HIERARCHY OF COURTS As a matter of policy, direct resort to the Supreme Court will no longer be entertained unless the redress

cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as in the case of involving national interest and those of serious implications, justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of the writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. (Yee vs. Bernabe, 487 SCRA 385 [2006]). GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION Sec. 3. Ground for reconsideration. The court shall grant reconsideration on the ground of errors of law or fact in the judgment, which requires no further proceedings. Sec. 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor. The motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be in writing and shall state the grounds on which it is based. If based on a newlydiscovered evidence, the motion must be supported by affidavits of witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given or by duly authenticated copies of documents which are proposed to be introduced in evidence. Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be given to the prosecutor. WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION? Errors of law and fact in the judgment WHAT IS THE FORM REQUIRED FOR A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION? A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION SHOULD BE OF THE FORM BELOW: 1. It must be in writing 2. It must state the grounds on which it is based 3. If the ground invoked for the motion for new trial is newly discovered evidence, the motion must be supported by affidavits of witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given or authenticated copies of documents to be introduced in evidence. 4. Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration should be given to the prosecutor. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC Sec. 21. Exclusion of the public. The judge may, motu proprio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during the trial is offensive to decency or public morals. He may also, on motion of the accused, exclude the public from the trial except court personnel and the counsel of the parties.

2. Cases Syjuco vs. Castro, G.R. No. 70403, July 7, 1989 A lawyer was held solidarily liable with his client for delaying the administration of justice for almost a quarter of a century. This is the origin of forum shopping. Masinsin vs. Albano, G.R. No. 86421, May 31, 1994 For resorting to forum shopping, a lawyer was warned that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely. Forunda vs. Atty. Arnold Guerrero, 480 SCRA 201 [2006] While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. In this case, a lawyer was suspended due to forum shopping. Bong Siong Yao vs. Atty. Leonardo Aurelio, 485 SCRA 553 Lawyers cannot be allowed to exploit their profession for the purpose of exacting vengeance or as a tool for instigating hostility against any person most especially against a client or former client. Huibona vs. Concepcion, et al., G.R. No. 153785, August 31, 2006 The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of court processes which degrades the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. Case references: Balaoing vs. Calderon, 221 SCRA 533 Kalilid Wood Industries Corp. vs. CA, 197 SCRA 735 Eternal Gardens Memorial Park vs. CA, August 5, 1998 PRC vs. CA, G.R. No. 117817 PRC vs. Nitafan, G.R. No. 110437, July 9, 1998 Aldez Realty, Inc. vs. CA, 212 SCRA 623 FORUM SHOPPING WHEN FORUM SHOPPING EXISTS. Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse judgment in one forum, a party seeks another and possibly favorable judgment in another forum other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. There is also forum shopping when a party institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. (Mun. of Taguig v. CA, G.R. No. 142619, September 13, 2005, 469 SCRA 588; Fels Energy, Inc. v. The Province of Batangas, et al., G.R. No. 168557, February 16, 2007). FACTOR THAT DETERMINES THE EXISTENCE OF FORUM SHOPPING. An important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused to the courts and the partieslitigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs. The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. (Wee v. Galvez, G.R. No. 147394, August 11, 2004, 436 SCRA 96; Fels Energy Inc. v. Province of Batangas, et al., G.R. No. 168557, February 16, 2007).

WHEN CAN THE PUBLIC BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TRIAL? 1. If the evidence to be produced during the trial is offensive to decency or public morals 2. On motion of the accused, exclude the public from the trial except court personnel and the counsel of the parties FORUM SHOPPING AND ITS EFFECTS 1. Concept THERE IS FORUM SHOPPING WHEN AS A RESULT OF AN ADVERSE OPINION IN ONE FORUM, A PARTY SEEKS FAVORABLE OPINION, OTHER THAN BY APPEAL OR CERTIORARI IN ANOTHER.

There is forum shopping when there exist: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. (Fels Energy, Inc. v. The Province of Batangas, et al.). ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND REGULATIONS The fundamental rule in administrative law is that, to be valid, administrative rules and regulations must be issued by authority of law and must not contravene the provisions of the Constitution. The rule-making power of an administrative agency may not be used to abridge the authority given to it by Congress or by the Constitution. Nor can it be used to enlarge the power of the administrative agency beyond the scope intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative agencies and the scope of their regulations. (DAR v. Uy, G.R. No. 169277, February 9, 2007, Callejo, J). VIDAL V. ESCUETA, G.R. NO. 156225, REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST. Facts: An estate- a parcel of land and the house thereon, was leased to Rainier Llanera, who sublet the same to 25 persons. When the owners decided to sell the property, Ma. Teresa Escueta, atty-in-fact and as a co-owner of the property, filed an ejectment case against Llanera and the sub-lessees before the Lupon of Barangay. On May 1999, Escueta and Llanera, and the sub-lessees, executed an Amicable Settlement, where they agreed among others that lessee and sub-lessee shall vacate the property on or before December 1999. The parties did not repudiate the amicable settlement within ten days from the execution thereof. Meantime the property was sold but the full payment was not yet handed to the sellers since the lessee and the sublessees have not yet vacated the property. Later, Llanera and twenty of the sub-lessees also vacated the property except petitioners who remained in the property and refused to vacate the property despite extensions given to them, thus, prompting Escueta to file a verified Motion for Execution against the sub lessees with the MTC for the enforcement of the amicable settlement and the issuance of a writ of execution. The Motion was denied. The court held that the plaintiff was not the real party-in-interest as the subject property had already been sold. Is the ruling correct? Explain. Held: No. 1.) The respondent is the real party-in-interest to enforce amicable settlement. (See Rule 3, Section 2 of the Rules of Court). The party-in-interest applies not only to the plaintiff but also to the defendant. Interest within the meaning of the rules means material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. A real party in interest is one who has a legal right.Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto as against each other, in an action upon that contract, the real parties-in-interest, either as plaintiff or as defendant, must be parties to the said contract. The action must be brought by the person who, by substantive law, possesses the right sought to be enforced. In this case, the respondent was the party in the amicable settlement. She is the

real party-in-interest to enforce the terms of the settlement because unless the petitioners vacate the property, the balance of the purchase price will not be paid to them. (Vidal v. Escueta, G.R. No. 156225, December 10, 2003). INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IN RELATION TO ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES It is settled that rules of procedure are, as a matter of course, construed liberally in proceedings before administrative bodies. Thus, technical rules of procedure imposed in judicial proceedings are unavailing in cases before administrative bodies. Administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law. Rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid and technical manner, as they are used only to help secure and not to override substantial justice. (DAR v. Uy, G.R. No. 169277, February 9, 2007, Callejo, J). IS A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO SIGN AND ISSUE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION? No. With respect to the conduct of administrative investigation, the Special Prosecutors authority, insofar as preventive suspension is concerned, is akin to that of the PIAB-A, i.e., recommendatory in nature. It bears stressing that the power to place a public officer or employee under preventive suspension pending an investigation is lodged only with the Ombudsman or the Deputy Ombudsmen. Consequently, petitioner Special Prosecutory Villa Ignacio had no authority to issue the March 17, 2004 Order placing respondent Valera under preventive suspension for six months without pay in connection with the administrative case OMB-C-A-03-0379-J. (Office of the Ombudsman v. Atty. Valera, G.R. No. 164250, September 30, 2005, Callejo, J). WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN? Section 27(2) of R.A. No. 6770 provides that findings of facts by the Office of Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. Thus, as long as there is substantial evidence to support the Ombudsmans decision, it will not be reversed. The rationale of the rule is that, it is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant. (Young v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 110736, December 27, 1993, 228 SCRA 718; Ocampo v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 103446-47, August 30, 1993). WHEN IS THERE GRAVE ABUSE ON THE PART OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN? There is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman when it acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. The only question involved is jurisdiction, either the lack or excess thereof, and abuse of discretion warrants the issuance of the

extraordinary remedy of certiorari only when the same is grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility. A writ of certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reversible only by an appeal. (Rep. v. Francisco, et al., G.R. No. 163089, December 7, 2007). CAUSE OF ACTION ELEMENTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. A cause of action exists if the following elements are present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. The fundamental test for failure to state a cause of action is whether, admitting the veracity of what appears on the face and within the four corners of the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for. Stated otherwise, may the court render a valid judgment upon the facts alleged therein? Indeed, the inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material allegations. If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be presented by defendants. (AC Enterprise vs. Frabelle Properties Corp. G.R. No. 166744. November 2, 2006, Callejo, J). WHAT IS THE BASIS IN DETERMINING THE NATURE OF AN ACTION AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT? It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and whether the tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over such action are to be determined from the material allegations of the complaint, the law in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred. Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss the same. Otherwise, jurisdiction would be dependent almost entirely upon the whims of defendants. (AC Enterprise vs. Frabelle Properties Corp. G.R. No. 166744. November 2, 2006, Callejo, J). RA 7975 I. Jurisdiction of the SB. 1. Violations of RA 3019 The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, RA 1379, Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII of the RPC where one of the principal accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity at the time of the commission of the offense, like

a. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director or higher otherwise classified as grade 27 and up; b. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as grade 27 and up; c. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; d. Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions without prejudice to the Constitution; e. All other national and local officials classified as grade 27 and higher. 2. Other offense and felonies committed by the public officials in relation to their office; 3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A; II. Officers not occupying grade 27 or higher. Jurisdiction is vested in the proper MTC, RTC as the case may be. 1. SB has exclusive appellate jurisdiction on appeals from the final judgments, resolutions or orders of regular courts where all the accused are occupying positions lower than grade 27; 2. SB has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writ and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, provided that the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the SC; (Note: This means that that these petitions can be filed directly with the SC). 3. All cases elevated to the SB and from the SB, the office of the Ombudsman shall represent the state, thru its special prosecutor; 4. If a private individual is charged with a public officer, they shall be trial jointly; 5. a. Criminal and civil actions for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense shall be filed simultaneously or be deemed to be jointly filed; b. No reservation of the right to file a civil action; c. If the civil action has been filed ahead and no judgment yet when the criminal is filed, the civil cases shall be transferred to the SB or appropriate court for consolidation and joint determination with the criminal, otherwise, the separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned; III. 1. Final orders and judgments shall have findings of facts. 2. Petition for reconsideration to be filed within 15 days from promulgation or notice of the orders, etc.. Motion for Reconsideration to be decided within 30 days from submission. 3. Decisions to be enforced in the manner prescribed by law. 4. Decisions and final orders of courts appealable within 15 days from promulgation.