Module 1: conflict with substantive

• Preliminaries law.
a. Remedial Law distinguished from substantive law As to authority of the It cannot be The Supreme Court is
Supreme Court enacted by the expressly empowered to
Substantive Remedial Law Supreme Court promulgate procedural rules
Law REMEDIAL LAW:
As to definition It is that part of It prescribes the method of prescribes the method of
the law which enforcing rights or obtaining enforcing rights or obtains
creates, defines redress for their invasions redress for their invasion.
and regulates
rights, or which b. Prospective Effect of the Rules of Court/ Retroactive Application of
regulates the Rules of Court
right and duties
which give rise Prospective Effect of ROC Retroactive Effect of ROC
to a cause of • The rules embodied in • Rules of procedure,
action the ROC are not penal may be made
As to establishment of It makes vested No vested rights may attach laws and are not to be applicable to actions
vested rights rights possible. to nor arise therefrom. given retroactive pending and
effect undetermined at the
If the rule takes If it operates as a means of • The rules shall govern time of their passage,
away a vested implementing an existing cases brought after and are deemed
right, it is not right then the rule deals they take effect, and retroactive in that
procedural. If merely with procedure. also to pending cases, sense and to that
the rule creates except if, in the extent.
a right such as opinion of the court, Exceptions: (such does not
the right to their application apply when:
appeal, it may would not be feasible • Where the statute
be classified as or would work itself or by necessary
a substantive injustice, in which implication provides
matter event, the former that pending actions
As to application It is prospective It is construed to be procedure shall apply are excepted from its
in application applicable to actions pending operation;
and undetermined at the time • If applying the rule to
of their passage, and are pending proceedings
deemed retroactive in that would impair vested
sense and to that extent. As a rights;
general rule, the retroactive • When to do so would
application of procedural not be feasible or
laws cannot be considered would work injustice;
violative of any personal or
rights because no vested • If doing so would
right may attach to nor arise involve intricate
therefrom problems of due
As to origination it originates It does not originate from the process or impair the
from the legislature but has the force independence of the
legislature and effect of law if not in courts
 the administration of justice. A conduct, to be contumacious, implies willfulness, bad
• In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. faith or with deliberate intent to cause injustice, which is not so in the case at bar. If it
Simeon Datumanong, G.R. No. 150274, 4 August 2006 were otherwise, petitioner should have been dismissed immediately after the
FACTS: Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman rendered its
Petitioner Jimmie F. Tel-Equen, District Engineer of Mountain Province, DPWH decision on March 28, 1994. It was only after the Court of Appeals rendered its
Cordillera Administrative Region, filed this present petition to cite the former decision on March 2, 2000 affirming the dismissal that Secretary Datumanong issued
Secretary Simeon A. Datumanong of the Department of Public Works and Highways the memorandum and after ascertaining that no injunction or restraining order was
(DPWH) in contempt of court for issuing Memorandum Order dated October 5, 2001 issued by the Court.
dismissing him from the service.
At most, it may be considered only an error of judgment or a result of confusion
The Ombudsman Task Force on Public Works and Highways filed with the Office of considering the different rules regarding execution of decisions pending appeal. As
the Ombudsman an administrative complaint for dishonesty, falsification of official such the legal maxim "inclusio[n] unius est exclusio alterius" finds application. The
documents, grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, violation of office rules and express mention of the things included excludes those that are not included. The clear
regulations, and conduct prejudicial to the service against petitioner Tel-Equen and import of these statements taken together is that all other decisions of the Office of the
several others, relative to the anomalous payment of P553,900.00 of the bailey bridge Ombudsman which impose penalties that are not enumerated in the said Section 27
components owned by the government. are not final, unappealable and immediately executory. An appeal timely filed, such
as the one filed in the instant case, will stay the immediate implementation of the
Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman found decision.
respondents guilty and ordered their dismissal from service with accessory penalties.
After the denial of the motions for reconsiderations, 3 petitions were filed and referred In other words, the fact that the Ombudsman Act gives parties the right to appeal from
to the CA in light of the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto. its decisions should generally carry with it the stay of these decisions pending appeal.
Otherwise, the essential nature of these judgments as being appealable would be
CA affirmed with modification the decision of the Administrative Adjudication rendered nugatory.
Buereau of the Office of the Ombudsman finding petitioner and two co-accused guilty
as charged and dismissed them from the service while the other two respondents were Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws are construed to be applicable to actions
exonerated from administrative liability for lack of evidence. pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in
that sense and to that extent. As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural
Petitioner, together with his two co-accused, appealed from the decision of the Court laws cannot be considered violative of any personal rights because no vested right may
of Appeals which was docketed as G.R. No. 144694. 6 Meanwhile, while appeal was attach to nor arise therefrom.
still pending, Secretary Datumanong issued the assailed Memorandum Order. Hence,
the instant petition to cite Secretary Datumanong in contempt of court. In the case at bar, the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman are clearly
procedural and no vested right of the petitioner is violated as he is considered
Petitioner contends that in issuing the Memorandum Order despite knowledge of the preventively suspended while his case is on appeal.
pendency of G.R. No. 144694, Secretary Datumanong committed a contumacious act,
a gross and blatant display of abuse of discretion and an unlawful interference with the c. Applicability to pending actions; retroactivity
proceedings before the Court, thereby directly or indirectly impeding, obstructing and • Rules of procedure may be made applicable to actions pending and
degrading the administration of justice, and pre-empting the Court's sole right to make undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that
a decision in accord with the evidence and law. sense and to that extent.
• GENERAL RULE:
ISSUE: o The retroactive application of procedural laws cannot be violative
W/N the MoA issued by Secretary Datumanong was a contumacios conduct. of any personal rights because no vested right may attach to nor rise
therefrom
RULING: • When Procedural Rules do NOT apply to pending actions:
After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the o Where the statute itself or by necessary implication provides that
issuance of the Memorandum Order by Secretary Datumanong was not a pending actions are excepted from its operation;
contumacious conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade
 o If applying the Rule to pending proceedings would impair vested o The merits of the case;
rights; o A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the
o When to do so would not be feasible or would work injustice; or party favored by the suspension of rules;
o If doing so would involve intricate problems of due process or o A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous
impair the independence of the courts. and dilatory; and
d. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court o The rights of the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby
• The Rule-making power of the Court includes the constitutional power to • Sarmiento v. Zaratan, G.R. No. 167471, 5 February 2007
promulgate Rules concerning pleading, practice, and procdure • Labao v. Flores, G.R. No. 187984, 15 November 2010
o The SC for the first time was given the power to promulgate Rules • Gios-Samar, Inc. v. DOTC, G.R. No. 217158, 12 March
concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. 2019
o It was also granted for the first time the power to disapprove Rules f. Distinctions: Civil Action, Criminal Action, and Special
of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. Proceedings
▪ The 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to Civil Action Criminal Action Special Proceeding
repeal, alter, or supplement Rules concerning pleading, One by which a party sues One by which the State A remedy by which a
practice and procedure. another for the prosecutes a person for an party seeks to establish a
• The power to promulgate Rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no enforcement or protection act or omission status, a right, or a
longer shared by this Court with Congress, more so with the Executive. of a right or the punishable by law particular fact
• The following limitations are imposed by the Constitution on the rule-making prevention or redress of a
power of the SC: wrong.
o The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
the speedy disposition of cases; Such may either be:
o The rules shall be uniform for courts of the same grade; and - Ordinary:
o The rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. governed by
• Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 30 ordinary rules;
• SECTION 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of Formal demand
the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and of one’s legal
concurrence. rights in a court
• Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) of justice in the
• Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional manner
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the prescribed by
practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the the court or by
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive law; or
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts - Special: Also
of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive governed by
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall ordinary Rules
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. but subject to
e. Power of the Supreme Court to suspend the Rules of Court specific Rules
• The SC has the power to amend, repeal or even establish new rules for a more prescribed;
simplified and inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases Special features
• The constitutional power of the SC to promulgate rules of practice and not found in
procedure and to amend or repeal the same necessarily carries with it the ordinary civil
power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the actions.
amendment of the ROC Both are governed by the
• The suspension of the ROC based on jurisprudence cite important factors that Rules for ordinary civil
would warrant suspension: actions, subject to the
o The existence of special or compelling circumstances;
specific Rules prescribed • Spouses Gonzales v. Marmaine Realty Corp., G.R. No.
for a special civil action. 214241, January 13, 2016
c. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
• General Principles • Under this doctrine, courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question
a. Nature and classification of Philippine Courts which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially
• Constitutional Court – where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion
a. Is one created by a direct constitutional provision. An example is the requiring the special knowledge and experience of said administrative
Supreme Court. It owes its creation from the Constitution itself. In tribunal in determining technical and intricate matters of fact.
the PH only the SC is considered one. • Fabia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132684, 11 Sept
• Statutory Court – 2002
a. One created by a law other than the constitution. All courts in the • Lihaylihay v. The Treasurer of the Republic of the Phil.,
PH, except the SC are statutory courts. They have been created by G.R. No. 192223, 23 July 2018, Leonen
statutory enactments. d. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability
• Civil Court – • GENERAL RULE: No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with
a. Are those which determine controversies between private persons. the judgment or decrees of another court with concurrent or coordinate
• Criminal Court – jurisdiction possessing equal power to grant injunctive relief or to pass upon
a. Are those which adjudicate offenses alleged to have been committed or scrutinize and much less declare as unjust a judgment of another court.
against the State. • Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s
• Superior Court – orders.
a. Is one with controlling authority over other courts, and with an • This also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a
original jurisdiction of its own. co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power to review
• Inferior Court – • EXCEPTION: does not apply where a third party claimant is involved
a. Is one which is subordinate to another court, the judgment of which • Tan v. Cinco, G.R. No. 213054, 15 June 2016
may be reviewed by a higher tribunal. • Specified Contractors & Dev Inc v. Pobocan G.R. No.
• Courts of General Jurisdiction – 212014-15, 212427-28, 212694-95, 212794- 95, 6
a. Are those with competence to decide on their own jurisdiction and December 2016
take cognizance of all cases, civil and criminal, of a particular • Jurisdiction
nature. a. Statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action
• Courts of Special (limited) jurisdiction – • Cang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105308, 25
a. Are those which have jurisdiction only for a particular purpose or September 1998
are clothed with special powers for the performance of specified b. Classification of jurisdiction
duties beyond which they have no authority of any kind. • Original vs. Appellate
b. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies • General vs. Special
• If a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by • Exclusive vs. Concurrent
giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a As to Cases Tried General Jurisdiction – Special (Limited)
matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be Exercised by courts with Jurisdiction –
exhausted first before the court’s judicial power can be sought. competence to decide on Exercised by courts
• The underlying principle rests on the presumption that the administrative their own jurisdiction and whose jurisdiction
agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter will decide the to take cognizance of all extends only to particular
same correctly. cases except those or specified cases. Those
• Failure to observe the doctrine does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. expressly withheld from which have a special
o The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will them either by the Rules jurisdiction only for a
deprive the complainant of a cause of action which is a ground to or by Law. A court may particular purpose or are
dismiss. also be considered clothed with special
o If not invoked at the porper time, this ground is deemed waived and general if it has the powers for the
the court can take cognizance of the case and try. competence to exercise performance of specified
 jurisdiction over cases not duties beyond which they • GENERAL RULE: a law enacted during the pendency of a case which
falling within the have no authority of any transfers jurisdiction to another court does not affect cases prior to its
jurisdiction of any court, kind. enactment.
tribunal, person or body • EXCEPTIONS:
exercising judicial or o When the new law expressly provides for a retroactive application;
quasi-judicial functions o When the change of jurisdiction is curative in character.
As to Nature of the Cause Original Jurisdiction – Appellate Jurisdiction – • Rationale:
Exercised by courts Exercised by courts o It would be an imposition upon the limited time of the Court; and
which, under the law, which have the power to o It would inevitably result in a delay, intended or otherwise, in the
have the power to take review on appeal the adjudication of cases, which in some instances had to be remanded
judicial cognizance of a decisions or orders of a or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of
case instituted for judicial lower court. procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues because the
action for the first time Court is not a trier of facts.
under the conditions set • When such doctrine may be disregarded:
by the law. In other o The SC, may disregard such principle if warranted by the nature and
words, it is where a case importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy injustice and
is commenced to avoid future litigations
As to Nature and Extent Exclusive Jurisdiction – Concurrent Jurisiction • Gios-Samar, Inc. v. DOTC, G.R. No. 217158, 12 March
of Exercise Confined to a particular – 2019
court to the exclusion of That possessed by the d. Jurisdiction of various Philippine courts
other courts. It precludes court together with • Katarungang Pambarangay (Sec. 399-422, Local
the idea of co-existence another or other courts Government Code) NOTE: Particularly a condition
and refers to the over the same subject precedent, just like earnest efforts and arbitration, NOT
jurisdiction possessed to matter. The court which on jurisdiction, as LGC on Barangay provides "authority
the exclusion of others first obtains jurisdiction to bring together the parties for an amicable settlement".
retains it to the exclusion Thus, an ADR, not jurisdiction to hear and decide a case.
of the others, but the 1. Condition Precedent
choice of the court is a. See also Art. 151, Family Code - earnest
lodged in those persons efforts toward compromise between
duly authorized to file the member of the family
action (also referred to as b. Art. 151. No suit between members of
confluent or coordinate the same family shall prosper unless it
jurisdiction) should appear from the verified
As to Situs Territorial Jurisdiction Extra-territorial complaint or petition that earnest efforts
– Jurisdiction – toward a compromise have been made,
Exercised within the Exercised beyond the but that the same have failed. If it is
limits of the place where confines of the territory shown that no such efforts were in fact
the court is located. where the court is located. made, the case must be dismissed.

c. Doctrines of hierarchy of courts and continuity of jurisdiction This rule shall not apply to cases which
• Means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent may not be the subject of compromise
happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented under the Civil Code.
jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction 2. Art. 2041 of the Civil Code
has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case a. Art. 2041. If one of the parties fails or
refuses to abide by the compromise, the
other party may either enforce the
 compromise or regard it as rescinded and c. Art. 253. The foregoing rules in Chapters
insist upon his original demand. 2 and 3 hereof shall likewise govern
3. Lansangan v. Caisip, G.R. No. 212987, 6 August summary proceedings filed under
2018 Articles 41, 51, 69, 73, 96, 124 and 217,
4. Abagatnan v. Spouses Clarito, G.R. No. 211966, insofar as they are applicable.
7 August 2017 • Section 5 (4) Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
5. Chavez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159411, 18 1. Section 5 (4) Article VIII. Order a change of
March 2005 venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of
• Jurisdiction over small claims, cases covered by the rules justice.
on Summary Procedure • B.P . 129 - Judicial Reorganization Act of 1980, as
1. Summary Procedure v. Summary Proceeding amended by RA 115761
(Art. 100, 252, 253, Family Code) 1. Anama v. Citibank G.R. No. 192048, 13
a. Art. 100. The separation in fact between December 2017
husband and wife shall not affect the 2. Sps. Trayvilla v. Sejas G.R. No. 204970, 1
regime of absolute community except February 2016
that: 3. Heirs of Reterta v. Sps. Lopez G.R. No. 159941,
i. The spouse who leaves the 17 August 2011
conjugal home or refuses to live • Republic Act 7691 - An act expanding the jurisdiction of
therein, without just cause, the MTC, MeTC, MCTC, amending B.P. 129
shall not have the right to be 1. Suapo et al v. Sps. De Jesus G.R. No. 198356, 20
supported; April 2015
ii. When the consent of one • P .D. 1606 as amended by Republic Act 8249; Republic
spouse to any transaction of the Act 10660 - Sandiganbayan
other is required by law, • Republic Act 8369 - Family Courts Act
judicial authorization shall be • Republic Act 8799, Sec. 5.2 - Securities Regulations
obtained in a summary Code
proceeding; e. Aspects of jurisdiction
iii. In the absence of sufficient • Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
community property, the • Is the power to hear and determine cases of general class to which the
separate property of both proceedings in question belong and is conferred by the sovereign authority
spouses shall be solidarily which organizes the court and defines its powers.
liable for the support of the • Conferred by law
family. The spouse present a. Nothing can change the jurisdiction of the court over subject matter.
shall, upon proper petition in a That power is a matter of legislative enactment which none but the
summary proceeding, be given legislature may change
judicial authority to administer 1. Sps. Erorita v. Sps. Dumlao G.R. No. 195477, 25
or encumber any specific January 2016
separate property of the other 2. Rivera v. Catalo, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2422, 20 July
spouse and use the fruits or 2015
proceeds thereof to satisfy the 3. Heirs of Alfredo Bautista v. Lindo, G.R. No.
latter’s share. 208232, 10 March 2014
b. Art. 252. The rules in Chapter 2 4. Heirs of Julao v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 176020, 29
(Separation in Fact Between Husband September 2014
and Wife) hereof shall also govern • Jurisdiction over the Parties
summary proceedings under this Chapter • Is the power of a court to render a personal judgment or to subject the parties
insofar as they are applicable. in a particular action to the judgment and other rulings rendedred in the action
 a. Jurisdiction over the Plaintiff
• Is acquired by the plaintiff’s filing of the complaint or Ordinary Civil Special Civil Criminal Actions Special
petition or other initiatory pleading. By doing so, he Actions Actions Proceedings
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. One by which a Also governed by One by which the A remedy by
1. David v. Agtibay, G.R. No. 199113, 18 March party sues another ordinary Rules but State prosecutes a which a party
2015 for the subject to specific person for an act seeks to establish a
2. Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, 31 March enforcement or Rules prescribed or omission status, a right, or a
2006 protection of a (Rules 62 to 71) punishable by law particular fact.
3. Palmiano-Salvador v. Angeles, G.R. No. 171219, right or the
3 September 2012 prevention or Special features
• Jurisdiction over the Issues redress of a wrong not found in
• It is the power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings ordinary civil
of the parties. Governed by actions
• Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined by the ordinary rules
pleadings of the parties. The pleadings present the issues to be tried and
determine whether these are of fact of law. Formal demand of
• Determined and conferred by: one’s legal rights
a. Stipulations of parties, as when in pre-trial, the parties enter into in a court of
stipulations of facts and documents or enter into an agreement justice in the
simplifying the issues of the case manner prescribed
b. By waiver or failure to object to the presentation of evidence on a by the court or by
matter not raised in the pleadings the law.
1. Bernabe v. Vergara, G.R. No. L-48652, 16
September 1942 b. Personal actions and Real Actions
• Jurisdiction over the Res • Personal Action – an action not involving title to or possession of real
• Refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the property under property, or any interest therein.
litigation. This is acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by the court • Real Action – an action involving title to or possession of real property, or
of the thing in question, thus placing it in custodia legis. any interest therein.
• This is acquired either: • Mixed Action – an action involving a joinder of both real and personal
a. By the actual or constructive seizure of the property under legal actions.
process, whereby it is brought into custody of the law Real Action Personal Action Mixed Action
b. As a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power Purpose: Purpose: Purpose:
of the court is recognized and made effective (ex. suits involving the One brought for the One which is not founded One brough for protection
status of the parties or property in the Philippines of non-resident protection of real rights, upon the privity of real or recovery of real
defendants) land, tenements, or rights or real rights or real property and also for an
1. De Joya v. Marquez, G.R. No. 162416, 31 January hereditaments or one property. award for damages
2006 founded on privity of sustained.
2. Gomez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127692, 10 estate only. As to venue:
March 2004 Transitory, ex its venue As to venue:
• Estoppel Jurisdiction As to venue: depends upon the Governed by the Rules of
• Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, 15 April 1968 Local, i.e., its venue residence of the plaintiff venue in real action.
• Figueroa v People, G.R. No. 147406, 04 July 2008 - depends upon the location or the defendant.
clarifying the ruling in Tijam of the property involved Examples:
• Actions in the litigation Examples: Accion publiciana with a
a. Ordinary Civil Actions, Special Civil Actions, Criminal Actions, Action for a sum of claim for damages.
Special Proceedings Examples: money
Accion reinvidicatoria • If two or more suits are instituted for a single cause of action, “the filing of
one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the
• Sps. Trayvilla v. Sejas G.R. No. 204970, 1 February dismissal of others”. The remedy then of the defendant is to file a motion to
2016 dismiss.
• Heirs of Reterta v. Sps. Lopez G.R. No. 159941, 17 • Splitting a cause of action is the act of dividing a single cause of action, claim
August 2011 or demand into 2 or more parts, and bringing suit for one of such parts only,
c. Actions in rem, in personam, and quasi in rem intending to reserve the rest for another separate action.
• Action in personam – • Prohibition against splitting single cause of action: it is discouraged because:
a. Is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability. a. It breeds multiplicity of suits
b. Is one which seeks a judgment for or against a person directly. b. Leads to vexations litigations
c. Jurisdiction over the parties is required in actions in personam c. Clogs the court dockets;
because they seek to impose personal responsibility or liability upon d. Operates as an instrument of harassment; and
a person. e. Generates unnecessary expenses to the parties.
d. Lodged against a person based on personal liability; • Remedy of the defendant where a single cause of action has been split: Move
• Action in rem – to dismiss on the ground of:
a. Is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person. a. Litis pendencia – if the first action is pending when the second
• Action quasi in rem – action is filed; or
a. Is one wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose b. Res judicata – if a final judgment had been rendered in the first
of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation action when the second action is filed.
or lien burdening the property. • Marilag v. Martinez G.R. No. 201892, 22 July 2015
• Rule 2 - Cause of Action • Yap v. First E-Bank Corporation, G.R. No. 169889, 29
a. Meaning of cause of action September 2009
• Section 2. Cause of Action, defined. – A cause of action is the act or omission • Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corp., G.R. No.
by which a party violates a right of another. 167246, 20 July 2011
• Elements: • Chu et al v. Cunanan G.R. No. 156185, 12 September
a. The legal right of the plaintiff; 2011
b. The correlative Obligation of the defendant; and • Riviera Golf Club Inc v. CCA Holdings B.V. G.R. No.
c. The act or omission of the defendant in violation of the said legal 173783, 17 June 2015
right c. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action
• A formal statement of the operative facts that give rise to such remedial right. • Joinder of Causes of Action –
• Difference from Right of Action a. is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have
a. Right of Action – A remedial right or relief granted by law to some against another in one pleading alone. It is the uniting of two or more
persons – the plaintiff whose rights have been violated by the demands or right of action in a complaint. The question of the
defendant. joinder of causes of action involves in particular cases a preliminary
• Heirs of Tomas Dolleton v. Fil- Estate Management, inquiry as to whether two or more causes of action are alleged.
Inc., G.R. No. 170750, 7 April 2009 • Misjoinder of Causes of Action –
• Right of Action - Multi-Realty Development Corp., G.R. a. When there is such, the erroneously joined cause of action can be
No. 146726, 16 June 2006 severed and proceeded with separately upon motion by a party or
• Consular Area Residents Association v. Casanova G.R. upon the court’s own initiative. Misjoinder is not a ground for the
No. 202618, 12 April 2016 dismissal of an action.
b. Test of sufficiency of cause of action • Perez v. Hernano, G.R. No. 147417, 8 July 2005
• Misamis Occidental II Cooperative, Inc. v. David, G.R. • Danilo v. Pedro, G.R. No. 155736, 31 March 2005
No. 129928, 25 August 2005 • Totality Rule (BP 129, Sec. 33)
c. Splitting of a single cause of action and its effects • Flores v. Mallare-Phillipps, G.R. No. L-66620, 24
September 1986
• Rule 3 - Parties to Civil Actions b. To require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to
• Requirements for a person to be a party to a civil action: prosecute the action;
a. He must be a: c. To avoid multiplicity of suits; and
• Natural person; d. To discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant
• Juridical person; or to sound public policy
• Entity authorized by law. • Evangelista v. Santiago, G.R. No.157447, 29 April 2005
b. He must have legal capacity to sue; and e. representatives as parties
c. He must be the real party-in-interest • A representative may be:
• Plaintiff – a. a trustee of an express trust,
a. Is the original claiming party and is the one who files the complaint. b. a guardian,
It may also apply to a defendant who files a counterclaim, a cross- c. an executor, or administrator,
claim, or a third-party complaint. d. or a party authorized by law or by the Rules.
• Defendant – • V-Gent, Inc. v. Morning Star Travel & Tours, Inc., G.R.
a. Does not only refer to the original defending party. It also refers to No. 186305, 22 July 2015
a defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third • Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993
(fourth, etc.) – party defendant • Resident Marine Mammals of Tanon Strait v. Reyes
• One need not be a natural or a juridical person to be a party to a civil action. G.R. No. 180771, 21 April 2015
As long as an entity is authorized by law to be a party, such entity may sue, e. indispensable parties
be sued or both. • Indispensable parties –
a. Natural and Juridical Persons, Entities Authorized by law a. Are those with such an interest in the controversy that a final decree
• Juridical persons as parties – would necessarily affect their rights, so that courts cannot proceed
a. Enumerated in Article 44 of the Civil Code: without their presence. Joining indispensable parties into an action
• The State and its political subdivisions; is mandatory requirement of due process. Without their presence,
• Other corporations, institutions and entities for public the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality
interest or purpose created by law; and • In the Matter of the Heirship of the Late Hermogenes
• Corporations, partnerships and associations for private Rodriguez, G.R. No. 182645, 15 December 2010
interest or purpose to which the law grants a juridical (Resolution)
personality, separate and distinct from that of each • Cerezo v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 141538, 23 March 2004
shareholder, partner or member. • Foster-Gallego v. Spouses Galang, G.R. No. 130228,
b. Juridical persons have personalities separate and distinct from those July 27, 2004
of the natural persons that compose them. b. necessary parties;
• Entities authorized • Necessary party –
• Verzosa v. Fernandez, 49. Phil. 627 (1926) a. Is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party
b. Real parties in interest if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, of for
• Is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, complete determination or settlement of the claim of the action
or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. • Effect of Justified Non-Inclusion of a Necessary Party:
• To be a real party-in-interest, the interest must be real, which is a present a. The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court
substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, from proceeding with the action, and the judgment therein shall be
contingent subordinate or consequential interest without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party
• It is an interest that is material and direct, as distinguished from a mere • Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. v. Abejar,
incidental interest. G.R. No. 170631, February 10, 2016
• The purposes of the requirement for the real party in interest prosecuting or b. indigent parties;
defending an action at law are: • A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an
a. To prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, indigent if the court, upon an exparte application and hearing, is satisfied that
title or interest in the case; the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for
food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.
• Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other • When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general
lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as
order to be furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous
which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or
rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to
provides. intervene to protect his individual interest.
• Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before • Requisites of a Class Suit:
judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the court should determine after o The subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general
hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient interest to many persons;
income or property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed o The persons are so numerous that it is impractical to join them all as
and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not made within the time parties;
fixed by the court, execution shall issue or the payment thereof, without o The parties bringing the class suit are sufficient in number and
prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose. representative of the class as to fully protect the interests of all
• Spouses Algura v. City of Naga G.R. No. 150135, 30 concerned; and
October 2006 o The representatives sue or defend for the benefit of all
b. alternative defendants • In determining the question of fair and adequate representation of members
• Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled of a class, the court must consider:
to relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the alternative, o Whether the interest of the named party is coextensive with the
although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right of relief interest of the other members of the class;
against the other. o The proportion of those made a party, as it so bears, to the total
a. Complusory and permissive joinder of parties membership of the class; and
• The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action o Any other factor bearing on the ability of the named party to speak
requires, of course, the joinder of all necessary parties where possible, and for the rest of the class
the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions, their • Instances when there is no class suit:
presence being sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power. It is precisely o Interests are conflicting
when an indispensable party is not before the court that the action should be o Filed by a corporation to recover the property of its members
dismissed. o To recover real property individually held
• The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the o To recover damages for personal reputation
court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as the absent parties o In an action to recover damages sustained due to their exposure to
but even as to those present toxic wastes and fumes emitted by the cooking gas plant of a
• If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of corporation located in the town; and
the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to o In an action for damages filed by the relatives of the fatalities in a
comply with the order. plain crash
b. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties a. Suits against entities without juridical personality
• A party is MISJOINED when he is made a party to the action although he • When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical
should not be impleaded personality enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the name by
• A party is NOT MISJOINED when he is supposed to be joined but is not which they are generally or commonly known.
impleaded in the action • In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons
• Any claim against party may be severed and proceeded with separately composing said entity must all be revealed.
• GENERAL RULE: Neither misjoinder or non-joinder of parties is a ground b. Effect of death of party litigant
for dismissal of action • Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby
• EXCEPTION: Failure to comply with the order of the court for the inclusion extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within
of an indispensable party thirty days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and
• Divinagracia v. Parilla G.R. No. 196750, 11 March 2015 address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to
b. Class suit comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
• The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, o Is the place or the geographical area in which a court with
without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the jurisdiction may hear and determine a case or the place where a case
court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. is to be tried.
• The court shall forthwith order said legal representative/s to appear and be o In civil proceedings, venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and may
substituted within a period of thirty days from notice. be waived by the defendant if not seasonably raised either in a
• If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or motion to dismiss or in the answer.
if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court ▪ It is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than
may order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the restrict their access to the courts as it relates to the place of
appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and trial
the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The ▪ Venue only becomes jurisdictional only in criminal cases
court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing a. Venue vs. Jurisdiction
party, may be recovered as costs. i. Nocum v. Lucio Tan G.R. No. 145022, 23
i. Spouses De la Cruz v. Joaquin, G.R. No. September 2005
162788, July 28, 2005 b. Venue in civil cases vs. Criminal cases
ii. Gaffney v. Butler G.R. No. 219408, 8 i. Nocum v. Lucio Tan G.R. No. 145022, 23
November 2017 September 2005
iii. San Juan v. Cruz G.R. No.167321, 31 July c. Venue of real actions
2006 d. Venue of personal actions
c. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer e. Venue of actions against non-residents
• When a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during f. When the rules on venue does not apply
its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may i. Ley Construction & Development Corp v.
be continued and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty days Sedan G.R. No. 222711, 23 August 2017
after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, ii. Unimasters Conglomeration Inc v. CA G.R.
it is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a substantial No. 119657, 7 February 1997
need for continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or g. Effects of stipulation on venue
continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor. h. Rule 8, Sec. 12
Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless
expressly assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the
application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard. BP 129 AS AMENDED
d. Incompetency or incapacity
• If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with COURT OF APPEALS
notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against the incompetent or Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem. (1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
e. Transfer of Interest habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether
• In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of
the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the Regional Trial Courts; and
original party. (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions,
f. Notice to Solicitor General resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial
agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities
• In any action involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive
and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees
order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the court, in its discretion, may
Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those
require the appearance of the Solicitor General who may be heard in person
falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance
or through a representative duly designated by him.
with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
g. Rule 4 - Venue
Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph
• Venue –
 (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and
evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively
cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant taken cognizance of by the latter.
and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or hearings in the Court of
Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
extended by the Chief Justice. original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive respective regions; and
original jurisdiction: (2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.

(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of Section 22. Appellate jurisdiction. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate
pecuniary estimation; jurisdiction over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions.
or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in
exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) or, for civil actions in Metro the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the
Manila, where such the value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) except parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional Trial
actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, Courts in such cases shall be appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals
original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, which may give it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.
claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) or, in Metro Manila,
where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos Section 23. Special jurisdiction to try special cases. – The Supreme Court may
(P200,000); designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases
the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) or, in probate which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or
matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two hundred such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of a speedy
thousand pesos (P200,000); and efficient administration of justice.
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND
or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases. – Except in cases falling within the
Courts of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of shall exercise:
the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal
or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and
abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000). (As (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
amended by RA No. 7691, March 25, 1994.)* imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine,
and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the
civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of
kind, nature, value, or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses
 involving damage to property through criminal negligence they shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. (As amended by RA No. 7691, March Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. – In the absence of all the Regional
25, 1994.)** Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial
Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Regional Trial Judges sit.
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, Section 36. Summary procedures in special cases. – In Metropolitan Trial Courts and
testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper Municipal Trial Courts with at least two branches, the Supreme Court may designate
cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the one or more branches thereof to try exclusively forcible entry and unlawful detainer
demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) or, in cases, those involving violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations, violations of the
Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand rental law, and such other cases requiring summary disposition as the Supreme Court
does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000), exclusive of may determine. The Supreme Court shall adopt special rules or procedures applicable
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and to such cases in order to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof
costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That without regard to technical rules. Such simplified procedures may provide that
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and affidavits and counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony and that the
costs shall be included in the determination of filing fees: Provided, further, periods for filing pleadings shall be non-extendible.
That where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or
different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand Additional Assignment
shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of ASSIGNMENT FOR NEXT WEEK:
whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions; Last question was: Condition precedent ng barangay.
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful Add this to our assignment:
detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the
question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot Jurisdiction over the remedy
be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership
shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and PLDT v. Citi Appliance (G.R. No: 214546, Oct 9,2019)
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value For the entire next week we’ll try to reach Rule 8
of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value
does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value
of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent
lots. (As amended by RA No. 7691, March 25, 1994.)*

Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases. –

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or
contested lots where the value of which does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000), such value to be 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 of the Regional Trial Courts. (As
amended by RA No. 7691, March 25, 1994.)