Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2001 Edition
INTRODUCTION
The first thing that we will take up in Civil Procedure are basic concepts. We are going to
discuss the legal concept of courts. As you will know, whenever we talk of procedural law, we
have no choice but to involve courts in our discussion.
Let’s try to have a mental picture of courts. If I (Dean Iñigo) say ‘courts’, please tell me the
scene that comes into your mind. What do you see? There is a table, a gavel, there is someone
sitting there. Then below, there are lawyers sitting down. That is how everybody pictures a court.
But actually, what was pictured out was a courtroom and not a court.
Similar example: How can you picture a corporation? 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. But what you see in a corporation is a building and people who are running the office
business. Well, that is the office of the corporation.
A corporation cannot run without people running it. But a corporation can own properties,
kaya you see the building, the office, the equipments there. The president or the vice-president are
the officers of the corporation. But the officers are not the corporation, they run the affairs of the
corporation. Ganoon din ang court. 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)
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. It is like a cake. You slice the cake into parts – this part is
for you, this part is mine. So, kanya-kanya tayo ng trabaho. You cannot put the burden only in one
court.
For example, you want to sue your debtor for not paying a loan. You mean to tell me that you
will go to the SC? All cases in the Philippines will have to filed there? NO. You cannot do it. You
have to start from certain courts in you city or municipality.
Ngayon, pag-sinabi mo kung saan ako mag-file, sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) ba? O sa
Municipal Trial Court (MTC)? Of course, depende yan on how much you are claiming. If you are
claiming so much, dito ka. If you claim is lower, dito ka naman. Why is that? Because each has its
own work. Each one has its own portion – what is yours is yours, what is mine is mine.
Thus, each court has its own jurisdiction and may only try cases within its jurisdiction. No
court has all the power of the judiciary but only a portion of it. So there is a division of labor.
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.
EXAMPLE: The present Supreme Court (SC), 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.
From the real viewpoint, 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.
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 is already at the bottom. Wala ng under pa
sa kanya.
In 1996 Bar: Explain the hierarchy of courts in the Philippines. Practically, the judicial level is
being asked by the examiner.
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.
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 thing with the CA, RTC and MTC.
So, in the Philippines, there is no such thing as a 100% criminal court or civil court. Unlike
before, during the 70's there are some special courts which were existing but were abolished by BP
129. There was the old Circuit Criminal Court. As the name implies, it is purely a criminal court.
But 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 dispose cases according to what the law says – I will decide your case by what
the law says. Yan ang court of law! When we say Courts Of Equity, it adjudicates cases based on the
principles of equity. Principle of equity means principles of justice, fairness, fair play.
Q: Are the Philippines courts, courts of law? Or courts of equity? Do they decide cases based
on what the law says? or, do they decide cases 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. Kaya nga may kasabihan na 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 principle of estoppel, laches or solutio indebiti. One
cannot say that they are 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.
Example: ESTOPPEL. Estoppel is an equitable doctrine – that it is not fair that you disown your
own representation after misleading somebody. But if you look a the Civil Code, meron mang
chapter diyan ba! – estoppel! So if you apply estoppel, you cannot say that you are applying a
principle not found under the law.
Example: LACHES – the half-brother of prescription – if you delay a certain right then you must
have no right. That is more of equity, rather than of law.
Example: 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!
The SC, when deliberating, focuses more on justice and equity – where reason can always be
found. The SC once said that equity follows the law. In the case of :
So the SC described it self both as a court of law and court of equity. I have already talked with
so many justices of the SC before. And I asked them on how do they deliberate on cases when
somebody files an appeal or petition. They told me, if you want to convince the SC to hear your
case… because the tendency of some lawyers is that they will file their petition and they will cite
the law. Meaning, backed-up by statutory provisions ba. A justice of the SC told me that that is a
wrong approach. Do not tell us what is the law. We know more law than you do! When you file a
petition, fairness must be on your side! Because when we deliberate and we agree that your side
seems to be the correct one, to decide on your favor is more than just to decide on the other side.
Then, we will even look for the law to support our decision. So, you don't have to tell us what is
the law, we will look for it. And if there is no law, we will make it for you, by interpreting…
because we are a court more of equity than of law. But when we look on the equity, we will look
for the law and chances are, there is the law to follow.
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 ordered Congress to create Sandiganbayan. It was
law that created Sandiganbayan (PD 1486). There is a provision in the 1973 Constitution which
says, “There should be created a Sandiganbayan.”
The CA, RTC, and the MTC are created by the Congress. Thus, Congress has the power to
abolish the said courts but it can never abolish the Supreme Court.
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, Juvenille, 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.
They have no power to abolish the SC because it is created by the Constitution. Pareho lang
tayong tabla eh. Congress is also created by the Constitution. So if you want to abolish the SC, you
must call for a constitutional convention to change the Constitution.
Before we leave the concepts of courts, you must know that the courts of justice have what we
call inherent powers. Just like the State have certain inherent powers, whether written or not, these
things are understood to have them – Police power, power of taxation, and power of taxation.
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 5
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure INTRODUCTION
2001 Edition
Courts have also inherent powers. Their very existence automatically necessitates the existence
of these powers. Now, that was already asked in the Bar before – what are the inherent powers of
the court?
Section 5. Inherent powers of courts. Every court shall have the power:
(a) to preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
(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.
There are many powers enumerated. Some of them are common sense. Every court has the
power to see to it that everything of his order is enforced; to compel obedience to his order.
Common sense yan. You are inutile if you cannot even enforce your own judgment! So I've been
telling some judges here, eh. Sometimes we talk about this: they say, it seems that I don't have the
power under the Rules of Court. It's beyond my power. I made a decision but I cannot see how was
it enforced.
Parang pampalakas-loob ang Rule 135, Section 5 because you can see there the powers that you
do not know you have. These are inherent eh – hindi puwedeng alisin sa iyo iyan. Otherwise,
maging inutil ka – I have the power to decide but I do not know how to enforce my decision. That
is a sign of impotence (Charles, pinaringgan ka ni Dean!). As a matter of fact, the next section
(Section 6, Rule 135) tells us how to carry out your judgment. If you do not know how to carry out
your judgment because the law is silent, Section 6 says, look for a way. Hanapan mo ng paraan!
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.
What Section 6 is trying to say is that when you have the power to decide, you have the power
to enforce. And if the law is silent, you have to think how to do it. Be creative. Provided you
conform with the spirit of the rule. So you do not make the order useless simply because there is no
rule. In other words, try to look for a way on how to enforce you judgment. That is part of your
power.
Another provision that I want to emphasize before we leave this subject of court is Section 3 of
the Interim Rules.
Question: The court of Davao will issue a writ or a process. Can that writ or process be enforced
in Cebu or Manila? Or only in Davao? Or only in Region IX? Hanggang saan ba ang enforceability
ng aking writ or processes? You have to distinguish what kind of writ or process you are talking
about.
EXAMPLE: If you are illegally detained, you can ask the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus.
Now, a person is detained in Bansalan and the family is here in Davao City. They filed a petition
for habeas corpus in Makilala, North Cotabato. Makilala is in Region 12 and the RTC of Bansalan is
part of the 11th judicial region. Thus, the judge in Makilala cannot issue the writ of habeas corpus
due to the fact that Bansalan belongs to the 11th judicial region while Makilala is in the 12th
judicial region. The RTC of Tandag, Surigao is Region 12 and therefore can issue a writ of habeas
corpus to be enforced in Makilala which is hundreds of miles away because they are of the same
judicial region. And yet the RTC of Bansalan cannot issue a writ to be enforced in Makilala, North
Cotabato, which is the next town, because that is not part of their region. The law is very clear:
writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo 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.
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 7
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure INTRODUCTION
2001 Edition
JURISDICTION IN GENERAL
The word JURISDICTION is derived from 2 Latin words: 1.) JURIS – law; 2.) DICO – to speak,
or to say. So, in effect, when you say jurisdiction, literally translated, it means, “I speak by the law.”
It means that you are saying “I speak with authority” because when you invoke the law, then your
act is authorized. Even in old times when the representatives of the king or the sovereign will try to
arrest somebody or will try to enter your house, they open up in the name of the law. They will
always invoke “in the name of the law.”
So when you say, “I speak by the law” I will do it in the name of the law. It connotes authority
or power. You cannot be wrong. How can you be wrong if you are doing it in the name of the law?
So more or less jurisdiction simply means authority or power. So more or less that is the whole
concept of jurisdiction. It simply means authority or power. That is precisely what jurisdiction is all
about.
JURISDICTION simply means the power of the court to hear, try and decide a case. In its
complete aspect, jurisdiction includes not only the powers to hear and decide a case, but also the
power to enforce the judgment. (14 Am. Jur. 363-364)
Let’s go to a criminal case. Can you file an information for murder before the MTC? Or can you
file an information for slight physical injuries before the RTC? There is something wrong there. If a
slight physical injury case is filed against you in the RTC, what will you do? If I’m the lawyer of the
accused why will I allow my client to be arraigned and to be tried when everything is null and
void. Kapoy-kapoy lang ako. So I’ll file a motion to quash under Rule 117. That’s the same thing in
civil cases. If you file a civil case before a court that has no jurisdiction, then it can be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
Now, let us not confuse jurisdiction with certain terms related to it.
In other words, JURISDICTION is the authority. If I have no authority, I cannot act. And if I
have authority, I can act. Now, if the court has authority, it will try the case and render judgment.
Now, what the court will do later, like try the case and render judgment is merely an
EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION. So the trial and judgment are all products of the exercise of
jurisdiction. You cannot talk of exercise without having first the authority. It is a useless procedure
when you say “I will exercise something which I do not have.”
EXAMPLE: A case of murder was filed in the MTC. The accused, Ken Sur, files a motion to
quash because MTC has no jurisdiction over cases of murder. Eh, ‘yong judge iba man ‘yong libro
niya, “No, I have jurisdiction.” So the court denied the motion to quash. Meaning, the judge has
decided to assume jurisdiction. So, meaning from the very start mali na. Now what do you call
that? When the court without authority assumes authority over the case that is called ERROR OF
JURISDICTION – the court committed an error of jurisdiction.
EXAMPLE: Suppose the case for murder is filed in the RTC where the court has jurisdiction. So
walang mali, everything is correct. But in the course of the trial, you cannot avoid mistakes being
committed like for example, the court misinterpreting the provision of the RPC saying that this is a
requirement, this is not a requirement for the crime. Meaning misapplication or misinterpretation
of the RPC as well as misinterpretation of the rules of evidence – wrong interpretation of the law.
And the accused was convicted but actually tingin mo mali man ito, di ba! Under the law, this
elements was not considered or this element was considered as present. Do you say the decision of
the judge is null and void? NO, the judgment is valid kaya lang mali. So, you do not say the court
committed an error in the exercise of jurisdiction, and that is called an ERROR OF JUDGMENT.
And that was also asked in the bar.
Meaning, when a court has no jurisdiction but insists in handling the case, that
is a mistake by the trial court. It is called an error of jurisdiction.
Now, suppose a court has jurisdiction over the case but the decision is wrong – it applied the
wrong provision of the law, or interpretation of evidence. This is not an error of jurisdiction
because the court has authority. But in the exercise of its jurisdiction, it committed several errors. -
This is now what you call an error of judgment.
The principle came out in the bar. This error should have been raised on ordinary appeal, not
by certiorari because certiorari is only confined to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion. The governing rule is that the remedy of certiorari is not available when the remedy of
appeal is available. And when the remedy of appeal is lost, you cannot revive it by resorting to
certiorari because certiorari is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.
So, the remedies given by the law are different. These are basic terms which you should
remember.
EXAMPLE: The RTC of Davao is composed of several branches – eleven to twelve judges. But
technically, there is only one court – the RTC of Davao. We do not consider branches as separate
courts.
Q: Now, if the case is filed and is assigned to Branch 8, can that case later be transferred and
continued in Branch 9?
A: Ah YES, because you never leave the same court. You are still in the same court. This is
because jurisdiction is not with the judge. It is with the court itself.
TYPES OF JURISDICTION:
Types of jurisdiction:
1.) General Jurisdiction and Special or Limited Jurisdiction;
2.) Original Jurisdiction and Appellate Jurisdiction; and
3.) Exclusive Jurisdiction and Concurrent or Coordinate Jurisdiction;
a.) GENERAL JURISDICTION is the authority of the court to hear and determine all
actions and suits, whether civil, criminal, administrative, real, personal or mixed. It is
very broad – to hear and try practically all types of cases. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs.
Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)
b.) SPECIAL or LIMITED JURISDICTION is the authority of the court to hear and
determine particular cases only. Its power is limited. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs. Kelly,
34 Cal. 391)
So, the court is authorized to hear and try certain specified cases. Limitado
pa ang power niya. And when you go over the Judiciary Act, studying the
jurisdiction of the different courts, in civil cases you will see that the jurisdiction
of some courts like the RTC, masyadong far ranging. It covers many things
whereas the jurisdiction of the MTC, makipot. Very narrow bah because it is a
court of limited or special jurisdiction.
a.) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION is the power of the court to take cognizance of a case at its
inception or commencement. (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd Ed., pp. 91 and 917) One can
file the case there for the first time.
b.) APPELLATE JURISDICTION is the power vested in a superior court to review and
revise the judicial action of a lower court. (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd Ed., pp. 91 and
917) If one court has the power to correct the decision of a lower court, the power of
this court is appellate. This is because it commenced somewhere else and it is just
reviewing the decision of the said lower court.
EXAMPLE: Maya Quitain will file a civil case in the RTC and that court will
take cognizance and try it. You are invoking the original jurisdiction of the RTC.
After trial, Maya lost the case, so Maya decided to appeal the decision of the
RTC to the CA. The case is now there. It is now in the CA and you are now
invoking its appellate jurisdiction.
a.) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION is that possessed by a court to the exclusion of all others.
Q: Sugar JJ filed a collection case against John Vera, for an unpaid loan of
P5,000. The judiciary law says, if you file a civil case to collect an unpaid loan
below P200,000, you should file it with the MTC. Can Sugar JJ file it in the RTC?
A: NO. Therefore the jurisdiction of the MTC is EXCLUSIVE. It does not
share its power with other courts.
Now, last time we were classifying courts and you learned that the SC is
meron palang original jurisdiction. Ito palang CA also has original jurisdiction.
Ang RTC obviously is more of an original court than an appellate court.
Q: Are there certain types of cases or petitions where I can file it directly
with the SC or file with the CA or file it with the RTC?
A: YES and the best example is a petition for HABEAS CORPUS. The SC, CA
and RTC share concurrent jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas corpus.
Makapili ka. I-file mo SC, puwede. Kung gusto mo sa CA, puwede din. Kung i–
file mo sa RTC, puwede. In effect, these are the instances when the SC, CA and
RTC exercise concurrent jurisdiction.
In your study of criminal procedure where you also studied the law on jurisdiction, there are
also some elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases. Otherwise, the proceeding will be illegal.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter; Jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and the third is
territorial jurisdiction, i.e. the case should be filed in the place where the crime was committed. In
civil cases meron din iyong counterpart.
A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power of the court to hear and determine cases of
the general class to which the proceedings in question belongs. (Banco Español-Filipino vs.
Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)
In other words, it is the jurisdiction over the nature of the action. Now, you know already the
various types of civil cases such as actions for nullity of marriage, action publiciana, action
reivindicatoria, etc. This is what we call the NATURE OF THE ACTION.
Now, if the nature of the subject matter of the action, e.g. annulment of marriage, where will
you file it? It should not be filed in the wrong court or else it will be dismissed. The counterpart of
that in Criminal law is e.g. offenses punishable by death penalty cannot be tried with the MTC.
Annulment cases should be filed in the RTC otherwise it will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
Q: Now, suppose I want to file a case against you and under the law that should be filed in the
RTC. But both of us believe that the judges of the MTC like Judge Cañete knows more, he is more
competent than the other judge there. “Maganda siguro dito na lang tayo sa MTC.” “O sige, we
sign an agreement, magpirmahan tayo that we will file the case by agreement in the MTC.” By
agreement, doon sa MTC natin i-file. Did the MTC acquire jurisdiction over the case because the
parties agreed?
A: NO, agreements between parties cannot change the law. Jurisdiction is conferred by law,
not by agreements of the parties. Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be agreed upon. It is
acquired by or conferred to the court by law – either the Constitution or the Judiciary Law. The
parties cannot agree to have the case submitted to another court.
Q: Now, suppose I will file a case against you in a wrong court. Ikaw naman hindi ka kumibo.
Actually what you should do there is file a motion to dismiss (or in criminal cases a motion to
quash.) But hindi ka nagkibo “Sige lang. I will not complain.” So is it okey? Since you did not object,
you did not file a motion to dismiss, you did not file a motion to quash, did the ‘wrong’ court
acquired jurisdiction over the case?
A: NO. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by silence of the parties or by waiver. Estoppel or
waiver or silence or failure to object cannot vest jurisdiction in the wrong court because jurisdiction
over the subject matter is conferred by law. And when the court has no jurisdiction, the court by
itself has the power to dismiss, “Why will I burden myself for trying a case, when I have no
jurisdiction?”
The ONLY exception is when there is estoppel by laches, as laid down in tile TIJAM vs.
SIBONGHANOY (April 15, 1968). The issue of jurisdiction was not questioned for an unreasonable
length of time. BUT the rule is, it can be raised at any stage of the proceeding even for the first time
on appeal. And even the parties may not raise it, the court motu propio has the authority to dismiss
it.
A: It is determined by the allegations of the complaint. It does not depend upon the pleas or
defenses of the defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss. (Cardenas vs. Camus, L-19191, July
30, 1962; Edward J. Nell Co. vs. Cubacub, L-20842, June 23, 1965; Serrano vs. Muñoz Motors, L-
25547, Nov. 27, 1967)
Q: In cases, how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused?
A: By having him (1) arrested; (2) by service of the warrant of arrest; or (3) by his voluntary
surrender.
Q: Even if he is not arrested, can the court try an accused without the accused being arrested?
A: Of course not, because the court has not acquired jurisdiction over his person. Arestuhin mo
muna. Then puwede siyang mag-bail kung gusto niya. After na-arrest, naglayas, nagsibat? Bahala
ka i-try in absentia. There will be a valid decision because the court has already acquired
jurisdiction. Of course we cannot enforce the decision until we caught him. Pero pagnahuli, ka
diretso ka na sa prisuhan. You say, “I was not able to give my side. I was not able to confront and cross-
examine the witness against me.” Eh, bakit ka naglayas? Pasensiya ka! That’s the concept of trial in
absentia. But for trial in absentia to proceed in criminal cases, you must first arrest him. You cannot
try him without being arrested. You must arrest him and arraign him first. The same thing in civil
cases. It must be that the court must acquire jurisdiction over this person.
Normally, when we say jurisdiction over the parties, we are referring to the PLAINTIFF – the
one suing, and the DEFENDAN'T – the one being sued. For the decision to be valid, the court must
obtain jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff and the defendant. Otherwise, the decision will
not bind the parties over whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction.
That is why jurisdiction over the parties is the power of the court to render a personal
judgment which will bind the parties to the case. What is the use of rendering a decision if the
parties are not bound? It must have effect.
The first instance when a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
through a service upon him of the appropriate court process which in civil law is called service of
summons. This is the counterpart of warrant of arrest in criminal procedure.
So if the defendant was never served with summons, any judgment rendered by the court will
not bind him. Even if he is the loser in the case, judgment cannot be enforced because the court did
not acquire jurisdiction over his person.
The same principle holds true in criminal cases. A court cannot try and convict an accused over
whose person the court never acquired jurisdiction. In criminal cases, the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person through the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The warrant cannot have
its effect even if it was issued, if the same had not been served, i.e. by effecting the arrest of the
accused by virtue of a warrant.
Another way to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused even if the accused is not
arrested is through VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. Since there is no more need for the warrant, the
court will recall the same. In civil cases, it is the voluntary submission of the defendant to the
jurisdiction of the court.
This is unlike the jurisdiction over subject matter wherein the case could be dismissed upon
filing in the wrong court. The SC said that when you remained silent despite the defects, your
silence has cured the defect. Meaning, the jurisdiction over your person was acquired by waiver, or
consent, or lack of objection.
Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter from jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant?
A: Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be cured by waiver, consent,
silence or failure to object, whereas jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be cured by failure to
object or by silence, waiver or consent. (MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)
Q: A and B quarreled over a piece of land. What is the res of the case?
A: The piece of land is the res of the case.
Q: However, res may not be tangible. For example, Weng Kolotski is an illegitimate child. She
wants to be acknowledged by her father. Thus, she filed a case against her father for compulsory
recognition. What is the res?
A: The res is the status of the child because it is the object of the litigation.
EXAMPLE: Even if the defendant is a non-resident who is out of the country and the object of
litigation is here in the Philippines, then acquisition of jurisdiction over the res confers jurisdiction
to the court even if the defendant is abroad. The res here is where the judgement can be enforced.
That is why in Rule 14, there is an extra-territorial service of summons. But based on a SC
ruling, the extra-territorial service of summons is not for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant but is merely how to comply with the due process clause.
Rule 6, Section 1 - Pleadings are the written allegation of the parties of their respective
claims and defenses submitted to the court for trial and judgment.
In a civil case, the parties before the trial file in court pleadings. That is where you state your
position.
EXAMPLE: Francis “Paloy” Ampig will sue you to collect a loan. So Paloy will file a complaint
in court. That is a pleading. Then you have to answer Paloy’s complaint in court. You say that
you do not owe him anything because you already paid him. So you prepare your answer in
writing in court and that is also called a pleading. Based on what Paloy said in his complaint and
your answer, we will now know what they are quarreling about.
For example: Paloy says you borrowed money, you never paid him. Now according to
your answer, “No. I already paid him.”
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 16
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure INTRODUCTION
2001 Edition
Q: Suppose after the trial, the court said that the obligation has been extinguished by
condonation. Now where did the court get that? Your defense is payment, and the decision now it
was extinguished by condonation. Is the decision correct?
A: The decision is WRONG because the parties did not raise condonation as the issue. The
case was decided on an issue that was not even raised by the parties. So the court never acquired
jurisdiction over the issue. In other words, the court should only rule on what the parties raised in
their pleadings. That is what we call jurisdiction over the issue. The court should only rule on
what the parties claim.
So, the court is supposed to rule on the issue raised and not those not raised by the parties.
Take note that jurisdiction over the issues in civil cases is acquired after defendant has filed an
answer. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the issues is acquired upon filing of a complaint. For a
decision to be effective, the court must acquire the jurisdiction over the subject matter, the person,
the res in case the defendant is not around, and the last is jurisdiction over the issue.
Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the issues.
A: The following are the distinctions:
1.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and try a particular case, while
Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court to resolve legal questions
involved in the case;
2.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired upon filing of the complaint, while
Jurisdiction over the issues of the case is acquired upon filing of the answer which
joins the issues involve in the case.
EXAMPLE: I am the plaintiff, I will file a case in court to collect an unpaid loan.
From the moment I file the case, the court has acquired jurisdiction over the subject
matter. Now, you are summoned. File ka naman ng sagot mo, “Wala akong utang,
bayad na.” Then the court has now acquired jurisdiction over the issue. One is
acquired upon filing of the complaint and the other one is acquired after the filing of
the answer by the defendant.
In the 1996 BAR: One of the questions in Remedial Law was: State the hierarchy of the Courts
in the Philippines.
SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS
Note:
MetTC- In Manila
MTCC- cities outside Manila e.g. Cebu, Davao
MTC- municipalities such as Digos, Panabo
MCTC- circuitized areas because it is impractical and expensive to maintain one MTC in every
municipalities.
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
published by:
LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 – 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles • Glenda Buhion
• Joseph Martin Castillo • Aaron Philip Cruz • Pearly Joan Jayagan • Anderson Lo •
Yogie Martirizar • Frecelyn Mejia • Dorothy Montejo • Rowena Panales • Regina Sison •
Ruby Teleron • Marilou Timbol • Maceste Uy • Perla Vicencio • Liberty Wong • Jude
Zamora • Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena
SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong • Emily Aliño • Karen Allones • Joseph Apao • Melody
Penelope Batu • Gemma Betonio • Rocky Cabarroguis • Charina Cabrera • Marlon Cascuejo •
Mike Castaños • Karen de Leon • Cherry Frondozo • Jude Fuentes • Maila Ilao • Ilai Llena
•
Rocky Malaki • Jenny Namoc • Ines Papaya • Jennifer Ramos • Paisal Tanjili
Rod Quiachon • Maya Quitain • Rina Sacdalan • Lyle Santos •Joshua Tan • Thaddeus
Tuburan • John Vera Cruz • Mortmort