REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A. Substantive Law vs. Adjective Law

BAR QUESTION:

1. What is the concept of Remedial Law? Distinguish between substantive law and remedial law. (2006 Bar)

Answer:

Remedial law is a branch of public law which prescribes the procedural rules to be observed in
litigations, whether civil, criminal, or administrative, and in special proceedings, as well as the
remedies or reliefs available in each case.

Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights and obligations, the
violation of which gives rise to a cause of action. On the other hand, remedial law prescribes the
method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion. (cf. Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 540,
650 [1948])

B. Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court

BAR QUESTION:

1. Congress enacted a law that contains a provision prohibiting plea-bargaining in drug-related cases. Is the
provision valid?

Answer:

NO. Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure. As such, the provision prohibiting it that is contained in a
statute is unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court. Only
the Supreme Court can promulgate rules on pleadings, practice and procedure, not Congress through
passage of a law. (Estipona v. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, 15 Aug. 2017)

C. Hierarchy of Courts; Doctrine of Non-Interference and Judicial Stability

BAR QUESTION (HIERARCHY OF COURTS):

1. What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?

Answer:

The doctrine of hierarchy of courts provides that where there is a concurrence of jurisdiction by courts
over an action or proceeding, there is an ordained sequence of recourse to such courts beginning
from the lowest to the highest. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction should
be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor. (Montes v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 143797, 4 May 2006)

2. Explain each mode of Certiorari:

a. xxx
b. xxx
c. As a mode of review of the decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission and the
Constitutional Commissions. (2006 Bar)
d.
REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Answer:

The mode of review of the decision of the NLRC is via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65,
but pursuant to the hierarchy of the courts enunciated in the case of St. Martin’s Funeral Homes v.
NLRC (G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998) the same should be filed in the Court of Appeals.

The mode of review of the decisions of two Constitutional Commissions, the Commission on Elections
and the Commission on Audit, as provided under Rule 64 is a special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65. Decisions of the Civil Service Commission, however, are reviewable by petition for review to
be filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.

3. Jaime was convicted for murder by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City in a decision promulgated on
September 30, 2015. On October 5, 2015, Jaime filed a Motion for New Trial on the ground that errors of law
and irregularities prejudicial to his rights were committed during his trial. On October 7, 2015, the private
prosecutor, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, filed an Opposition to Jaime's motion. On October 9,
2015, the court granted Jaime's motion. On October 12, 2015, the public prosecutor filed a motion for
reconsideration. The court issued an Order dated October 16, 2015 denying the public prosecutor's motion for
reconsideration. The public prosecutor received his copy of the order of denial on October 20, 2015 while the
private prosecutor received his copy on October 26, 2015.

a. X x x
b. In what court and within what period should a remedy be availed of?
c. X x x

Answer:

Following the principle of judicial hierarchy, the petition for certiorari should be filed before the Court
of Appeals within sixty (60) days from receipt of the copy of the order of denial of the public
prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration, or on October 20, 2015.

4. Senator Angara filed a Complaint for Damages against Palafox Jr. alleging that Palafox Jr. authorized an
unsigned letter containing defamatory statements against him. Palafox Jr. filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground of improper venue alleging that the Complaint was filed in the RTC of Pasay City, instead of Makati City
where both parties reside. The Regional Trial Court denied his motion and held that venue was proper since
the filing of a separate civil action for damages where the public officer holds office is allowed under Article
360. Aggrieved, Palafox Jr., filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the order
of the RTC. Is the petition meritorious?

Answer:

NO. The petition violates the hierarchy of courts. The Court may only act when absolutely necessary or
when serious and important reasons exist to justify an exception. Further, the Court held that such
serious and important reasons must be clearly stated in the petition.

Here, Palafox, Jr. filed his Petition directly to the Supreme Court despite the concurrent jurisdiction of
the appellate court. Significantly, he did not bother to provide any reason or explanation to justify his
non-compliance to the rule on hierarchy of courts. This constitutes a clear disregard of the hierarchy
of courts and merits the dismissal of the Petition. (Felino A. Palafox, Jr. v. Francisco Mendiola, G.R No.
209551, 15 Feb. 2021)
REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES

BAR QUESTION (DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE and JUDICIAL STABILITY):

1. In rendering a decision, should a court take into consideration the possible effect of its verdict upon the
political stability and economic welfare of the nation? (2003 Bar)

Answer:

No, because a court is required to take into consideration only the legal issues and the evidence
admitted in the case. The political stability and economic welfare of the nation are extraneous to the
case. They can have persuasive influence, but they are not the main factors that should be considered
in deciding a case. A decision should be based on the law, rules of procedure, justice and equity.
However, in exceptional cases the court may consider the political stability and economic welfare of
the nation when these are capable of being taken into judicial notice of and are relevant to the case.

D. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court in Administrative Bodies

BAR QUESTIONS:

1. Tumampos alleged that, through a Confirmation for Waiver and Quitclaim, she acquired subject property
from the heirs of Teodoro, the previous tax declarant and survey claimant. On the other hand, Ang averred that
the subject property was registered in the name of Julio. In 1978, Pongasi bought and registered it in her
name. Thereafter, Domosmog acquired the same property. Domosmog’s heirs sold it to Ang in 1994. Ang filed
an application for judicial titling of the property. Meanwhile, Tumampos filed a free patent application over the
property with the DENR. Ang filed a formal protest against it. DENR declared that it has jurisdiction over the
case because the land in question still forms part of the land of public domain. It also decreed that pursuant to
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, it had jurisdiction over the case because the claim over the disputed land
may be better addressed by an administrative body, which has special competence over the controversy. Ang
filed a petition for Certiorari to which the CA granted. The case now revolves on the question as to whether
or not the CA gravely erred in giving due course to the Petition for Certiorari?

Answer:

YES. Sec. 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a writ of certiorari shall issue in instances
where the respondent tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction and there is no appeal, or any other plain, adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary
course of law that the aggrieved party might take. Here, Ang has an available remedy to challenge the
adverse decision against her by the DENR, that is, by filing an appeal before the DENR Secretary within
the 15-day reglementary period as above-cited. However, instead of interposing an appeal, she filed a
Petition for Certiorari which is an improper recourse. Ang failed to prove that the appeal with the DENR
Secretary will not promptly and fully resolve her objections on the decision and order of the DENR-VII.
In addition, she cannot make use of the certiorari petition as a substitute for a lost appeal as she had
evidently erred in her choice of remedy. At the same time, because Ang failed to timely file her appeal
with the DENR Secretary, then the DENR-VII Decision and Order had attained finality. That the DENR-VII
issuances were indeed final and executory were noted by the CA itself when it declared that an order of
execution was already issued on the DENR-VII Decision dated September 2, 2014. (Tumampos v. Ang.,
G.R. No. 23505, 16 June 2021)

2. Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to review the Decisions in criminal and administrative cases of
the Ombudsman? (2006 Bar)

Answer:
REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Yes, but only in administrative cases. In administrative and disciplinary cases, appeals from the
Ombudsman must be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. Conversely, the Supreme Court has
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. (Lanting v.
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 141426, May 6, 2005; Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998;
Sec. 14, RA 6770)

3. A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a protected area since it was a major watershed. The
protected area covered a portion located in Municipality A of the Province I and a portion located in the City of
Z of Province II. Maingat is the leader of Samahan ng Tagapag-ingat ng Karbungko (STK), a people's
organization. He learned that a portion of the mountain located in the City of Z of Province II was extremely
damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled to the ground, and several trees and plants were cut down and
burned by workers of World Pleasure Resorts, Inc. (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and golf course.
Upon inquiry with the project site engineer if they had a permit for the project, Maingat was shown a copy of
the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB, Regional Director (RD- DENR-
EMB). Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus against
RD-DENR-EMB and WPRI with the RTC of Province I, a designated environmental court, as the RD-DENR-
EMB negligently issued the ECC to WPRI.

On scrutiny of the petition, the court determined that the area where the alleged actionable neglect or omission
subject of the petition took place in the City of Z of Province II, and therefore cognizable by the RTC of
Province II. Thus, the court dismissed outright the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

a. X x x
b. Assuming that the court did not dismiss the petition, the RD-DENR-EMB in his Comment moved to
dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners failed to appeal the issuance of the ECC and to
exhaust administrative remedies provided in the DENR Rules and Regulations. Should the court
dismiss the petition? (2015 Bar)

Answer:

Yes, the court should dismiss the petition because the proper procedure to question defect in an ECC
is to follow the DENR administrative appeal process in accordance with the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. (Dolot v. Hon. Paje, G.R. No. 199199, August 27, 2013; Paje v. Casiño, G.R. No.
207257, February 3, 2015)

4. Jaime was convicted for murder by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City in a decision promulgated on
September 30, 2015. On October 5, 2015, Jaime filed a Motion for New Trial on the ground that errors of law
and irregularities prejudicial to his rights were committed during his trial. On October 7, 2015, the private
prosecutor, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, filed an Opposition to Jaime's motion. On October 9,
2015, the court granted Jaime's motion. On October 12, 2015, the public prosecutor filed a motion for
reconsideration. The court issued an Order dated October 16, 2015 denying the public prosecutor's motion for
reconsideration. The public prosecutor received his copy of the order of denial on October 20, 2015 while the
private prosecutor received his copy on October 26, 2015.

a. X x x
b. X x x
c. Who should pursue the remedy? (2015 Bar)

Answer:

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) should pursue the remedy. In criminal proceedings on appeal
in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the people is vested solely
in the Solicitor General. Under P.D. No. 4478 among the specific powers and functions of the OSG is to
“represent the government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings.”
This provision has been carried over to the Revised Administrative Code particularly in Book IV, Title
REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES

III, Chapter 12 thereof. Without doubt, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines
in all criminal cases. (Cariño v. de Castro, G.R. No. 176084, April 30, 2008)

5. Dr. Ruben Bartolome filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, seeking to
correct the name “Feliciano Bartholome” as appearing in his birth certificate. He stated that he has been using
the name “Ruben [Cruz] Bartolome” since his childhood. The RTC denied Bartolome's petition, stating that he
should have filed his petition in accordance with R.A. No. 9048; and as regards his surname. Petitioner
appealed to the CA, contesting that it was Rule 103 as the appropriate remedy. Is Bartolome correct?

Answer:

NO. A person may only avail of the appropriate judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 after the
petition in the administrative proceedings is filed and later denied.

In the instant case, petitioner seeks to change his first name, to include his middle, and to correct the
spelling of his surname, i.e., from “Feliciano Bartholome” as stated in his birth certificate to “Ruben
Cruz Bartolome.” The Court agrees with the CA and the OSG that the aforementioned changes and
corrections are covered by Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 9048 as amended by R.A. No.10172. (Bartolome v.
Republic, G.R. No. 243288, 28 Aug. 2019)

E. Construction of the Rules of Court (Rule 1, Sec. 6)

BAR QUESTIONS:

1. How shall the Rules of Court be construed? (1998 Bar)

Answer:

The Rules of Court should be liberally constructed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy
and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (Sec. 6, Rule 1)

II. JURISDICTION

A. Aspects of Jurisdiction

1. Over the Subject Matter

BAR QUESTIONS:

1. At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while crossexamining Lender, successfully elicited an admission from the
latter that the two promissory notes have been paid. Thereafter, Borrower's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the
case on the ground that as proven only P300,000.00 was the amount due to Lender and which claim is within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. He further argued that lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Should the court dismiss the case? (2015
Bar)

Answer:

No. The court should not dismiss the case. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature
of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and
the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. (Navida v. Hon. Teodoro A. Dizon, Jr.,
G.R. No. 125078, May 30, 2011)
REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Accordingly, even if the defendant is able to prove in the course of the trial that a lesser amount is due,
the court does not lose jurisdiction and a dismissal of the case is not in order. (Paadlan v. Dinglasan,
G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013)

2. Bimby is charged with illegal possession of firearms under an Information signed by the Provincial
Prosecutor. After arraignment but before pre-trial, he found out that the Provincial Prosecutor had no authority
to sign and file the Information as it was the City Prosecutor who has such authority. During the pre-trial, Bimby
moves that the case against him be dismissed on the ground that the information is defective because the
officer signing it lacked the authority to do so. The Provincial Prosecutor opposes the motion on the ground of
estoppel as Bimby did not move to quash the Information before arraignment. If you are the counsel for Bimby,
what is your argument to refute the opposition of the Provincial Prosecutor? (2000 BAR)

Answer:

I would argue that since the Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to file the information, the court did
not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused and over the subject matter of the offense
charged. Hence, this ground is not waived if not raised in a motion to quash and could be raised at the
pre-trial. (People v. Hon. Zeida Aurora Garfin, G.R. No. 153176, 29 Mar. 2004)

3. BP BLG. 129, as amended states that if the assessed value of the real property subject matter of an action
involving interest thereto is P 20,000.00 and more, then the RTC can validly take/assume jurisdiction over the
case otherwise it is the Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Court. The subject lot in a Complaint for Recovery of Real
Estate Property and Recovery of Possession has a total market assessed value of P 11,120.00. 22 long years
after the complaint was filed, the petitioners raised the ground of lack of jurisdiction before the SC. Is the
contention tenable?

Answer:

NO. The circumstances attendant in the instance case are actually much more grave than those
present in Tijam. Same as in Tijam, the petitioners jurisdiction despite having full knowledge of this
ground, considering that the assessed value of the subject lot was plainly indicated in the Complaint, a
copy of which was fully furnished to the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners filed an Answer and an
Amended Answer in response to the categorical allegations in the Complaint. Yet, they totally ignored
the issue on jurisdiction in their responsive pleadings.

Analogous to the factual circumstances in Tijam, the petitioners were also able to file an appeal and
Motion for Reconsideration before the CA. Yet, even before the CA, the ground for lack of jurisdiction
was never invoked. Therefore, the petitioners are estopped from invoking the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. (Sps. Rebamonte v. Sps. Lucero, G.R. No. 237812, 02 Oct. 2019)

4. Heirs of Ikang Paus represented by Elias Paus, filed a petition for identification, delineation and issuance of
a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT) with respondent NCIP. They sought the confirmation of their right to
the ancestral land at Baguio City.

The Heirs of Mateo Cariño opposed the petition, and prayed for its dismissal, cancellation and revocation.

The said protest was dismissed for lack of merit. OCT No. 0-CALT-37 covering the said lot in Baguio City, was
issued in the name of the Heirs of Paus.

Republic, through the OSG, questioned OCT No. 0-CALT-37 in the name of private respondents, and filed a
suit for Reversion, Annulment of Documents and Cancellation of Title with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction. It pointed out several irregularities in the issuance
of CALT in favor of Heirs of Paus.

Heirs of Paus answered the complaint denying all its material allegations. As special and affirmative defenses,
they averred lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. They pointed out that the complaint assailed the
REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES

CALT and the OCT issued on the basis of the CALT, which under the IPRA, falls within the jurisdiction of the
NCIP, and not the regular courts. They asserted that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the complaint; hence, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Is the contention
correct?

Answer:

NO. RTC has jurisdiction over cases for reversion and cancellation of certificates of title. It is axiomatic
that the nature of an action and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over such action are to be
determined from the material allegations of the complaint, the law in force at the time the complaint is
filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some
of the claims averred. Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant
in an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss the same. (Republic v. Heirs of Paus, G.R. No.
201273, 14 Aug. 2019)

5. On appeal, the CA affirmed the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal. Aggrieved, the defendant employer filed
a petition to set aside the judgment only after the entry of judgment. Will the petition prosper?

Answer:

NO. Given that the case is already final and executory, it can no longer be attacked by any parties or be
modified, even by the Supreme Court. In its concept as a bar by prior judgment under Section 47(b) of
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, res judicata dictates that a judgment on the merits rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction operates as an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same cause of
action.

To apply this doctrine, the following essential requisites should be satisfied: (1) finality of the former
judgment; (2) the court which rendered the judgment had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second
actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. (BPI v. Coquia G.R. No. 167518, 23 Mar.
2011)

6. Del Moral is a domestic family corporation and the registered owner of several parcels of land, which were
originally tobacco farmlands, situated in different municipalities in Pangasinan. Thereafter, Del Moral's property
were later placed under the coverage of the agrarian reform program under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27.

Pursuant to Section 2 of E.O. No. 228, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) computed the just
compensation to be paid to Del Moral in the total amount of P342,917.81.

In 1992, petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) informed Del Moral of the approval of its monetary claim
and assigned the original total valuation in the amount of P342,917.81 or roughly P3,329.30 per hectare as just
compensation to Del Moral. However, Del Moral found the assigned valuation made by the DAR and the LBP
to be grossly inadequate and unreasonably low. Thus, Del Moral filed a petition on April 26, 2002 before the
RTC for the proper determination of just compensation.

The RTC rendered its Decision computing the just compensation based on the recent fair market value of the
property, instead of using the prevailing factors at the time of the taking. The Motion for Reconsideration that
was filed by the DAR and LBP. Did the ruling of the Court already attained finality and thus can no longer be
disturbed?

Answer:

YES. For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be a
final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and
the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two
cases, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. Applying the principle of res judicata or
REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES

bar by prior judgment, the present case becomes dismissible. Sec. 47, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
enunciates the rule of res judicata or bar by prior judgment. (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Del Moral,
Inc., G.R. No. 187307, 14 Oct. 2020, J. Hernando)

B. Classification of Jurisdiction

1. Original vs. Appellate

Original jurisdiction is the power of the Court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial
action for the first time under conditions provided by law. Appellate jurisdiction is the authority of a Court
higher in rank to re-examine the final order or judgment of a lower Court which tried the case now elevated for
judicial review. (Garcia v. De Jesus, G.R. Nos. 88158 & 97108-09, 04 Mar. 1992)

2. General vs. Special

Courts of general jurisdiction are those with competence to decide on their own jurisdiction and take
cognizance of all cases, civil and criminal, of a particular nature, while courts of special jurisdiction are
those which have jurisdiction only for a particular purpose or are clothed with special powers for the
performance of special duties beyond which they have no authority of any kind. (Riano, 2019)

3. Exclusive vs. Concurrent

Exclusive jurisdiction is that possessed by a court to the exclusion of others, while concurrent
jurisdiction is the power of different courts to take cognizance of the same subject matter. (Riano, 2019)

C. Jurisdiction of the Philippine Courts (B.P. Blg. 129, as amended)

BAR QUESTIONS:

1. Where and how will you appeal the following:

a. X x x
b. X x x
c. Judgment of MTC on a land registration case based on its delegated jurisdiction.

Answer:

The appeal should be filed with the Court of Appeals by filing a Notice of Appeal within 15 days from
notice of judgment or final order appealed from. (Sec. 34, B.P. Blg. 129, as by Republic Act No. 7691)

2. Rodolfo is charged with possession of unlicensed firearms in an Information filed in the RTC. It was alleged
therein that Rodolfo was in possession of two unlicensed firearms: a .45 calibre and a .32 calibre. Under
Republic Act No. 8294, possession of an unlicensed .45 calibre gun is punishable by prision mayor in its
minimum period and a fine of P30,000.00, while possession of an unlicensed .32 calibre gun is punishable by
prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than P15,000.00. As counsel of the accused,
you intend to file a motion to quash the Information. What ground or grounds should you invoke? Explain.
(2005 Bar)

Answer:

The ground for the motion to quash is that more than one offense is charged in the information (Sec.
3(f), Rule 117). Likewise, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the second offense of possession of an
unlicensed .32 calibre gun, punishable by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not
REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES

less than P15,000.00. It is the MTC that has exclusive and original jurisdiction over all offenses
punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years. (B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691)

3. BP BLG. 129, as amended states that if the assessed value of the real property subject matter of an action
involving interest thereto is P 20,000.00 and more, then the RTC can validly take/assume jurisdiction over the
case otherwise it is the Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Court. The subject lot in a Complaint for Recovery of Real
Estate Property and Recovery of Possession has a total market assessed value of P 11,120.00. 22 long years
after the complaint was filed, the petitioners raised the ground of lack of jurisdiction before the SC. Is the
contention tenable?

Answer:

NO. The circumstances attendant in the instance case are actually much more grave than those
present in Tijam. Same as in Tijam, the petitioners utterly failed to invoke the ground of lack of
jurisdiction despite having full knowledge of this ground, considering that the assessed value of the
subject lot was plainly indicated in the Complaint, a copy of which was fully furnished to the
petitioners. In fact, the petitioners filed an Answer and an Amended Answer in response to the
categorical allegations in the Complaint. Yet, they totally ignored the issue on jurisdiction in their
responsive pleadings.

Analogous to the factual circumstances in Tijam, the petitioners were also able to file an appeal and
Motion for Reconsideration before the CA. Yet, even before the CA, the ground for lack of jurisdiction
was never invoked. Therefore, the petitioners are estopped from invoking the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. (Sps. Rebamonte v. Sps. Lucero, G.R. No. 237812, 02 Oct. 2019)

4. Abraham filed a complaint for damages in the amount of P750,000.00 against Salvador in the RTC in
Quezon City for the latter's alleged breach of their contract of services. Salvador promptly filed his answer, and
included a counterclaim for P250,000.00 arising from the allegedly baseless and malicious claims of Abraham
that compelled him to litigate and to engage the services of counsel, and thus caused him to suffer mental
anguish. Noting that the amount of the counterclaim was below the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC,
Abraham filed a motion to dismiss vis-a-vis the counterclaim on that ground. Should the counterclaim of
Salvador be dismissed? Explain your answer. (2017 Bar)

Answer:

No, the counterclaim of Salvador should not be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In an
original action before the RTC, the RTC has jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim regardless of
its amount (Sec. 7, Rule 6). Here Salvador’s counterclaim for damages arising from the alleged
malicious and baseless claims of Abraham is a compulsory counterclaim as it arises from Abraham’s
complaint. Hence the RTC has jurisdiction over Salvador’s counterclaim even if it did not exceed the
jurisdictional amount of P400,000.

NOTE: R.A. No. 11576 was enacted in 2021 increasing the jurisdiction of the RTCs in all actions and
maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claims exceeds P2,000,000.

5. Lender extended to Borrower a P100,000.00 loan covered by a promissory note. Later, Borrower obtained
another P100,000.00 loan again covered by a promissory note. Still later, Borrower obtained a P300,000.00
loan secured by a real estate mortgage on his land valued at P500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his
payments when the loans matured. Despite demand to pay the P500,000.00 loan, Borrower refused to pay.
Lender, applying the totality rule, filed against Borrower with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a
collection suit for P500,000.00. Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes of
action? (2015 Bar)

Answer:
REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES

Yes. The Lender correctly applied the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes of action because
where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of sum of money, the aggregate
amount of the claim shall be the test of jurisdiction. (Section 5[d], Rule 2)

Here, the total amount of the claim is P500,000.00. Hence, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila has
jurisdiction over the suit. At any rate, it is immaterial that one of the loans is secured by a real estate
mortgage because the Lender opted to file a collection of sum of money instead of foreclosure of the
said mortgage.

NOTE: R.A. No. 11576 was enacted in 2021 increasing the jurisdiction of the RTCs in all actions and
maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claims exceeds P2,000,000.

1. Supreme Court – 1987 Conts., Art. VIII, Sec. 5

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.

(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary
assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court.

(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

BAR QUESTIONS:

1. Juliet invoking the provisions of the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children filed with the RTC
designated as a Family Court a petition for issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her
husband, Romeo. The Family Court issued a 30-day TPO against Romeo. A day before the expiration of the
REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES

TPO, Juliet filed a motion for extension. Romeo in his opposition raised, among others, the constitutionality of
R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) arguing that the law authorizing the issuance of a TPO violates the equal
protection and due process clauses of the 1987 Constitution. The Family Court judge, in granting the motion
for extension of the TPO, declined to rule on the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The Family Court judge
reasoned that Family Courts are without jurisdiction to pass upon constitutional issues, being a special court of
limited jurisdiction and R.A. No. 8369, the law creating the Family Courts, does not provide for such
jurisdiction. Is the Family Court judge correct when he declined to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No.
9262? (2015 Bar)

Answer:

No, the Family Court Judge is not correct when it declined to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No.
9262.

In Garcia v. Drilon, the Supreme Court held that the Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to
resolve the constitutionality of a statute. In spite of its designation as a family court, the RTC remains
to possess the authority as a court of general original jurisdiction to pass upon all kinds of cases
whether civil, criminal, special proceedings, land registration, guardianship, naturalization, admiralty
or insolvency. This authority is embraced in the general definition of judicial power to determine the
valid and binding laws in conformity with the fundamental law. (G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013)

2. Compare the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Constitution with that under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure. (2008 Bar)

Answer:

Under the Constitution, the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides for its expanded
jurisdiction power of judicial review over all branches or instrumentalities of the government where
there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as provided in Section
1, second par., Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to acts
done without or in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, by a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions only. And the
period fixed for availing of the remedy is not later than 60 days from notice of judgment; order or
resolution in question. (Secs. 1 and 4, Rule 65)

3. Congress enacted a law that contains a provision prohibiting plea-bargaining in drug-related cases. Is the
provision valid? (BAR QUESTION POTENTIAL)

Answer:

NO. Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure. As such, the provision prohibiting it that is contained in a
statute is unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court. Only
the Supreme Court can promulgate rules on pleadings, practice and procedure, not Congress through
passage of a law. (Estipona v. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, 15 Aug. 2017)
4. In 2010, Acting DOJ Secretary Agra issued DOJ Circular No. 41 governing the issuance and implementation
of Hold Departure Orders (HDO), Watchlist Orders (WLO), and Allow Departure Orders (ADO). In 2011, DOJ
Sec. De Lima issued a WLO against former President Arroyo on the grounds that criminal charges of plunder,
qualified theft, and violation of the Omnibus Election Code were filed against them. Arroyo filed a TRO against
the issued HDO and WLO of DOJ and seeking relief that they be allowed to travel to seek medical treatment
abroad. The court granted relief sought on a condition that a bond will be filed, an undertaking that Arroyo will
report to the Philippine Consulate in the countries they are to visit and appointing a representative to receive
legal processes. Instead of following the order of the court, DOJ refused to process the travel documents.
Genuino filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the DOJ Circular on the ground that it infringes the
REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES

constitutional right to travel. Is DOJ Circular No. 41 violative of the constitutional right to travel? (BAR
QUESTION POTENTIAL)

Answer:

YES. DOJ Circular No. 41 was held to be unconstitutional. It bears reiterating that the power to issue
HDO is inherent to the courts. The courts may issue an HDO against an accused in a criminal case so
that he may be dealt with in accordance with law. The point is that the DOJ may not justify its
imposition of restriction on the right to travel of the subjects of DOJ Circular No. 41 by resorting to an
analogy. Contrary to its claim, it does not have inherent power to issue HDO, unlike the courts, or to
restrict the right to travel in anyway. It is limited to the powers expressly granted to it by law and may
not extend the same on its own accord or by any skewed interpretation of its authority. (Genuino v. De
Lima, G.R. No. 197930, 17 Apr. 2018)