 129. But there is only one court which the
Batasan Pambansa could not touch – the Supreme Court.

a. Constitutional – those created by the Constitution


1) Supreme Court

b. Statutory – those created by the legislature


1) Court of Appeals
2) Regional Trial Court
3) Municipal Trial Court
4) Sandiganbayan
5) Court of Tax Appeals
6) Shari’a Court

7. Courts of law and equity


COURTS OF LAW are tribunals administering justice only by applying 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.” (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 303)

Courts Of Law dispose cases according to what the promulgated law says
while Courts Of Equity adjudicate cases based on the principles of equity.
Principle of equity means principles of justice, fairness, fair play or of what is
right and just without inquiring into the terms of the statutes.

Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity. Hence, both legal and equitable
jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal. (.U.S. vs. Tamparong , 31 Phil. 321)
However, equity does not apply when there is a law applicable to a given case (Smith
Bell Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 530). It is availed of only in the absence of a
law and is never availed of against statutory law or judicial pronouncements (Velez vs
Demetrio , G.R. No. 128576, August 13, 2002).

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.

JBD 7
As a matter of fact under the Civil Code, when the law is silent, you decide it
based on what is just and fair, thus, the saying EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW. In
the Philippines you cannot distinguish sometimes the principle of law and the
principle of equity because principles of equity are also written in the law.
Example: The principles of estoppel, laches or solutio indebiti are no longer
purely principles of equity since they are also found in our law. Under the Civil
Code, when there is no applicable law, courts still have to decide according to
customs and general principles.

ESTOPPEL.

Estoppel is an equitable doctrine which means that it is not fair that you disown
your own representation after misleading somebody. But if you look at the Civil
Code, there is a chapter on estoppel. So if you apply estoppel, you cannot say
that you are applying a principle not found under the law.

LACHES

It is considered to be the half-brother of prescription because it means if you


delay a certain right then you must have no right. That is more of equity, rather
than of law.

SOLUTIO INDEBITI.

No one should enrich himself at the expense of another. That is a principle of


equity. But if you look at the Civil Code, it's there!

ALONZO vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT


May 28, 1987, J. Cruz

HELD: “The question is sometimes asked, in serious inquiry or in


curious conjecture, whether we are a court of law or a court of justice.
Do we apply the law even if it is unjust or do we administer justice even
against the law? Thus queried, we do not equivocate. The answer is that
we do neither because we are a court both of law and of justice. We apply
the law with justice for that is our mission and purpose in the scheme of our
Republic.”

Other Classification of courts in general.

1. SUPERIOR COURTS vs. FIRST-LEVEL COURTS

SUPERIOR COURTS, otherwise known as courts of general jurisdiction,


are those which take cognizance of all kinds cases, whether civil or criminal,

JBD 8
and possess supervisory authority over lower courts. They refer to these courts
which have the power of review or supervision over another lower court.
INFERIOR COURTS, otherwise known as courts of special or limited
jurisdiction, are those which take cognizance of certain specified cases only.
(14 Am. Jur. 249) They are those which, in relation to another are lower in rank
and subject to review and supervision of the latter.

Q: What courts are superior or inferior?


A: It DEPENDS from what viewpoint you are looking at it. If you are looking
from the viewpoint of the Constitution, there is only one superior court – the
Supreme Court.

From the viewpoint of other laws, the Court of Appeals (CA) maybe inferior
to the SC but it is a superior court for it exercises supervision over RTC. In the
same manner that the RTC might be inferior to the SC and the CA but it has also
power of supervision over MTC. The jurisdiction of the RTC is varied. It is
practically a jack of all trade. The RTC has also the power of supervision over
MTC.

A superior court may therefore handle civil, criminal cases while an inferior
court may try specified cases only. The SC, CA including the RTC are considered
as superior courts.

The MTC is a first-level (inferior) court so that its power is limited to specified
cases despite of the law which expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC. It does not
have any supervisory authority over any lower court.

2. CIVIL COURTS vs. CRIMINAL COURTS

CIVIL COURTS are those which take cognizance of civil cases only, while
CRIMINAL COURTS are those which take cognizance of criminal cases only.
(14 Am. Jur. 249; Ballentine's Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 301)

All the courts in the Philippines are both civil and criminal courts. They can
handle both types of cases. The SC decides civil and criminal cases. The same is
true with the CA, RTC and MTC.

So, in the Philippines, there is no such thing as a 100% criminal court or civil
court. During the 70's there was the old Circuit Criminal Court. As the name
implies, it is purely a criminal court. But with other courts, this was abolished by
BP 129.

With the abolition of those special courts, all their powers were transferred to
the present RTC. Right now, there is no such thing as a 100% civil court or a

JBD 9
100% criminal court. So, all our courts are both civil and criminal courts at the
same time.

3. COURTS OF RECORD
Those whose proceedings are enrolled and which are bound to keep a written
record of all trials and proceedings handled by them. RA 6031 mandates all
MTCs to be courts of record.

4. PROBATE COURTS
Those which have jurisdiction over settlement of estate of deceased persons.

5. LAND REGISTRATION COURTS


Those which have jurisdiction over registration of real properties under the
Torrens System.

8. Principle of judicial hierarchy


Regular courts

SUPREME COURT

COURT OF APPEALS

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

MetTC MTCC MTC MCTC

Note:
MetTC- In Manila
MTCC- cities outside Manila e.g. Cebu, Davao
MTC- municipalities such as Minglanilla, Argao
MCTC- circuitized areas because it is impractical and expensive to maintain
one MTC in every municipality.

b.) Special courts

There are also Special Courts which are also considered part of the
judiciary. These are:
1. Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125)
2. Sandiganbayan (PD 1486 as amended)
3. Sharia District Courts and the Sharia Circuit Courts (PD 1083 , also
known as the Code of Muslim Personal Law);
4. Family Courts

Policy of Judicial Hierarchy

JBD 10
This policy means that a higher court will not entertain direct resort to
it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate
courts.

Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort from the lower courts to the Supreme Court will
not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower
tribunals.
Rationale:
(a) to prevent inordinate demands upon the SC’s time and attention
which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and
(b) to prevent further overcrowding of the SC’s docket.
Thus, although the SC, CA and the RTC have CONCURRRENT jurisdiction to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction,
such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court
forum.
The SC will NOT ENTERTAIN DIRECT RESORT to it unless the redress desired cannot
be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances,
such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the extraordinary
remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction (Heirs of
Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor ,
455 SCRA 460 [2005]).

9. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability


This principle holds that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with
each other’s orders (Lapu -lapu Dev and Housing Corp vs. Group Management
Corp, 338 SCRA 493). Hence, a RTC has no power or authority to nullify or enjoin the
enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another Regional Trial Court (Suico
Industrial Corp vs; CA, 301 SCRA 212). The principle also bars a court from reviewing
or interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate
jurisdiction or power of review (Villamor vs. Salas, 203 SCRA 540). Exc. Third party
claim
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of
a coequal court, as an accepted axiom in adjective law, serves as an insurmountable
barrier to the competencia of the Makati court to entertain the habeas corpus case on
account of the previous assumption of jurisdiction by the Cavite court, and the
designation of petitioners as guardians ad litem of the ward. This is based on the policy of
peaceful co-existence among courts of the same judicial plane. (Panlilio vs. Salonga,
G.R. No. 113087, June 27, 1994).

IV. INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT

Before we leave the concepts of courts, we must know that the courts of justice
have what we call inherent powers. Just like the State have certain inherent
powers, namely; Police power, power of taxation, and power of eminent domain.

JBD 11
Their very existence automatically necessitates the existence of these powers.
Q: What are the inherent powers of the court?
A: Section 5 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Inherent powers of courts. Every court shall have the power:
(a) to preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
(b) to enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person or persons
empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority;
(c) to compel obedience to its judgments orders, and processes, and to the lawful
orders of a judge out of court, in a case therein;
(d) to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and
of all other persons in any manner connected with a case before it, in every manner
appertaining thereto;
(e) to compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending therein;
(f) to administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case pending therein, and
in all other cases where it may be necessary in the existence of its powers;
(g) to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable
to law and justice;
(h) to authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other paper to be filed
and used instead of the original, and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its records
and proceedings.

SITUATION: Suppose I have the power to decide and I render a decision. I


want to enforce the decision, how do I enforce? Well, usually the law provides
for the procedure.

Q: But suppose the law does not provide for any manner to enforce? For
example a judge has rendered a decision, and the law is silent on how to enforce
it, do you mean to say that the order is unenforceable because the law is silent?
A: NO. Section 6 of Rule 135 answers the question.

SEC 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect – When by law jurisdiction is


conferred on a court or a judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and all
other means to carry it into effect maybe employed by such court or officer;
and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not
specifically pointed out by law or these rules, any suitable process or mode
of proceeding may be adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of
said law or rules.

What Section 6 is trying to say is that when courts have the power to decide,
they have the power to enforce. And if the law is silent, judges have to think of
how to do it provided they conform to the spirit of the rule. So they should not
make the order useless simply because there is no rule. That is part of their
power.

ENFORCEABILITY OF COURT WRITS AND PROCESSES

JBD 12
Another provision that should be emphasized is Section 3 of the Interim
Rules.

Question: The court of Cebu issues a writ or a process. Can that writ or process
be enforced in Manila? What is the extent of the enforceability of a writ issued by
a court?

Under Section 3, Interim Rules:

Sec. 3. Writs and Processes. -


a) Writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction issued by a regional trial court may be enforced in
any part of the region.
b) All other processes whether issued by the RTC or MetTC, MCTC, and
MTC may be served anywhere in the Philippines, and, the last three cases,
without a certification by the judge of the RTC.

A: Under Section 3 of the Interim Rules, you have to distinguish what kind of
writ or process you are talking about:
a) If it is a writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus, injunction, it can be enforced anywhere within the region. So at
least, RTC can enforce it within the region and it cannot enforce those writs
outside the region.

EXAMPLE: If you are illegally detained, you can ask the court to issue
a writ of habeas corpus. Now, a person is detained in Cagayan de Oro
and the family is here in Cebu City. They filed a petition for habeas
corpus here in Cebu City. Is it proper?
No. Cebu City belongs to the 7th Judicial Region while Cagayan de Oro
is in the 11th or 12th Judicial Region. The law is very clear: writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction issued by a trial court may be enforced in any part of the
region.

b) Section 3 further says, all other writs are enforceable anywhere in the
Philippines. Suppose the MTC issues a warrant for the arrest of the accused
in the criminal case, and he fled to Baguio City, such warrant can be
enforced there. This includes summons, writs of execution or search
warrants.

V. Aspects of remedial law

1.) PUBLIC ASPECT – one which affords a remedy in favor of the State
against the individual (e.g. criminal procedure) or in favor of the

JBD 13
individual against the State (e.g. habeas corpus) on the other
hand,

2.) PRIVATE ASPECT – one which affords a remedy in favor of an


individual against another individual, like the rules on civil
procedure. (Gamboa’s Introduction to Philippine Law, 6th Ed.,
pp. 97-99)

VI. What is civil procedure?


The method of conducting a judicial proceeding to resolve disputes involving
private parties for the purpose of enforcing private rights or obtaining redress for
the invasion of rights.

Action and suit


In the Philippines, the terms “action” and “suit” are synonymous
(Lopez vs. Compania de Seguros (16 SCRA 855 [1966])

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAW ON CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE


PHILIPPINES

The origin of our law on procedure is American. Forget the law on procedure
during the Spanish regime. But the first known ancestor of the law on Civil
Procedure was the old Act 190, otherwise known as the Code of Civil Procedure,
which was enacted on August 7, 1901 by the United States and Philippine
Commission.

And that was the law until 1940 because on July 01,1940 the SC enacted the
Rules of Court which we now call the Old Rules of Court. That continued for
another 24 years until January 01, 1964 when the SC enacted the Revised Rules of
Court repealing the Old Rules of Court. And that continued for another 33 years
until July 01,1997 where the SC enacted and which took effect on that day (July
01, 1997) the New Rules on Civil Procedure.

SUMMARY:
1.) First Law – August 07, 1901 – Act 190 – Code of Civil Procedure (40 years)
2.) Second Law – July 01, 1940 – Old Rules of Court (24 years)
3.) Third Law – January 01, 1964 – Revised Rules of Court (33 years)
4.) Fourth Law – July 01, 1997 – New Rules of Civil Procedure.

SOURCES OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Well of course the sources are almost the same as the prior law. The old Rules
of Court is also a source. Many provisions were taken from the 1964 Rules,
substantive law like the Civil Code and jurisprudence. And of course SC
circulars. Many circulars are now incorporated under the new rule. So those are
the main sources.
JBD 14
SOURCES:
1.) Previous Rules of Court;
2.) Jurisprudence;
3.) New Civil Code;
4.) SC Circulars

-oOo-

JBD 15