RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT Section 5 (5), Art.

VIII of the Constitution provides that the Supreme

PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY 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). 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. 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 example, it may take cognizance of a petition for certiorari directly filed before it.

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY 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. 2011$Bar$Examinations BERT$–
NOTES$in$REMEDIAL$LAW 17 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 and logically beyond the control of the latter.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION 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. 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.

DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION / CONTINUITY OF JURISDICTION 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 and retains that
jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case. 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.

Q.What are the kinds of jurisdiction? How does the Court acquire such jurisdiction?

A. (1) Jurisdiction over the plaintiff–Acquired by the filing of the complaint, petition, or Initiatory pleading before the
court by the plaintiff;

(2) Jurisdiction over the person of the Defendant Acquired by the voluntary appearance or submission by the defendant
to the court or by coercive process issued by the court to him, generally by the service of summons;

(3) Jurisdiction over the subject matter- conferred by law, an unlike jurisdiction over the parties, cannot be conferred to
the court by voluntary act or mere agreement of the parties;

Jurisdiction over the Issues-determined and conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or by their
agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation, or, at times by their implied consent as by the failure of a party to object to
evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in Sec.5, Rule10;

(4) Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or thing which is the subject matter of the litigation-acquired by the actual
or constructive seizure by the court of the thing in question, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment or
garnishment; or by provision of law which recognizes in the court the power to deal with the property or subject matter
within its territorial jurisdiction, as inland registration proceedings or suits involving civil status or real property in the
Philippines of a non-resident defendant.
ACTIONS

Action (synonymous with suit) is the legal and formal demand of one’s right from another person made and insisted
upon in a court of justice. The kinds of actions are ordinary and special, civil and criminal, ex contractu and ex delicto,
penal and remedial, real, personal, and mixed action, action in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem.

Ordinary civil action is one by which one party sues another, based on a cause of action, to enforce or protect a right, or
to prevent or redress a wrong, whereby the defendant has performed an act or omitted to do an act in violation of the
rights of the plaintiff. (Sec. 3a) The purpose is primarily compensatory.

Special civil action – actions which while governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, are subject to special rules
provided for Special Civil Actions

Criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law (Sec. 3[b], Rule
1). The purpose is primarily punishment.

CAUSE OF ACTION (Rule 2)

MEANING OF CAUSE OF ACTION A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party (defendant) violates the rights
of another (plaintiff). It is the delict or wrong by which the defendant violates the right or rights of the plaintiff. The
elements are: 1) A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; 2) An
obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and 3) Act or omission on the part
of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to
the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief

FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION The mere existence of a cause of action is not sufficient for a complaint to prosper.
Even if in reality the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant, the complaint may be dismissed if the
complaint or the pleading asserting the claim “states no cause of action”. This means that the cause of action must
unmistakably be stated or alleged in the complaint or that all the elements of the cause of action required by
substantive law must clearly appear from the mere reading of the complaint.

SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND ITS EFFECTS It is the act of instituting two or more suits for the same cause
of action (Sec. 4, Rule 2). It is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts and making each part the
subject of a separate complaint. In splitting a cause of action, the pleader divides a single cause of action, claim or
demand into two or more parts, brings a suit for one of such parts with the intent to reserve the rest for another
separate. This practice is NOT ALLOWED by the Rules because it breeds multiplicity of suits, clogs the court dockets,
leads to vexatious litigation, operates as an instrument of harassment, and generates unnecessary expenses to the
parties. The filing of the first may be pleaded in abatement of the other or others and a judgment upon the merits in any
one is available as a bar to, or a ground for dismissal of, the others The remedy of the defendant is to file a motion to
dismiss. Hence, if the first action is pending when the second action is filed, the latter may be dismissed based on litis
pendencia, there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. If a final judgment had been
rendered in the first action when the second action is filed, the latter may be dismissed based on res judicata, that the
cause of action is barred by prior judgment. As to which action should be dismissed would depend upon judicial
discretion and the prevailing circumstances of the case