Transcribed Notes on Civil Precedures, Part I

SYLLABUS FOR 2011 BAR EXAMINATIONS

REMEDIAL LAW
I. General Principles
A. Concept of Remedial Law
The Rules of Court as a whole constitute the body of rules governing pleadings, practice and
procedure. As they do not originate from the legislature, they cannot be called laws in the strict
sense of the word. However, since they are promulgated by authority of law, they have the force and
effect of law if not in conflict with a positive law. The Rules are subordinate to statute, and in case of
conflict, the statute will prevail.
The concept of Remedial Law lies at the very core of procedural due process, which means a law
which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial,
and contemplates an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.
Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing the rights for obtaining
redress for their invasion.
Remedial laws are implemented in our system of government through the pillars of the judicial
system, including the prosecutory service, our courts of justice and quasi judicial agencies.
We cannot separate remedial law from substantive law. Remedial law does not establish a right.
Substantive law establishes that right, but remedial law protects and enforces such right.
B. Substantive Law as Distinguished from Remedial Law
SUBSTANTIVE LAW is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights concerning
life, liberty, or property, or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of public
affairs. This is distinguished from REMEDIAL LAW which prescribes the method of enforcing those
rights and obligations created by substantive law for obtaining redress for their invasion.
C. Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court
The SC has the constitutional power to promulgate
rules concerning pleading,practice and procedure (Sec 5(5), Art. VIII, Constitution). But this is not
an absolute power, it is subject to some limitations.
1. Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court
The following are imposed by the Constitution on the rule-making power of the SC:
a. The Rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for thespeedy disposition of
cases;
b. The Rules shall be uniform for courts of the same grade; and
c. The Rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights (Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII,
Constitution). Only the legislature can do these acts, not the SC.
2. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules
The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to except a case
from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant orwhen the purpose of justice
requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rule
is discretionary upon the courts.
When a rule promulgated by the SC is not applied by the SC to a particular case, it is not a situation
where the SC violates its own rules. It is a situation where the SC has promulgated a rule on that
particular case only pro hac vice. This is the power of the SC to suspend the rules in the interest of
justice. The SC can even not apply a particular rule.
In a case where the action of the MTC was patently null and void, the SC took cognizance of a
petition for certiorari without it having to pass the RTC. The SC in this particular case did not follow a
rule. What is the justification of the court? Action has to be done immediately. Only the SC can do
that.
The SC has also sustained appeals filed beyond the reglementary period shown to be meritorious
and the failure to file on time was with a reason that will compel the court to recognize that reason.
The rules are not intended to be applied with pedantic rigor. The rules and technicalities have to give
way to the interest of substantial justice. So when there is a conflict between the interest of justice
and technicalities, the latter have to give way in order to give way to justice.
Reasons which would warrant the suspension of the Rules:
1. Existence of special or compelling circumstances;
2. the merits of the case;
3. a 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; and
5. the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
Compliance with the rules is the general rule, and abandonment thereof should only be done in the
most exceptional circumstances.
Power to amend the rules. 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. The constitutional
power of the SC to promulgate rules of practice and procedure and to amend or repeal the same
necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law
through the amendment of the ROC.
The ROC are to be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just,
speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action or proceeding.
D. 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.
1. Meaning of a court
Referred to here is the court as a public office, an office under the judiciary. It is tasked with the
primary purpose of resolving controversies among individuals, and also tasked with enforcement of
the procedures for defending the State against disorder like in criminal prosecution.
A court itself does not actually physically exist. The courtroom does. A court exists because of legal
fiction.
2. Court as distinguished from a judge
It is a court which has jurisdiction over cases. A judge has no jurisdiction. While a court is an office,
the officer that presides over a court is called a judge. A judge is a physical actual being while a
court is a creation of law. A judge may die but a court remains.
3. Classification of Philippine courts
4. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction
Original jurisdiction is where a case is filed first.
The MTC has original jurisdiction. Does the CA also have original jurisdiction? Yes. There are cases
which are filed in the CA for the first time. Does the SC also have original jurisdiction? Yes.
Appellate jurisdiction is the authority to review, revise, reverse or modify decisions of a lower court.
The MTC has no appellate jurisdiction.
5. Courts of general and special jurisdiction
Courts normally have jurisdiction given to them by law. But there are some courts which even if not
specifically given could be within the jurisdiction of that court.
The RTC is a court of general jurisdiction. If there is no law which confers jurisdiction over a
subject matter to any particular court, it is now assumed automatically under BP 129 that it will go to
the RTC because it is a court of general jurisdiction.
The MTC, CA, and SC are not courts of general jurisdiction. They exercise aspecial jurisdiction.
They only exercise jurisdiction over subject matters conferred directly to them by law.
6. Constitutional and statutory courts
Statutory courts are courts created by law, by statute or other specific laws other then the
fundamental law. Those laws are authorized by the Constitution. There is only 1 court created
directly by the Constitution, the SC.
The Sandiganbayan is not constitutional court because it is not directly created by the constitution; it
is a constitutionally-mandated court. As early as the 1973 Constitution directed an order to create
the Sandiganbayan.
7. Courts of law and equity
Philippine courts exercise 2 general types of jurisdiction; the legal and the equity jurisdiction. That
means that Philippine courts are not only courts of law but also courts of equity.
Courts of equity decide a case not in relation to a particular statutory provision. Courts of equity
decide a case on the basis of the natural concept of what is just and what is fair because human
beings have natural concepts of what is right and what is wrong even if we have not gone to school.
There is one principle we have to remember. The courts are not authorized to apply the rules or laws
on equity if there is a specific statutory provision. Equity is not supposed to come in if there is a law
applicable to certain state of facts. No matter how harsh the law is, if there is a law, the court will
have to apply the law. If there is no law, thats the time that courts go to the laws on equity.
Reyes vs. Lim, August 11, 2003: This was about an agreement to sell a land. Actually it was a
conditional sale. The buyer gave a hefty down payment of P10 million because it involved a parcel of
land with a prime location in Pasay City. He noticed that the seller really had no intention to go on
with the sale. He filed alternatively an action to rescind or to annul the contract. During the pendency
of the case, he asked the court to require the defendant seller to deposit in court the P10 million he
already gave as down payment because he noticed that the seller is engaged in some activities
which made him to believe that the guy was squandering the money he gave as earnest money. If
the contract is annulled or rescinded, there is then an obligation for the obligee to make restitution,
and the buyer fears that there will be no more money to return. The defendant said that the plaintiff
in effect is asking for a provisional remedy that is not found in the rules. The SC said there is a
vacuum in the law, and there is a need to protect the right of the plaintiff should he win. And so the
court allowed a deposit as a provisional remedy pro hac vice only on that particular case using its
equity jurisdiction.
8. Principle of Judicial Hierarchy
This principle arises in case of concurrent jurisdiction. Meaning there are cases cognizable by 1
court and another court or courts authorized by law; there are several courts authorized by law to
take cognizance over a case. In petitions for a writ of amparo, there is concurrent jurisdiction
between the RTC, CA, SC and even the Sandiganbayan.
Our courts follow the so-called ladderized procedure. If you could file it in the lowest court, then
file it there first. You must have a compelling reason for filing it in a higher court than in a
lower court. This is judicial hierarchy, a general rule which may be disregarded sometimes.
9. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability
A court cannot issue an order against a co-equal court. An RTC cannot enjoin the acts of another
RTC. This is to promote the doctrine of stability. This is also applied to certain quasi-judicial
agencies. The RTC cannot enjoin the SEC because they have equal ranks. Go to the CA by way of
Rule 43.
Transcribed Baste Lectures Part II
II. Jurisdiction
A. Jurisdiction over the parties
1. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired
An original plaintiff may sometimes become a defendant in the same case. And an original
defendant may become a plaintiff in the same case. For example, OP filed a claim against OD. Then
OD filed a counterclaim against OP. OD becomes a plaintiff in the counterclaim and OP becomes a
defendant.
The filing of the complaint by the plaintiff vests upon the court jurisdiction upon his person.
2. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired?
A true defendant is whom relief is directly sought against. A defendant in name only is the not a true
defendant. Therefore, you do not need jurisdiction over the person of every defendant in all
cases. You only need the jurisdiction over the person of the defendant when the action is in
personam. And this is mandatory. We did not say personal action, it is different from action in
personam.
In actions in rem and quasi in rem, technically there are no defendants although some persons may
be named. You only need jurisdiction over the thing or res, which is either a thing or a status of a
person.
An action in rem is an action against the whole world addressed to no one in particular. For example,
in a probate proceeding the heirs are mentioned because they have interests in the estate but the
court needs jurisdiction over the estate only. It is an action in rem.
An annulment of marriage or declaration of nullity is also an action in rem. The parties are only
incidental to the action. A cadastral case is also an action in rem.
An injunction and an action for unlawful detainer and for forcible entry are actions in personam.
An action involving the status of an individual is an action in rem. But there is an action about the
status of an individual which is not an action in rem but in personam- an action for compulsory
recognition of a child.
There are other actions called quasi in rem. There is a specific individual who is interested in a
property but its actually the property which is the focal point of the suit. For instance, foreclosure of
a mortgage, an action quasi in rem. A proceeding for preliminary attachment is a proceeding quasi in
rem. Accounting of funds is also quasi in rem.
These are jurisprudential examples coming from the Bar exams.
So when talking about jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, we are talking only of actions in
personam where such jurisdiction is mandatory.
When there is voluntary appearance, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired even
without service of summons or upon a summons invalidly served. It is found in Sec. 20 Rule 14.
Master this!
Sec. 20 The defendants voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of
summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.
Voluntary appearance is equivalent to service of summons (1
st
sentence of Sec. 20).
What is the defendants 1
st
opportunity to question the courts jurisdiction over his person? Motion to
dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person.Adding other grounds to the motion
to dismiss is not considered voluntary appearance as opposed to the old rule. You can add as
many defenses.
B. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
1. Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter
The subject matter refers to the class to which the case belongs. For example, forcible entry and
unlawful detainer; actions of incapable of pecuniary estimation; admiralty cases; these are classes.
The Filing of a complaint vests jurisdiction upon the court with respect to the person of the plaintiff.
Bar: the plaintiff was abroad, his counsel filed the complaint. The defendant moved to dismiss on the
ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the complainant because the is not in the Philippines.
Defendant is wrong: jurisdiction is not acquired through his personal presence in court to file the
complaint. Jurisdiction on his person is acquired by the filing of the complaint in his name and
under his authority. Jurisdiction was acquired by virtue of the complaint filed in court.
2. Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction
When the question speaks about jurisdiction vs. the exercise of jurisdiction, it means jurisdiction over
the subject matter.
Jurisdiction is the power or authority belonging to the court. When the court acts according to such
authority, that action in accordance with such authority is an exercise of jurisdiction. A court has
jurisdiction over an UD case; when it receives the complaint and acts in accordance with such
authority to take cognizance over such UD case, its action falls under the concept of exercise of
jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is static, the exercise is active. To be valid, the exercise of jurisdiction must be based on
jurisdiction. An exercise of jurisdiction without jurisdiction is not a valid act. The court is acting
without jurisdiction.
3. Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of judgment
When the court is exercising jurisdiction without jurisdiction, there is an error called error of
jurisdiction. It is a grievous error; it strikes at the very action of the court. It is reviewable
by certiorari (Rule 65).
When the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the manner of the exercise of that
jurisdiction has been found out to be erroneous, it is an error of judgment correctible
by appeal (Rule 45). It involves errors in the appreciation of the facts and evidences. It could ripen
into a valid judgment if not questioned in a proper proceeding like appeal because it is not a void
judgment. It needs to be questioned. If there is a remedy of appeal, do not use certiorari.
4. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined
Jurisdiction is conferred by law. It cannot be conferred by the agreement of the parties or of the
approval of the court. Good faith of the judge does not confer jurisdiction. Neither can estoppel
confer jurisdiction; it will only prevent you from questioning jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not the title of the case. Sometimes
the title of the complaint and the allegations are in conflict. The allegations prevail.
Pay and vacate -> unlawful detainer (MTC)
Pay or vacate -> action for a sum of money (depends upon the amount)
Comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate -> UD (MTC)
Comply or vacate -> specific performance (RTC)
UD: there is a need to demand to vacate
FE: no such need
Can the parties to a case agree for their convenience and for the convenience of the court that the
RTC will try a forcible entry case? No.
The court will not rely on the title of the complaint. It has to read the complaint and determine the
allegations on the complaint.
It is the plaintiff, in effect, that determines jurisdiction thru his allegations. The allegations of the
defendant will not determine jurisdiction.
If the amount of the claim is 1 million, jurisdiction will go to the RTC and the court cannot dismiss it if
in the course of the trial it was convincingly established that only 100,000 is due to the plaintiff. In
this case, the court will render judgment only for 100,000 in favor of the plaintiff, but the court should
not dismiss the complaint.
5. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
There are cases which the court will not handle at first because jurisdiction belongs to an
administrative or quasi judicial agency. For example tenancy (DARAB), agrarian reform case (DAR),
rates for electricity (Energy Dept.)
6. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction (the doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction)
Once the court acquires jurisdiction by virtue of a valid complaint, that jurisdiction shall continue up
to the end of the case. Intervening facts will not deprive the courts of jurisdiction.
Suppose an action for a sum of money, 1 million, was filed in the RTC. During the trial of the case it
was convincingly established that the liability of the defendant was only 100, 000 cognizable at first
instance by the MTC. Can the defendant move to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction? No,
the court already acquired jurisdiction by virtue of the allegations of a valid complaint. Its jurisdiction
will not be ousted by contrary evidence. The court should continue with the case and render
judgment for 100, 000. This is adherence of jurisdiction doctrine.
Even the existence of a new law will not divest the court of jurisdiction already acquired unless the
law itself orders that such court be divested of jurisdiction.
There was this official of the government with a salary range of grade 27, he was sued in the
Sandiganbayan, and while the case was pending he resigned from office and said that the SB no
longer had jurisdiction over him in lieu of his resignation. He was wrong. Jurisdiction has already
attached and once attached it shall continue until the end of the proceedings by virtue of the doctrine
of adherence.
7. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter
The court may on its own initiative object to an erroneous jurisdiction and may ex mero motu take
cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the case and has a clearly recognized right to
determine its own jurisdiction. The courts authority however is only to dismiss the complaint and not
to make any other order like forwarding the case to the proper court.
8. Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
Estoppel does not confer jurisdiction. It will only prevent you from questioning the lack of jurisdiction.
The ancient case of Tijam vs. Sibunghanoy is the perfect example of estoppel by latches, as used in
that case. One litigant in that case knew that the court has no jurisdiction over the case beforehand;
when the case was dragging 15 years and he realized he was losing the case only then did he
question the courts jurisdiction. The SC said he was gambling on the results of the litigation;
estoppel by latches was born and he was precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the court.
The jurisdiction of the court was left untouched. But estoppel is not the GR, it should be applied only
in cases strictly analogous to Tijam vs. Sibunghanoy. The rule still is: the lack of jurisdiction can be
questioned in any stage of the proceeding even for the first time on appeal. This is the general rule
established in Calimlim vs. Ramirez.
C. Jurisdiction over the issues
When is an issue created? 1. When a material allegation is specifically deniedan issue is created.
Then the court has a reason for trial to determine which interpretation is right, to determine who is
telling the truth. A material allegation not specifically denied is deemed admitted and there is no
issue.
If the issue on a case is possession, the court has no jurisdiction to render judgment on ownership. If
the only issue is ownership without the parties talking about possession, the court cannot motu
proprio include possession in its judgment. To rule on possession would be to do so without
jurisdiction on the issue.
To have an issue, a denial must be specific. Memorize Sec. 10 of Rule 8.
A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and,
whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his
denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it
as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint,
he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.
If the provisions above are not followed, you are making a general denial even if you are
denying and what is the effect of a general denial? It is an admission. Failure to follow the
denials mandated in Sec. 10 would render it no longer specific but general. There are 3 types of
denials specified.
Blanket denial or general denial where the defendant denies all the allegations of all the paragraphs
in the complaint; it is deemed an admission.
When you deny, deny every paragraph, every allegation of the complaint or of the pleading.
Suppose that par(4) of the complaint alleged that the defendant borrowed 1 million from the plaintiff.
The first way of denying it is mentioning the paragraph where it is alleged. Deny it by saying that
you never borrowed money from the plaintiff. The truth of the matter being that it was a donation. It is
an absolute denial of the allegation. Another way is saying that I admit I borrowed 1 million but the
due date is till 5 years from now so it is not yet due. You admit it but by way of avoidance you say
something by way of a defense. The third way is to say that you have no sufficient knowledge of the
debt. This is a disavowal that must be done in good faith because it is equivalent to admission if
done in bad faith as a penalty for such bad faith. Memorize this concept. Be familiar with the words
and the meanings of the words.
The pleadings actually will tell us the issues of the case. They will tell the controverted matters
meaning those which are denied. 2. When the opposing counsel offers evidence not within the issue
of the case, you object. You cannot object if you do not know the issues of the case. But sometimes
there are issues being created not because of the pleading but because evidence on a matter was
offered in court that was not objected to, it is as if an issue was created by the consent of the parties
even if it is not in the pleadings. Sec. 5 of Rule 10. If an issue was tried with the express or
implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised
in the pleadings. This has been the subject of many bar exams.
Suppose an evidence for ownership was presented in a case for possession. If it is not objected to,
the court will treat the same as if raised in the pleadings and the court may now rule on the issue of
ownership as well. This is the concept ofimplied amendment of the pleading.
Bar: There was an action to collect a sum of money. The plaintiff in the complaint did not even state
that he made a prior demand for payment. If there is no prior demand, there is a failure to state a
cause of action because as a rule no demand, no delay unless the exceptions of 1169 apply. During
the trial of the case, the plaintiff presented in evidence exhibit A, a written extrajudicial demand to
pay. The defendant did not object to that. Can the court admit exhibit A in evidence? Yes. There was
no objection, it is as if the issue of a demand has been tried by the parties impliedly and it is as if the
pleadings included a demand. What can the other party do? He can move to amend the pleading to
incorporate the evidence in the pleading. Suppose the party did not do so, can the court still try and
include the admission of exhibit A? Yes, as if it is raised in the pleading.
Bar: An action for ejectment did not mention a demand to vacate. During the trial there was offer of
evidence of a demand to vacate. Can the pleading be amended to conform to the evidence? Yes.
There was no objection from the defendant. Dean is of the opinion that the question was wrong as
there is no trial in an ejectment case the same being a summary procedure.
The question should be this was. The demand was for a debt of 2 million. If the plaintiff offers
evidence for 3 million, which the defendant did not object to, then the evidence was admitted. Can
the court admit the evidence? Yes because the court cannot motu proprio object in behalf of the
defendant. Inadmissible evidence will be admitted because of waiver and that waiver is because of
the failure to object. Inadmissibility can be waived by the failure to object. Can the court consider the
3 million? Yes, it is as if it was raised in the pleading which is deemed amended. So, as the counsel
for defendant, object as to the excess of 2 million because the issue is only 2 million. Remember this
concept!
Advice: offer evidence not in issue in the pleadings because the adverse party may not object to it
and so such evidence may be admitted by the court. This doctrine however is not applicable to a
criminal proceeding. This rule has been incorporated in the rules of criminal procedure effective
December 2000, Sections 8 and 9 in Rule 110. The life and liberty of an accused is not made to
depend upon the skill of his counsel to object.
Sometimes issues could be created not because of the pleadings or on the failure to object. 3. It
could be created by stipulations like in the pre-trial conference where parties limit the issues. And
sometimes even during the trial the parties could already agree on the issues to be tried. Agreement
could also create issues.
Sec. 6 of Art. 30 The parties to any action may agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the
litigation, and submit the case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of
evidence.
If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial shall be held as to the disputed facts
in such order as the court shall prescribe.
In sum, jurisdiction over the issue can be obtained thru specific denial, failure to object to new
evidence, and by agreement of the parties.
D. Jurisdiction over the res or property in litigation
This jurisdiction is mandatory in actions in rem and quasi in rem because the object of these actions
is the thing which could either be a property or the status of the parties. The court acquires
jurisdiction upon the thing or the res depending on the nature of the case. For instance, in an action
for a sum of money there is yet no jurisdiction over the property, but if you apply for a writ of
preliminary attachment and such writ is issued by the court, the court now acquires jurisdiction over
the property of the defendant which is now in custodia legis. The court acquires jurisdiction over the
res. But there are cases where jurisdiction over the res is acquired by simply filing of the proper
complaint. For instance, when you file an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage with the proper
allegations in the complaint, then the court will acquire jurisdiction over that thing. Now if it is a
foreclosure of a chattel mortgage, then the court will acquire jurisdiction over the property if replevin
or attachment of the property is made.
So jurisdiction over the res or the property is mandatory and very important in an accion in
rem and in quasi in rem. While jurisdiction over the defendant is mandatory in an action in
personam. Do not forget this because this is very relevant when we talk about summons.