INTRODUCTION

I. INTRODUCTION
1. Major divisions in law:
a) Substantive law a part of 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. (Primicias vs.
Ocampo 49 OG 2230)
b) Procedural/Adjective/Remedial Law prescribes the method of
enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their violation. (Bustos v.
Lucero 81 Phil. 640,650)
2) Sources of Remedial law:
a) The Constitution
b) Laws creating the judiciary
c) Laws defining and allocating jurisdiction to different courts
d) Rules promulgated by the SC
e) circulars, administrative orders, internal rules and SC decisions

3) Scope of Remedial Law:

a) Constitution
b) Civil Procedure (Rules 1 to 56 and other related laws);
c) Provisional Remedies (Rules 57 to 61);
d) Special Civil Actions (Rules 62 to 71)
e) Special Proceedings (Rules 72 to 109)
f) Criminal Procedure (Rules 110 to 127)

g) Evidence (Rules 128 to 133)

h) Katarungang Pambarangay Law (RA 7160) and Implementing rules
i) Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
j)Rules on Small Claims Cases
k)Rules on Environmental Cases

Basic concepts in Remedial Law

1.) Court

Describe it.

JBD 1
 There is a table, a gavel, there is someone sitting there. Then below,
there are lawyers sitting down. But actually, what is described is a
courtroom and not a court.

Similarly, when you are asked to describe a corporation, you will

refer to the building, the office, the employees etc. But a corporation, as
you know in Persons, is a juridical entity. It is a creature of the law. It
is a person under the law but it has no physical existence.

A court has no physical existence, only a legal one.

Q: What is a court?
A: A court is an entity or body vested with a portion of the judicial
power. (Lontok vs. Battung, 63 Phil. 1054)

Q: Why portion only?

A: This is because the Constitution provides that the judicial power
shall be vested in one Supreme Court (SC) and in such other lower
courts as may be established by law. (Art. VIII, Section 1, 1987
Constitution.

The reason that the law creates different courts is to divide the cases
or judicial power among them so that one court may not be burdened
with so many cases.
So, judicial power is not exercised only by one court, but by several
courts.
There is a division of labor.

2.) Judge

Just as corporations cannot act without its officers, a court cannot

function without a judge. But do not say that the court and the judge
mean the same thing. The judge is the person or officer who presides
over a court.

Q: Distinguish court from judge.

A: The following are the distinctions:
1.)Court is the entity, body, or tribunal vested with a portion of
the judicial power, while judge is the person or officer who
presides over a court.

JBD 2
 2.)Judges are human beings they die, they resign, they retire,
they maybe removed. The court continues to exist even after the
judge presiding over it ceases to do so. In the Supreme Court, for
example, the justices presiding over it are not the same justices
who presided it in the early part of this century yet the Court in
some decisions states that as early 1905, WE have already ruled
such as such Why do they use WE? They are talking about
the court, they are not talking about themselves. The court is
continuous. It does not die alongside with the justices who
presided on it.

3.) The two concepts may exist independently of each other, for
there may be a court without a judge or a judge without a
court. (Pamintuan vs. Llorente, 29 Phil. 342)

3.) Hearing and Trial

Hearing is not synonymous with trial. The words hearing and trial
have different meanings and connotations. Trial may refer to the
reception of evidence and other processes. It embraces the period for
the introduction of evidence by both parties. Hearing, as known in
law, is not confined to trial but embraces the several stages of
litigation, including the pre-trial stage. A hearing does not necessarily
mean presentation of evidence. It does not necessarily imply the
presentation of oral or documentary evidence in open court but that
the parties are afforded the opportunity to be heard. (Republic v.
Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 133)

HIERARCHY OF THE COURTS

In the 1996 BAR: One of the questions in Remedial Law was: State the
hierarchy of the Courts in the Philippines.

a.) Regular courts

SUPREME COURT

COURT OF APPEALS

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

MetTC MTCC MTC MCTC

JBD 3
 Note:
MetTC- In Manila
MTCC- cities outside Manila e.g. Cebu, Davao
MTC- municipalities such as Minglanilla, Argao
MCTC- circuitized areas because it is impractical and expensive to maintain
one MTC in every municipality.

b.) Special courts

There are also Special Courts which are also considered part of the judiciary.
These are:
1. Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125)
2. Sandiganbayan (PD 1486 as amended)
3. Sharia District Courts and the Sharia Circuit Courts (PD 1083 , also
known as the Code of Muslim Personal Law);
4. Family Courts

4.) Classification of courts in general.

A: Generally, courts may be classified as:
1.) Constitutional and Statutory Courts;
2.) Superior Courts and First-Level courts (inferior courts);
3.) Courts of Original jurisdiction and Courts of Appellate
jurisdiction;
4.) Civil Courts and Criminal Courts;
5.) Courts of law and Courts of equity;
6.) Courts of record; probate Courts; Land Registration Courts;
Ecclesiastical Courts; Military Courts

CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS vs. STATUTORY COURTS

Q: Distinguish Constitutional Courts from Statutory Courts.

A: CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS are created directly by the
Constitution itself, while STATUTORY COURTS are created by law or
by the legislature.

In our country, there is only one Constitutional court the Supreme

Court. Even the Sandiganbayan is not considered a Constitutional
court because it was not created by the Constitution directly. The 1973
Constitution, particularly Art. XIII, Section 5 ordered the then
National Assembly to create a special court to be known as the
JBD 4
Sandiganbayan which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil
cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses
committed by public officers and employees, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations in relation to their office
as may be determined by law.. It was law that created the
Sandiganbayan (PD 1486).
The CA, RTC, and the MTC are created by the Congress.
So there is only one Constitutional court. All the rest, from the CA
down and all other special courts, are only creatures of Congress.
In political law, the power to create carries with it the power to
abolish. That is why, BP 129 abolished all existing courts at that time
(CFI, CA, Juvenile and Domestic courts, etc.) and RTC, IAC, MTC were
created. That was the judicial reorganization of 1980 under BP 129. But
there is only court which the Batasan Pambansa could not touch the
Supreme Court.

SUPERIOR COURTS vs. FIRST-LEVEL COURTS

Q: Distinguish superior courts from inferior courts.

A: SUPERIOR COURTS, otherwise known as courts of general
jurisdiction, are those which take cognizance of all kinds cases,
whether civil or criminal, and possess supervisory authority over
lower courts.
FIRST-LEVEL COURTS (inferior courts), otherwise known as courts
of special or limited jurisdiction, are those which take cognizance of
certain specified cases only. (14 Am. Jur. 249)

Q: What courts are superior or inferior?

A: It DEPENDS from what viewpoint you are looking at it. If you
are looking from the viewpoint of the Constitution, there is only one
superior court the Supreme Court.

From the viewpoint of other laws, the Court of Appeals (CA) maybe
inferior to the SC but it is a superior court for it exercises supervision
over RTC. In the same manner that the RTC might be inferior to the SC
and the CA but it has also power of supervision over MTC. The
jurisdiction of the RTC is varied. It is practically a jack of all trade. The
RTC has also the power of supervision over MTC.

JBD 5
 A superior court may therefore handle civil, criminal cases while an
inferior court may try specified cases only. The SC, CA including the
RTC are considered as superior courts.

The MTC is a first-level (inferior) court so that its power is limited to

specified cases despite of the law which expanded the jurisdiction of
the MTC. It does not have any supervisory authority over any lower
court.

ORIGINAL COURT vs. APPELLATE COURT

Q: Distinguish original court from appellate court.

A: ORIGINAL COURTS are those where a case is originally
commenced, while APPELLATE COURTS are those where a case is
reviewed. (Ballentine's Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 91)

So, if you are filing a case for the first time, that case is filed in an
original court. But the case does not necessarily end there. You may
bring the case to the appellate court which has the power to change the
decision of the original court.

Q: Is the SC an original or appellate court?

A: The SC is both an original and an appellate court. The SC has
original jurisdiction on cases of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, etc.
There are certain cases where one may file directly to the SC.

Q: Is the CA an original or appellate court?

A: The same is true with the CA. It is both original and appellate
court. (Section 9, BP 129) When we study the jurisdiction of the CA,
you will see that it is both an original and an appellate court. There are
cases which are elevated to it from the RTC, but there are also cases
which are filed there for the first time like an action for annulment of
an RTC judgment.

Q: How about the RTC? Is the RTC an original or appellate court?

A: The RTC is also both original and appellate court. You can file
certain cases there for the first time, and there are also decisions of the
MTC which are appealable to the RTC.

JBD 6
 Q: How about the MTC? Is the MTC an original or appellate court?
A: The MTC however, is a 100% original court. It is the lowest court
in the hierarchy. There are no cases appealed to it. There is no such
animal as barangay court. The barangay captains do not decide cases,
they only conciliate.

CIVIL COURTS vs. CRIMINAL COURTS

Q: Distinguish civil courts from criminal courts.

A: CIVIL COURTS are those which take cognizance of civil cases
only, while CRIMINAL COURTS are those which take cognizance of
criminal cases only. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Ballentine's Law Dict., 2nd Ed.,
p. 301)

All the courts in the Philippines are both civil and criminal courts.
They can handle both types of cases. The SC decides civil and criminal
cases. The same is true with the CA, RTC and MTC.

So, in the Philippines, there is no such thing as a 100% criminal court

or civil court. During the 70's there was the old Circuit Criminal Court.
As the name implies, it is purely a criminal court. But with other
courts, this was abolished by BP 129.

With the abolition of those special courts, all their powers were
transferred to the present RTC. Right now, there is no such thing as a
100% civil court or a 100% criminal court. So, all our courts are both
civil and criminal courts at the same time.

COURTS OF LAW vs. COURTS OF EQUITY

Q: Distinguish Courts of Law from Courts of Equity.

A: COURTS OF LAW are tribunals administering only the law of
the land, whereas COURTS OF EQUITY are tribunals which rule
according to the precepts of equity or justice, and are sometimes called
courts of conscience. (Ballentines Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 303)

Courts Of Law dispose cases according to what the law says while
Courts Of Equity adjudicate cases based on the principles of equity.
Principle of equity means principles of justice, fairness, fair play.

JBD 7
 Q: Are the Philippine courts, courts of law? Or courts of equity? Do
they decide cases based on what the law says or based on the principle
of justice and fairness?
A: In the Philippines, our courts are both courts of law and of
equity. In the case of substantive law, there is a thin line which divides
the principle of law from the principle of equity because principles of
equity are also found in the principles of law. Equity is what is fair and
what is just and equitable. Generally, what is legal is fair.

As a matter of fact under the Civil Code, when the law is silent, you
decide it based on what is just and fair, thus, the saying EQUITY
FOLLOWS THE LAW. In the Philippines you cannot distinguish
sometimes the principle of law and the principle of equity because
principles of equity are also written in the law. Example: The principles
of estoppel, laches or solutio indebiti are no longer purely principles of
equity since they are also found in our law. Under the Civil Code,
when there is no applicable law, courts still have to decide according
to customs and general principles.

ESTOPPEL.

Estoppel is an equitable doctrine which means that it is not fair that

you disown your own representation after misleading somebody. But
if you look at the Civil Code, there is a chapter on estoppel. So if you
apply estoppel, you cannot say that you are applying a principle not
found under the law.

LACHES

It is considered to be the half-brother of prescription because it means

if you delay a certain right then you must have no right. That is more
of equity, rather than of law.

SOLUTIO INDEBITI.

No one should enrich himself at the expense of another. That is a

principle of equity. But if you look at the Civil Code, it's there!

JBD 8
 ALONZO vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
May 28, 1987, J. Cruz

HELD: The question is sometimes asked, in serious inquiry

or in curious conjecture, whether we are a court of law or a
court of justice. Do we apply the law even if it is unjust or do
we administer justice even against the law? Thus queried, we
do not equivocate. The answer is that we do neither because
we are a court both of law and of justice. We apply the law
with justice for that is our mission and purpose in the scheme
of our Republic.

COURTS OF RECORD
Those which keep a record of their proceedings. All courts in the
Philippines are such.

PROBATE COURTS
Those which have jurisdiction over settlement of estate of deceased
persons.

LAND REGISTRATION COURTS

Those which have jurisdiction over registration of real properties
under the Torrens System.

INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT

Before we leave the concepts of courts, we must know that the

courts of justice have what we call inherent powers. Just like the State
have certain inherent powers, namely; Police power, power of
taxation, and power of eminent domain.

Their very existence automatically necessitates the existence of

these powers.
Q: What are the inherent powers of the court?
A: Section 5 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court of the provides:

Section 5. Inherent powers of courts. Every court shall have the

power:
(a) to preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
JBD 9
 (b) to enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person
or persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its
authority;
(c) to compel obedience to its judgments orders, and
processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out of court, in a
case therein;
(d) to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its
ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner
connected with a case before it, in every manner appertaining
thereto;
(e) to compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case
pending therein;
(f) to administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case
pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be necessary
in the existence of its powers;
(g) to amend and control its process and orders so as to make
them conformable to law and justice;
(h) to authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other
paper to be filed and used instead of the original, and to restore,
and supply deficiencies in its records and proceedings.

SITUATION: Suppose I have the power to decide and I render a

decision. I want to enforce the decision, how do I enforce? Well,
usually the law provides for the procedure.

Q: But suppose the law does not provide for any manner to enforce?
For example a judge has rendered a decision, and the law is silent on
how to enforce it, do you mean to say that the order is unenforceable
because the law is silent?
A: NO. Section 6 of Rule 135 answers the question.

SEC 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect When by law

jurisdiction is conferred on a court or a judicial officer, all auxiliary
writs, processes and all other means to carry it into effect maybe
employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be
followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically
pointed out by law or these rules, any suitable process or mode of
proceeding may be adopted which appears conformable to the
spirit of said law or rules.

JBD 10
 What Section 6 is trying to say is that when courts have the power to
decide, they have the power to enforce. And if the law is silent, judges
have to think of how to do it provided they conform to the spirit of the
rule. So they should not make the order useless simply because there is
no rule. That is part of their power.

ENFORCEABILITY OF COURT WRITS AND PROCESSES

Another provision that should be emphasized is Section 3 of the

Interim Rules.

Question: The court of Cebu issues a writ or a process. Can that writ
or process be enforced in Manila? What is the extent of the
enforceability of a writ issued by a court?

Under Section 3, Interim Rules:

Sec. 3. Writs and Processes. -

a) Writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction issued by a regional trial court may
be enforced in any part of the region.
b) All other processes whether issued by the RTC or MetTC,
MCTC, and MTC may be served anywhere in the Philippines, and,
the last three cases, without a certification by the judge of the
RTC.

A: Under Section 3 of the Interim Rules, you have to distinguish

what kind of writ or process you are talking about:
a) If it is a writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus, injunction, it can be enforced anywhere within the
region. So at least, RTC can enforce it within the region and it
cannot enforce those writs outside the region.

EXAMPLE: If you are illegally detained, you can ask the court
to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Now, a person is detained in
Cagayan de Oro and the family is here in Cebu City. They filed a
petition for habeas corpus here in Cebu City. Is it proper?
No. Cebu City belongs to the 7th Judicial Region while
Cagayan de Oro is in the 11th or 12th Judicial Region. The law is
very clear: writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
JBD 11
 warranto, habeas corpus and injunction issued by a trial court
may be enforced in any part of the region.

b) Section 3 further says, all other writs are enforceable anywhere in

the Philippines. Suppose the MTC issues a warrant for the arrest
of the accused in the criminal case, and he fled to Baguio City,
such warrant can be enforced there. This includes summons,
writs of execution or search warrants.

ASPECTS OF REMEDIAL LAW

Q: Give the two (2) aspects of Remedial Law.

A: There are 2 aspects of Remedial Law:
1.) PUBLIC ASPECT one which affords a remedy in favor of the State
against the individual (e.g. criminal procedure) or in favor of the
individual against the State (e.g. habeas corpus) on the other hand,

2.) PRIVATE ASPECT one which affords a remedy in favor of an

individual against another individual, like the rules on civil
procedure. (Gamboas Introduction to Philippine Law, 6th Ed., pp.
97-99)

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAW ON CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE

PHILIPPINES

The origin of our law on procedure is American. Forget the law on procedure
during the Spanish regime. But the first known ancestor of the law on Civil
Procedure was the old Act 190, otherwise known as the Code of Civil Procedure,
which was enacted on August 7, 1901 by the United States and Philippine
Commission.

And that was the law until 1940 because on July 01,1940 the SC enacted the
Rules of Court which we now call the Old Rules of Court. That continued for
another 24 years until January 01, 1964 when the SC enacted the Revised Rules of
Court repealing the Old Rules of Court. And that continued for another 33 years
until July 01,1997 where the SC enacted and which took effect on that day (July
01, 1997) the New Rules on Civil Procedure.

SUMMARY:
1.) First Law August 07, 1901 Act 190 Code of Civil Procedure (40 years)
2.) Second Law July 01, 1940 Old Rules of Court (24 years)
3.) Third Law January 01, 1964 Revised Rules of Court (33 years)
JBD 12
 4.) Fourth Law July 01, 1997 New Rules of Civil Procedure.

SOURCES OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Well of course the sources are almost the same as the prior law. The old Rules
of Court is also a source. Many provisions were taken from the 1964 Rules,
substantive law like the Civil Code and jurisprudence. And of course SC
circulars. Many circulars are now incorporated under the new rule. So those are
the main sources.

SOURCES:
1.) Previous Rules of Court;
2.) Jurisprudence;
3.) New Civil Code;
4.) SC Circulars

RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Rules of Court (1940, 1964, 1997) have all been enacted by tile SC. It is
law, not enacted by Congress but enacted by the SC.

Q: What is the authority of the SC to enact a law when actually the role of the
judiciary is only to interpret the law? Is this not a violation of the separation of
powers?
A: The authority of the SC in enacting the prior rules and the present rules is
what you call its rule-making power which provision was found in the 1935,
1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Based on the present law, the rule-making power of
the SC is expressed in Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph [5] which is substantially
the same as the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. Only everytime they amend the
Constitution, it is getting longer and longer.

Rut the pertinent portion which has not been changed is that the SC shall
have the power to promulgate rules on pleading, practice and procedure. That
is the authority of the SC in enacting the Rules of Court. But you should know
also the limitations.

LIMITATIONS TO THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SC

The Constitution has also placed limitations on these powers. As currently

worded, one limitation provided for by the Article is the rules of procedure to
be enacted by the SC shall provide for a simplified and inexpensive procedure
for the speedy disposition of cases. The second one is: the rules shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade. And the third is: the rules shall not
diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.

JBD 13
 LIMITATIONS :

1. The Rules of Court shall provide a simplified and inexpensive

procedure for the speedy disposition of cases;
2. The Rules of Court shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade; and
3. The Rules of Court shall not diminish, modify or increase substantive
rights.

Substantive rights are created by substantive law so the Rules of Procedure

should not increase, diminish or modify them. In effect, the Rules of Court
should not amend the substantive law. It can only interpret substantive law but
should not change it completely. Those are the limitations. With that we are now
ready to tackle the 1997 rules on civil procedure.

-oOo-

JBD 14