Introduction

Objectives of, and power to promulgate, rules of pleading, practice and procedure

Constitution, Art VIII, Sec 5(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 under-privileged.
Such rules shall provide a
simplied 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.

Shioji v. Harvey
The case involves the challenge upon the validity of the rules of court prescribing a dismissal for non-
submission of proper pleading. The court upheld the rule.
Rules of court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are very
familiar, and have oft been held as absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly
and speedy discharge of business.
The practice of the court in the enforcement of its rules has been uniform. The court has gone upon the assumption
that although it retains the power of amendment, nevertheless, it is the duty of the court to enforce its rules to the best
of its judgment, irrespective of the case, the parties, or the counsel.

RE: Petition for recognition of the Exemption of the GSIS
The case involves GSIS petitioning for exemption from legal fees under its charter, the GSIS Act of 1997 9,
which stated that the GSIS shall be exempt from all taxes, assessments, fees, charges or duties of all kinds.
The court held that they are not exempt.
These rules were procedural; they did not create, diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.
The power to promulgate rules for pleading, practice and procedure used to be shared with Congress, which could
repeal, alter or supplement the rules; now it is exclusively the SCs.
The exemption would also violate the Courts independence by denying it its scal autonomy.

Bustos v. Lucero
This case involved an accused who moved for cross-examination and presentation of evidence during
preliminary investigation. His motion was denied, and SC upheld its denial.
Rules of court is an adjective law and not a substantive law or substantive right.
Substantive law creates substantive rights and the two terms in this respect may be said to be synonymous.
Substantive rights is a term which includes those rights which one enjoys under the legal system prior to the
disturbance of normal relations. Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, denes and regulates
rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action; that part of the law which
courts are established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law, which prescribes the method of
enforcing rights or obtains redress for their invasion.
The Court's power is not merely to compile, revise or codify the rules of procedure existing at the time of the
Constitution's approval. This power is "to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,"
which is a power to adopt a general, complete and comprehensive system of procedure, adding new and different
rules without regard to their source and discarding old ones.
Fabian v. Desierto
This case was administrative case decided upon the ombudsman, which was being appealed to the Supreme
Court in accordance with the Ombudsman Act. The SC held that such provision granting appellate
jurisdiction to SC is null and void being violative of the Constitution.
Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that "(n)o law shall be passed increasing the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and consent,"
In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and procedure of the lower courts,
abridges, enlarges, or modies any substantive right, the test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is,
the judicial process for 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 classied as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of
implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure.

General Provisions
ROC Rule 1
Sec 1 Title: These Rules shall be known and cited as the Rules of Court
Sec 2 In what courts applicable
These rules shall apply in all the courts
Except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court
Sec 3 Cases Governed
These rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in actions Civil or Criminal, and special proceedings
A civil action is one by which a party sues another
for the enforcement or protection of a right
or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
A civil action may either be ordinary or special.
Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions
Subject to the specic rules prescribed for a special civil action
A criminal action is one by which the state prosecutes a person
for an act or omission punishable by law
A special proceeding is
a remedy by which a party seeks to establish
a status
a right
or a particular fact