CIVIL PROCEDURE REVIEWER I.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Remedial Law the branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing rights and obtaining redress for the invasion thereof. Substantive Law- creates, defines, and regulates rights concerning life, liberty, and property or the power of the agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of public. Rule making power of the Supreme Court Sec. 5 (5) Art. 8, Consti confers upon the SC the power to 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 under-privileged. In Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, the SC declared that the rule making power of the court has expanded. 1987 consti took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure. Therefore, such powers are no longer shared with the Congress. In Neypes v. CA, it has been held that the SC has the power to amend, repeal, or even establish new rules for a more simplified and inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases. SC also has the power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the amendments of the rules of Court. SC has the power to suspend the rules and to reverse itself. RULE 1 SEC. 2 : rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. Reasons which would warrant the suspension of the Rules: 1. Special or compelling circumstances 2. Merits of the case 3. Cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of rules 4. Lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory. 5. Other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. Limitations on the rule making power of the SC: 1. Provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases 2. Rules shall be uniform for courts of the same grade 3. Rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights RULE 1 SEC. 6: construction rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. The rigid application of the Rules may be relaxed so that the ends of justice may be better served. Rules must be used to facilitate not to frustrate substantial justice

GENERAL RULE is compliance with the procedural rules; abandonment should only be done in the MOST EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. Nature of Philippine Courts Court is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function of which is the application of the laws to controversies brought before it as well as the public administration of justice. Distinction of court to judge COURT a tribunal officially assembled under the authority of law is an organ of the government is an idea or imagination comparable to a corporation is an office jurisdiction is attached to it JUDGE simply an officer of such tribunal the person/ officer who sits on it. is a physical person is a public officer jurisdiction is not attached to it

Classification of Philippine Courts Constitutional court one created by a direct constitutional provision. (eg. Supreme Court) Statutory court one created by a law other than the constitution. ( eg. Sandiganbayan) Civil court those which determine controversies between private persons Criminal court those which adjudicate offenses alleged to have been committed against the state. Courts of record those which keep a written account of its proceedings. - All Philippine courts, including inferior courts, are now courts of record. Superior or inferior courts a court is superior or inferior in relation to another court. All courts in the Philippines are inferior to the SC. Courts of general jurisdiction 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 jurisdiction those which have a special jurisdiction only 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. Court of original jurisdiction actions or proceedings are originally filed with it. Court of appellate jurisdiction it has the power of review over decisions or orders of a lower court. Original Jurisdiction jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case at its inception, try it, and pass judgment upon the law and facts.

Exclusive Jurisdiction precludes the idea of co-existence and refers to jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion of others. *courts may be conferred both original and exclusive jurisdiction over a particular subject matter. Concurrent jurisdiction called coordinate jurisdiction; power of diff. courts to take cognizance of the same subject matter. Courts of Law and Equity Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity. Equity seeks to reach and to do complete justice where the courts of law are incompetent to do so because of the inflexibility of rules and the lack of power to adapt their judgments to the special circumstances of cases; equity does not apply where there is a law applicable to a given case. EQUITY JURISDICTION the power of the court to resolve issues presented in a case in accordance with the natural rules of fairness and justice in the absence of a clear, positive law governing such issues. Principle of Judicial Hierarchy Hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (inferior) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. It is an established policy that parties must observe the hierarchy of courts before they can seek relief directly from the SC. Rationale for this rule are: 1. It would be an imposition upon the limited time of the SC. 2. It would inevitably result in a delay. A petitioner cannot seek relief from the SC where the issuance of such writ is also within the competence of the RTC or the CA because it cannot be burdened with the task of deciding cases in the first instance. Supreme Court however may disregard the principle of hierarchy of courts if warranted by the nature and importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations. Direct invocation of the SCs original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. In Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Assoc. v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, it was held that judicial hierarchy is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention

which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the courts docket.
Doctrine of Non Interference or Judicial Stability

The regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court, as an accepted axiom in adjective law, serves as an insurmountable barrier to the competence of a court to entertain a motion, much less issue an order, relative to a subject matter which is under the custodia legis of another court by virtue of a prior writ of attachment.
This principle holds that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each others orders. This 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. This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. Doctrine of Non interference in Associations Courts will not interfere with the internal affairs of an unincorporated association so as to settle disputes between the members on question of policy, discipline, or internal government, so long as the government of the society is fairly and honestly administered in conformity with its laws and the law of the land and no property or civil rights are invaded. Under such circumstances, the decision of the governing body or established private tribunal of the association is binding and conclusive and not subject to review or collateral attack in the courts. (Lions Club International v. Amores, 121 SCRA 621) Non interference of courts of coordinate jurisdiction No court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by injunction. This doctrine of noninterference is premised on the principle that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction. II. JURISDICTION

It is the power and authority of the court to try, hear, and decide a case. It is not the authority of the judge but of the court. Hence, continuity of a court and the efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by the death, resignation, or cessation from the service of the judge presiding over it. Jurisdiction over the parties Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired by the filing of the complaint or petition. An action or proceeding is commenced by the filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading. By that act, the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter or nature of the action or proceeding is invoked or called into activity and it is thus, that the court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature

of the action. It is by that self-same act of the plaintiff or petitioner of filing the complaint or petition by which he signifies his submission to the courts power and authority that jurisdiction is acquired by the Court over his person. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired by service of summons, by arrest, or by voluntary submission to the court. Jurisdiction over the subject matter Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of action is conferred by law. It is properly invoked by filing the complaint or the information. It is the power of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it. subject matter refers to the item with respect to which the controversy has arisen or concerning which the wrong has been done. In the case of Locsin v. Nissan Lease Phils., Locsin, at the time of his severance from Nissan, was the latters corporate officer. Given Locsins status as a corporate officer, the RTC, not the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC, has jurisdiction to hear the legality of the termination of his relationship with Nissan. In this case, the SC gave precedence to the merits of the case and primacy to the element of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and rule on a case and is the threshold element that must exist before any quasi-judicial officer can act. The Labor Arbiter does not have jurisdiction over the termination dispute Locsin brought, and should not be allowed to continue to act on the case after the absence of jurisdiction has become obvious, based on the records and the law, even if there was a procedural flaw in questioning the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. In more practical terms, a contrary ruling will only cause substantial delay and inconvenience as well as unnecessary expenses, to the point of injustice, to the parties. This conclusion, of course, does not go into the merits of termination of relationship and is without prejudice to the filing of an intra-corporate dispute on this point before the appropriate RTC. In Civil Service Commission v. Andal, In previous cases, the Civil Service Commission recognized the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over court personnel. This is consonant with Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution vesting in the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Thus: Sec. 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges and court personnels administrative compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. In Re: Order dated 21 December 2006 issued by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda suspending Loida Genabe, Legal Researcher, it was held that not even the presiding judge has a disciplinary authority over his personnel. The authority of judges to discipline erring court personnel, under their supervision and charged with light offenses, is limited to conducting an inquiry only. After such inquiry, the executive judge is required to submit to the OCA the results of the investigation and give a recommendation as to what action

should be taken. An executive judge does not have the authority to act upon the results of the inquiry and thereafter, if the court employee is found guilty, unilaterally impose a penalty, as in this case. It is only the Supreme Court which has the power to find the court personnel guilty or not for the offense charged and then impose a penalty. In the present case, Judge Maceda suspended Genabe for the offense of neglect of duty. Under Section 52(B), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense which carries a penalty of one month and one day to six months suspension for the first offense. Under A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, an executive judge may only conduct an investigation for all offenses. After the investigation, the executive judge is mandated to refer the necessary disciplinary action to this Court for appropriate action. Jurisdiction vs. the exercise of jurisdiction Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court to try and hear cases while exercise of jurisdiction is the exercise of the court of such power or authority. Error of jurisdiction vs. error of judgment Error of jurisdiction is where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction while in error of judgment the court which is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action commits a mistake in the appreciation of facts and evidence leading to an erroneous judgment. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined Only the Constitution or law confers jurisdiction over the subject matter. It cannot be fixed by the will of parties; it cannot be acquired through, or waived, enlarged or diminished by, any act or omission of the parties. On the other hand, what determines the nature of the action as well as the court, which has jurisdiction over the case, is the allegation made by the plaintiff in his complaint. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction Courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially when the question demands the sound exercise of administrative discretion requiring special knowledge of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. If a case requires the expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before one can resort to the court even if the matter is within the courts proper jurisdiction. Doctrine of exhaustion It is incumbent upon the party who has an administrative remedy to pursue the same to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial intervention. The Court has consistently reiterated the rationale behind the doctrine of the exhaustion of administrative remedies:

One of the reasons for the doctrine of exhaustion is the separation of powers, which enjoins upon the Judiciary a becoming policy of non-interference with matters coming primarily (albeit not exclusively) within the competence of the other departments. The theory is that the administrative authorities are in a better position to resolve questions addressed to their particular expertise and that errors committed by subordinates in their resolution may be rectified by their superiors if given a chance to do so It may be added that strict enforcement of the rule could also relieve the courts of a considerable number of avoidable cases which otherwise would burden their heavily loaded dockets. The failure to exhaust administrative remedies, however, does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies only renders the action premature, that the claimed cause of action is not ripe for judicial determination. *Doctrine of exhaustion and primary jurisdiction are not the same Justice Herrera emphasized that the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and failure to exhaust administrative remedies are not synonymous and should be distinguished from one another. In US v. Western Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 59 (1956), Justice Harlan explained that exhaustion applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone; judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has ruled its course. Primary jurisdiction on the other hand applies where a claim is originally cognizable by the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which under a regulatory scheme have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction Once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of litigation. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter The court ma