Regalado_Civil Procedure Compendium (1).txt

7/24/2019 Regalado_Civil Procedure Compendium (1).txt

1/887

----------------------- Page 1-----------------------

REMEDIA L LAW

G E N E R A L P R I N C I P L E S

1. Classification o f court s in th e Philippines :

a. Courts of general jurisdiction: Thos e competen t

t o decid e thei r own jurisdictio n an d t o tak e cognizanc e o fall kind s o f cases , unles s otherwis e provide d by th e lawor Rules . Example : Regiona l Tria l Courts .

Courts of special or limited jurisdiction: Thosewhich hav e n o powe r t o decid e thei r own jurisdictio n an dcan onl y t r y case s p e r m i t t e d b y s t a t u t e . Example :Municipa l Tria l Courts .

Th e Juvenil e an d Domesti c Relation s Court s ha dth e ran k o f Court s o f Firs t Instanc e bu t wer e court s o fspecial jurisdiction . Unde r B.P . Big . 129 , the y hav e been

integrate d int o th e Regiona l Tria l Court s a s branche sthereof .

b . Courts of original jurisdiction: Thos e court sinwhich , u n d e r t h e law , action s o r proceeding s mayoriginally b e commenced .

Courts of appellate jurisdiction: Court s which haveth e powe r t o revie w on appea l th e decision s or order s o fa lower court .

c. Superior courts: Court s which hav e th e power o freview o r supervisio n over anothe r an d lower court .

Inferior courts: Thos e which , in relatio n t o anothe rcourt , ar e lower i n ran k an d subject t o review an d super -vision b y th e latter .

While , in a generi c sense , a cour t i s considere d aninferior cour t in relatio n t o th e power s o f anothe r tribuna lhigher in rank , in it s technica l sens e an d unles s otherwis eintended , i t wa s formerl y provide d t h a t th e p h r a se

1

----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"inferior court " referre d t o th e the n municipa l o r citycourt s (former Sec. 1, Rule 5, in relatio n to R.A. 3820an d R.A. 3828), now calle d Metropolitan , Municipal , an d


2/887

Municipa l Circui t Tria l Courts . Note , also , t h a t unde rSec. 2 , Rul e 5 , th e ter m "municipa l tria l court " a s use d i nthes e revise d Rule s include s al l o t h e r court s o f th esam e rank . I n lega l circles , the y ar e als o calle d "courtsof th e first level. " In som e official issuances , th e Suprem eCourt refer s t o the m a s "first leve l courts. "

However , th e "inferior courts " whos e decision s ar esubject t o th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f t h e S u pr e m eCourt (Sec. 17, R.A. 296) refer t o al l th e court s lowert h a n th e Suprem e Court . Th e ter m "lower courts " i s nowuse d for tha t purpos e in th e 1987 Constitutio n (Sec. 512],Art. VIII), in lieu o f "inferior courts " use d in th e

193 5an d 197 3 Constitutions .

d . Courts of record: Thos e whos e proceeding s ar e

enrolled an d whic h ar e boun d t o kee p a writte n recor dof al l trial s an d proceeding s handle d by the m (se eLuzanovs. Romero, et al, L-33245, Sept. 30, 1971).

Courts not of record: Court s whic h ar e no t require d

t o kee p a writte n recor d o r t r a n s c r i p t o f proceeding shel d therein .

Prio r t o th e effectivity o f R.A . 603 1 on Augus t 4 ,1969, inferior court s wer e no t o f record ; bu t i f a municipa l

court o f th e capita l o f a provinc e or a city cour t trie d ac r i m i n a l c a s e w h e r e i n t h e i m p o s a b l e p e n al t y i simprisonmen t o f mor e t h a n 6 month s bu t no t exceedin g6 year s and/o r a fine o f mor e t h a n P20 0 bu t no t exceedin gP6.000 , it s proceeding s wer e require d t o b e recorde d a sit s decision s wer e appealabl e t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s o rth e Suprem e Cour t (R.A. 296, a s amende d by R.A.

2613an d R.A. 3828, Sec. 87[c], last paragraph). However ,unde r R.A . 2613 , amendin g Sec . 45 , R.A . 296 , al l inferiorcourt s ar e now require d t o recor d thei r proceeding s an d

ar e accordingl y court s o f record .

2

----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

e . Constitutional courts: Thos e whic h ow e thei r


3/887

creation an d existenc e t o th e Constitutio n and , therefore ,cannot b e legislate d ou t o f existenc e or deprive d by lawof th e jurisdictio n an d power s unqualifiedly veste d inthem b y th e Constitution . Th e Suprem e Cour t an d th eSandiganbayan ar e th e only court s specifically provide dfor in th e Constitution . Wit h regar d t o th e latter , theb e t t e r vie w i s t h a t t h e S a n d i g a n b a y a n i s only ac o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y - m a n d a t e d cour t since , althoug hit s

existence i s provide d for in th e Constitution , it s creationwa s b y statutor y enactment .

Statutory courts: Thos e created , organize dan dwit h j u r i s d i c t i o n e x c l u s i v e l y d e t e r m i n e d b y law .Accordingly , al l o t h e r court s i n th e Philippine s arestatutory courts .

2 . Th e Cour t o f Ta x Appeal s create d by R.A . 1125ha s bee n hel d t o b e a par t o f th e judicia l syste m veste d

with specia l jurisdictio n t o act only on protest s o f privat ep e r s o n s a d v e r s e l y affecte d b y th e tax , custom so r

assessment law s (Ursal vs. CTA, et al., 101 Phil. 209).

On Marc h 30 , 2004 , sai d law wa s amende d by R.A .9282 expandin g th e jurisdictio n o f th e Cour t o f Ta xAppeal s (CTA) an d elevatin g it s ran k t o th e leve l o f acollegiate cour t wit h specia l jurisdiction , o f th e sam e levelas th e Cour t o f Appeals , an d consistin g o f a Presidin gJustic e an d 5 Associat e Justice s wh o shal l sit en banc orin 2 division s of 3 justice s each . Th e court shall , int

eralia, hav e exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n t o revie wdecision s o f th e Commissione r o f Interna l Revenu e indispute s arisin g from th e ta x law administere d by th eBureau o f Interna l Revenue , th e Regiona l Tria l Court s inlocal ta x cases , th e Commissioner o f Custom s in matter sadministered by th e Burea u o f Customs , th e Centra l Boardof Assessmen t Appeal s in assessment s o f rea l property ,th e Secretar y o f Financ e an d th e Secretar y o f Trad eand Industr y in matter s specified therein . Th e decision

3

----------------------- Page 4-----------------------


of sai d cour t en banc may b e reviewe d by th e Suprem eCourt on certiorar i pursuan t t o Rul e 4 5 o f th e Rule s o fCourt (see Appendix CC).


4/887

3 . Th e distinctio n obtainin g i n othe r jurisdiction sbetwee n court s o f law an d court s o f equity , an d amon gcivil, crimina l an d probat e courts , doe s no t appl y i n th ePhilippine s wherei n al l court s ar e court s bot h o f law an dequity (Rustia vs. Franco, 41 Phil. 280; Roa, et al.vs.CA, et al., L 27294, June 28, 1983; Galman, et al.vs.Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 72670, Sept. 12, 1986);an d Regiona l Tria l Court s and , t o a limite d extent , th elower courts , exercis e jurisdiction , accordin g t o th e cas einvolved , a s civil , crimina l or probat e court s or court s o fland registration . Befor e B.P . Big . 129 becam e operative ,t h e r e wer e specia l courts , suc h a s th e J u v e n i l e an dDomesti c Relation s Courts , th e Circui t Crimina l Court san d th e Court s o f Agraria n Relations , whic h wer e court sexercising only limite d an d specia l jurisdiction .

4 . Unde r ou r presen t statutor y an d jurisprudentia ltaxonomy , jurisdictio n i s classified , base d o n it s nature ,a s follows :

a . General jurisdiction , or th e powe r t o adjudicateall controversie s excep t thos e expressl y withhel d from th ep l e n a r y power s o f th e court ; an d special o r limitedjurisdiction , whic h restrict s th e court' s jurisdictio n onlyt o particula r case s an d subjec t t o suc h limitation s a s ma yb e provide d by th e governin g law .

b . Original jurisdiction , or th e powe r o f th e cour t t otak e judicia l cognizanc e o f a cas e institute d for judicia laction for th e first tim e unde r condition s provide d by law ;an d appellate jurisdiction , or th e authorit y o f a cou

r thighe r i n ran k t o reexamin e th e fina l orde r o r judgmen tof a lower cour t whic h trie d th e cas e now elevate d forjudicia l review .

c. Exclusive jurisdiction , or th e powe r t o adjudicat ea cas e or proceedin g t o th e exclusio n o f al l othe r court s

4

----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

at tha t stage ; an d concurrent jurisdiction , sometime sreferre d t o a s confluent or coordinate jurisdiction , whichi s th e powe r conferre d upon different courts , whethe r o fth e sam e o r different ranks , t o tak e cognizanc e a t th esame stag e o f th e sam e cas e in th e sam e or differentjudicia l territories .

Concurrent origina l jurisdictio n between tria l court s


5/887

of different rank s ha s in th e mai n been eliminate d byB.P . Big . 129 . Fo r instance , ther e i s n o mor e concurren tjurisdictio n i n adoptio n o r guardianshi p proceeding sbetwee n inferior court s an d th e presen t Regiona l Tria lCourt s a s wa s provide d by th e Judiciar y Act with respectt o th e forme r Court s o f Firs t Instance , which Act als oprovide d for concurrenc e in crimina l case s an d specia lcivil actions . However , a s amon g court s o f th e sam e rank ,it appear s tha t a phas e o f concurren t origina l jurisdictionstill obtain s in som e instance s as , for example , in civiland crimina l case s for libel or th e settlemen t o f th e estat eof a nonresiden t wit h propertie s in differen t judicia lregions . Withal , in poin t o f stric t law , thes e situation sar e matter s o f venu e excep t in^crimina l case s for libel ,sinc e i n c r i m i n a l p r o c e d u r e , v e n u e is , a s arule ,jurisdictional . Fo r a discussion o f othe r crimina l case scovere d b y t h e s a m e r u l e , se e t h e P r e l i m in a r yConsideration s in Crimina l Procedur e in Volum e Two o fthi s work . Wher e suc h concurrenc e exists , th e court firsttakin g cognizanc e o f th e cas e doe s s o t o th e exclusion o fth e othe r courts , althoug h th e Suprem e Cour t may order

a transfe r o f venu e or plac e o f tria l t o anothe r court o fcompetent jurisdiction .

At an y rate , B.P . Big . 129 provide s for concurren torigina l jurisdictio n betwee n th e Suprem e Cour t an deither th e Cour t o f Appeal s or th e Regiona l Tria l Courts ,or amon g al l thre e court s in certai n cases . T o illustrate ,th e Suprem e Cour t ha s concurren t origina l jurisdictio nwit h th e Cour t o f Appeal s in petition s for th e issuanc e o fwrit s o f certiorari , prohibitio n an d mandamu s agains t

5

----------------------- Page 6-----------------------


th e Regiona l Tria l Courts ; wit h th e Cour t o f Appeal s an dth e Regiona l Tria l Court s over th e sam e petition s agains tth e inferior courts ; an d wit h th e Regiona l Tria l Court sin action s affectin g ambassadors , othe r publi c minister san d consuls .

5. Also , unde r B.P . Big . 129 , delegated jurisdiction

i s provide d for , i.e. , th e gran t o f authorit y t o inferio rc o u r t s t o h e a r an d d e t e r m i n e c a d a s t r a l a n d lan dregistratio n case s unde r certai n condition s (se e Sec. 34,infra); an d special jurisdiction , whic h i s th e power o finferior court s t o hea r an d decid e petition s for a wri t o fhabeas corpus or application s for bai l in th e absenc e o fall th e Regiona l Tria l Judge s i n th e provinc e o r city (se e


6/887

Sec. 35, infra). Thi s l a t t e r typ e o f jurisdictio nwa s

formerly included , wit h variations , i n wha t wa s know na s th e interlocutor y jurisdictio n o f inferior court s unde rth e Judiciar y Act .

6 . Mentio n m u s t als o b e mad e o f t h e territorialjurisdictio n o f a court , whic h refer s t o th e geographica la r e a withi n whic h it s power s ca n b e exercised .

A salready stated , thi s assume s importanc e i n crimina l case swherei n consideration s o f th e territor y vis-a-vis th e locuso f th e crim e determin e no t only th e venu e o f th e cas ebu t th e jurisdictio n o f th e court ; and , i n civi l cases , th e

venu e o f rea l o r mixe d actions . I n al l cases , th e Suprem eCourt an d th e Cour t o f Appeal s hav e nationa l jurisdiction ;th e Regiona l Tria l Court s hav e regiona l jurisdiction ; an dth e inferior court s hav e suc h territoria l jurisdictio n a sma y b e define d b y th e Suprem e Cour t p u r s u a n t t o Sees ,25 , 2 8 an d 31 , B.P . Big . 129 .

Other classification s o f origina l jurisdictio n ar e base don th e subject-matte r o r th e natur e o f th e actio n bein gtrie d b y th e court , suc h a s civil , criminal , p ro b a t e ,admiralty an d maritime , juvenil e an d domesti c relations ,agrarian , an d lan d registration . Mos t o f thes e differen tarea s o f jurisdictio n ar e exercise d b y th e regula r tria l

6

----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

courts , sinc e th e specia l court s lik e th e circui t crimina lcourt s an d th e juvenil e an d domesti c relation s court s hav ebeen abolished . Wit h respec t t o th e latter , domesti c case s

ar e now generall y handle d b y th e newly create d Famil yC o u r t s , h e r e i n a f t e r d i s c u s s e d . O t h e r s u b je c t s o fcontroversie s requirin g specia l trainin g an d knowledge ,such a s taxation , labo r an d securities , ar e handle d b yquasi-judicia l agencies , subjec t t o th e powe r o f judicia l

review b y th e appellat e courts .

7 . J u r i s d i c t i o n a n d v e n u e a r e d i s t i n g u is h e d a sfollows :

a . J u r i s d i c t i o n i s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o h e ar a n ddetermin e a case ; venu e i s th e plac e wher e th e cas e i s t o


7/887

b e hear d o r tried .

b . Jurisdictio n i s a m a t t e r o f substantiv e law ; venue ,of procedura l law .

c. Jurisdictio n establishe s a relatio n betwee n th ecourt an d th e subject-matter ; venue , a relatio n betwee nplaintif f an d defendant , o r petitione r an d respondent .

d . J u r i s d i c t i o n i s fixe d b y la w a n d c a nn o t b econferred b y th e parties ; venu e ma y b e conferre d b y th eact or a g r e e m e n t o f th e partie s (Manila Railroad Co.

vs.Attorney-General, 20 Phil. 523).

In crimina l cases , th e venu e o f th e crim e goe s int oth e territoria l jurisdictio n o f th e cour t (Lopez vs.Paras,L-25795, Oct. 29, 1966), henc e wher e th e crimina l actio ni s institute d no t i n th e plac e specifie d b y th e Rule s an d

declare d b y th e substantiv e la w a s withi n th e territoria l

jurisdictio n o f th e tria l court , th e motio n t o quas h shoul db e grounde d o n lac k o f jurisdiction , an d no t imprope rvenue .

8 . Th e authorit y t o decid e a cas e an d no t th e decisionrendere d therei n i s w h a t make s u p jurisdiction .Wher ether e i s jurisdiction , th e decisio n o f al l question s arisin gin th e cas e i s b u t an exercis e o f jurisdictio n (De la Cruz

7

----------------------- Page 8-----------------------


vs. Moir, 36 Phil. 213; Associated Labor Unionvs.

Ramolete, L-23527, Mar. 31, 1965). Consequently ,a

court ma y hav e jurisdictio n ove r th e cas e bu t a t th esame tim e act in exces s o f suc h jurisdiction .

9 . Th e e r r o r s whic h a cour t ma y commi t i n theexercise o f jurisdictio n differ from error s o f judgment .Th e forme r i s reviewabl e i n a n origina l actio n forc e r t i o r a r i , whil e th e l a t t e r i s correctibl e b y ap p e a l(Henderson, et al. vs. Tan, etc., et al., 87 Phil.

466;Maritime Co. of the Phil. vs. Paredes, L-24811, Ma


8/887

r. 3,1967; Bulan vs. Masakayan, L-24428, June 26,1968;

Palma vs. Q & S, Inc., L-20366, May 19, 1986).Error so f j u r i s d i c t i o n r e n d e r a j u d g m e n t voi d or , at l e a s tvoidabl e (se e Sec. lfa] an d fb], Rule 16; Rule 65),whil e

error s o f judgmen t ar e ground s for reversa l only i f it i sshown tha t prejudic e ha s bee n cause d thereb y(BancoEspahol-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 821; Bimeda

vs.Perez, et al., 93 Phil. 636).

10. Requisite s for th e exercis e o f jurisdictio n an dhow th e cour t acquire s suc h jurisdiction :

a. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner:Thi s

i s acquire d b y th e filin g o f th e complaint , petitio n orinitiatory pleadin g befor e th e cour t b y th e plaintif f o r

petitioner .

b . Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent:T h i s i s a c q u i r e d b y t h e v o l u n t a r y a p p e a r a nc e o rs u b m i s s i o n b y t h e d e f e n d a n t o r r e s p o n d e n tt o t h ecour t o r b y coerciv e proces s issue d b y th e cour t t ohim , generall y by th e servic e o f summon s (Sharuff vs.

Bubla, L-17029, Sept. 30, 1964; Aban vs.Enage,L-30666, Feb. 25, 1983).

c. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter: Thi s is con -ferred b y law and , unlik e jurisdictio n over th e parties ,cannot b e conferre d on th e cour t by th e voluntar y act oragreemen t o f th e parties .

8

----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

d. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case: Thi s isdetermine d an d conferre d b y th e pleading s filed i n th ecase b y th e parties , o r b y thei r agreemen t i n a pre-tria lorder o r stipulation , or , a t times , b y thei r implie d consen ta s by th e failur e o f a part y t o object t o evidenc e on anissue no t covere d b y th e pleadings , a s provide d i n Sec . 5 ,


9/887

Rule 10 (se e Lazo, et al. vs. Republic Surety & InsuranceCo., Inc., L-27365, Jan. 30, 1970).

e . Jurisdiction over the res (or th e propert y or thin gwhich i s th e subjec t o f th e litigation) : Thi s i s acquire db y th e actua l o r constructiv e seizur e b y th e cour t o f th ethin g in question , t h u s placin g it in custodia legis, a sina t t a c h m e n t o r g a r n i s h m e n t ; o r b y provisio no f la wwhich recognize s i n th e cour t th e powe r t o dea l wit h th epropert y o r subject-matte r withi n it s territoria l juris -diction , a s i n lan d r e g i s t r a t i o n proceeding s o rs u i t sinvolving civi l s t a t u s o r rea l propert y i n th e Philippine s

of a nonresiden t defendant .

In tw o instances , th e cour t acquire s jurisdictio n t otry th e case , eve n i f i t ha s no t acquire d jurisdictio n ove r

th e perso n o f a nonresiden t defendant , a s lon g a s i t ha sjurisdictio n ove r th e res, a s whe n th e actio n involve s th epersona l s t a t u s o f th e plaintif f o r propert y i n th e Phil -ippine s i n whic h th e defendan t claim s a n interes t (se eSec. 15, Rule 14). In suc h cases , th e servic e o f summon sb y publicatio n an d notic e t o th e defendan t i s merel yt o compl y w i t h d u e p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s(BancoEspanol-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921; DeMidgelyvs. Ferandos, et al., L-34314, May 13, 1975).

U n d e rSec . 13 3 o f t h e C o r p o r a t i o n Code , w h i l e a foreig ncorporation doin g busines s i n th e Philippine s withou t alicense canno t su e o r interven e i n an y actio n here , i t ma y

b e sue d o r p r o c e e d e d a g a i n s t befor e o u r c o ur t s o radministrativ e tribunals .

11. A s a genera l proposition , th e jurisdictio n o f th ecourt i s determine d b y th e s t a t u t e i n forc e a t th e time o f

th e commencemen t o f th e actio n (People vs. Paderna,

9

----------------------- Page 10-----------------------


L-28518, Jan. 29, 1968; People vs. Mariano, et


10/887

al.,L-40527, June 30, 1976; Lee, et al. vs. Presiding Judge,etc., et al, G.R. No. 68789, Nov. 10, 1986), unles s suchstatut e provide s for it s retroactiv e application , a s wher eit i s a curativ e legislatio n (Atlas Fertilizer Corp.vs.Navarro, etc., et al., G.R. No. 72074, April 30, 1987).

12. Th e settle d rul e i s tha t th e jurisdictio n o f th ecourt over th e subject-matte r i s determine d b y th e alle -gation s of th e complain t (Edward J. Nell & Co.vs.Cubacub, L-20843, June 23, 1965; Time, Inc. vs. Reyes,et al., L-28882, May 31, 1971; Ganadin vs. Ramos,et

al., L-23547, Sept. 11, 1980), bu t thi s rul e i s no t withoutexceptions . Thus , i t wa s hel d t h a t whil e th e allegation sin th e complain t mak e ou t a cas e for forcibl e entry , wher e

tenanc y i s averre d by wa y o f defens e an d i s prove d t o b eth e rea l issue , th e cas e shoul d b e dismisse d for lack o fjurisdictio n a s th e cas e shoul d properl y b e filed wit h th ethe n Cour t o f Agraria n Relation s (Ignacio vs. CFIofBulacan, L-27897, Oct. 29, 1971). However , wit hth eintegration o f th e court s o f agraria n relation s a s branche so f th e Regiona l Tria l Court s unde r B.P . Big . 129 ,th ecas e wa s require d t o b e file d wit h th e correspondin gRegiona l Tria l Cour t i f i t wa s withi n th e jurisdictio nthereof , for assignmen t t o th e appropriat e branch . Al

so ,although th e allegation s i n th e complain t mak e ou t a cas ecognizable by a Regiona l Tria l Court , where , however ,th e act s complaine d o f ar e show n a t th e t r i a l t ob einterwoven wit h a n unfai r labo r practic e case , th e actio nshould b e dismisse d sinc e jurisdictio n i s veste d in th eNationa l Labo r Relation s Commission . Thi s i s s o sinc eth e Rule s now permi t a motio n t o dismis s base d upo nfacts not allege d in th e complain t (Mindanao Rapid Co.,Inc. vs. Omandam, et al., L-23058, Nov. 27, 1971, jointl y

decidin g t h e r e i n L-23473, 23871, 24232, 24718an d24956).

13. Wher e th e complain t i s for actua l damage s o fP978 , bu t th e othe r claim s for damage s an d attorney' s

10

----------------------- Page 11-----------------------


11/887

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

fees brin g th e tota l relie f sough t t o mor e t h a n P 10,00 0

(which wa s the n th e jurisdictiona l limi t for civi l case s i nth e inferior courts) , th e totalit y o f sai d claim s put s th e

case withi n th e jurisdictio n o f th e the n Cour t o f Firs tInstanc e an d t h e t r i a l cour t e r r e d i n dismissin g th ecomplaint upo n it s mer e impressio n t h a t th e othe r claim swer e "bloated " for th e purpos e o f invokin g it s jurisdiction ,w i t h o u t h e a r i n g a n d proo f o f s u c h fac t (Enerio vs.Alampay, L-40010, May 26, 1975; Ratila vs. Tapucar,L-45018, Jan. 24, 1977). Thi s doctrin e i s stil l applicabl esubject t o th e increase d jurisdictiona l a m o u n tu n d e r

B.P . Big . 129 an d subsequen t legislation .

14. Th e jurisdictio n o f a court , w h e t h e r in crimina l

or civi l cases , onc e i t a t t a c h e s c a n n o t b eouste d b ysubsequent happening s o r event s althoug h o f a charac -te r w h i c h w o u l d h a v e p r e v e n t e d j u r i s d i c t io n fro mattachin g in th e firs t instanc e (Ramos, e t al. vs.CentralBank, L-29352, Oct. 4, 1971, an d case s t h e r e in cited ;Dioquino vs. Cruz, et al., L-38579, Sept. 9, 1982)an d it

retain s jurisdictio n unti l i t finally dispose s o f th e cas e

(Republic vs. Pielago, et al., G.R. No. 72218, July 21,1986).

15. Th e constitutionalit y o f a s t a t u t e mus t b e ques -tione d a t th e earlies t opportunity , excep t i n crimina lcase s wher e th e questio n ma y b e raise d a t an y stag e and ,in civi l cases , i f th e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f th e questio n i s

necessar y for th e decisio n o f th e case , eve n i f raise d forth e first tim e o n appeal . A constitutiona l questio n wil l

also b e considere d b y th e appellat e cour t a t an y tim e i f i tinvolve s th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t a quo. Th esam e

rul e applie s to ordinance s (San Miguel Brewery, Inc.vs.

Magno, L 21879, Sept. 9, 1967).


12/887

16. Basi c i n th e law o n procedur e i s th e doctrin e thatth e jurisdictio n o f a cour t ove r th e subject-matte r o f anaction i s conferre d only b y th e Constitutio n o r th e lawand t h a t th e Rule s o f Cour t yiel d t o substantiv e law , i n

11

----------------------- Page 12-----------------------


thi s case , th e Judiciar y Act an d B.P . Big . 129 , bot h a sa m e n d e d , an d o f whic h jurisdictio n i s onl y ap a r t .Jurisdictio n canno t b e fixed by th e agreemen t o f th eparties ; i t canno t b e acquire d through , o r waived , en -large d o r diminishe d by , an y ac t o r omissio n o f th e

parties ; neithe r ca n i t b e conferre d by th e acquiescenc eof th e cour t (De Jesus, et al. vs. Garcia, et al., L-26816,

Feb. 28, 1967; Calimlim, et al. vs. Ramirez, et al.,L-34363, Nov. 19, 1982). Jurisdictio n mus t exis ta s am a t t e r of law (People vs. Casiano, L-15309, Feb. 16,1961). Consequently , question s o f jurisdictio n may b eraise d for th e firs t tim e on appea l eve n i f suc h issuewa s no t r a i s e d i n th e lowe r cour t (Government

vs.American Surety Co., 11 Phil. 203; Vda. de Roxas vs.

Rafferty, 37 Phil. 957; People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil.640). A cour t ca n motu proprio dismis s a cas e whic h i soutsid e it s jurisdictio n (Sec. 1, Rule 9).

17. Nevertheless , i n som e cases , th e principl e o festoppe l by lache s ha s bee n availe d o f by ou r appellat ecourt s t o ba r attack s o n jurisdictio n an d thi s principl eha s bee n applie d t o bot h civi l an d crimina l cases , thus :

a. In th e earl y cas e of Santiago, et al. vs. Valenzuela

(78 Phil . 397) , it wa s hel d tha t i f a motio n t o dismis s th e

appeal , o n th e groun d tha t sai d appea l wa s perfecte d ou tof time , i s filed for th e first tim e wit h th e appellat e cour t

after th e appellan t ha d pai d th e docke t fee an d th e costof printin g th e recor d on appeal , an d afte r th e filin g o fappellant' s brief , th e appellat e cour t shoul d den y themotion a s th e appelle e may b e considere d i n estoppe l b yhi s failur e t o object on time .


13/887

T h i s d o c t r i n e w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y a b a n d o ne d i nMiranda vs. Guanzon (92 Phil . 168) sinc e th e "require -men t regardin g th e perfectio n o f a n appea l withi n th ereglementar y perio d i s no t only mandator y bu t juris -dictional, " a rulin g subsequentl y reiterate d in Gargantavs. CA (10 5 Phil . 412) , Valdez vs. Ocumen (10 6Phil .

12

----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

929), Galima vs. CA (L-21046 , J a n . 31 , 1966) , AntiqueSawmills, Inc. vs. Zayco (L-20051 , Ma y 30 , 1966) ,Roquevs. Vdo. de Del Rosario (L-24873 , Sept . 23 , 1966) an dArellano, et al. vs. CA, et al. (L-31856 , Nov . 24 ,

1972) .

b . In th e late r case , however , o f Tijam vs.Sibong-hanoy, e t al. (L-21450 , Apri l 15 , 1968) , th e co-defendantsurety compan y neve r raise d th e issu e o f jurisdictio n i nth e Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e despit e severa l opportunitie st o d o s o and , althoug h th e clai m bein g for only 1*1,908,th e cas e wa s withi n th e exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio no f th e municipa l court . I t wa s only afte r th e cour t o fAppeal s ha d affirme d th e decisio n o f th e tria l cour t i

nfavor o f t h e plaintif f b u t befor e t h e finalit yo f t h i sdecision o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s t h a t th e co-defendan tsurety compan y filed it s motio n t o dismis s o n th e groun dof lack o f origina l jurisdictio n o f th e tria l court . Denyin gsaid motion , t h e S u p r e m e Cour t s t a t e d : "Wer e w et o

sanction suc h conduc t o n it s part , w e woul d i n effect b edeclaring a s useles s al l th e proceeding s ha d i n th e presen tcase sinc e i t wa s commence d o n Jul y 19 , 194 8 an d compe lth e j ud gm e n t creditor s t o g o u p thei r Calvar y onc e more .

The inequit y an d unfairnes s o f thi s i s no t only p a t en tbu t revolting. " I t furthe r state d t h a t "afte r voluntarilysubmittin g a caus e an d encounterin g a n advers e decisio non th e merits , i t i s to o lat e for th e lose r t o questio n thejurisdictio n o r powe r o f th e cour t . . . i t i s no t righ tfor


14/887

a part y wh o ha s affirme d an d invoke d th e jurisdictio nof a cour t in a particula r m a t t e r t o secur e an affirmativ erelief , t o a f t e r w a r d s den y t h a t s a m e j u r i s d ic t i o n t oescape a penalty, " citin g Pindangan, etc. vs. Dans,

et al.(L-14591 , Sept . 26 , 1962) , Young Men's LaborUnion,

etc. vs. CIR, et al. (L-20307 , Feb . 26 , 1965) an dMejiavs. Lucas (10 0 Phil . 277) . Se e als o Capilitan vs.De laCruz, (L-29536-37 , Feb . 28 , 1974) , Summit Guaranty vs.CA, et al. (G.R . No . 51139 , Dec . 14 , 1981) , Tajonera, et

al. vs. Lumaroza, et al. (L-4890 7 & L-49035 , Dec. 19 ,1981), Nieva vs. Manila Banking Corp. (L-30

811 ,

13

----------------------- Page 14-----------------------


Sept . 2, 1983) , Florendo, et al. vs. Coloma, et al.(G.R .No . 60544 , Ma y 19 , 1984) , an d Medijia vs. Patcho(L-30310, Oct . 23 , 1984) .

c. In Rodriguez vs. CA (L-29264 , Aug . 29 , 1969) , th eaction involve d propert y wort h mor e tha n P200.000 , a ttha t tim e withi n th e exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th eSupreme Court . Despit e severa l opportunitie s t o rais e tha t

issue i n th e Cour t o f Appeal s wher e th e appea l wa s taken ,defendant di d not challeng e th e appellat e jurisdictio n o fth e cour t an d di d s o only afte r decision wa s rendere dtherei n agains t him . H e raise d th e issu e o f jurisdiction,for th e nullification o f th e decision o f th e Cour t o f Appeals ,whe n th e cas e wa s o n appea l i n th e Suprem e Court .

Th eSuprem e Cour t denie d hi s ple a unde r th e doctrin e o festoppel by laches .

d . Th e sam e rulin g wa s applie d in Crisostomovs.

CA, et al. (L-27166 , Mar . 25 , 1970) an d Libudan vs. Gil(L-21163 , Ma y 17 , 1972) u n d e r th e justificatio n t ha t"the principl e o f estoppe l i s in th e interes t o f a soun dadministration o f th e laws, " citin g th e Tijam case .

Th eSupreme Cour t pointe d ou t tha t th e doctrin e o f lache s i s"based upo n ground s o f publi c policy whic h requires , forth e peac e o f society , th e discouragemen t o f stal e claims "


15/887

an d "i s principall y a questio n o f th e inequit y or unfair -nes s o f p e r m i t t i n g a righ t or clai m t o b e enforce d orasserted. "

e. In Sarmiento vs. Salud (L-25211 , Aug . 18 ,1972) ,th e Suprem e Court , i n resolvin g th e motio n for recon -sideration filed therein , hel d tha t whil e i t i s tru e thata recor d o n appea l mus t sho w o n it s fac e t h a t i t wa sperfecte d on tim e an d suc h requiremen t i s jurisdictiona lin nature , nevertheles s i f th e recor d on appea l doe s notcomply wit h thi s requiremen t bu t th e motion t o dismis sth e appea l i s filed mor e tha n 6 month s afte r th e appelle efiled hi s brief , th e motion shoul d b e denied .

Th e sam e rulin g wa s applie d in Dequito vs.Lopez(L-27757, Mar . 28 , 1968) involvin g virtuall y th e sam e se t

14

----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

o f facts . Thes e ruling s woul d stil l appl y i n case s wherei na recor d o n appea l i s required , a s wher e multipl e appeal sar e allowe d o r i n specia l proceedings .

f. In Vera vs. People (L-31218 , Feb . 18 , 1970) , itwa s hel d t h a t whil e a j u d g m e n t i s nul l an d voi d wher e i twa s promulgate d whe n th e presidin g judg e ha d alread y

ceased t o hol d office , sinc e th e accuse d faile d t o rais e t ha tissu e i n th e tria l cour t an d only di d s o afte r th e Cour to fAppeal s ha d r e n d e r e d a j u d g m e n t advers e t o him ,

i twoul d b e a n injustic e i f al l th e proceeding s ha d i n thecase woul d b e se t asid e since , afte r all , th e cour tt h a trendere d sentenc e w a s on e o f competen t jurisdiction .The cas e of Carillo vs. Allied Workers' Associationof the

Philippines (L-23689 , Jul y 31 , 1968) wa s cite d i n suppor tof thi s ruling .

g . In People vs. Casuga (L-37642 , Oct . 22 ,1973) ,th e accuse d w a s c o n v i c t e d o f g r a v e s l a n d e r, w h i c hoffense wa s withi n th e c o n c u r r e n t jurisdictio n o f th ethe n Court s o f Firs t Instanc e an d th e municipa l court s


16/887

of capital s o f province s or th e Cit y Courts . Instea d o fappealin g t o th e t h e n Cour t o f Appeal s o r th e Suprem eCourt , a s woul d hav e bee n proper , h e appeale d t o th eCourt o f Firs t Instanc e whic h affirme d sai d conviction .On hi s subsequen t challeng e t o th e appellat e jurisdictio nexercised b y th e Cour t o f Firs t Instance , th e Suprem eCourt hel d t h a t th e accused , havin g t a k e n hi s appea lt o th e Cour t o f Firs t Instance , i s i n estoppe l t o challeng e

th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e sai d court .

h . I n People vs. Tamani ( L - 2 2 1 6 0 - 6 1 , J a n. 2 1 ,1974), althoug h th e appea l o f th e accuse d wa s demon -strably filed ou t o f time , th e Suprem e Cour t nevertheles sreviewe d th e cas e an d rendere d a judgmen t o n th e merit sthereof , whil e declarin g i n th e sam e decision th e dismissa lof th e appeal , in view o f th e fact t h a t th e filin g o fth eappea l ou t o f tim e wa s du e t o th e faul t o f th e defens ecounsel an d th e furthe r consideratio n t h a t th e brief s forth e partie s ha d alread y bee n filed .

16

----------------------- Page 16-----------------------


i . Th e doctrin e lai d dow n in Tijam vs.Sibong-hanoy, supra, ha s bee n reiterate d in man y succeedin gcase s an d i s stil l good cas e law . Th e rul e up t o now i s

tha t a party' s activ e participatio n in al l stage s o f a cas ebefor e th e tria l court , whic h include s invokin g th e court' sauthority t o gran t affirmativ e relief , effectively estop ssuch part y from late r challengin g th e jurisdictio n o fth e sai d cour t (Gonzaga, et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R.No. 144025, Dec. 27, 2002).

j . See , moreover , th e summar y in Figueroa vs. Peopleof the Philippines (G.R . No . 147406 , Jul y 14, 2008) whic happarently present s th e prevailin g position o f th e Suprem eCourt on th e issu e o f whe n a litigan t i s estoppe d by lache s

from assailin g th e jurisdictio n o f a court , in ligh t o f it s

other an d subsequen t holding s o n th e matter .

18. Jurisdictio n ove r a perso n ma y als o b e acquire deven i f h e wa s neve r impleade d no r summone d i n th eactio n a s a d e f e n d a n t i f h e t h e r e a f t e r v o lu n t a r i l ysubmitte d himsel f t o th e jurisdictio n o f th e court .

Thus ,


17/887

wher e th e spouse s voluntaril y signe d th e compromis ea g r e e m e n t t o g u a r a n t e e th e p a y m e n t b y t h e origina limpleade d defendants , an d t h a t compromis e agreemen tw a s a p p r o v e d an d m a d e t h e b a s i s o f t h e ju d g m e n trendere d b y th e court , sai d spouse s ar e boun d b y th ejudgmen t a s the y ar e i n estoppe l t o den y th e ver y autho -rit y whic h the y invoked . B y voluntaril y enterin g int oth e compromis e agreement , the y effectively submittedthemselve s t o th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t (Rodriguez,et al. vs. Alikpala, et al., L 38314, June 25, 1974).

19. Sinc e a C o u r t o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e (now, t h eRegiona l Tria l Court ) i s a cour t o f g e n e r a l origina ljurisdiction , w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r m a t t e r shoul d b eresolve d by i t in th e exercis e o f it s genera l jurisdiction ,

or i n it s l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n a s a p r o b a t e o r l a n dregistratio n court , i s no t a jurisdictiona l questio n bu ta p r o c e d u r a l q u e s t i o n involvin g a mod e o f pr a c t i c e

16

----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

which , therefore , ma y b e waive d (Manalo vs. Mari

ano,et al., L-33850, Jan. 22, 1976; Santos vs. Banayo,L-31854, Sept. 9, 1982). P a r e n t h e t i c a l l y , Sec .2 ofP.D . 152 9 ha s eliminate d th e distinctio n betwee n th egenera l jurisdictio n o f a Regiona l Tria l Cour t an d th elimited jurisdictio n conferre d upo n i t b y th e forme r lawwhe n actin g a s a c a d a s t r a l cour t (Ligon vs. CA, et al.,G.R. No. 107751, June 1, 1995). However , th e holdin gtha t suc h situation s p r e s e n t only procedural , an d

no tjurisdictional , question s stil l applies .

20 . Question s involvin g ownershi p o f o r titl e t o rea lpropert y shoul d b e litigate d i n a n ordinar y civi l actio nor i n th e proceedin g wher e th e inciden t properl y belongs ,befor e a cour t o f genera l jurisdictio n an d no t befor e alan d r e g i s t r a t i o n cour t (Santos vs. Aquino, L-32949,Nov. 28, 1980).


18/887

2 1 . S t a t u t e s regulatin g th e procedur e o f th e court swill b e construe d a s applicabl e t o action s pendin g an dundetermine d a t th e tim e o f thei r passage , bu t no t t oaction s whic h hav e alread y becom e fina l an d executor y(Borre, et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 57204, Mar.

14,1988). Procedura l law s ar e retrospectiv e i n t h a t sens e

and to t h a t exten t (People vs. Sumilang, 7 7 Phil.764;

Liam Law vs. Olympic Sawmill Co., et al., L-30771,May 26, 1984; Yakult Philippines, et al. vs. CA, et al.,G.R. No. 91856, Oct. 5, 1990). Thus , th e provisio nofB.P . Big . 129 whic h eliminate d th e nee d for a recor d onappeal wa s given retroactiv e effect t o authoriz e th e givin go f du e cours e t o a n a p p e a l , whic h shoul d hav e bee nperfecte d i n 1982 wit h th e require d recor d o n appeal , b y

relievin g th e appellan t o f th e nee d therefo r i n lin e wit h

th e chang e o f procedur e unde r B.P . Big . 12 9 (Alday vs.Camilon, G.R. No. 60316, Jan. 31, 1983; Ouano vs.CA,

et al., L-44823, June 27, 1985; De Guzman, et al. vs.CA, et al, G.R. No. 52733, July 23, 1985; Lagunzad

vs.CA, et al, G.R. No. 52007, Sept. 24, 1987; Mun. Gov't of

17

----------------------- Page 18-----------------------


Coron vs. Carino, et al., G.R. No. 65896, Sept. 24, 1987;Sarmiento vs. Gatmaitan, et al., L-38173, Nov. 12, 1987).

However , new cour t rule s appl y t o pendin g case sonly wit h referenc e t o proceeding s therei n whic h tak e

plac e afte r th e dat e o f thei r effectivity . The y d o notapply t o th e exten t tha t i n th e opinion o f th e cour t thei r

application woul d not b e feasibl e or woul d wor k injustice ,in whic h even t th e former procedur e shal l apply . Thus,wher e th e applicatio n o f th e Rul e o n Summar y Procedur ewil l mea n th e dismissa l o f th e appea l o f th e party , th esam e shoul d no t appl y since , afte r all , th e procedur e


19/887

the y availe d o f wa s als o allowe d u n d e r t h e Rule so fCourt (Laguio, et al. vs. Garnet, et al., G.R. No. 74903,Mar. 21, 1980).

22 . Substantiv e law i s tha t par t o f th e law whic h

create s right s concernin g life , libert y o r property , o r th epower s o f instrumentalitie s for th e administratio n o fpubli c affair s (Primicias vs. Ocampo, 8 1 Phil. 650).Procedura l law refer s t o th e adjectiv e law s which prescrib erule s an d form s o f procedur e i n orde r t h a t court s ma y b e

able to administe r justic e (Lopez vs. Gloria, 4 0 Phil. 33).Substantiv e law creates , define s an d regulate s rights ,a s oppose d t o "adjectiv e or remedia l law " whic h prescribe sth e metho d o f enforcin g th e right s o r obtainin g redres sfor t h e i r invasio n (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.,p . 1429; citation s omitted) .

Procedur e i s th e mod e o f proceedin g by whic h a lega lrigh t i s enforced , a s distinguishe d from th e law whic hgive s o r define s th e right , an d which , b y mean s o f th eproceeding , th e cour t i s t o administer . Thi s ter m i s com -monly oppose d t o th e su m o f lega l principle s constitutin gth e substanc e o f th e law , an d denote s th e body o f rules ,w h e t h e r o f practic e o r pleading , whereb y r i g h t sar eeffectuate d t h r o u g h th e successfu l applicatio n o f th eprope r remedie s (op. cit., pp. 1367-1368; id.).

----------------------- Page 19-----------------------

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

In d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a rul e prescribe d by t h eS u p r e m e C o u r t a b r i d g e s , e n l a r g e s o r modifie s a n ysubstantiv e right , t h e t e s t i s w h e t h e r th e rul ereall yr e gu l at e s p r o c e d u r e , t h a t is , th e judicial proce

ss forenforcing rights and duties recognized by the substantivelaw an d for justl y administerin g remed y an d redres s fora disregar d o r infractio n o f them . I f th e rul e take s awa ya veste d right , i t i s no t procedural . I f th e rul e create s aright , suc h a s th e righ t t o appeal , i t ma y b e classifie da s


20/887

a substantiv e m a t t e r ; bu t if it operates as a means ofimplementing an existing right, then the rule dealsmerely with procedure (Fabian vs. Desierto, etc.,et al.,

G.R. No. 129742, Sept. 16, 1998).

It is , therefore , th e n a t u r e an d th e purpos eo f th elaw w h i c h d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r i t i s s u b s t an t i v e o rprocedural , an d no t it s plac e i n th e statut e o r it s inclusionin a code . Thus , for instance , Arts . 53 9 an d 1674 o f th e

Civil Cod e an d Sec . 85 , R.A . 29 6 provide d injunctiv e rule sin ejectmen t case s i n th e tria l an d appellat e stages , bu tthes e hav e bee n properl y incorporate d wit h modification sas Sees . 8 an d 9 , respectively , o f Rul e 7 0 o f th e

1964Rule s o f Cour t (now , Sec . 1 5 o f revise d Rul e 70) .

Thes esubsequent amendator y provision s o n injunction s wer e

prope r sinc e th e mer e fact t h a t thos e provision s o n in -junction s wer e formerl y include d i n a substantiv e s t a t u t eor cod e doe s no t conver t t h e m int o o r detrac t from th efact t h a t the y ar e procedura l laws , contrar y t o commo nmisimpression . I n fact , t h e r e ar e man y suc h procedura lrule s foun d i n th e Civi l Cod e or , for t h a t matter , i n othe rcode s o r basicall y s u b s t a n t i v e law s b u t the yd o no tthereb y los e thei r characte r a s procedura l laws .

Thi s m a t t e r i s bein g clarifie d an d emphasize d her e

in view o f th e Constitutiona l provisio n t h a t th e rule s

whic h th e Suprem e Cour t i s authorize d t o promulgat eshall no t diminish , increas e o r modify substantiv e right s(Sec. 5 [5], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution). Th e improbabl epositio n t h a t a clearl y procedura l provisio n become s a

19

----------------------- Page 20-----------------------


substantiv e law by th e mer e fact t h a t it i s include d in acompilation , codificatio n o r s t a t u t o r y e n a c t m e nt o fs u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t s , a l t h o u g h onl y t o i n d i c at e t h er e m e d i a l c o m p l e m e n t for t h e e n f o r c e m e n t thereof ,woul d effectively subver t th e Constitutiona l inten t an dd i m i n i s h t h e scop e an d e x t e n t o f t h e r u l e -


21/887

m a k i n gpowe r o f th e Suprem e Court .

20

----------------------- Page 21-----------------------

I . CIVI L P R O C E D U R E

A . P R E L I M I N A R Y C O N S I D E R A T I O N S

1. Th e stud y o f civi l procedur e include s ordinar ycivi l a c t i o n s , s p e c i a l civi l a c t i o n s a n d p r ov i s i o n a lremedies . Specia l civi l action s ar e governe d b y specifi can d i n d i v i d u a l r u l e s s u p p l e m e n t e d b y t h eg e n e r a l

provision s o n civi l actions .

2 . Definitio n o f t e r m s :

a . Cause of action: Th e delic t or wrongfu l ac t oromission c o m m i t t e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t i n violatio

n o fth e primar y right s o f th e plaintif f (Racoma vs. Fortich,et al, L-29380, June 10, 1971).

b . Right of action: Th e remedia l righ t or righ t t orelie f grante d b y la w t o a p a r t y t o institut e a nactio nagainst a perso n wh o ha s committe d a delic t o r wron gagainst him .

Th e caus e o f actio n i s t h e delic t o r wrong , wh

il eth e righ t o f actio n i s th e righ t t o su e a s a consequenc eo f t h a t delict . Th e questio n a s t o whethe r th e plaintif f

ha s a caus e o f actio n i s determine d b y th e av er m e nt si n th e p l e a d i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e act s committe db y th edefendant ; w h e t h e r suc h act s giv e hi m a righ t o f actio ni s determine d b y th e substantiv e law . Ther e ca n b e n origh t o f actio n w i t h o u t a caus e o f actio n bei

n g firs testablishe d (se e Espanol vs. The Chairman, etc. of thePVA, L-44616, June 29, 1985).

A righ t o f actio n i s th e righ t t o presentl y enforc e a

caus e o f actio n a r e m e d i a l righ t affordin g redres sfor th e infringemen t o f a lega l righ t belongin g t o som e


22/887

definite person ; a caus e o f actio n consist s o f th e operativ efacts whic h giv e ris e t o suc h righ t o f action . Th e righ to f actio n doe s no t aris e u n t i l th e performanc e of al lcondition s preceden t t o th e action , an d ma y b e t a k e nawa y b y t h e r u n n i n g o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s ,

2 1

----------------------- Page 22-----------------------


throug h a n estoppel , o r b y othe r circumstance s whic h d ono t affect th e caus e o f action . Ther e ma y b e severa lright s o f actio n an d on e caus e o f action , an d right s mayaccrue at different time s from th e sam e caus e ( 1 Am JUT 2d,Sec. 2, p. 541).

c. Relief: Th e redress , protection , awar d or coerciv e

measur e whic h th e plaintif f pray s th e cour t t o rende r i nhi s favor a s a consequenc e o f th e delict committe d by th edefendant .

d . Remedy: Th e procedur e or typ e o f actio n whic hmay b e availe d o f by th e plaintif f a s th e mean s t o obtai nth e relie f desired .

e . Subject-matter: Th e thing , wrongfu l act , con -trac t o r propert y whic h i s directl y involve d i n th e action ,concernin g whic h th e wron g ha s bee n don e an d wit hrespec t t o whic h th e controvers y ha s arise n (Yusingco,

et al. vs. Ong Ring Lian, L-26523, Dec. 24, 1971).

Thus , in a cas e for breac h o f contract , th e contrac tviolate d i s th e subject-matter ; th e breac h b y th e obligori s th e caus e o f action ; th e righ t o f action i s th e consequentsubstantiv e righ t o n th e par t jof th e oblige e t o su e forredress ; th e relie f i s th e damage s o r rescissio n o r th e ac t

which th e plaintif f ask s th e cour t t o order ; an d th e remed y

i s th e typ e o f actio n whic h ma y b e availe d o f b yth eplaintiff , whic h ma y b e a n actio n eithe r for damages ,for rescissio n or for specifi c performance .

Th e subject-matte r o f a given cas e i s determine d no tb y th e n a t u r e o f th e actio n t h a t a part y i s entitle d t obrin g bu t b y th e natur e an d characte r o f th e pleading san d issue s submitte d by th e partie s (Viray vs. CA, e


23/887

t al.,G.R. No. 92481, Nov. 9, 1990).

3 . Classificatio n o f actions :

a . Real action: On e brough t for th e protectio n ofrea l rights , land , t e n e m e n t s o r h e r e d i t a m e n t so r on e

founded on privit y o f estat e only (Paper Industries Corp.

22

----------------------- Page 23-----------------------

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

of the Phil. vs. Samson, et al., L-80175, Nov. 28, 1975).Example: Accion reivindicatoria.

Personal action: On e whic h i s no t founde d upo n th eprivit y o f rea l right s or rea l property . Example: Action

for a su m o f money .

Mixed action: On e brough t for protectio n or recover yo f rea l p r o p e r t y a n d als o for a n a w a r d for d a ma g e ssustained . Example: Accion publiciana wit h a clai m

fordamages .

Fo r purpose s o f venue , a mixe d actio n i s governe db y th e rule s o f venu e i n rea l actions .

b . Action in rem: On e whic h i s no t directe d onlyagainst particula r person s bu t agains t th e thin g itsel fand th e object o f whic h i s t o b a r indifferentl y al l wh omigh t b e minde d t o m a k e an y objectio n agains t th e righ tsought t o b e enforced , henc e t h e j u d g m e n t t h e r e in i sbindin g theoreticall y upo n th e whol e world . Example:Expropriation .

Action in personam: On e whic h i s directe d agains

tparticula r person s o n th e basi s o f thei r persona l liabilit yt o establis h a clai m a g a i n s t t h e m an d t h e j u dg m e n twherei n i s bindin g only upo n th e partie s impleade d o rthei r successor s in interest . Example: Actio n for breac hof contract .

Action quasi in rem: On e directe d agains t particula rperson s bu t th e purpos e o f whic h i s t o ba r an d bin d no t


24/887

only sai d person s bu t an y othe r perso n wh o claim s an yi n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y o r r i g h t subjec t of t h e suit .Example: Judicia l foreclosur e o f a mortgag e (Ocampovs. Domalanta, L-21011, Aug. 30, 1967).

A proceedin g for a t t a c h m e n t o f propert y i s in rem ifth e defendan t doe s no t appea r i n court , an d i n personamif he a p p e a r s (Banco EspaAol-Filipino vs. Palanca,supra).

23

----------------------- Page 24-----------------------


c. Transitory action: On e th e venu e o f whic h isdependent generall y upo n th e residenc e o f th e partie sregardles s o f wher e th e caus e o f action arose . Example:

Persona l action .

Local action: On e which i s require d by th e Rule s t ob e institute d in a particula r plac e in th e absenc e o f anagreemen t t o th e contrary . Example: Rea l action .

Th e classificatio n o f action s int o r e a l , p e r s on a lor mixe d i s base d o n th e subject-matte r thereof . Withrespec t t o th e bindin g effect o f th e relie f sough t o r th ejudgmen t therein , action s ar e classifie d int o action s i n

rem, quasi in rem or in personam. Hence , a rea l actionma y b e in personam, or a persona l actio n ma y b e in rem(see Hernandez, et al. vs. Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc.,L-29791, Jan. 10, 1978). Transitor y or loca l action s ar e

so denominate d o n th e basi s o f th e permissibl e venue sthereof .

4 . In Yu vs. Pacleb, etc. (G.R . No . 172172 , Feb . 24 ,2009) , th e Suprem e Cour t cite d thi s extende d discussio non classification o f civil action : Th e settle d rul e i s tha t th e

aim an d objec t o f a n actio n determin e it s character.Whethe r a proceedin g is rem, or in personam, or quasi inrem i s determine d by it s nature^in d purpose , an d by thes eonly . A proceedin g in personam i s a proceedin g enforcepersona l right s an d obligation s brough t agains t th e perso nand i s base d on th e jurisdictio n o f th e person , althoug h itmay involv e hi s righ t to , or th e exercis e o f ownershi p of,


25/887

specific property , or seek t o compel him t o contro l or dispos eof it in accordanc e wit h th e mandat e o f th e court . Th epurpos e o f a proceedin g in personam i s to impose , throug hth e judgmen t o f a court , som e responsibilit y or liability t ocompel a defendan t t o specifically perfor m som e ac t oraction s t o faste n a pecuniar y liability on him . An actionin personam i s sai d to b e on e which ha s for it s object ajudgmen t agains t th e person , a s distinguishe d from ajudgmen t agains t th e propert y t o determin e it s state .I t

24

----------------------- Page 25-----------------------

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

ha s bee n hel d t h a t an actio n in personam i s a proceedin gt o enforc e persona l right s o r obligations , suc h actio n i sbrough t agains t th e person .

X X X

On th e othe r hand , a proceedin g quasi in rem i s on ebrough t agains t person s seekin g t o subjec t th e propert yof suc h person s t o th e discharg e o f th e claim s assailed .Inan actio n quasi i n rem, a n i n d i v i d u a l i s n a m ed a sdefendant an d th e purpos e o f th e proceedin g i s t o subjec thi s interest s therei n t o th e obligation s o r loan s burdenin gth e property . Action s quasi i n rem dea l wit h th e status ,ownership or liabilit y o f a particula r propert y bu t whic hare intende d t o operat e o n thes e question s only a s betwee n

particula r partie s t o th e proceeding s an d no t t o ascertai nor cu t off th e right s or interest s o f al l possibl e claimants .The judgment s therei n ar e bindin g only upo n th e partie swho joine d i n th e action .

25

----------------------- Page 26-----------------------

B . JURISDICTIO N O F TH E SUPREM E COUR TU N D E R TH E 198 7 CONSTITUTIO N

Articl e V I (Legislativ e Department )

"Sec . 30 . N o la w shal l b e passe d increasin g t h ea p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u rt a sprovide d i n thi s Constitutio n withou t it s advic e an dconcurrence. "

Articl e VI I (Executiv e Department )

"Sec. 4 . (las t par. ) Th e Suprem e Court , sittin g e n


26/887

banc, shal l b e th e sol e judg e o f al l contest s relatin g t oth e election , return s an d qualification s o f th e Presiden tor Vice-President , an d ma y promulgat e rule s for th epurpose. "

X X X

"Sec . 18 . (thir d par. ) Th e S u p r e m e C o u r tma yreview , in an appropriat e proceedin g filed by an y citizen ,th e sufficiency o f th e factua l basi s o f th e proclamatio n o fmartia l law o r th e suspensio n o f th e privileg e o f th e wri tor th e extensio n thereof , an d mus t promulgat e it s decisionthereo n withi n thirt y day s from it s filing. "

Articl e VII I (Judicia l Department )

"Sec. 2 . Th e Congres s shal l hav e th e powe r t o define ,prescribe , an d apportio n th e jurisdictio n o f th e variou scourt s bu t ma y no t depriv e th e Suprem e Cour t o fit sjurisdictio n over case s enumerate d in Sectio n 5 hereof .

N o law shal l b e passe d reorganizin g th e Judiciar yw h e n i t u n d e r m i n e s t h e s e c u r i t y o f t e n u r eo f i t sMembers. "

X X X

"Sec. 5 . Th e Suprem e Cour t shal l hav e th e followin gpowers :

26

----------------------- Page 27-----------------------

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURTUNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

(1) Exercis e origina l jurisdictio n ove r case s affectin g

ambassadors , othe r publi c minister s an d consuls , an dover petition s for certiorari, prohibition , mand

amus,quo warranto, an d habeas corpus.

(2) Review , revise , reverse , modify , o r affirm o n appea lor certiorari, a s th e law o r th e Rule s o f Cour t m

a yprovide , fina l j u d g m e n t s an d order s o f lowe r court

sin :

(a) Al l c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o na l i t y o r

v a l i d i t y o f a n y t r e a t y , i n t e r n a t i o n al o r exe -

cutiv e a g r e e m e n t , law , p r e s i d e n t i a l


27/887

d e c r e e ,proclamation , order , instruction , ordinance , o rregulatio n i s i n question .

(b) Al l case s involvin g th e legalit y o f an y tax , impost ,

assessment , o r toll , o r an y penalt y impose d i nrelatio n thereto .

(c) Al l case s i n whic h th e jurisdictio n o f an y lowe rcourt i s i n issue .

(d) Al l crimina l case s i n whic h th e penalt y impose dis reclusion perpetua or higher .

(e) Al l case s i n whic h only a n erro r o r questio n o flaw i s involved .

(3) Assig n temporaril y judge s o f lowe r court s t o othe rs t a t i o n s a s p u b l i c i n t e r e s t m a y r e q u i r e

. S u c htemporar y assignmen t shal l no t excee d six month swithou t th e consen t o f th e judg e concerned .

(4) Orde r a chang e o f venu e or plac e o f tria l t o avoi d a

miscarriag e o f justice .

(5) P r o m u l g a t e r u l e s concernin g th e protectio nan d

e n f o r c e m e n t o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s ,p l e a d i n g ,

practice , an d procedur e i n al l courts , th e admissio nt o th e practic e o f law , th e Integrate d Bar , an d lega l

assistanc e t o th e underprivileged . Suc h rule sshal l

provid e a simplifie d an d inexpensiv e procedur e for

27

----------------------- Page 28-----------------------


th e speed y disposition o f cases , shal l b e unifor m forall court s o f th e sam e grade , an d shal l no t diminish ,increase , o r modify s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t s . Rule

s o fprocedur e o f specia l court s an d quasi-judicia l bodie s

shal l remai n effectiv e unles s disapprove d b y th eSupreme Court .

(6) Appoin t al l official s an d employee s o f th e Judiciar yin accordanc e wit h th e Civi l Servic e Law. "

Articl e IX (Constitutiona l Commissions )

A . Commo n Provision s

"Sec. 7 . Eac h Commissio n shal l decid e by a majorit y


28/887

vot e o f al l it s Member s an y cas e o r matte r brough t befor eit withi n sixty day s from th e dat e o f it s submissio n fordecision o r resolution . A cas e o r m a t t e r i s deeme dsubmitte d for decision or resolutio n upo n th e filin g o fth e las t pleading , brief , o r memorandu m require d b yth e rule s o f th e Commissio n or by th e Commissio n itself .Unles s otherwis e provide d by thi s Constitutio n or by law ,any decision , orde r o r rulin g o f eac h Commissio n ma y b eb r o u g h t t o t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o n certiorari b yt h e

aggrieve d p a r t y withi n t h i r t y day s from receip t o facopy thereof. "

NOTE S

1. See , in thi s connection , th e note s unde r Sec . 7 ,Rul e 56 .

2 . Considerin g th e provision s o f B.P . Big . 129 , th efact t h a t appeal s from th e Securitie s an d E x c ha n g eCommission an d i n naturalizatio n an d denaturalizatio n

case s shoul d now b e take n t o th e Cour t o f Appeals , an dal l decision s o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o m m i s si o n s a r ereviewabl e o n origina l action s o f certiorari , al l appeal sin civi l case s t o th e Suprem e Cour t ca n now b e brough tonly on petitio n for revie w on certiorar i (cf. Sec.

17,

2 8

----------------------- Page 29-----------------------

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

R.A. 296, as amende d by R.A. 5440; Santos, et al. vs.CA, et al., G.R. No. 56614, July 28, 1987). Moreover , ashereafte r explained , Sec . 9 o f B.P . Big . 12 9 wa s amende db y R.A . 790 2 t o furthe r ves t appellat e jurisdictio n i n th eCourt o f Appeal s ove r judgments , fina l orders , award s o rresolution s o f t h e Civi l Servic e Commissio n an d th eCentra l Boar d o f Assessmen t Appeals .

29

----------------------- Page 30-----------------------

C. TH E JUDICIAR Y REORGANIZATIO N AC TOF 198 0

ORGANIZATION

1. Th e Judiciar y Reorganizatio n Act o f 198 0 (BatasPambansa Big. 129) took effect upo n it s approva l

onAugus t 14, 198 1 (Sec. 48). However , th e transitor y pro -


29/887

visio n (Sec. 44) declare d t h a t it s p r o v i s i o n s"shal li m m e d i a t e l y b e c a r r i e d ou t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i th a nExecutiv e Orde r t o b e issue d b y th e P r e s i d e n t. Th eCour t o f Appeals , th e Court s o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e, t h eCircuit Crimina l Courts , th e J u v e n i l e an d DomesticRelation s Courts , th e Court s o f Agraria n Relations , th eCity Courts , th e Municipa l Court s an d th e Municipa lCircuit Court s shal l continu e t o functio n a s presentl yconstitute d an d organize d unti l th e completio n o f th ereorganizatio n provide d i n thi s Act a s declare d b y th ePresident . Upo n suc h declaration , th e sai d court s shal lb e deeme d automaticall y abolishe d an d th e incumbent sthereo f shal l ceas e t o hol d office . Th e case s pendin g inth e old Court s shal l b e transferre d t o th e appropriat eCourt s constitute d p u r s u a n t t o thi s Act , togethe r wit hth e pertinen t functions , records , equipment , propert yan d th e necessar y personnel. " Th e constitutionalit y o f

thi s Act wa s uphel d b y th e S u p r e m e Cour t e nbanc,wit h on e dissent , in De la Liana, et al. vs. Alba, et al.(G.R . No . 57883 , Mar . 12 , 1982) .

2 . T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s w a s r e p l a c e d b y t h eIntermediat e Appellat e Cour t consistin g o f a Presidin gJustic e an d 4 9 Associat e Appellat e Justices , whic h shal lsit in 1 0 division s eac h compose d o f 5 members , excep t

only for t h e p u r p o s e o f e x e r c i s i n g a d m i n i s tr a t i v e ,ceremonia l o r othe r non-adjudicator y function s i n whic hinstance s it ma y si t en banc (Sees. 3 an d 4).

30

----------------------- Page 31-----------------------

JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980

However , unde r Executiv e Orde r No . 3 3 (July 28,1986) ,a m e n d i n g B.P . Big . 129 , t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a

l s w a sr e - c r e a t e d , consistin g o f a P r e s i d i n g J u s t i c e a n d 5 0Associat e J u s t i c e s , whic h s h a l l exercis e it sp o w e r s ,functions an d dutie s throug h 1 7 divisions , eac h compose dof 3 m e m b e r s . It ma y si t e n banc for th e purpos e o fexercisin g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , c e r e m o n i a l o r o th e r non -


30/887

adjudicatory function s (Sees. 3 an d 4, a s amended) .

A majorit y o f th e actua l member s o f th e Cour t shal lconstitut e a quoru m for it s session s en banc. Thre e (3)member s shal l constitut e a quoru m for th e session s o f adivision . Th e unanimou s vot e o f th e thre e member s o f adivision shal l b e necessar y for th e pronouncemen t o f adecision o r fina l resolution , whic h shal l b e reache d i nconsultation befor e th e writin g o f th e opinio n b y an ymembe r o f th e division . I n th e even t t h a t the t h r e emember s d o no t reac h a u n a n i m o u s vote , th e Presidin gJustic e shal l reques t th e Raffl e Committe e o f th e Cour tfor th e d e s i g n a t i o n o f tw o a d d i t i o n a l J u s ti c e s t o si ttemporaril y wit h them , formin g a specia l divisio n o f fivem e m b e r s an d t h e c o n c u r r e n c e o f a majorit y o fsuc hdivision shal l b e necessar y for th e pronouncemen t o f adecision o r fina l resolution . Th e designatio n o f suc ha d d i t i o n a l J u s t i c e s s h a l l b e m a d e s t r i c t l yb y raffl e

(Sec. 11, a s amended) .

Executiv e O r d e r No . 3 3 r e p e a l e d Sec . 8o f B.P .Big . 129 whic h ha d provide d for groupin g o f division st o handl e specifi c classe s o f case s (Sec. 4). Itfurthe rprovide d t h a t th e t e r m "Intermediat e Appellat e Court ,Presidin g Appellat e J u s t i c e an d Associat e Appellat eJustice(s) " use d i n B.P . Big . 129 o r i n an y othe r law o rexecutive orde r shal l hereafte r mea n Cour t o f Appeals ,Presidin g Justic e an d Associat e Justice(s) , respectivel y

(Sec. 8).

Additionally , effectiv e Februar y 2 , 1997 , B.P . Big . 129wa s f u r t h e r a m e n d e d b y R.A . 824 6 (Appendix G),pursuan t t o whic h th e Cour t o f Appeal s shal l consis t o f

3 1

----------------------- Page 32-----------------------


a Presidin g Justic e an d 6 8 Associat e Justices , an d shal lb e compose d o f 2 3 division s o f 3 member s each , wit h th efirst 1 7 division s statione d in Manila , th e 18th t o 20t hdivision s in Cebu City , an d th e 21st t o 23r d division s inCagayan d e Or o City .

3 . Th e Court s o f Firs t Instance , th e Circui t Crimina lCourts , th e Juvenil e an d Domesti c Relation s Court s an dth e Court s o f Agraria n Relation s hav e bee n integrate dinto th e Regiona l Tria l Court s for eac h o f th e 1 3 Judicia l


31/887

Region s which replace d th e former 1 6 Judicia l Districts ,each Regiona l Tria l Cour t t o consis t o f th e numbe r o fbranche s provide d in Section 14 o f th e Act .

4 . Th e city court s an d municipa l court s i n th eNationa l Capita l Judicia l Region hav e bee n merge d int oa Metropolita n Tria l Cour t o f Metr o Manil a an d wer econverted int o branche s thereo f (Sec. 27). Th e SupremeCourt shal l constitut e othe r Metropolita n Tria l Court sin suc h othe r metropolita n area s a s ma y b e establishe db y la w an d whos e territoria l jurisdictio n shal l b e co -extensiv e wit h th e citie s an d municipalitie s comprisin gsuch metropolita n are a (Sec. 28).

5 . Th e city court s in othe r citie s whic h d o no t nowor hereafte r form p a r t o f a metropolita n are a shal l b eknown a s Municipa l Tria l Courts , wit h th e correspondin gnumbe r o f branche s (Sec. 29), an d th e municipa l courts ,whethe r o f an ordinar y municipalit y or o f a capita l o f aprovinc e o r sub-provinc e bu t no t comprise d withi n ametropolita n are a an d a municipa l circuit , shal l likewis e

b e know n a s Municipa l Tria l Court s wit h t h e corre -sponding numbe r o f branche s (Sec. 30). Th e municipalcircuit court s shal l b e know n a s Municipa l Circui t Tria lCourt s an d th e Suprem e Cour t ma y furthe r reorganiz eth e sam e (Sec. 31).

6 . Excepte d from th e coverag e o f th e Act ar e th e

S u p r e m e C o u r t a n d t h e S a n d i g a n b a y a n , b u t th e s e

32

----------------------- Page 33-----------------------


court s hav e bee n affecte d b y th e jurisdictiona l change sintroduce d therein . Th e provision s o f th e Judiciar y Actof 194 8 (R.A. 296, a s amended) , R.A . 5179 , a s amended ,th e Rule s o f Cour t a n d al l o t h e r s t a t u t e s , l et t e r s o fi n s t r u c t i o n s a n d g e n e r a l o r d e r s o r p a r t s thereof ,inconsistent wit h th e provision s o f thi s Act ar e repeale d

or modifie d accordingly .

7 . N o mentio n i s mad e o f th e Cour t o f Ta x Appeal ssince th e Act i s basicall y o n th e matte r o f jurisdictiona lchanges . However , appeal s from it s judgment s o r fina lorders , whic h use d t o b e governe d by R.A . 1125 , wer e late rrequire d t o b e take n t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s p u r s u a n t toRevised Administrativ e Circula r No . 1-95 o f th e Suprem eCourt , whic h thereafte r wa s adopte d a s Rul e 4 3 o f thes e


32/887

revise d Rules . See , however , th e mor e recen t change s i nR.A. 928 2 (Appendix CC).

JURISDICTIO N

I . Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t (now , th e Cour to f

Appeals) :

"Sec. 9 . Jurisdiction. Th e Intermediat e Appellat eCourt shal l exercise :

(1) Origina l jurisdictio n t o issu e writ s o f man-damus, prohibition , certiorari, habeas corpus, an d

quowarranto, an d auxiliar y writ s o r processes , whethe r

or not in ai d o f it s appellat e jurisdiction ;

(2) Exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n ove r action sfor annulmen t o f judgment s o f Regiona l Tria l Courts ;a n d

(3) Exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n over al l fina ljudgments , decisions , resolutions , order s o r award s

o f Regiona l Tria l Court s an d quasi-judicia l agencies ,instrumentalities , boards , o r commissions , excep tthos e fallin g withi n th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th eSupreme Cour t i n accordanc e wit h th e Constitution ,

33

----------------------- Page 34-----------------------


th e provision s o f thi s Act , an d o f subparagrap h (1) o fth e thir d p a r a g r a p h an d s u b p a r a g r a p h (4)

o f th efourth paragrap h o f Section 1 7 o f th e Judiciar y Actof 1948 .

Th e Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t shal l hav e th epowe r t o tr y case s an d conduc t hearings , receiv eevidence an d perform an y an d al l act s necessar y t oresolv e factua l issue s raise d in case s fallin g withi nit s origina l an d appellat e jurisdiction , includin g th epowe r t o gran t an d conduc t new trial s an d furthe rproceedings .

Thes e provision s shal l no t appl y t o decision s an d

interlocutory order s issue d unde r th e Labo r Cod eo f t h e Philippine s an d b y t h e C e n t r a l Boar

d o fAssessmen t Appeals. "

Th e secon d paragrap h o f Sec . 9 abov e se t forth wa ssubsequently a m e n d e d b y Sec . 5 o f Executiv e Orde rNo . 3 3 t o rea d a s follows :


33/887

"The Cour t o f Appeal s shal l hav e th e powe r t oreceiv e evidenc e a n d p e r f o r m an y a n d al l

a c t snecessar y t o resolv e factua l issue s raise d in (a) case sfalling withi n it s origina l jurisdiction , suc h a s action sfor annulmen t o f judgment s o f regiona l tria l courts ,as provide d in paragrap h (2) hereof ; an d in (b) case sfalling withi n it s appellat e jurisdictio n wherei n amotio n for ne w tria l base d only o n th e groun d o f

newly discovere d evidenc e i s grante d by it. "

However , effective Marc h 18 , 1995 , Sec . 9 wa s furthe ramende d by R.A . 7902 (Appendix F) an d now provides :

"SEC . 9 . Jurisdiction. Th e Cour t o f Appeal s

shall exercise :

"(1) Origina l jurisdictio n t o issu e writ s o f man-damus, prohibition , certiorari, habeas corpus, an d

quowarranto, an d auxiliar y writ s or processes , whethe ror not in ai d o f it s appellat e jurisdiction ;

34

----------------------- Page 35-----------------------


"(2) Exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n ove r action sfor annulmen t o f judgment s o f Regiona l Tria l Courts ;an d

"(3) Exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n over al l fina ljudgments , decisions , resolutions , order s o r award s

o f Regiona l Tria l Court s an d quasi-judicia l agencies ,instrumentalities , board s o r commissions , includin gth e Securitie s an d Exchang e Commission , th e Socia lSecurity Commission , th e Employee s Compensatio nCommission an d th e Civil Servic e Commission , excep tthos e fallin g withi n th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th eSuprem e Cour t i n accordanc e wit h th e Constitution ,th e Labo r Cod e o f th e Philippine s unde r Presidentia lDecre e No . 442 , a s amended , th e provision s o f thi s

Act , an d o f subparagrap h (1) o f th e thir d paragrap han d s u b p a r a g r a p h (4) o f th e fourt h p a r a g r

a p h o fSection 1 7 o f th e Judiciar y Act o f 1948 .

"The Cour t o f Appeal s shal l hav e th e powe r t otr y case s an d conduc t hearings , receiv e evidenc e an d

perfor m an y an d al l act s necessar y t o resolv e factua lissue s raise d i n case s fallin g withi n it s origina l an dappellat e jurisdiction , includin g th e powe r t o gran tan d conduc t ne w trial s o r furthe r proceedings . Tri

al sor hearing s i n th e Cour t o f Appeal s mus t b e con

-


34/887

t i n u o u s a n d m u s t b e complete d w i t h i n t h r e e (3)

month s unles s extende d b y th e Chie f Justice. "

NOTE S

1. Unlik e th e provision s o f Sec . 3 0 o f th e Judiciar yAct , B.P . Big . 12 9 veste d th e I n t e r m e d i a t e Appellat eCourt wit h origina l jurisdictio n t o issu e writ s o f man -damus , prohibition , certiorari , habeas corpus, an d al l othe rauxiliary writ s an d processe s whethe r o r not i n ai d o f it sappellat e jurisdictio n an d adde d th e specia l civil actio n o fquo warrant o t o suc h origina l jurisdiction . Furthermore ,

th e Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t ha d exclusiv e origina l

35

----------------------- Page 36-----------------------


jurisdictio n over action s for th e annulmen t o f judgment s

of th e Regiona l Tria l Courts . Th e latter , however , retai nthei r jurisdictio n ove r action s for t h e a n n u l m e nt o fj u d g m e n t s o f t h e inferio r c o u r t s (Sec. 19), i.e. , t h eMetropolitan , Municipa l an d Municipa l Circui t Tria lCourt s (Sec. 25).

2 . Amendator y o f previou s legislation , th e appellat ejurisdictio n o f th e the n Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t overquasi-judicial agencies , o r th e so-calle d administrativ etribunals , wa s extende d t o an d include d th e Securitie s

an d Exchang e Commissio n an d t h e differen t boardswhic h too k th e plac e o f th e q u o n d a m Publi c Servic eCommission , i.e. , th e Board s o f Transportation , Commu -nications , an d Powe r an d Waterworks , whos e decision swer e theretofor e appealabl e t o th e Suprem e Court . Case sinvolving petition s for naturalizatio n an d denaturalizatio nar e now exclusively appealabl e t o th e Cour t o f Appeals .

3. However , by specific provision s o f Sec . 9 o f thi sAct , th e S u p r e m e Cour t retaine d exclusiv e appella

t ejurisdictio n over th e decision s o f th e tw o constitutiona lcommissions , i.e. , Commissio n o n Election s an d Com -mission on Audi t (se e 1973 Constitution, Art. XII-Can dD). Unde r th e 198 7 Constitution , thi s exclusiv e appellat ej u r i s d i c t i o n w a s m a d e t o includ e t h e Civi l Servic eCommission (Sec. 7, Art. IX-A). Also , likewis e specifically


35/887

excluded from th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e Interme -diat e Appellat e Cour t wer e decision s an d interlocutor yorder s unde r th e Labo r Code , suc h a s thos e promulgate db y th e S e c r e t a r y o f Labo r an d E m p l o y m e n t an d th eNationa l Labor Relation s Commission , thos e o f th e Centra lBoar d o f Assessmen t Appeals , an d th e 5 type s o f case swhich fall withi n th e exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n o fth e Suprem e Cour t unde r th e 197 3 Constitutio n (Sec. 5[2],Art. X) a n d r e p r o d u c e d i n t h e 198 7 C o n s t i tu t i o n(Sec. 5[2J, Art. VIII), a s amplifie d in th e provision s o f th e

Judiciary Act specifie d by sai d Sec . 9 .

36

----------------------- Page 37-----------------------


Furthermore , i n view o f th e exclusionar y provisio nin sai d Sec . 9 , th e Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t appeare dt o hav e n o appellat e jurisdictio n ove r th e case s i n th e

specified paragraph s o f Sec . 1 7 o f th e Judiciar y Act , i.e. ,thos e involvin g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t a x o r j u r i s di c t i o n a lquestion s eve n i f th e sam e als o involv e question s o f factor mixe d question s o f fact an d law whic h wer e appealabl et o th e Cour t o f Appeal s unde r Sec . 1 7 o f th e Judiciar yAct , a s amended . I t i s believe d t h a t despit e th e presen tformulation o f sai d Sec . 9(3) o f B.P . Big . 129 , th e formerrule , vestin g th e Cour t o f Appeal s wit h appellat e juris -diction i n th e aforestate d case s wheneve r a factua l issu e

i s involved , shoul d stil l apply .

A s indicate d earlier , wit h th e amendment s introduce dby R.A . 7902 , th e disposition s o f th e Civi l Servic e Com -mission an d th e Centra l Boar d o f Assessmen t Appeal sar e now withi n th e exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th eCourt o f Appeals .

4 . Whil e t h e I n t e r m e d i a t e Appellat e Cour twa s

authorize d t o receiv e evidenc e o n factua l issue s o n appeal ,thi s evidentiar y hearin g contemplate s "incidenta l facts "which wer e no t touche d upo n o r fully hear d b y th e tria l

court , an d no t a n origina l an d ful l t r i a l o f th e mai nfactual issu e whic h properl y pertain s t o th e tria l cour t(Lingner & Fisher GMBH vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No.63557,Oct. 28, 1983). Thi s powe r t o conduc t ne w t ri a l s o rfurther proceeding s i s no t obligator y o n th e appellat ecourt an d i t ma y r e m a n d t h e cas e t o th e t r i al cour t


36/887

for t h a t purpos e (De la Cruz, etc. vs. IAC, et al., G.R.No. 72981, Jan. 29, 1988).

5 . Th e exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e Cour tof Appeal s provide d for in Sec . 9(3) o f B.P . Big . 129 overfinal order s o r ruling s o f quasi-judicia l instrumentalities ,board s or commission s refer s t o thos e whic h resulte d fromproceeding s wherei n th e administrativ e body involve dexercise d quasi-judicia l functions . Suc h quasi-judicial

37

----------------------- Page 38-----------------------


action or discretio n involve s th e investigatio n o f facts ,holdin g o f hearings , drawin g conclusion s therefro m a s abasi s for official action , an d exercisin g discretio n o f ajudicia l nature . Quasi-judicia l adjudicatio n require s adetermination o f rights , privilege s an d dutie s resultin gin a decision or orde r which applie s t o a specific situation .

Rule s an d regulation s o f genera l applicability issue d byth e administrativ e body t o implemen t it s purel y adminis -trativ e policie s an d functions , o r thos e which ar e merel yincident s o f it s inheren t administrativ e functions , ar enot include d i n th e appealabl e order s contemplate d i nsaid provision , unles s otherwis e specifically provide d byother law s governin g th e matter . Controversie s arisin gfrom suc h o r d e r s ar e w i t h i n t h e cognizanc e o ft h e

Regiona l Tria l Court s (Lupangco, et al. vs. CA, etal.,

G.R. No. 77372, April 29, 1988).

6 . I t wa s formerl y hel d t h a t th e 30-da y perio dt oa p p e a l t o th e I n t e r m e d i a t e Appellat e C o u r t from adecision o r fina l orde r o f th e Securitie s an d Exchang eCommission , p u r s u a n t t o it s rule s issue d consequen tt o Sec . 6 , P.D . 902-A , ha d no t bee n affecte d b y B.P.Big . 12 9 whic h provide s for a 15-da y a p p e a l perio dfrom decision s o f court s o f justice . Th e Securitie s andExchang e Commissio n i s not a court ; it i s an adminis -

trativ e agency . Repeal s b y implicatio n ar e no t favore d(Gimenez Stockbrokerage & Co., Inc. vs. SEC, etal.,

G.R. No. 68568, Dec. 26, 1984).

7 . Th e aforesai d doctrin e wa s take n int o accoun t b yth e Suprem e Cour t in an appea l from a decision o f th eInsuranc e Commission t o th e the n Intermediat e Appellat eCourt sinc e Sec . 416(7) o f th e Insuranc e Cod e (P.D. 612,as amended ) provide s for a 30-day perio d for appea l from


37/887

notic e o f a fina l order , ruling , or decisio n o f th e Com -mission . Th e Suprem e Cour t note d tha t i f th e provision sof R.A . 5434 wer e t o b e applied , p u r s u a n t t o Par . 22(c)o fth e Interi m Rule s whic h govern s appeal s from quasi -

38

----------------------- Page 39-----------------------


judicia l bodies , Sec . 2 thereo f provide s t h a t th e appea lshould b e filed withi n 1 5 day s from notic e o f th e ruling ,award , order , decision , o r judgmen t o r from th e dat e o fits las t publicatio n i f require d by law , or in cas e a motio nfor reconsideratio n i s filed withi n th e perio d for appeal ,the n withi n 1 0 day s from notic e or suc h publicatio n o fth e resolutio n denyin g th e motio n for reconsideration .Nevertheless , i n lin e wit h th e rulin g i n Gimenez, sinc eth e Insuranc e Commissio n i s likewis e a n administrativ ebody , appeal s from it s fina l orders , decisions , resolutions ,

or award s ma y no t necessaril y b e deeme d modifie d b ySec . 3 9 o f B. P . Big . 12 9 whic h l i m i t s t h e period t oappea l to 15 day s (Midland Ins. Corp. vs. IAC, etal.,

G.R. No. 71905, Aug. 13, 1986; se e als o Zenith Ins. Corp.vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No. 73336, Sept. 24, 1986; MalayanIns. Co., Inc. vs. Arnaldo, et al., G.R. No. 67835, Oct.12,

1987).

8 . Th e foregoin g doctrines , however , ar e n o longe rcontrollin g i n vie w o f Circula r No . 1-9 1 issue d b y th eSuprem e Cour t o n F e b r u a r y 27 , 199 1 whic h provide d

tha t appeal s from quasi-judicia l agencie s shal l b e take nt o th e Cour t o f Appeal s withi n 1 5 day s from notic e o r las tpublicatio n o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina l order . Thi swa smor e recentl y furthe r amplifie d b y Revise d Adminis -trativ e Circula r No . 1-95 whic h too k effect on J u n e

1 ,1995, an d ha s now bee n formulate d a s Rul e 4 3 o f thes erevise d Rules .

9 . I t wil l als o b e recalle d tha t appeal s from th edecisions , order s o r ruling s o f th e thre e constitutiona lcommissions , i.e. , Civi l Servic e Commission , Commissio non Election s an d Commissio n o n Audit , ma y b e brough t t oth e S u p r e m e Cour t o n certiorar i withi n 3 0 day s fromreceip t thereo f unles s otherwis e provide d b y th e Consti -tutio n or by law (Sec. 7, Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitutio


38/887

n).However , a s earlie r stated , Sec . 9 o f B.P . Big . 129 whichoriginally containe d th e sam e jurisdictiona l rul e wa ssubsequently amende d by R.A . 7902 , effectiv e Marc h 18 ,

39

----------------------- Page 40-----------------------


1995, t o provid e t h a t appeal s from th e Civi l Servic eCommission shoul d b e take n t o th e Cour t o f Appeals .

10. In th e landmar k decision in St. Martin FuneralHome vs. NLRC, et al. (G.R . No . 130866 , Sept . 16 , 1998) ,th e Suprem e Cour t clarifie d tha t eve r sinc e appeal s fromth e NLR C t o th e Suprem e Cour t wer e eliminated , th elegislative intendmen t i s tha t th e specia l civil action o fcertiorar i wa s an d stil l i s th e prope r vehicl e for judicia lreview o f decision s o f th e NLRC . All reference s in theamende d Sec . 9 o f B.P . Big . 129 t o suppose d appeal s fromth e NLR C t o th e Suprem e Cour t ar e interprete d an d

declared t o mea n an d refer t o petition s unde r Rul e 65 .Consequently , al l suc h petition s shoul d b e initially filedin th e Cour t o f Appeal s in stric t observanc e o f th e rul e onhierarch y o f courts . Th e concurren t origina l jurisdictio no f th e S u p r e m e Cour t ca n b e availe d o f onl yu n d e rcompelling an d exceptiona l circumstances .

11. O n a differen t rationale , th e S u p r e m eCour trule d in Fabian vs. Desierto, etc., et al. (G.R . No . 129742 ,Sept . 16 , 1998 ) t h a t a p p e a l s fro m t h e Offic e

o f t h eOmbudsman i n administrativ e disciplinar y case s shoul db e take n t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s vi a a verifie d petitio n for

review unde r Rul e 43 . Strikin g down a s unconstitutiona lSec . 27 , R.A . 677 0 ( O m b u d s m a n Ac t o f 1989 ) whicha u t h o r i z e d s u c h a p p e a l t o t h e S u p r e m e C o u rt "i na c c o r d a n c e w i t h Rul e 45, " i t w a s p o i n t e d out t h a tappeal s unde r Rul e 4 5 apply only t o judgment s or fina lorder s o f th e court s enumerate d unde r Sec . 1 thereof , an d

not t o thos e o f quasi-judicia l agencies . Furthermore , thatprovisio n o f R.A . 677 0 violate s th e proscriptio n in Sec . 30 ,Art . V I o f th e 198 7 Constitutio n agains t a law whic hincrease s th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e Suprem e Cour twithou t it s advic e an d consent .

II . Regiona l Tria l Courts :

"SEC . 19 . Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regiona


39/887

l

40

----------------------- Page 41-----------------------


Trial Court s shal l exercis e exclusiv e origina l jurisdiction :

(1) In al l civi l action s in whic h th e subjec t o f th e

litigation i s incapabl e o f pecuniar y estimation ;

(2) I n al l civi l action s whic h involv e th etitl e

to , o r possessio n of, rea l property , o r an y interest

therein , wher e th e assesse d valu e o f th e propert yinvolved exceed s Twent y thousan d peso s (P20.000.00 )or, for civi l action s in Metr o Manila , wher e suc h valu eexceed s Fift y t h o u s a n d peso s (P50.000.00 ) excep

taction s for forcibl e entr y int o an d unlawfu l detaine r

o f land s o r buildings , origina l jurisdictio n ove r whic hi s conferre d upo n t h e Metropolita n Tria l Courts ,Municipa l Tria l Court s an d Municipa l Circui t Tria lCourts ;

(3) I n al l action s i n a d m i r a l t y an d m ar i t i m e

jurisdictio n wher e th e deman d o r clai m exceed s On ehundre d thousan d peso s (F100.000.00 ) or , i n Metr oManila , wher e suc h deman d o r clai m exceed s Tw ohundre d thousan d peso s (P200.000.00) ;

(4) I n al l matter s o f probate , bot h testat e a

n d i n t e s t a t e , w h e r e t h e g r o s s v a l u e o f t h ee s t a t e

exceed s On e hundre d thousan d peso s (P 100,000.00)or, i n probat e m

Date post:	20-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	anonymous-k286lbxoth
View:	240 times
Download:	0 times

Regalado_Civil Procedure Compendium (1).txt

Documents