Remedial Law 1 SUN 9:00AM-12:00PM TBA1 Atty. Obra: SEPTEMBER 27, 2020

SEPTEMBER 27, 2020
REMEDIAL LAW 1
SUN 9:00AM-12:00PM TBA1
ATTY. OBRA
City of Mnl v. Judge Cuerdo
CTA is impliedly conferred original jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari seeking to annul an
interlocutory order issued in the lower court.
Lomondot v. Balindong
Shari ‘ah Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction over Shari’ah District Courts.
Municipality of Tangkal v. Balindong
Shari’ah Disctrict Court has jurisdiction over personal and real actions where BOTH parties are
muslims.
LBP v. Dalauta
 
DARAB has primary jurisdiction but RTC, acting as SAC, cannot be deprived of original
jurisdiction. Thus, an action may still be filed with RTC even if the decision of DARAB has
become final and executory.
Regulus v. De la Cruz
Even if MTC and RTC lost its jurisdiction, by reason of equity, they may still order the deposits
to be withdrawn to ensure justice is served.
Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes
A letter received by court, even if not through an initiatory pleading, may commence an action
due to its epistolary jurisdiction. “Epistolary” means letters like the letter of St. Paul to the
Corinthians.
Lagman v. Pimentel III
The expanded jurisdiction of the courts refers to its power to determine GADALEJ.
Boston Equity v. CA
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant MAY be waived if not raised in a motion to
dismiss or as an affirmative defense unlike jurisdiction over subject matter which is non-
waivable.
VeroFran
SEPTEMBER 27, 2020
Hierarchy of Courts
The action must always be filed under the lowest court. Unless, there is an issue of
transcendental importance.
i.e. quo warranto of Sereno (Chief Justice of SC) must be filed directly to SC.
Proton v. Banque Nationale
Nonpayment of docket fees in full is not a ground for dismissal if there is no bad faith.
Citing Sunlife Insurance v. CA (?), where it was held that it was proper for the RTC to dismiss
the case for non-payment of the docket fee in full because it was shown that it was intended to
defraud the government.
VeroFran
SEPTEMBER 27, 2020
RULE OF COURT (Impt. Sections)
Rule 1. Sec. 6: CONSTRUCTION
GR: strict construction of the rules (Pilapil v. Heirs of Briones)
Exc: liberal construction ONLY if the strict compliance subverts/ defeats the purpose rather
than promote the purpose of. Securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition.
Rule 2: CAUSE OF ACTION
Sec. 1. Implies that in a civil action, it need not be based on a CoA.
Sec. 2. Definition of CoA
A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party (defendant) violates a right of another
(plaintiff).
Sec. 3. One CoA, one suit.
Remedy of defendant: move for the dismissal of the other suits.
Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action is a ground for its dismissal for the other suits if litis
pendentia and res judicata exists.
Sec. 5 Joinder of CoA is ENCOURAGED to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Conditions:
1. Comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
2. ONLY ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS; not spec pro or criminal;
3. If the CoA 1 and CoA 2 are cognizable by MTC and RTC respectively, the joinder may be
allowed in RTC.
4. In claims for recovery of money, the aggregate amount shall be the TEST OF
JURISDICTION.
Rule 3: PARTIES
Sec. 2. Real party in interest
Definition: the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the
party entitled to the avails of the suit.
Test:
1. Was it the right of this plaintiff which was violated by the defendant? YES
2. Was it the act of this defendant which violated the right of plaintiff? YES
Defendant and Plaintiff MUST BOTH BE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.
Sec. 6 Permissive Joinder of Parties
2 kinds:
1. Joinder as PLAINTIFFS in one complaint
1. Plaintiff A ———> CoA |
2. Plaintiff B ———> CoA | ———> one transaction
3. Plaintiff C ———> Coa |
VeroFran
SEPTEMBER 27, 2020
2. Joinder as DEFENDANTS in one complaint
1. Plaintiff X v. Defendant A |
2. Plaintiff X v. Defendant B | ———> one transaction = Plaintiff X v. Defendants A, B, C
3. Plaintiff X v. Defendant C |
*it is always the plaintiff who decides whether or not to join the parties.
VeroFran

Remedial Law 1 SUN 9:00AM-12:00PM TBA1 Atty. Obra: SEPTEMBER 27, 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedial Law 1 SUN 9:00AM-12:00PM TBA1 Atty. Obra: SEPTEMBER 27, 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedial Law 1 SUN 9:00AM-12:00PM TBA1 Atty. Obra: SEPTEMBER 27, 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEPTEMBER 27, 2020

City of Mnl v. Judge Cuerdo

Municipality of Tangkal v. Balindong

Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes

Lagman v. Pimentel III

Proton v. Banque Nationale

RULE OF COURT (Impt. Sections)

Rule 1. Sec. 6: CONSTRUCTION

GR: strict construction of the rules (Pilapil v. Heirs of Briones)

Rule 2: CAUSE OF ACTION

Sec. 1. Implies that in a civil action, it need not be based on a CoA.

Sec. 2. Definition of CoA

Sec. 3. One CoA, one suit.

Remedy of defendant: move for the dismissal of the other suits.

Sec. 5 Joinder of CoA is ENCOURAGED to avoid multiplicity of suits.

1. Comply with the rules on joinder of parties;

2. ONLY ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS; not spec pro or criminal;

Sec. 2. Real party in interest

Defendant and Plaintiﬀ MUST BOTH BE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.

Sec. 6 Permissive Joinder of Parties

1. Joinder as PLAINTIFFS in one complaint

1. Plaintiﬀ A ———> CoA |

2. Plaintiﬀ B ———> CoA | ———> one transaction

3. Plaintiﬀ C ———> Coa |

2. Joinder as DEFENDANTS in one complaint

2. Plaintiﬀ X v. Defendant B | ———> one transaction = Plaintiﬀ X v. Defendants A, B, C

You might also like