TAKE HOME QUIZ

CIVIL PROCEDURE
Rules 1 – 71

I.      DIFFERENTIATE REMEDIAL LAW V SUBSTANTIVE LAW

Concept of Remedial Law

Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or
obtaining redress for their invasion

Substantive Law as Distinguished from Remedial Law

Substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights and duties regarding life, liberty or
property which when violated gives rise to a cause of action (Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil.
640).

Remedial law prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and obligations created by
substantive law by providing a procedural system for obtaining redress for the invasion of
rights and violations of duties and by prescribing rules as to how suits are filed, tried and
decided by the courts.

As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes and
prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished from remedial law which
provides or regulates the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be punished.

2.
Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court

Section 5 (5), Art. VIII of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have the
power to 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 speed 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.

Limitations of the Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court

(1)     The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases
(2)     They shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade

(3)     They shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights (Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII,
Constitution).
(4)     The power to admit attorneys to the Bar is not an arbitrary and despotic one, to be
exercised at the pleasure of the court, or from passion, prejudice or personal hostility, but is
the duty of the court to exercise and regulate it by a sound and judicial discretion. (Andres
vs. Cabrera, 127 SCRA 802)

3. EXPLAIN

A. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLE: 

The cases should be determined on the merits in order to give the parties full
opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on technicalities or
procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be served better. Rules
of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases
and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid application of rules, resulting in
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be
avoided. In fact, Section 6 of Rule 1 states that the Rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of ensuring the just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding (DEVELOPMENT BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES vs. FAMILY FOODS MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. G.R. No. 180458, July
30, 2009, Third Division, Nachura, J.).

                Corollary to this, it is settled that liberal construction of the rules may be

invoked in situations where there may be some excusable formal deficiency or error in
a pleading, provided that the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and
connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the rules.  After all, rules of
procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; they are used only to
help secure substantial justice (MEDISERV, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No.
161368, April 5, 2010, First Division, Villarama, Jr., J.)

                 Thus, in Republic vs. Jennifer Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September

12, 2008, 2nd Division, the Supreme Court agreed that there is substantial compliance
with Rule 108 (which requires the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any
interest which would be affected by the Petition shall be made parties to the
proceedings) when respondent furnished a copy of the petition to the local civil
registrar.  The High Court invoked Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court which states
that courts shall construe the Rules liberally to promote their objectives of securing to
the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of the matters brought before it.

B. Power of the Supreme Court to Amend and Suspend Procedural Rules

(1) When transcendental matters of life, liberty or state security are involved (Mindanao
Savings Loan Asso. vs. Vicenta Vda. De Flores, 469 SCRA 416).

(2) To relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure and the mere invocation of substantial justice is not a magical
incantation that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules (Cu-
Unjieng vs. CA, 479 SCRA 594)

(3) When compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it, the
Supreme Court may suspend procedural rules. What constitutes a good and sufficient
cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon courts (CIR vs. Migrant
Pagbilao Corp., GR No. 159593, 10/12/2006).

(4) Where substantial and important issues await resolution (CIR vs. Migrant Pagbilao
Corp., GR No. 159593, 12/12/2006).

(5) The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice and
procedure necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on points
of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of Court (Pinga vs. Heirs of Santiago,
GR 170354, 07/30/2006).

(6) Reasons that would warrant the suspension of the Rules: (a) the existence of special
or compelling circumstances (b) merits of the case (c) cause not entirely attributable to the
fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of rules (d) a lack of any
showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory (e) the other party will not
be unjustly prejudiced thereby (Sarmiento vs. Zatarain, GR 167471, 02/05/2007).

(7) The bare invocation of the interest of substantial justice is not a magic wand that will
automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules. The rules may be relaxed only
in exceptionally meritorious cases (Mapagay vs. People, GR No. 178984, 08/19/2009).

C. PH courts being both courts of law and equity

Nature of Philippine Courts

(1) Philippine courts are both courts of law and of equity. Hence, both legal and
equitable jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal (US vs. Tamparong, 31
Phil. 321).

(2) A court of law decides a case according to the promulgated statute. A court of
equity decides a case according to the common precepts of what is right and just
without inquiring into the terms of the statutes.

D. Principle of Judicial Hierarchy

(1)     This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction,
beginning from the lowest, on to the next highest, and ultimately to the highest. This
hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of the
proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established policy necessary to
avoid inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better devoted to
those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the
Court’s docket (Sec. 9[1], BP 129; Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII, Constitution of the Philippines).

(2)     A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts. The SC is a court of last resort.  It cannot and should not
be burdened with the task of deciding cases in the first instances. Its jurisdiction to issue
extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious
and important reasons exist.

(3)     Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be
filed with the RTC and those against the latter with the CA. a direct invocation of the SC’s
original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only where there are special and
important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.

(4)     The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if warranted by the nature
and importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future
litigations, or in cases of national interest and of serious implications. Under the principle of
liberal interpretations, for e

E. Doctrine of Non-interference or Doctrine of Judicial Stability

(1)     Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders.
Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession
issued by another RTC. The principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the
judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review.

(2)     This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law provides
for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the SC or CA, it means that
such body is co-equal with the RTC in terms of rand and stature, and logically beyond the
control of the latter.

F. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

(1)     Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and
services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.

(2)     The objective is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from
exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question
or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court(Omictin vs. CA,
GR 148004, January 22,  2007).
G. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

(1) Parties are generally precluded from immediately seeking the intervention of courts
when "the law provides for remedies against the action of an administrative board,
body, or officer." The practical purpose behind the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is to provide an orderly procedure by giving the
administrative agency an "opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly [and] to
prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts" (Aala v. Uy, EB, GR No.
202781, 01/10/2017).

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, like the doctrine on hierarchy of

courts, is not an iron-clad rule. It admits of several well-defined exceptions. Province of
Zamboanga del Norte vs. Court of Appeals, (396 Phil. 709 [2000]) has held that the
principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies may be dispensed in the following
instances:

(1) [W]hen there is a violation of due process;

(2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question;

(3) when the administrative action is patently illegal and amounts to lack or excess of
jurisdiction;

(4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned;

(5) when there is irreparable injury;

(6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of the
President, bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter;

(7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable;

(8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim;

(9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings;

(10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy;

(11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention; and
unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the complainant;

(12) when no administrative review is provided by law;

(13) where the rule of qualified political agency applies; and

(14) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot.

H. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction / continuity of jurisdiction

(1)     In view of the principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction
continues until the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. This
principle also means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent
happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from
attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that
jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.

(2)     Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction
over the case. What the court loses is the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment.
Even after the judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and
execute it (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96).

4. DISTINGUISH
A. Courts of Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

(1)     A court is one with original jurisdiction when actions or proceedings are originally filed
with it. A court is one with appellate jurisdiction when it has the power of review over the
decisions or orders of a lower court

(2)     MeTCs, MCTCs and MTCs are courts of original jurisdiction without appellate
jurisdiction. RTC is likewise a court of original jurisdiction with respect to cases originally
filed with it; and appellate court with respect to cases decided by MTCs within its territorial
jurisdiction. (Sec. 22, BP 129)

(3)     CA is primarily a court of appellate jurisdiction with competence to review judgments

of the RTCs and specified quasi-judicial agencies (Sec. 9[3], BP 129). It is also a court of
original jurisdiction with respect to cases filed before it involving issuance of writs of
certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and prohibition. CA is a court of
original and exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of RTCs (Sec. 9
[1],[2], BP 129).

(4)     The SC is fundamentally a court of appellate jurisdiction but it may also be a court of
original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, and in
cases involving petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII,
Constitution). The Supreme Court en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or
resolutions of a division of the Supreme Court may be appealed.

 
B. Courts of General and Special Jurisdiction

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

(2)     A court may also be considered ‘general’ if it has the competence to exercise
jurisdiction over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It is in the context that the RTC is
considered a court of general jurisdiction.

C. Constitutional and Statutory Courts

(1)     A constitutional court is one created by a direct Constitutional provision. Example of

this court is the SC, which owes its creation from the Constitution itself. Only the SC is a
Constitutional court.

(2)     A statutory court is one created by law other than the Constitution. All courts except
the SC are statutory courts. SB was not directly created by the Constitution but by law
pursuant to a constitutional mandate.

D. COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY

(1) Philippine courts are both courts of law and of equity. Hence, both legal and
equitable jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal (US vs. Tamparong, 31
Phil. 321).

(2) A court of law decides a case according to the promulgated statute. A court of
equity decides a case according to the common precepts of what is right and just
without inquiring into the terms of the statutes.

5. DEFINE

A. JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction – the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case.

Jurisdiction over the Parties

(1)     The manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the parties depends on
whether the party is the plaintiff or the defendant
(2)     Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by his filing of the complaint or petition. By
doing so, he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.

(3)     Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is obtained either by a valid service of
summons upon him or by his voluntary submission to the court’s authority.

(4)     The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction over the plaintiff and the defendant applies to
both ordinary and special civil actions like mandamus or unlawful detainer cases.

How jurisdiction over plaintiff is acquired

(1)     Acquired when the action is commenced by the filing of the complaint. This
presupposes payment of the docket fees

How jurisdiction over defendant is acquired

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in an action in personam; it is
not a prerequisite in an action in rem and quasi in rem. In an action in personam,
jurisdiction over the person is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case,
while in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided the latter has jurisdiction over
the res.

(1)     By voluntary appearance of the defendant, without service of summons or despite a

defective service of summons. The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be
equivalent to service of summons.

(2)     Instances when appearance of defendant is not tantamount to voluntary submission

to the jurisdiction of the court: (a) when defendant files the necessary pleading; (b) when
defendant files motion for reconsideration of the judgment by default; (c) when defendant
files a petition to set aside the judgment of default; (d) when the parties jointly submit a
compromise agreement for approval of the court; (e) when defendant files an answer to the
contempt charge; (f) when defendant files a petition for certiorari without questioning the
court’s jurisdiction over his person.

B. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

(1)     It is the power to deal with the general subject involved in the action, and means not
simply jurisdiction of the particular case then occupying the attention of the court but
jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the particular case belongs. It is the power or
authority to hear and determine cases to which the proceeding is question belongs.
(2)     When a complaint is filed in court, the basic questions that ipso facto are to be
immediately resolved by the court on its own: (a) What is the subject matter of their
complaint filed before the court? (b) Does the court have jurisdiction over the said subject
matter of the complaint before it? Answering these questions inevitably requires looking into
the applicable laws conferring jurisdiction.

C. Jurisdiction over the res or property in litigation

(1)     Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or the
property which is the subject of the action. Jurisdiction over the res may be acquired by the
court by placing the property of thing under its custody (custodia legis). Example:
attachment of property. It may also be acquired by the court through statutory authority
conferring upon it the power to deal with the property or thing within the court’s territorial
jurisdiction. Example: suits involving the status of the parties or suits involving the property
in the Philippines of non-resident defendants.
(2)     Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by the seizure of the thing under legal process
whereby it is brought into actual custody of law, or it may result from the institution of a
legal proceeding wherein the power of the court over the thing is recognized and made
effective (Banco Español Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291).

D. Jurisdiction over the issues

(1)     It is the power of the court to try and decide issues raised in the pleadings of the
parties.

(2)     An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed
down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision.
Where there is no disputed point, there is no issue.

(3)     Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined by the pleadings
of the parties. The pleadings present the issues to be tried and determine whether or not
the issues are of fact or law.

(4)     Jurisdiction over the issues may also be determined and conferred by stipulation of
the parties as when in the pre-trial, the parties enter into stipulations of facts and
documents or enter into agreement simplifying the issues of the case.

(5)     It may also be conferred by waiver or failure to object to the presentation of evidence
on a matter not raised in the pleadings. Here the parties try with their express or implied
consent issues not raised by the pleadings. The issues tried shall be treated in all respects
as if they had been raised in the pleadings.
6. WHAT IS JURISDICTION? VENUE?

> Power or authority given by the law to a court or tribunal to hear and determine certain
controversies

> Power of courts to hear and determine a controversy involving rights which are
demandable and enforceable

VENUE

-Particular country or geographical area in which a court with jurisdiction may hear
or determine a case

-Procedural

-In civil cases, may be waived or stipulated by the parties

JURISDICTION

-Power of the court to decide a case on the merits

-Place of trial

-Substantive
-Granted by law or by the constitution and cannot be waived or stipulated

7. Jurisdiction versus exercise of jurisdiction

(1) Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court to hear and decide cases, and to
execute judgments. The exercise of this power or authority is the exercise of jurisdiction.

(2) Jurisdiction of a court to hear and decide a controversy is called its jurisdiction, which

includes the power to determine whether or not it has the authority to hear and determine

the controversy presented, and the right to decide whether or not the statement of facts

that confer jurisdiction exists, as well as all other matters that arise in the case legitimately

before the court. Jurisdiction imports the power and authority to declare the law, to

expound or to apply the laws exclusive of law and of fact, the power to hear, determine,
and pronounce judgment on the issues before the court, and the power to inquire into the

facts, to apply the law, and to pronounce the judgment.

But judicial power is to be distinguished from jurisdiction in that the former cannot exist

without the latter and must of necessity be exercised within the scope of the latter, not

beyond it.

Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law because it is conferred only by law, as

distinguished from venue, which is a purely procedural matter. The conferring law may

be the Constitution, or the statute organizing the court or tribunal, or the special or general

statute defining the jurisdiction of an existing court or tribunal, but it must be in force at

the time of the commencement of the action. Jurisdiction cannot be presumed or implied,

but must appear clearly from the law or it will not be held to exist, but it may be conferred

on a court or tribunal by necessary implication as well as by express terms. It canot be

conferred by the agreement of the parties, by the court’s acquiescence, or by the

erroneous belief of the court that it had jurisdiction; or by the waiver of objections, or by

the silence of the parties (Salvador vs. Patricia, Inc., GR No. 195834, 11/09/2016)

8. How Jurisdiction is Conferred and Determined

(1) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law because it is conferred by law. This

jurisdiction which is a matter of substantive law should be construed to refer only to
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Jurisdiction over the parties, the issues and the
res are matters of procedure. The test of jurisdiction is whether the court has the
power to enter into the inquiry and not whether the decision is right or wrong.

(2) It is the duty of the court to consider the question of jurisdiction before it looks
at other matters involved in the case. If the court finds that it has jurisdiction, it is
the duty of the court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law and to
render a decision in a case properly submitted to it. It cannot decline to exercise its
jurisdiction. Failure to do so may be enforced by way of mandamus proceeding.

9. ENUMERATE
A. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

(1)     Exclusive original jurisdiction in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the CA, COMELEC, COA, CTA, Sandiganbayan, NLRC

(2)     Concurrent original jurisdiction

(a)     With Court of Appeals in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against
the RTC, CSC, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Quasi-judicial agencies, and writ of
kalikasan, all subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

(b)     With the CA and RTC in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against
lower courts and bodies and in petitions for quo warranto, and writs of habeas corpus, all
subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

(c)     With CA, RTC and Sandiganbayan for petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data

(d)     Concurrent original jurisdiction with the RTC in cases affecting ambassadors, public
ministers and consuls.

(3)     Appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review on certiorari (appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45) against CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC on pure questions of law; and in cases
involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or
regulation, legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or penalty, jurisdiction of a lower
court; and CTA in its decisions rendered en banc.

(4)     Exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by the Supreme Court:

(a)     When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;

(b)     When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(c)     When there is grave abuse of discretion;

(d)     When the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;

(e)     When the findings of facts are conflicting;

(f)      When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings
are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;

(g)     When the findings are contrary to the trial court;

(h)     When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they
are based;
(i)       When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondent;

(j)       When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record; ad

(k)     When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed
by the parties, which, if properly considered, could justify a different conclusion.

B. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals

(1)     Exclusive original jurisdiction in actions for the annulment of the judgments of the
RTC.

(2)     Concurrent original jurisdiction

(a)     With SC to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the RTC, CSC,
CBAA, other quasi-judicial agencies mentioned in Rule 43, and the NLRC, and writ of
kalikasan.

(b)     With the SC and RTC to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against
lower courts and bodies and writs of quo warranto, habeas corpus, whether or not in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction, and writ of continuing mandamus on environmental cases.

(c)     With SC, RTC and Sandiganbayan for petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data

(3)     Exclusive appellate jurisdiction

(a)     by way of ordinary appeal from the RTC and the Family Courts.

(b)     by way of petition for review from the RTC rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction.

(c)     by way of petition for review from the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of the
CSC, CBAA and other bodies mentioned in Rule 43 and of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases.

(d)     over decisions of MTCs in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its
delegated jurisdiction; this is because decisions of MTCs in these cases are appealable in the
same manner as decisions of RTCs.

 
C. Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (under RA 9282 and Rule 5, AM 05-11-
07-CTA)

(1)     Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal

(a)     Decisions of CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue

taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the
NIRC or other laws administered by BIR;

(b)     Inaction by CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of IR taxes, fees or

other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or
other laws administered by BIR, where the NIRC or other applicable law provides a specific
period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed an implied denial;

(c)     Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local taxes originally decided or

resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;

(d)     Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs (1) in cases involving liability for customs

duties, fees or other charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines,
forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or (2) other matters arising under the
Customs law or other laws, part of laws or special laws administered by BOC;

(e)     Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally
decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;

(f)      Decision of the secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically

for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the
government under Sec. 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;

(g)     Decisions of Secretary of Trade and Industry in the case of non-agricultural product,

commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product,
commodity or article, involving dumping duties and counterveiling duties under Secs. 301
and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under RA
8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.

(2)     Exclusive original jurisdiction

(a)     Over all criminal cases arising from violation of the NIRC of the TCC and other laws,
part of laws, or special laws administered by the BIR or the BOC where the principal amount
of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is less that P1M or where
there is no specified amount claimed (the offenses or penalties shall be tried by the regular
courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate);
(b)     In tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees,
charges and penalties where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges
and penalties claimed is less than P1M tried by the proper MTC, MeTC and RTC.

(3)     Exclusive appellate jurisdiction

(a)     In criminal offenses (1) over appeals from the judgment, resolutions or orders of the
RTC in tax cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction, and
(2) over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC in the
exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the MeTCs, MTCs,
and MCTCs in their respective jurisdiction;

(b)     In tax collection cases (1) over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of
the RTC in tax collection cases originally decided by them in their respective territorial
jurisdiction; and (2) over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the
RTC in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided
by the MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs in their respective jurisdiction.

D. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

(1)     Original jurisdiction in all cases involving

(a)     Violations of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

(b)     Violations of RA 1379 (Anti-Ill-Gotten Wealth Act)

(c)     Bribery (Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II, RPC) where one or more of the principal
accused are occupying the following positions in the government, whether in permanent,
acting or interim capacity at the time of the commission of the offense

1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (RA 6758)

2. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as G-27 and up under RA 6758

3. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution

4. Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions without prejudice to the

provisions of the Constitution

5. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under RA 6758
(d)     Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees mentioned
in Sec. 4(a) of RA 7975 as amended by RA 8249 in relation to their office

(e)     Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO Nos. 1, 2, 14-A
(Sec. 4, RA 8249)

(2)     Concurrent original jurisdiction with SC, CA and RTC for petitions for writs of habeas
data and amparo

E. Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts

(1)     Exclusive original jurisdiction

(a)     matters incapable of pecuniary estimation, such as rescission of contract

(b)     title to, possession of, or interest in, real property with assessed value exceeding
P20,000 (outside Metro Manila), or exceeds P50,000 in Metro Manila

(c)     probate proceedings where the gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000 outside
MM or exceeds P400,000 in MM

(d)     admiralty or maritime cases where the demand or claim exceeds P300,000 outside
MM or exceeds P400,000 in MM

(e)     other actions involving property valued at more than P300,000 outside MM or more
than P400,000 in MM

(f)      criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

(2)     Original exclusive jurisdiction over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions

(3)     Original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide intra-corporate controversies:

(a)     Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any acts, of the board of
directors, business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and
misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the
stockholders, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the SEC

(b)     Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and

among stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of them and the
corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members or
associates, respectively; and between such corporation , partnership or association and the
state insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity
(c)     Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or
managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations

(d)     Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in the state of

suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership of association
possesses sufficient property to cover all its debts but foresees the impossibility of meeting
them when they respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation, partnership of
association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under the management of a
Rehabilitation Receiver or Management Committee.

(4)     Concurrent and original jurisdiction

(a)     with the Supreme Court in actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls

(b)     with the SC and CA in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against
lower courts and bodies in petitions for quo warranto, habeas corpus, and writ of continuing
mandamus on environmental cases

(c)     with the SC, CA and Sandigabayan in petitions for writs of habeas data and amparo

(5)     Appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by lower courts in their respective territorial
jurisdictions

(6)     Special jurisdiction over JDRC, agrarian and urban land reform cases not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of quasi-judicial agencies when so designated by the SC.

F. Jurisdiction of Family Courts

Under RA 8369, shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over the following cases:

(1)     Petitions for guardianship, custody of children and habeas corpus involving children

(2)     Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof

(3)     Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those
relating to status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under
different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of
gains

(4)     Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment

(5)     Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of EO 209 (Family Code)
(6)     Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or neglected
children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children, the suspension,
termination or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under PD 603,
EO 56 (1986) and other related laws

(7)     Petitions for the constitution of the family home

(8)     In areas where there are no Family Courts, the above-enumerated cases shall be
adjudicated by the RTC (RA 8369)

G. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trail Courts/Municipal Trial Courts

(1)     Criminal cases

(a)     Exclusive original jurisdiction

1. Summary proceedings for violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within

their respective territorial jurisdiction, including traffic laws

2. offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of
the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties,
including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective
of the kind, nature, value or amount thereof; provided however, that in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction thereof (Sec. 2, RA 7691).

(2)     Civil actions

(a)     Exclusive original jurisdiction

1. civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of
provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate,
or amount the demand does not exceed P200,000 outside MM or does not exceed
P400,000 in MM, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses, and costs.

2. Summary proceedings of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, violation of rental law

3. title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed
value of the property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000 outside MM or does
not exceed P50,000 in MM

(3)     Special jurisdiction over petition for writ of habeas corpus and application for bail if
the RTC Judge in area is not available
(4)     Delegated jurisdiction to hear and decide cadastral and land registration cases where
there is no controversy provided the value of the lad to be ascertained by the claimant does
not exceed P100,000

Jurisdiction over small claims

(1)     MTCs, MeTCs and MCTCs shall have jurisdiction over actions for payment of money
where the value of the claim does not exceed P100,000 exclusive of interest and costs (Sec.
2, AM 08-8-7-SC, Oct. 27, 2009).

(2)     Actions covered are (a) purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by
the plaintiff is soley for payment or reimbursement of sum of money, and (b) the civil
aspect of criminal actions, either filed before the institution of the criminal action, or
reserved upon the filing of the criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule 111 (Sec. 4, AM 08-
8-7-SC). These claims may be:

(a)     For money owed under the contracts of lease, loan, services, sale, or mortgage;

(b)     For damages arising from fault or negligence, quasi-contract, or contract; and

(c)     The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving

a money claim pursuant to Sec. 417 of RA 7160 (LGC).

H. Jurisdiction of Shari’a Courts (PD 1083)

(1) Article 143 of the Muslim Code would reveal that Sharia courts have jurisdiction over
real actions when the parties are both Muslims. The fact that the Shari’a courts have
concurrent jurisdiction with the regular courts in cases of actions involving real property
means that jurisdiction may only be exercised by the said courts when the action involves
parties who are both Muslims. In cases where one of the parties is a non-Muslim, the
Shari’a Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over it. It would immediately divest the Shari’a
court jurisdiction over the subject matter (Villagracia vs. Fifth Shari’a District Court and
Mala, GR No. 188832, April 23, 2014).

(2) Shari’a courts have three levels: district, en banc, and appellate.

10.
ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

11.
What is a Court

(1)     It is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function of

which is the application of the laws to the controversies brought before it as well as the
public administration of justice.

(2)     It is a governmental body officially assembled under authority of law at the

appropriate time and place for the administration of justice through which the State
enforces its sovereign rights and powers (21 CJS 16).
(3)     It is a board or tribunal which decides a litigation or contest (Hidalgo v. Manglapus,
64 OG 3189).

Court distinguished from Judge

(1)     A court is a tribunal officially assembled under authority of law; a judge is simply an
officer of such tribunal;

(2)     A court is an organ of the government with a personality separate and distinct from
the person or judge who sits on it;

(3)     A court is a being in imagination comparable to a corporation, whereas a judge is a

physical person ;

(4)     A court may be considered an office; a judge is a public officer; and

(5)     The circumstances of the court are not affected by the circumstances that would
affect the judge.

12.
Classification of Philippine Courts

(1)     Regular courts engaged in the administration of justice are organized into four (4)
levels:

(a)     First Level (MTCs, MeTCs, MCTCs) – which try and decide (1) criminal actions
involving violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction and offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
years irrespective of the amount of fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or
other penalties, and (2) civil actions including ejectment, recovery of personal property with
a value of not more than P300,000 outside MM or does not exceed P400,000 in MM;

(b)     Second Level (RTCs, Family Courts) – courts of general jurisdiction; among the civil
actions assigned to them by law are those in which the subject of litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, or involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed
value of the property exceeds P20,000 outside MM or exceeds P50,000 in MM, except
actions for ejectment (forcible entry and unlawful detainer), or where the demand exclusive
of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and cost, or the
value of the personal property or controversy exceeds P300,000 outside MM or exceeds
P400,000 in MM. RTCs also exercise appellate jurisdiction, to review cases appealed from
courts of the first level;

(c)     Third Level (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan) – CA is an appellate court, reviewing

cases appealed to it from the RTC, on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law.
Appeals to it decided by the RTC in the exercise of original jurisdiction are a matter of right;
appeals with respect to cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
are a matter of discretion. Occasionally, CA may act as a trial court, as in actions praying for
the annulment of final and executor judgments of RTCs on the ground of extrinsic fraud
subsequently discovered, against which no other remedies lies.

Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over all criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt
practices act, and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees including
those in GOCCs in relation to their office. It also has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
final judgments, resolutions, or orders of RTCs whether in the exercise of their own original
or appellate jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases committed by public officers or
employees including those in GOCCs in relation to their office.

(d)     Fourth Level (Supreme Court)