Civpro Reviewer PDF

Preview

Summary

GENERALPRINCIPLESCONCEPT OF REMEDIAL LAWRemedial law is that branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion ( Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640 ).Remedial statute or statutes: (1) Relating to remedies or modes of procedure; (2) Do not take away or ...

Description

GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCEPT OF REMEDIAL LAW Remedial law is that branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion (Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640). Remedial statute or statutes: (1) Relating to remedies or modes of procedure; (2) Do not take away or create vested rights; (3) BUT operate in furtherance of rights already existing. (Riano citing Systems Factor Corporation v NLRC (2000)) Source Remedial law is basically contained in the Rules of Court. Circulars of the Supreme Court implementing the Rules of Court (e.g. Rules on Summary Procedure) also contain remedial law. The Rules of Court, promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect of law, if not in conflict with positive law (Inchausti & Co v de Leon (1913)]. The rule is subordinate to the statute, and in case of conflict, the statute will prevail. [Shioji v Harvey (1922)].

Rules of procedure may be made applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that extent. [In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon Datumanong (2006)]. The Rules of Court shall govern cases brought after they take effect, and also all further proceedings then pending, EXCEPT to the extent that in the opinion of the Court their application would not be feasible or would work injustice. [Riano citing Rule 114]

SUBSTANTIVE LAW VIS-À-VIS 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) SUBSTANTIVE LAW It is that part of the 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 It makes vested rights possible

Applicability The Rules of Court is applicable in ALL COURTS, EXCEPT as otherwise provided by the SC [Rule 1, Sec. 2]. It governs the procedure to be observed in CIVIL or CRIMINAL actions and SPECIAL proceedings [Rule 1, Sec. 3]. It does not apply to the following cases: 1. Election cases, 2. Land registration cases, 3. Cadastral cases 4. Naturalization cases, 5. Insolvency proceedings 6. Other cases not herein provided for Except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient [Rule 4, Sec. 4] Prospectivity/ Retroactivity The Rules of Court are not penal statutes and cannot be given retroactive effect [Bermejo v Barrios (1970)].

It is prospective in application

It cannot be enacted by the SC

REMEDIAL LAW It refers to the legislation providing means or methods whereby causes of action may be effectuated, wrongs redressed, and relief obtained It is also called Adjective Law It has no vested rights It governs acts and transactions which took place (retroactive) The SC is expressly empowered to promulgate procedural rules

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 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 SC’s power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation unconstitutional

Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, of the 1987 Constitution provides that that the Supreme Court shall have the power to: 1. promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts; 2. admission to the practice of law; 3. the Integrated Bar; 4. and legal assistance to the underprivileged Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court Sec 5(5) of Art. VIII of the Constitution sets forth the limitations to the power: 1. That the rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for speedy disposition of cases; 2. That the rules shall be uniform for courts of the same grade; and 3. That the rules shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Power of the Supreme Court to Amend and Suspend Procedural Rules Power to Amend Remedial Laws 1. The constitutional faculty of the Court to promulgate rules of practice and procedure necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of Court. [Pinga v Heirs of Santiago (2006)]. 2. The SC has the sole prerogative to amend, repeal, or even establish new rules for a more simplified and inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of case [Neypes v CA (2005)] Power to Suspend Remedial Laws 1. It is within the inherent power of the Supreme Court to suspend its own rules in a particular case in order to do justice [De Guia v De Guia (2001)]. 2. When the operation of rules will lead to an injustice or if their application tends to subvert and defeat instead of promote and enhance justice, their suspension is justified [Republic v CA (1978)]. 3. There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes good and sufficient cause that will merit suspension of the rules. The matter is discretionary upon the Court [Republic v Imperial Jr. (1999)]. 4. The bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules [Ramos v Sps Lavendia (2008)]. 5. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-

observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. [Polanco v Cruz (2009)].

NATURE OF PHILIPPINE COURTS Meaning of a Court A court is an organ of the government belonging to the judicial department, the function of which is the application of the laws to controversies brought before it (and) as well as the public administration of justice. Generally, the term describes an organ of the government consisting of one person or of several persons, called upon and authorized to administer justice. It is also the place where justice is administered. [Riano citing Black’s and Am. Jur. and C. J. S.] Court as Distinguished from a Judge COURT A tribunal officially assembled under authority of law An organ of the government with a personality separate from the person or judge A being in imagination comparable to a corporation May be considered an office

JUDGE An officer of such tribunal The judge is the one who “sits” in court A physical and natural person A public officer

The circumstances of the court are not affected by the circumstance that would affect the judge. The 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. In other words, the judge may resign, become incapacitated, or be disqualified to hold office, but the court remains. The death of the judge does not mean the death of the court [Riano citing ABC Davao Auto Supply v. CA (1998)]. Classification of Philippine Courts 1. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction 2. Courts of general and special jurisdiction 3. Constitutional and statutory courts

4. Courts of law and equity 5. Superior and Inferior Courts 6. Courts of record and not of record

Inferior courts – Those which, in relation to another court, are lower in rank and subject to review and supervision by the latter. [Regalado]

Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction

Courts of record and not of record

Courts of original jurisdiction – Those courts in which, under the law, actions or proceedings may be originally commenced.

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. [Regalado] One attribute of a court of record is the strong presumption as to the veracity of its records that cannot be collaterally attacked except for fraud. All Philippine courts, including inferior courts, are now courts of record. [Riano]

Courts of appellate jurisdiction – Courts which have the power to review on appeal the decisions or orders of a lower court. [Regalado] Courts of general and special jurisdiction Courts of general jurisdiction – Those competent to decide their own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all kinds of cases, unless otherwise provided by the law or Rules.

Courts not of record – Courts which are not required to keep a written record or transcript of proceedings held therein. Principle of Judicial Hierarchy

Courts of special or limited jurisdiction – Those which have no power to decide their own jurisdiction and can only try cases permitted by statute. [Regalado] Constitutional and statutory courts Constitutional courts – Those which owe their creation and existence to the Constitution and, therefore cannot be legislated out of existence or deprived by law of the jurisdiction and powers unqualifiedly vested in them by the Constitution. e.g. Supreme Court; Sandiganbayan is a constitutionally-mandated court but created by statute. Statutory courts – Those created, organized and with jurisdiction exclusively determined by law. [Regalado] Courts of law and equity Courts of Law- Those courts which administer the law of the land. They settle cases according to law. Courts of Equity- Those courts which rules according to the precepts of equity or justice. They settle cases according to the principles of equity referring to principles of justice, fainess and fair play. Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity. Hence, both legal and equitable jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal [U.S. v. Tamparong (1998)] Superior and Inferior Courts Superior courts – Courts which have the power of review or supervision over another and lower court.

The judicial system follows a ladderized scheme which in essence requires that lower courts initially decide on a case before it is considered by a higher court. Specifically, under the judicial policy recognizing hierarchy of courts, a higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts. [Riano citing Santiago v. Vasquez (1993)] The principle is an established policy necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the Court’s docket [Lim v. Vianzon (2006)]. When the doctrine/principle may be disregarded: A direct recourse of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs (referring to the writs of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus) should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. [Mangahas v. Paredes (2007)]. The Supreme Court 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 avoid future litigations [Riano]. Doctrine of Non-Interference or Doctrine of Judicial Stability The principle holds that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders [Lapu-lapu Development and Housing Corp. v. Group Management Corp. (2002)] 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 v. Salas (1991)].

The doctrine of non-interference applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law provides for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the SC or CA, it means that such body is co-equal with the RTC in terms of rank and stature, and logically beyond the control of the latter [Phil Sinter Corp. v. Cagayan Electric Power (2002)].

General Rule: No court has the authority interfere by injunction with the judgment another court of coordinate jurisdiction or pass upon or scrutinize and much less declare unjust a judgment of another court

JURISDICTION

How jurisdiction over the DEFENDANT is acquired - Acquired by the 1. Voluntary appearance or submission by the defendant or respondent to the court or 2. By coercive process issued by the court to him, generally by the service of summons [de Joya v. Marquez (2006), citing Regalado]

JURISDICTION IN GENERAL Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to try, hear and decide a case [Tolentino v. Leviste (2004)]. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice: [Art 8, Sec. 1, Constitution] 1. To settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable; 2. To determine WON there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any government branch/ instrumentality. All courts exercise judicial power. Only the Supreme Court is the court created by the Constitution [Art 8, Sec. 1, Constitution]. The Sandiganbayan is a Constitutionally mandated court, but it is created by statute. [PD 1486] REQUISITES FOR A VALID EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION 1. Court must have jurisdiction over the persons of the parties 2. It must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy 3. It must have jurisdiction over the res 4. It must have jurisdiction over the issues JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES The manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the parties depends on whether the party is the plaintiff or the defendant. The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction over the plaintiff and the defendant applies both to ordinary and special civil actions. How jurisdiction over the PLAINTIFF is acquired Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by filing of the complaint or petition. By doing so, he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court [Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v CA (1991)].

to of to as

Exception: The doctrine of judicial stability does not apply where a third party claimant is involved

NOTE: 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 [Alba v. CA (2005)]. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER Jurisdiction over the subject matter 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 (Riano citing CJS). It is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong [Reyes v. Diaz (1941)] Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction Jurisdiction: the authority to hear and determine a cause — the right to act in a case. [Arranza v. BF Homes (2000)]. ‘Exercise of Jurisdiction.’: the exercise of this power or authority Jurisdiction is distinct from the exercise thereof. Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case and not the decision rendered therein. When there is jurisdiction over the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction. [Herrera v. Baretto et al (1913)] Error of Jurisdiction as distinguished from Error of Judgment Error of judgment

Error of jurisdiction

It is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction [Cabrera v. Lapid (2006)].

It is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction [Cabrera v. Lapid (2006)]. It includes errors of procedure or mistakes in the court’s mistakes in the court’s findings [Banco Filipino Savings v. CA (2000)]

Correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari [Cabrera v Lapid (2006)]

Correctible by appeal [Cabrera v Lapid (2006)]

Renders a judgment void or voidable [Rule 16 Sec. 1, Rule 65]

Ground for reversal only if it is shown that prejudice has been caused [Banco Español-Filipino v Palanca (1918)]

How conferred and determined: 1. Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court. 2. It is conferred only by the Constitution or the law. 3. Jurisdiction CANNOT be: a. Fixed by agreement of the parties; b. Cannot be acquired through, or waived, enlarged or diminished by, any act or omission of the parties; c. Neither can it be conferred by the acquiescence of the court [Regalado citing De Jesus v Garcia (1967)]. d. Cannot be subject to compromise [Civil Code, Art 2035] 4. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint and the reliefs prayed for. [Gulfo v. Ancheta (2012)] 5. It is not affected by the pleas set up by the defendant in the answer or in the answer or in a motion to dismiss. [Sindico v. Diaz (2004)].

the prescribed docket fee vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action [CB v. CA (1992)](2008 Bar Exam). a. Exception: Non-payment of docket fee does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment. [Go v. Tong (2003)] Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction Courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact [Paloma v. Mora (2005)]. Objective is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court [Riano citing Omictin v. CA (2007)] Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction Also known jurisdiction

as

doctrine

of

continuity

of

The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case [Bantua v. Mercader (2001)]. As a consequence, jurisdiction is not affected by a new law placing a proceeding under the jurisdiction of another tribunal, EXCEPT: 1. Where there is an express provision in the statute 2. The statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment [Riano citing People v. Cawaling (1998)].

6. Once attached to a court, it cannot be ousted by subsequent statute. a. Exception: The statute itself conferring new jurisdiction expressly provides for retroactive effect. [Southern Food v. Salas (1992)]

Objections to Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter

7. The filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading and the payment of

The court may on its OWN INITIATIVE object to an erroneous jurisdiction and may ex mero motu

When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the same. (Sec. 1, Rule 9)

take cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the case and ...