LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I.

Introduction 1

INTRODUCTION
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
A. Remedial Law of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
A.1. History underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
A.B. Coverage inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
B. Concept of Remedial Law and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
Remedial law is that branch of law which prescribes the method of rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion [Bustos vs. judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
Lucero, 81 Phil. 640]. It is also known as Adjective Law. by the Supreme Court.

The Court has the sole prerogative1 to amend, repeal, or even establish
Substantive Law Remedial Law
new rules for a more simplified and inexpensive process, and the
speedy disposition of cases. [Neypes v. CA]
It creates, defines, and Method of enforcing those
regulates rights concerning life, rights and obligations created
liberty, or property, or the power by substantive law by providing ECHEGARAY v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE (1999)
of agencies or instrumentalities a procedural system for
for the administration of public obtaining redress for invasion of FACTS: On January 4, 1999, the SC issued a TRO staying the
affairs rights and violations of duties execution of petitioner Leo Echegaray scheduled on that same day.
and by laying out rules as to The public respondent Justice Secretary assailed the issuance of
how suits are filed, tried, and the TRO arguing that the action of the SC not only violated the rule
decided upon by the courts. on finality of judgment but also encroached on the power of the
executive to grant reprieve.
It makes vested rights possible. No vested rights

DOCTRINE: The power to control the execution of the SC’s decision

Prospective in application Governs acts which took place
is an essential aspect of its jurisdiction. It cannot be the subject of
Cannot be enacted by SC SC is empowered to promulgate substantial subtraction for the Constitution vests the entirety of
procedural rules judicial power in one SC and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.

Jurisdiction Venue Art. 5 (5) of the 1987 Constitution: Promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
The authority to hear and The place where the case is to practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of
determine a case be heard or tried law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
A matter of substantive law A matter of procedural law the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
Establishes a relation between Establishes a relation rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
the court and the subject matter between parties: plaintiff and shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
defendant, or petitioner and
respondent
MORALES v. COURT OF APPEALS (2015)
Fixed by law and cannot be May be conferred by the act or
conferred nor waived by the agreement of the parties
FACTS: Binay case.
parties

DOCTRINE: The Court has rule-making authority which includes the

identification of procedural remedies needed for the reasonable
C. Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court exercise of every court’s judicial power the provisional remedies of
TROs and WPI were this provided. Congress has no authority to
Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, 1987 Const. The Supreme Court shall have the
repeal, alter, or supplement rules and procedure.
following powers:
5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and

1 this power was shared with Congress before 1987 Constitution

LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I. Introduction 2

C.1. Limitations on rule-making power of the Supreme Court

should be appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. If what is
Sec. 2, Art. VIII, 1987 Const. The Congress shall have the power to assailed is an incident in a criminal case, the proper remedy is a
define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts but petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which should be filed with the
may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases Supreme Court.
enumerated in Section 5 hereof. This was reiterated in Baviera v. Zoleta, G.R. No. 1609098, October
12, 2006, where the SC ruled that the remedy to challenge the
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it Resolution of the Ombudsman at the conclusion of a preliminary
undermines the security of tenure of its Members. investigation was to file a petition for certiorari with the SC under
Rule 65.
Sec. 30, Art. VI, 1987 Const. No law shall be passed increasing the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
Constitution without its advice and concurrence. BAVIERA v. ZOLETA (2006)

FACTS: Baviera requested Sec. of Justice Datumanong to issue a

Limits provided by the Constitution:
hold departure order against Raman as Corporate Finance Officer of
1. Rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure
a bank who was allegedly responsible in defrauding him. SOJ issued
for the speedy disposition of cases
an HDO. Later on, Raman was able to leave the country by virtue of a
2. Rules shall be uniform for courts of the same grade
verbal permission given by Acting SOJ Gutierrez. Baviera filed a
3. Rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
complaint before the Ombudsman alleging that Gutierrez violated
rights
several provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The
Ombudsman dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved, Baviera filed a
FABIAN v. DESIERTO (1998) petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA. However, the CA
dismissed the same, saying that it should have been filed w/ the SC.
FACTS: Fabian filed cases against Agustin, a government official, In the present petition, Baviera argued that the CA has concurrent
for harassing her when she ended their relationship. The jurisdiction w/ SC over a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, citing
Ombudsman exonerated Agustin from the charges. Fabian the ruling in Fabian vs Desierto. The SC disagreed, ruling that since
appealed to the SC by certiorari under Rule 45, in accordance with the present case involves a resolution in contemplation of a criminal
Sec. 27 of RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989) which provides case earlier filed, it must be dismissed pursuant to the cases in the
that decisions of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme doctrine for being filed w/ the CA and not w/ the SC.
Court in accordance with Rule Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The SC
struck down Sec. 27 as unconstitutional because it expands the DOCTRINE: In Tirol, Jr. vs. Del Rosario, the court ruled that the
Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its consent, contrary to Sec. remedy to challenge the conclusion of the OMB finding the
30, Art. VI, 1987 Const. presence or absence of probable cause in criminal cases is to file
for certiorari in this Court under Rule 65.
DOCTRINE: Sec. 30, Art. VI of the Constitution was intended to give
the Court a measure of control over cases placed under its In Mendoza-Arce vs. Office of the Ombudsman, the remedy from
appellate jurisdiction. Otherwise indiscriminate enactment of resolutions of the Ombudsman finding probable cause in non-
admin cases, when tainted with grave abuse of discretion, is to file
legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction would unnecessarily
an original action for certiorari w/ SC under Rule 65.
burden the Court.
In Kuizon vs. Desierto and subsequent cases, the petition for
certiorari challenging the findings of OMB at the conclusion of
KUIZON v. DESIERTO (2001) preliminary investigation should be filed in this Court and not w/
CA
FACTS: Three complaints were filed in the Office of the ● The hierarchy of courts doctrine has been rejected in such
Ombudsman against Mayor Benedicto Kuizon. In a memorandum, scenario in Kuizon.
the Office of Chief Legal Counsel recommended the continued
prosecution of the accused, which the Ombudsman subsequently
approved. Kuizon filed a petition in the CA assailing the approval of C.2. Power of the SC to amend and suspend procedural rules
the Ombudsman. CA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, Power to amend and suspend includes power to reverse itself.
which the SC upheld, citing the doctrine enunciated in Fabian. ● The constitutional power of SC to promulgate, amend or
repeal rules of practice and procedure necessarily carries
DOCTRINE: In Kuizon v. Desierto, G.R. NO. 140619-24, March 9, with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on point of
2001, SC explained that with its ruling in Fabian, appeals from remedial law through the amendment of the ROC. (Pinga v
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases Heirs of Santiago)
LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I. Introduction 3

When compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice

rule” shall also apply to Rule 40, Rule 42, Rule 43 and Rule 45. The
requires it, the SC may amend and suspend procedural rules. It is
new rule aims to regiment or make the appeal period uniform, to be
discretionary upon courts. (CIR v Mirant Pagbilao)
counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for new trial,
motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order
Reasons that would warrant the suspension or liberality of the Court:
or resolution. This pronouncement is not inconsistent with Rule 41,
1. The existence of special or compelling circumstances;
Section 3 of the Rules which states that the appeal shall be taken
2. Merits of the case;
within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order appealed from.
3. Cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of
The use of the disjunctive word “or” signifies disassociation and
the party favored by the suspension of rules;
independence of one thing from another. It should, as a rule, be
4. A lack of showing that the review sought is merely frivolous
construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies. Hence, the use
and dilatory;
of “or” in the above provision supposes that the notice of appeal
5. The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
may be filed within 15 days from the notice of judgment or within 15
(Sarmiento v Zaratan)
days from notice of the “final order". To recapitulate, a party litigant
may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of
Other Reasons:
the RTC’s decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the order
1. Where substantial and important issues await resolution.
(the “final order”) denying his motion for new trial or motion for
(CIR v Mirant)
reconsideration. Obviously, the new 15-day period may be availed of
2. When transcendental matters of life, liberty or state security
only if either motion is filed; otherwise, the decision becomes final
are involved. (Mindanao Savings Loan Asso. v. Vicenta Vda.
and executory after the lapse of the original appeal period provided
De Flores)
in Rule 41, Section 3.

NEYPES v. COURT OF APPEALS (2005) RODRIGUEZ v. PEOPLE (2012)

FACTS: Petitioners filed an action for annulment of judgment and FACTS: The RTC convicted petitioner for Unfair Competition
titles of land and/or reconveyance and/or reversion with preliminary penalized under Sections 155, 168, 160 in relation to Sec. 170 of
injunction before the MTC. The MTC dismissed this on the ground Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the
of prescription. Allegedly, 15 days after receipt of the copy of the Philippines, and sentenced him to serve imprisonment of two (2)
order of dismissal, an MR was filed. The MTC denied this MR but the years, to pay a fine of PhP 50, 000 and actual damages of PhP
copy of dismissal was received 21 days later. 5 days after such 75,000. After promulgation of the Decision in Criminal Case No. 02-
receipt, a notice of appeal was filed. The necessary appeal fees 206499 convicting him for unfair competition, petitioner filed a
were paid 7 days after filing of the notice of appeal. On the day after motion for reconsideration before the RTC on the 15th or the last
such payment, RTC denied the appeal, on the ground that it was day of the reglementary period to appeal. He filed on the 14th day,
filed 8 days late. Via a petition for certiorari and mandamus under thus, the denial of his Notice of Appeal on the ground of its being
Rule 65, petitioners assailed the dismissal of the notice of appeal filed out of time under Sec. 6, Rule 122, Revised Rules of Criminal
before the CA. They claimed that they had seasonably filed their Procedure.
notice of appeal. They argued that the 15-day reglementary period
to appeal started to run on the day they received the final order of DOCTRINE: The fresh period rule is applicable in criminal cases, like
the MTC denying their MR. When they filed their notice of appeal, the instant case, where the accused files from a judgment of
only 5 days had elapsed and they were well within the reglementary conviction a motion for new trial or reconsideration which is denied
period for appeal. The CA dismissed the petition and ruled that the by the trial court. The accused will have a fresh 15-day period
15-day period to appeal should have been reckoned from the day counted from receipt of such denial within which to file his or her
they received the order dismissing their complaint. According to the notice of appeal.
CA, the order was the “final order” appealable under the Rules of
Court. SC held that the order dismissing the MR should be deemed C.3. Power to suspend procedural rules
as the final order. Hence, the notice of appeal was filed within the Rule on Liberal Construction
reglemantary period. a. Concept
i. rigid application of Rules may be relaxed so that
DOCTRINE: FRESH PERIOD RULE To standardize the appeal periods the ends of justice may be better served (Cruz v
provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to CA)
appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh ii. Strict compliance is the general rule, liberal
period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC, construction is the exception (Pilapil v Heirs of
counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new Briones)
trial or motion for reconsideration. Henceforth, this “fresh period b. Purpose
LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I. Introduction 4

i. achieve disposition of every action in a manner

annulment of a decision on the consignation of fire insurance
that is JUST, SPEEDY, and INEXPENSIVE.
policy. Subsequently, the Private Respondent (PR) files a complaint
c. Limit
for the refund of premiums and the issuance of a writ of preliminary
i. not for convenience of a party (Abrenica V Law
attachment in a civil case against SIOL. In addition, PR also claims
firm of ATT); mere invocation of substantial justice
for damages, attorney’s fees, litigation costs, etc., however, the
is NOT a magical incantation that will
prayer did not state the amount of damages sought although from
automatically compel the Court to suspend
the body of the complaint it can be inferred to be in amount of P 50
procedural rules. (Cu-unjieng v CA)
million. Hence, PR originally paid only PhP 210.00 in docket
d. When applied:
fees.The complaint underwent a number of amendments to make
i. clear showing of prima facie merit of petition
way for subsequent re-assessments of the amount of damages
(Munoz v People)
sought as well as the corresponding docket fees. The respondent
ii. where rigid application will result in manifest
demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the
failure or miscarriage of justice
additional docket fees as required.
iii. where interest of substantial justice will be served
where the resolution of the motion is addressed
DOCTRINE: Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be
solely to the sound and judicious discretion of
construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the
court
time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that
iv. where injustice to the adverse party is not
sense and to that extent.
commensurate to degree of his thoughtlessness
in not complying with the procedure prescribed
(Vette Industrial Sales v Cheng)
General Rule: prospective; no retroactive effect

IN RE: PETITION FOR RECOGNITION OF THE EXEMPTION OF THE

Exception: may be made applicable to actions pending and
GSIS FROM PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES (2010)
undetermined at the time of their passage [not violative because there
are no vested rights in rules of procedure]
DOCTRINE: Congress cannot exempt GSIS from docket fees
because that is within the rule-making power of the SC.
Exception to the Exception: Procedural rules do not apply to pending
actions
a. statute itself or by necessary implication provides that
MCBURNIE v. GANZON (2013)
pending actions are excepted from its operation
b. if applying the rule to pending proceedings would impair
FACTS: McBurnie, an Australian National, filed a complaint for
vested rights
illegal dismissal with money claims against respondents. He
c. when to do so would not be feasible or would work injustice
claimed that he signed a 5-yr employment contract as Exec. VP who
d. if doing so would intricate problems of due process or impair
shall oversee the management of the respondent’s hotels and
the independence of the courts (Tan v CA)
resorts in the Philippines. He got into an accident, so he went back
to Australia. While recuperating, he was informed that his services
C.5. Basic principles in Jurisdiction
were no longer needed because the project would not push through.
C.5.a. Elements of Jurisdiction
Respondents alleged that McBurnie is not their employee but an
investor; that the employment contract was merely for him to obtain
an alien work permit, which he failed to secure. Over the Subject
Over the Parties Over the Res
Matter
DOCTRINE: An appeal bond may be reduced if Motion to reduce
bond shall be based on meritorious grounds and a reasonable conferred by law Plaintiff: filing of the a. seizure of the
amount in relation to the monetary awards is posted. (BP 129) initiatory pleading, thing under
like a complaint legal process
whereby it is
C.4. Retroactivity of procedural rules
Defendant: brought into
Art. 4, NCC. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the a. proper service actual custody
contrary is provided.

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LTD. v. ASUNCION (1989)

FACTS: Petitioner Sun Insurance (or SIOL) files a complaint for the
LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I. Introduction 5

of summons, of law; OR FIGUEROA v. PEOPLE (2008)

OR b. institution of a
b. voluntary legal FACTS: At the time the information for reckless imprudence
appearance in proceeding resulting in homicide was filed against Figueroa, BP 129 had been
court and his wherein the amended by RA 7691 conferring jurisdiction of the case to the MTC.
submission to power of the However, the case was filed in the RTC. However, the accused
the authority of court over the raised the objection to jurisdiction for the first time on appeal.
the court thing is
recognized and DOCTRINE: The ruling in Sibonghanoy on the matter is the
made effective exception rather than the rule. Estoppel by laches may be invoked to
bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual
NOT waivable, May be waived milieu is analogous to that in the cited case. In such controversies,
except in cases of laches should be clearly present; that is, lack of jurisdiction must
estoppel to question have been raised so belatedly as to warrant the presumption that
or raise jurisdiction the party entitled to assert it had abandoned or declined to assert it.
(Tijam vs.
Sibonghanoy)2

It is determined
upon the allegations C.6. Classes of Jurisdiction
made in the C.6.a. Concepts
complaint. Original Appellate

power of the court to take authority of a court higher in

DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEV’T CORP. (2014) judicial cognizance of a case rank to re-examine the final
instituted for judicial action for order or judgment of a lower
FACTS: OG case: nullification of free patent and original certificates the first time under conditions court which tried the case now
of title, filed against several defendants provided by law elevated for judicial review
● Respondent filed a motion to serve summons and the
complaint by publication
General Special
DOCTRINE: Regardless of the type of action - whether it is in
personam, in rem or quasi in rem - the preferred mode of service of power to adjudicate all restricts the court‘s jurisdiction
summons is personal service. To avail themselves of substituted controversies except those only to particular cases and
service, courts must rely on a detailed enumeration of the sheriff's expressly withheld from the subject to such limitations as
actions and a showing that the defendant cannot be served despite plenary powers of the court may be provided by the
diligent and reasonable efforts. The sheriff's return, which contains governing law
these details, is entitled to a presumption of regularity, and on this
basis, the court may allow substituted service. Should the sheriff's
return be wanting of these details, substituted service will be Exclusive Concurrent / Confluent /
irregular if no other evidence of the efforts to serve summons was Coordinate
presented. Failure to serve summons will mean that the court failed
to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. However, power to adjudicate a case or power conferred upon different
the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration is tantamount proceeding to the exclusion of courts, whether of the same or
to voluntary appearance. all other courts at that stage. different ranks, to take
cognizance at the same stage of
the same case in the same or
C.5.b. Estoppel by Jurisdiction different judicial territories.3

2 doctrine of laches or stale demands in Tijam is the exception to the principle

of estoppel as a defense to a jurisdictional error. In Calimlim v.
Ramirez, the SC observed that Tijam was developing into a general rule rather 3 concurrent jurisdiction is subject to hierarchy of courts (e.g. SC, CA and RTC
than as an exception. Thus, in Calimlim, the SC refused to apply Tijam. has concurrent jurisdiction to writ of mandamus but one may not go directly to
SC unless for special and important reasons)
LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I. Introduction 6

PUSE v. SANTOS-PUSE (2010) Jurisdiction does not attach to the judge but to the court. Thus,
continuity of a court and efficacy of proceedings are not affected by
FACTS: Rene V. Puse, a registered Professional Teacher, married death or resignation of the judge presiding over it.
Ligaya Delos-Santos on January 10, 1992. He had two children with (ABC Davao v CA)
her. When Ligaya learned of Rene's deception regarding his marital
status, she filed a criminal case for bigamy against her husband
C.6.c. Classification of Philippine Courts
before the MTC of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte.

FIRST LEVEL (MTCs, MeTCs, MCTCs) — which try and decide:

On August 2, 2005, she filed a letter-complaint with the Director of
1. Criminal actions involving:
the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), National Capital
a. Violations of city or municipal ordinances
Region, Manila, through the Director, PRC, Lucena City, seeking
committed within their respective territorial
assistance regarding her husband against whom she had filed a
jurisdiction; and
criminal case for “Bigamy” and “Abandonment.”
b. Offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount
Rene reiterated the arguments in his Answer and prayed for the
of fine and regardless of other imposable
dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it was not verified and
accessory or other penalties; and
for failure of the respondent to attach a valid certification against
2. Civil actions including:
forum-shopping.
a. Ejectment Cases (Feud)
b. Recovery of personal property with a value not
He argued that the proper forum to hear and decide the complaint
exceeding P300,000 outside Metro Manila (MM) or
was either the CSC pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 991936
not exceeding P400,000 in MM.
(Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service) or the
DepEd pursuant to Rep. Act No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public
SECOND LEVEL (RTCs, Family Courts)
School Teachers). Since the charge was for violation of the Code of
1. Courts of general jurisdiction
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,
a. Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation
the complaint should have been brought before the CSC.
b. Actions involving title to or possession of
c. real property where the assessed value of the
DOCTRINE: Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over
property exceeds P20,000 outside MM or exceeds
the same parties or subject matter at the same time by two or more
P50,000 in MM
separate tribunals. When the law bestows upon a government body
2. Exercise appellate jurisdiction
the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters,
it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be
THIRD LEVEL (CA, Sandiganbayan)
proved that another body is likewise vested with the same
1. CA is an appellate court
jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction
a. Reviewing cases appealed to it from the RTC on
over the matter.
questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and
law
b. Decisions of the RTC in the exercise of its original
C.6.b. Nature of Philippine Courts jurisdiction
Meaning of a Court: an organ of government belonging to the judicial i. As a matter of right
department the function of which is the application of the laws to ii. As a matter of discretion
controversies brought before it as well as public administration of c. Occasionally, CA may act as a trial court, as in
justice (Black’s, 5th Edition, 356) actions praying for the annulment of final and
executory judgments of RTCs on the ground of
Court as Distinguished from a Judge: extrinsic fraud subsequently discovered, against
which no other remedies lies
Court Judge
2. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
a. Over all criminal cases involving:
Tribunal officially assembled Officer of tribunal
i. Graft and corrupt practices act
under authority of law
ii. Such other offenses committed by
Being in imagination like a Physical person public officers and employees including
corporation those in GOCCs in relation to their office
b. It also has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
An office Public officer final judgments, resolutions, or orders of RTCs
whether in the exercise of their own original or
LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I. Introduction 7

appellate jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines
committed by public officers or employees the security of tenure of its Members.
including those in GOCCs in relation to their office
C.6.g. Courts of Law and Equity
FOURTH LEVEL — SC
Philippine Courts are both of law and equity.
C.6.d. Courts of Original and Appellate Jurisdiction
Court of Law Court of Equity

Original Appellate decides a case according to the adjudicates according to the

existing laws common precepts of what is
✓ ✘ right and just without inquiring
MeTC, MCTC, MTC
see Jurisdiction into the terms of the statutes

✓ ✓
RTC
see Jurisdiction cases from MTC C.6.h. Principle of judicial hierarchy
Concept: ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with
✓ ✓ concurrent jurisdiction, beginning from the lowest, on to the next
issuance of writs of cases from RTC and highest and ultimately to the highest. This hierarchy is determinative of
certiorari, specified quasi- the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of the proper forum
mandamus, quo judicial agencies for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established policy
CA warranto, habeas necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court‘s time and
corpus, and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive
prohibition; actions jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the Court‘s docket
for annulment of (Sec. 9[1], BP 129; Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII, Constitution of the Philippines)
judgments of RTCs
Rationale:
✓ ✓
1. it would be an imposition upon the limited time of the Court
cases affecting all cases
2. it would inevitably result in a delay in adjudication of case
ambassadors,
public ministers and *SC en banc not an
Exception: if warranted by nature and importance of issues raised
SC consuls, and in appellate court for
1. in the interest of speedy justice, and
cases involving SC divisions
2. to avoid future litigations
petitions for
certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus
CASTRO v. CARLOS (2013)

C.6.e. Courts of General and Special Jurisdiction

FACTS: quo warranto case
[SUPRA]

DOCTRINE: As to the procedural issue, petitioner submits that a

C.6.f. Constitutional and Statutory Courts
direct recourse to this Court is warranted by the urgent demands of
public interest, particularly the veritable need for stability in the civil
Constitutional Statutory service and the protection of the rights of civil servants. Moreover,
considering that no other than the President of the Philippines is the
Created by a direct Created by a law other than the appointing authority, petitioner doubts if a trial court judge or an
Constitutional provision, i.e. Constitution4, i.e. all Courts appellate court justice, with a prospect of promotion in the judiciary
Supreme Court except SC would be willing to go against a presidential appointment.

Basis: Art. VIII, Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, Although Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts but may not explicitly provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction
deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
Section 5 hereof. and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of this Court is not exclusive but
is concurrent with that of the Court of Appeals and regional trial
court and does not give petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of
court forum. The hierarchy of courts must be strictly observed.
4 Sandiganbayan is not a Constitutional court, created by PD 1486/1606.
LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I. Introduction 8

Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petition should

Settled is the rule that "the Supreme Court is a court of last resort have been filed with the CA, following the doctrine of hierarchy of
and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions courts. It pointed out that petitioner failed to state any special or
assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial important reason or any exceptional and compelling circumstance
tradition."17 A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts which would warrant a direct recourse to this Court.
warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition.18
Under the principle of hierarchy of courts, direct recourse to this
A direct invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction is allowed only when Court is improper because the Supreme Court is a court of last
there are special and important reasons that are clearly and resort and must remain to be so in order for it to satisfactorily
specifically set forth in a petition.19 The rationale behind this policy perform its constitutional functions, thereby allowing it to devote its
arises from the necessity of preventing (1) inordinate demands time and attention to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction and
upon the time and attention of the Court, which is better devoted to preventing the overcrowding of its docket. Nonetheless, the
those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction; and (2) further invocation of this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of
overcrowding of the Court’s docket. certiorari has been allowed in certain instances on the ground of
special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition, such as,
(1) when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of
public policy; (2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice;
DY v. BIBAT-PALAMOS (2013) (3) when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or (4) when
analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and
FACTS: Ernesto and Lourdes Dy were the proprietors of Limchia justified the immediate and direct handling of the case.
Enterprises which was engaged in the shipping business. It
obtained a loan from Orix Metro Leasing and Finance Corp. to fund This case falls under one of the exceptions to the principle of
its acquisition of M/V Pilar-I, a cargo vessel. Limchia Enterprises hierarchy of courts. Justice demands that this Court take
executed a Deed of Chattel Mortgage over the cargo as additional cognizance of this case to put an end to the controversy and resolve
security. the matter which has been dragging on for more than twenty (20)
years. Moreover, in light of the fact that what is involved is a final
Due to financial losses due to M/V Pilar-I being attacked by pirates, judgment promulgated by this Court, it is but proper for petitioner to
Sps. Dy failed to make the payments. Lourdes issued several call upon its original jurisdiction and seek final clarification.
checks to cover the loan but was dishonored so respondent
instituted a criminal complaint for violation of the Bouncing Checks
Law. Respondent also filed a Complaint and Petition for
Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Preferred Ship Mortgage under PD 1521
with Urgent Prayer for Attachment with the RTC. QUERUBIN v. COMELEC (2015)

M/V Pilar was seized and turned over to respondent but the RTC FACTS: Before this Court are consolidated petitions for certiorari
ruled that Sps. Dy has not defaulted on the payment of the loan so and prohibition2 assailing respondent the Commission on Elections'
the vessel should be returned. CA affirmed but ordered Sps. Dy to (COMELEC) Resolution No. 99223 dated December 23, 2014, which
reimburse the repair and drydocking while it was in respondent’s approved4 a direct contracting arrangement with respondent
possession. Sps. Dy filed a motion for execution of the judgement Smartmatic-TIM Corporation (Smartmatic-TIM) for the diagnostics,
but Colorado filed a manifestation that the vessel sustained severe maintenance, repair, and replacement of the COMELEC's Precinct
damage and sunk so it sought permission to cut the vessel into Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines, as well as the resulting
pieces and sell them. RTC granted the motion but denied the prayer contract thereof, the Extended Warranty Contract (Program 1)5
that the vessel be returned in the same condition it was seized. dated January 30, 2015.
After the MR was denied, Sps. Dy filed the instant petition to the SC.
DOCTRINE: At the outset, we brush aside the procedural barriers
DOCTRINE: Moreover, as pointed out by the RTC, what is involved is (i.e., locus standi of petitioners and the non-observance of the
a judgment of the Court which the lower courts cannot modify. hierarchy of courts) that supposedly prevent the Court from
Hence, petitioner deemed it proper to bring this case immediately to entertaining the consolidated petitions. As we held in Guingona, Jr.
the attention of this Court. Lastly, petitioner claims that the present v. [COMELEC, 634 Phil. 516, 529 (2010)]: There can be no doubt that
case involves a novel issue of law – that is, whether in an action to the coming 10 May 2010 [in this case, May 2016] elections is a
recover, a defendant in wrongful possession of the subject matter in matter of great public concern. On election day, the country's
litigation may be allowed to return the same in a deteriorated registered voters will come out to exercise the sacred right of
condition without any liability. suffrage. Not only is it an exercise that ensures the preservation of
our democracy, the coming elections also embodies our people's
LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I. Introduction 9

of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction (Villamor

last ounce of hope for a better future. It is the final opportunity,
v Salas).
patiently awaited by our people, for the peaceful transition of power
to the next chosen leaders of our country. If there is anything
capable of directly affecting the lives of ordinary Filipinos so as to GO v. CLERK OF COURT (2009)
come within the ambit of a public concern, it is the coming
elections, more so with the alarming turn of events that continue to FACTS: Respondent filed a collection suit against Looyuko of NAMI
unfold. The wanton wastage of public funds brought about by one pertaining to the 3 dishonored checks issued by the latter. Bacolod
bungled contract after another, in staggering amounts, is in itself a RTC already rendered a decision ordering Looyuko/NAMI to pay the
matter of grave public concern. aggregate amount of the said checks but the Pasig RTC also issued
the petitioner’s petition for a writ of preliminary injunction. The issue
Thus, in view of the compelling significance and transcending public in this case was whether or not the doctrine of non-interference
importance of the issues raised by petitioners, the technicalities applies.
raised by respondents should not be allowed to stand in the way, if
the ends of justice would not be subserved by a rigid adherence to DOCTRINE: The doctrine of non-interference states that no court
the rules of procedure.93 has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or
orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power
Corollarily, in Roque, Jr. v. COMELEC,94 it was held that: to grant the relief sought by injunction. It is premised on the
principle that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may
[The] bottom line is that the Court may except a particular case from not be opened, modified or vacated by any court of concurrent
the operations of its rules when the demands of justice so require. jurisdiction. Cases wherein an execution order has been issued are
Put a bit differently, rules of procedure are merely tools designed to still PENDING so that all the proceedings on the execution are still
facilitate the attainment of justice. Accordingly, technicalities and proceedings in the suit.
procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand in the way, if the
ends of justice would not be subserved by a rigid adherence to the
rules of procedure.95
TAN v. CINCO (2016)
Indeed, the conduct of the upcoming 2016 Elections is dependent
on the functional state of the existing PCOS machines purchased by FACTS: Dante took out a loan. Dante failed to pay. Dante wanted to
the COMELEC. PCOS means "a technology wherein an optical ballot novate. Dante disappeared before executing a deed of assignment
scanner, into which optical scan paper ballots marked by hand by corresponding to the novation. Creditors filed a collection case.
the voter are inserted to be counted, is located in every precinct."96 Makati RTC ordered Dante to pay his creditors. Dante filed an MR.
As the AES' s groundwork mechanism, it is imperative that the PCOS Dante did not succeed. Sheriff levied a house in Dante’s name.
machines, come election day, are of optimal utility. Following the Dante opposed saying it was a family home. Makati RTC rejected
CAC's recommendation to re-use the existing technology for the the contention. There being no appeal taken therefrom, the Decision
said elections,97 the COMELEC proceeded to procure services for became final. Sometime hereafter, Teresita, Dante’s wife, filed a
the repair and refurbishment of the PCOS machines. The COMELEC, nullification case with Paranaque RTC. PRTC, initially dismissed the
however, through its Resolution No. 9922, decided to pursue a direct case recognizing res judicata. In an MR, PRTC reversed itself,
contracting arrangement with Smartmatic-TIM, which has now granting Teresita’s motion to annul the sale. Respondents filed an
resulted in the execution of the Extended Warranty Contract MR. Respondents did not succeed. Respondents filed a Motion for
(Program 1 ). Petitioners assail the validity of the foregoing courses Extension of Time with the CA, but forgot to file a Notice of Appeal.
of action mainly for violating the GPRA. Thus, if only to ensure that Recognizing their error, they withdrew the motion for extension and
the upcoming elections is not mired with illegality at this basic, filed a notice of appeal. PRTC denied the Notice of Appeal for being
initial front, this Court, pursuant to its unyielding duty as final arbiter filed out of time (10 days).Respondents filed a certiorari with the CA
of the laws, deems it proper to thresh out the above-stated assailing the denial of the Notice of Appeal and arguing that PRTC
substantive issues, reasonably unfettered by the rigors of had no jurisdiction over the case. CA granted the certiorari. While
procedure. the observance of the reglementary period is mandatory and
jurisdictional, CA found meritorious and sound reasons for the
exceptional allowance of respondents' appeal. Citing the doctrine of
judicial stability, CA claimed that to deny the Notice of Appeal based
C.6.i. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability
on a mere technicality would allow Dante to continually evade his
obligations already adjudicated upon by a co-equal court. SC agrees
Concept: courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere
with the CA. PRTC should have dismissed the case outright, it
with each other‘s orders (Lapu-lapu Development v Group Management
having no jurisdiction over the matter. Under the doctrine of judicial
Corp). This bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the judgment
stability, the remedy in case of an error made by the issuing court is
LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I. Introduction 10

to proceed not to a co-equal body, but to a higher court. Sec. 34, BP 129. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land
registration cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
DOCTRINE: Doctrine of judicial stability: the various branches of the Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the
regional trial courts of a province or city, having as they do the same Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land registration
or equal authority and exercising as they do concurrent and cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or
coordinate jurisdiction, should not, cannot, and are not permitted to contested lots the where the value of which does not exceed One
interfere with their respective cases, much less with their orders or hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be
judgments. ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the
respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the
corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their decisions
in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions
DEL ROSARIO v. OCAMPO-FERRER (2016) of the Regional Trial Courts. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)

FACTS: Ocampo-Ferrer obtained a loan from Del Rosario, secured

by a parcel of land. After Ocampo-Ferrer defaulted on said loan, Del
b. Special jurisdiction (e.g. BP 129, Sec. 35)
Rosario filed a complaint for a sum of money.

DOCTRINE: A case execution order has been issued is considered Sec. 35, BP 129. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. – In the
as still pending, so that all proceedings on the execution are still absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any
proceedings in the suit. A court which issued a writ of execution has Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit
the inherent power, for the advancement of justice, to correct errors Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas
of its ministerial officers and to control its own processes. To hold corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or
otherwise would be to divide the jurisdiction of the appropriate city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
forum in the resolution of incidents arising in execution
proceedings. Splitting of jurisdiction is obnoxious to the orderly
c. Residual jurisdiction
administration of justice. x x x To be sure, the law and the rules are
not unaware that an issuing court may violate the law in issuing a
writ of execution and have recognized that there should be a DBP v. JUDGE CARPIO (2017)
remedy against this violation. The remedy, however, is not the resort
to another co-equal body but to a higher court with authority to DOCTRINE: Residual jurisdiction refers to the authority of the trial
nullify the action of the issuing court. This is precisely the judicial court to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the
power that the 1987 Constitution, under Article VIII, Section 1, rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the
paragraph 2, speaks of and which this Court has operationalized appeal; to approve compromises; to permit appeals by indigent
through a petition for certiorari, under Rule 65. x x x It is not a viable litigants; to order execution pending appeal in accordance with
legal position to claim that a TRO against a writ of execution is Section 2, Rule 39; and to allow the withdrawal of the appeal,
issued against an erring sheriff, not against the issuing Judge. A provided these are done prior to the transmittal of the original
TRO enjoining the enforceability of a writ addresses the writ itself, record or the record on appeal, even if the appeal has already been
not merely the executing sheriff. x x x As already mentioned above, perfected or despite the approval of the record on appeal24 or in
the appropriate action is to assail the implementation of the writ case of a petition for review under Rule 42, before the CA gives due
before the issuing court in whose behalf the sheriff acts, and, upon course to the petition.25
failure, to seek redress through a higher judicial body.
The "residual jurisdiction" of the trial court is available at a stage in
which the court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the
C.6.j. Doctrine of non-interference in associations
case or the subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is
reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon
Concept: same as above; when law provides for an appeal from
the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of
decision of an admin body to SC or CA, it means that such body is co-
the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the
equal with RTC thus beyond the control of the latter (Philippine Sinter v
trial court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to issue
Cagayan Electric).
protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent
litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal
of the appeal.
C.7. Different kinds of jurisdiction
a. Delegated jurisdiction (e.g. BP 129, Sec. 34 in relation to PD
1529, Sec. 2) Cf. Residual Prerogatives
LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I. Introduction 11

KATON v. PALANCA, JR. (2004) CA affirmed. The SC ruled that neither the RTC or CA had primary
jurisdiction over the case, and that it was the COA who had primary
DOCTRINE: Where prescription, lack of jurisdiction or failure to jurisdiction. The SC ruled that the COA has primary jurisdiction to
state a cause of action clearly appear from the complaint filed pass upon money claims against the government.
with the trial court, the action may be dismissed motu proprio by
the Court of Appeals, even if the case has been elevated for DOCTRINE: Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by
review on different grounds. Verily, the dismissal of such cases Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, it is the COA which has
appropriately ends useless litigations. primary jurisdiction over money claims against government
agencies and instrumentalities.

d. Primary jurisdiction In several cases, involving money claims against government

agencies based on quantum meruit, the claims were properly filed
or referred to the COA.
THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN v. JODY KING CONSTRUCTION AND
DEV’T CORP. (2013)

FACTS: COA has primary jurisdiction over private respondent’s

HEIRS OF MATEO PIDACAN v. AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE
money claims Petitioner is not estopped from raising the issue of
(2010)
jurisdiction

FACTS: ATO used a portion of the property of petitioners.

DOCTRINE: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case
Petitioners demanded payment for the value of the property, but
is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized
ATO refused. Petitioners filed a complaint with the RTC. RTC ruled
training and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies, relief
in their favor. Ultimately, SC ruled in favor of the petitioners. The
must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a
RTC denied the petitioners’ motion for execution due to PD 1445
remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter may well be
and AO Circular 10-2000. Hence, this petition. The Court granted the
within their proper jurisdiction.22 It applies where a claim is
petitioner, holding that the executive department or the legislature
originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever
may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a
enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which,
violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property
under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special
may not be taken for public use without just compensation, no
competence of an administrative agency. In such a case, the court
statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own
in which the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend the judicial
determination shall prevail over the court's findings.
process pending referral of such issues to the administrative body
for its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged,
DOCTRINE: The determination of "just compensation" in eminent
dismiss the case without prejudice.23
domain cases is a judicial function. The executive department or the
legislature may make the initial determinations but when a party
The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the
claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private
court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its
property may not be taken for public use without just compensation,
jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined
no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own
some question or some aspect of some question arising in the
determination shall prevail over the court's findings. Much less can
proceeding before the court
the courts be precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the
decreed compensation.

MMDA v. D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. (2019)

Note: Consider RA 6657.
FACTS: MMDA selected respondents as the private entity to
develop and operate a new sanitary landfill to replace the one in San e. Extended jurisdiction (e.g. Sec. 26-A, RA 9208)
Mateo. The between MMDA and respondents were already signed,
Sec. 26-A, RA 9208. Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction. – The State shall
but the contract was not yet approved by the Office of the President,
exercise jurisdiction over any act defined and penalized under this
which it needs to be effective. MMDA chairman Binay instructed
Act, even if committed outside the Philippines and whether or not
respondents to proceed with the project anyway, and they did. Two
such act or acts constitute an offense at the place of commission,
TROs were issued by the RTC of Antique, placing the operation on
the crime being a continuing offense, having been commenced in
hold. Respondents DM Consunji and R-II Builders filed with RTC a
the Philippines and other elements having been committed in
complaint for the sum of money based on quantum meruit against
another country, if the suspect or accused:
MMDA for the expenses they incurred in working on the project after
the MMDA refused payment. RTC granted the money claim, and the
LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I. Introduction 12

(a) Is a Filipino citizen; or TANON STRAIT v. REYES (2015)

(b) Is a permanent resident of the Philippines; or FACTS: Petitioners ask the SC to lower the standard of locus standi
because of the nature of the petition.
(c) Has committed the act against a citizen of the Philippines.
DOCTRINE: SC: No need because there were ample provisions
No prosecution may be commenced against a person under this provided in the Environmetal SC Rules. But still, mammals cannot be
section if a foreign government, in accordance with jurisdiction parties to the case.
recognized by the Philippines, has prosecuted or is prosecuting
such person for the conduct constituting such offense, except upon
the approval of the Secretary of Justice.
h. Equity jurisdiction

The government may surrender or extradite persons accused of

Concept: power of court to resolve issues presented in a
trafficking in the Philippines to the appropriate international court if
case in accordance with the natural rules of fairness and
any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition laws
justice in the ABSENCE OF A CLEAR, POSITIVE LAW
and treaties.
governing such issues.

Equity seeks to reach and to do complete justice where the

courts of law are incompetent to do so because of the
f. Split jurisdiction inflexibility of the rules and the lack of power to adapt their
judgments to the special circumstance of cases. Equity
regards the spirit of the law and not its letter, the intent and
CITY OF MANILA v. JUDGE CUERDO (2014)
not the form, the substance rather than the circumstance.
(Air Manila v CIR)
FACTS: The City of Manila assessed taxes for respondent
corporations which were paid for under protest. Respondents filed
for “Refund or Recovery of Illegally and/or Erroneously – Collected
Local Business Tax, Prohibition with Prayer to Issue TRO and Writ of RUBIO v. ALABATA (2014)
Preliminary Injunction”, which was denied by the RTC, and further
appeal was denied by the CA for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners filed FACTS: PET won the earlier case for annulment of declaration of
filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The heirship and sale, reconveyance and damages against RES. RES
Supreme Court ruled that the assailed resolutions of the CA are in appealed to CA, but later on withdrew her appeal, resulting in RTC
the nature of a final order as they disposed of the petition decision attaining finality. The entry of judgement was also
completely. In cases where an assailed judgment or order is recorded by the CA. However, the judgement was not executed bc
considered final – remedy is to appeal. Petitioner should have filed PET’s new counsel did not inform PET that the entry of judgement
a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is the had been issued (they only came to know more than 10yrs later).
continuation of the appellate process over the original case. PET then filed an action for revival of judgement but the RTC
dismissed the same. PET appealed to the CA but CA affirmed RTC’s
DOCTRINE: asdas dismissal, ruling that the action has already prescribed. SC however,
by exercising its equity jurisdiction, allowed the action for revival bc
manifest injustice would otherwise result to PET.
Sir’s obiter: Classic case of judicial legislation because the ruling of
the Court is not provided in law.
DOCTRINE: Due to the peculiarities of this case, the Court, in the
exercise of its equity jurisdiction, relaxes the rules and decides to
g. Epistolary jurisdiction
allow the action for the revival of judgment filed by petitioners. The
Court believes that it is its bounden duty to exact justice in every
Concept: the power and authority of the court to hear, try,
way possible and exercise its soundest discretion to prevent a
and decide a case arising from a letter petition introduced by
wrong. Although strict compliance with the rules of procedure is
a third person, rather than the aggrieved party, for the
desired, liberal interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict
protection of public interest, pursuant to the concept of
enforcement of the rules will not serve the ends of justice; and that
Judicial Activism.
it is a better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be
● From the root word “epistle” — letter.
guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine
of !aches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result.
RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS OF THE PROTECTED SEASCAPE
LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I. Introduction 13

REGULUS DEV’T INC. v. DELA CRUZ (2016) to CA without raising the issue on lack of jurisdiction.

FACTS: Petitioner is the owner of San Juan Apartments. CA affirmed the appealed decision. Surety then filed Motion to
Respondent leased two units (Unit 2002-A and Unit 2002-B) of the Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction against CFI Cebu in
San Juan Apartments in 1993 and 1994. view of the effectivity of Judiciary Act of 1948 a month before the
filing of the petition for recovery. Act placed original exclusive
Lease period: 1 month, subject to automatic renewals, unless jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil actions for demands not
terminated by the petitioner upon written notice. Petitioner sent a exceeding 2,000 exclusive of interest. CA set aside its earlier
letter to terminate the lease of the two subject units. Due to decision and referred the case to SC since it has exclusive
respondent’s refusal to vacate the units, the petitioner filed a jurisdiction over "all cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior
complaint for ejectment. MTC granted the complaint, which was court is in issue.
upheld by the RTC but later dismissed by the CA.
DOCTRINE: A party may be estopped or barred from raising a
Pending appeal with the RTC, the respondent consigned rentals with question in different ways and for different reasons. Thus we speak
the RTC. After dismissal of ejectment case by the CA, petitioner filed of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel
a motion praying for withdrawal of consigned rentals. RTC granted by laches.
and issued writ of execution. Petitioner prayed that RTC levy on the
property of the respondent because the value of withdrawn It has been held that a party can not invoke the jurisdiction of a
deposits, supersedeas bond, and payments were insufficient to court to sure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after
cover rentals. RTC granted. obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction
CA reversed, ruling that RTC had no jurisdiction to levy on the Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily submitting a
respondent’s real property. Matter of execution of the judgment lies cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too
with the MTC where the complaint for ejectment was originally filed. late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court. It
SC held that RTC had jurisdiction to order the levy because it was is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction
merely a reiteration of the writ of execution which the RTC issued. of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to
afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.
DOCTRINE: Appellate jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law. The
appellate court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter and
parties when an appeal is perfected.
CALIMLIM v. RAMIREZ (1982)
Equity jurisdiction aims to provide complete justice in cases where
a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special FACTS: IMC filed a petition in the respondent Court to compel
circumstances of a case because of a resulting legal inflexibility Manuel Magali to surrender the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 9138
when the law is applied to a given situation. The purpose of the in order that the same may be cancelled and a new one issued in
exercise of equity jurisdiction, among others, is to prevent unjust the name of the said corporation. Magali filed to comply, so IMC
enrichment and to ensure restitution. filed an ex-parte petition to declare TCT No. 9138 as cancelled and
to issue a new title in its name. The said petition was granted, the
Execution shall be applied for in the court of origin. TCT was cancelled and a new one was issued in the name of IMC.
Calimlim then filed with the LRC a petition for cancellation of the
new TCT. The petition was dismissed. She then filed a complaint
with the respondent court for the cancellation of all subsequent
C.8. Estoppel by jurisdiction
sales by IMC. One of the private respondents, Ramos, filed a Motion
to Dismiss, on the ground of estoppel by prior judgment, which was
granted by the respondent court. The SC held that it is error to
TIJAM v. SIBONGHANOY (1968) consider the dismissal of the petition filed in the LRC as a bar by
prior judgment against the filing of the civil case in the CFI.
FACTS: Tijam filed for recovery of P1,908 + legal interest from
Sibonghanoy. Defendants filed a counter bond with Manila DOCTRINE: It is neither fair nor legal to bind a party by the result of
a suit or proceeding which was taken cognizance of in a court which
Surety and Fidelity Co (Surety). Judgement was in favour of the lacks jurisdiction over the same irrespective of the attendant
plaintiffs, a writ of execution was issued against the defendant. circumstances. The equitable defense of estoppel requires
Defendants moved for writ of execution against surety which was knowledge or consciousness of the facts upon which it is based.
granted. Surety moved to quash the writ but was denied, appealed The same thing is true with estoppel by conduct which may be
LAW 125: Civil Procedure (Prof. Elezar) C2022 I. Introduction 14

asserted only when it is shown, among others, that the the title over the land to Sps. Anchales. Meanwhile, Sps. Mat-an
representation must have been made with knowledge of the facts filed an action for injunction and damages with prayer for writ of
preliminary injunction with RTC Baguio City against Sps. Yadno,
and that the party to whom it was made is ignorant of the truth of
Sps. Anchales, and the Provincial Sheriff of RTC Urdaneta,
the matter. (De Castro vs. Gineta, 27 SCRA 623.) The filing of an
assailing the decision rendered by the RTC of Urdaneta.
action or suit in a court that does not possess jurisdiction to
entertain the same may not be presumed to be deliberate and
DOCTRINE: No court has the power to interfere by injunction with
intended to secure a ruling which could later be annulled if not
the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate
favorable to the party who filed such suit or proceeding.
jurisdiction. The various trial courts of a province or city, having the
same or equal authority, should not, cannot, and are not permitted
to interfere with their respective cases, much less with their orders
or judgments. A contrary rule would obviously lead to confusion and
FIGUEROA v. PEOPLE (2008)
seriously hamper the administration of justice.

FACTS: Prosecutor filed with the RTC. Accused was arraigned, tried
and convicted. MR denied. He appealed. Conviction affirmed. Then
DEL ROSARIO v. OCAMPO-FERRER (2016)
for the first time raised issue of jurisdiction.

FACTS: Ocampo-Ferrer obtained a loan of P850,000 from Del

DOCTRINE: The issue of jurisdiction can be raised even for the first
Rosario, secured by a parcel of land. After Ocampo-Ferrer defaulted
time on appeal.
on the loan, Del Rosario filed a complaint for a sum of money
against her before the RTC Las Pinas Br. 275. The two entered into
EXCEPTION, estoppel by jurisdiction. — only if evidence shows that
a Compromise Agreement whereby Ocampo-Ferrer bound herself to
you could have raised jurisdiction at an early stage but did not
pay Del Rosario the amount of P1,200,000 on or before June 19,
because you are awaiting an adverse decision, you are considered
2005 and upon receipt of such, Del Rosario shall return the owner’s
in estoppel.
duplicate copy of the TCT. Still, Ocampo-Ferrer failed to comply with
her obligation, compelling Del Rosario to move for execution which
was granted by the RTC Br. 275. The Sheriff then levied Ocampo-
C.9. Principle of judicial hierarchy Ferrer’s Property and sold at the action sale wherein Del Rosario
was the highest bidder. Ocampo-Ferrer then filed a complaint before
the RTC Las Pinas Br. 198 to annul the sale. The RTC br. 198
GIOS-SAMAR, INC. v. DOTC
dismissed the case for lack of merit and ordered the return of the
owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT.
FACTS: SC clarified what “transcendental importance” is. In this
case, Court said direct resort only if the petition involves pure
DOCTRINE: Under the doctrine of judicial stability or noninterference
questions of law.
in the regular orders or judgments of a coequal court, the various
trial courts of a province or city, having the same equal authority,
DOCTRINE: When a question before the Court involves
should not, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with their
determination of a factual issue indispensable to the resolution of
respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments. (See
the legal issue, the Court will refuse to resolve the question
Ratio for further explanation).
regardless of the allegation or invocation of compelling reasons,
such as the transcendental or paramount importance of the case.
Such question must first be brought before the proper trial courts or
the CA, both of which are specially equipped to try and resolve
factual questions.

C.10. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability

YADNO v. ANCHALES (2012)

FACTS: Sps. Anchales filed with the CFI of Urdaneta, Pangasinan

(now RTC Urdaneta) a complaint for ownership, delivery of
possession, damages with preliminary injunction, and attachment
against Sps. Yadno and Sps. Mat-an over a property under the
name of Orani Tacay. The RTC of Urdaneta subsequently granted