Document: Garcia vs. De Jesus, G.R. Nos. 88158 & 97108-09 (DSR-G.R. Nos. 88158 & 97108-09) | Section: Garcia vs. De Jesus, G.R. Nos. 88158 & 97108-09

1. REMEDIAL LAW; Jurisdiction; DEFINED AND CLASSIFICATION. — Jurisdiction or the legal power to hear and determine a cause or causes of action, must exist as a matter of law. It may be classified into original Jurisdiction and appellate Jurisdiction. Original Jurisdiction is the power of the Court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by law. Appellate Jurisdiction is the authority of a Court higher in rank to re-examine the final order or judgment of a lower Court which tried the case now elevated for judicial review (Remedial Law Compendium, Regalado, Florenz D., Fifth Revised Edition, Vol. 1, p. 3). Since the two jurisdictions are exclusive of each other, each must be expressly conferred by law. One does not flow from, nor is inferred from, the other.

2. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; Certiorari; AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WRIT INVOLVES THE EXERCISE OF ORIGINAL Jurisdiction; COMELEC ONLY WITH APPELLATE Jurisdiction. — In the Philippine setting, the authority to issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus involves the exercise of original Jurisdiction. Thus, such authority has always been expressly conferred, either by the Constitution or by law. What the Constitution granted the COMELEC was appellate Jurisdiction. The Constitution makes no mention of any power given the COMELEC to exercise original Jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus unlike in the case of the Supreme Court which was specifically conferred such authority (Art. VIII, Sec, 5[1]). The immutable doctrine being that Jurisdiction is fixed by law, the power to issue such Writs cannot be implied from the mere existence of appellate Jurisdiction. Just as implied repeal of statutes are frowned upon, so also should the grant of original Jurisdiction by mere implication to a quasi-judicial body tabooed. If appellate Jurisdiction has to be statutorily granted, how much more the original Jurisdiction to issue the prerogative Writs?

Document: Guerrero Estate Development Corporation vs Leviste (G.R. No. 253428) (CASE-AVQ439-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; “Acquisition of Jurisdiction” and “Exercise of Jurisdiction,” “Distinguished.”—It must be emphasized that “a court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over a particular case’s subject matter is different from incidents pertaining to the exercise of jurisdiction.” The Court in Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc. (Gonzales), 774 SCRA 242 (2015), differentiated these two matters as follows: Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law, whereas a court’s exercise of jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself, is governed by the Rules of Court or by the orders issued from time to time by the Court. In Lozada v. Bracewell, it was recently held that the matter of whether the RTC resolves an

36

issue in the exercise of its original jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.

Document: Department of Agrarian Reform vs Trinidad Valley Realty (G.R. No. 173386) (CASE-ASW359-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint and the allegations of the complaint.—It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint and the allegations of the complaint. Jurisdiction is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law and cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties. It cannot also be acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. It is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in character. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.

Document: Lim vs Gamosa (G.R. No. 193964) (CASE-ASS284-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Primary Jurisdiction; Doctrine of Prior Resort; Words and Phrases; Primary jurisdiction, also known as the doctrine of Prior Resort, is the power and authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon an administrative body to act upon a matter by virtue of its specific competence.—Primary jurisdiction, also known as the doctrine of Prior Resort, is the power and authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon an administrative body to act upon a matter by virtue of its specific competence. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction prevents the court from arrogating unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy which falls under the jurisdiction of a tribunal possessed with special competence. In one occasion, we have held that regular courts cannot or should not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal before the question is resolved by the administrative tribunal, 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, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the premises of the regulatory statute administered. The objective of

648

the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question arising in the proceeding before the court.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Primary jurisdiction does not necessarily denote exclusive jurisdiction.—Primary jurisdiction does not necessarily denote exclusive jurisdiction. It applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view. In some instances, the Constitution and statutes grant the administrative body primary jurisdiction, concurrent with either similarly authorized government agencies or the regular courts, such as the distinct kinds of jurisdiction bestowed by the Constitution and statutes on the Ombudsman.

Document: Lagundi v Bautista (G.R. No. 207269) (CASE-AVH628-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter; Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint or “the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong” is conferred by law, and not by mere consent of the parties.—Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint or “the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong” is conferred by law, and not by mere consent of the parties. Being conferred by law, the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, during trial or on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is one of the exceptional grounds when the court may dismiss a case at any time, if it appears from the plead479

ings or evidence on record that this ground exists. Moreso, a party challenging a court’s lack of jurisdiction is not estopped, where that party does not secure any advantage or the adverse party does not suffer any harm.

Same; Same; Same; Same; To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the material allegations of the complaint must be examined, along with the relief sought by the party, and the law in force at the commencement of the action.—To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the material allegations of the complaint must be examined, along with the relief sought by the party, and the law in force at the commencement of the action. Courts must apply the law on jurisdiction in relation to the allegations of ultimate facts in the complaint, regardless of whether the party is entitled to recover upon some or all of the claims asserted in the complaint.

Document: Significant Doctrines Regarding Venue (G. R. L49847,) (CASE-ARH874-rw) | Section: Document Body

Claim for damages against a bond in an alleged wrongful attachment must be prosecuted in the court where bond was filed. (Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation vs. Hostanosas, 78 SCRA 447).

Venue is not a jurisdictional matter. (Tantoco vs. Court of Appeals, 77 SCRA 225).

“Resides” in the rules on venue on personal actions means the place of abode, whether permanent or temporary, of the plaintiff or defendant as distinguished from “domicile” whichdenotes a fixed permanent residence. (Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Sarmiento, 75 SCRA 124).

It is a dogma of procedural law that venue, in inferior courts as well as in the courts of first instance, may be waived expressly or impliedly. (Ocampo vs. Domingo, 38 SCRA 134).

The laying of the venue of an action is not left to plaintiff’s caprice because the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court. (Clavecilla Radio System vs. Antillon, 19 SCRA 379).

Where venue has been properly laid and the court has erroneously dismissed the case, the order of dismissal should be set aside and the case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. (Claridades vs. Mercader, 17 SCRA 1).

Where venue has been properly laid, the court having legally acquired authority to hear and decide the case can not be divested of that authority by the intervenors. (Claridades vs. Mercader, 17 SCRA 1).

A venue, which was properly laid when the complaint was filed cannot, subsequently, become improper in consequence of issues later raised by any of the intervenors. (Claridades vs. Mercader, 17 SCRA 1).

Plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of the waiver of venue made by defendant corporations in another case “similar and identical” to the case at bar, since this is a different case and, moreover, they were not parties to the previous case. (Abao vs. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., 4 SCRA 119).

For purposes of determining proper venue in the Courts of First Instance, the words “residence” and “found” are synonymous terms, meaning “domicile” where the defendant is a resident of the Philippines. (Portillo vs. Reyes, 3 SCRA 311).

(b) Legal Pointers

When confronted with cases involving venue, the legal practitioner should constantly bear in mind the provisions of Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court because these articles constitute the basic law in any question or issue involving this subject matter.

§ 2.Specific Matters Involving Venue**

Document: Significant Doctrines Regarding Venue (G. R. L49847,) (CASE-ARH874-rw) | Section: Document Body

Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court prescribing the court where a decedent’s estate shall be settled, which is at the place of his residence or where the estate is located, relates to venue and not jurisdiction. (Fule vs. Malvar, 74 SCRA 189).

Under the rules of venue in civil actions, it is possible to file the same action in two Courts of First Instance simultaneously or one after the other. (Insular Veneer, Inc. vs. Plan, 73 SCRA 1).

The mere fact that the Secretary of Justice approved the transfer of one case to another court branch does not divest the court originally taking cognizance of the case of its jurisdiction or change of venue of action. (Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. vs. Gregorio Araneta, Inc., 72 SCRA 348).

Venue of action is not left to the caprice of plaintiff who must follow the rules laid down in the Rules of Court. (Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. vs. Gregorio Araneta, Inc., 72 SCRA 348).

Action to annul cancellations of award of house and lot is a personal action, not a real action. It may be brought in the court of the province where the petitioner resides. (Hernandez vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, 71 SCRA 290).

The term domicile is not exactly synonymous in legal contemplation with the term residence, for it is an established principle on Conflict of Laws that domicile refers to the relatively more permanent abode of a person while residence applies to a temporary stay of a person in a given place. (Koh vs. Court of Appeals, 70 SCRA 298).

Personal actions commenced and tried where defendant resides or may be found or where plaintiff resides, at the election of the plaintiff. (Koh vs. Court of Appeals, 70 SCRA 298).

It is fundamental in the law governing venue of actions (Rule 4 of the Rules of Court) that the situs for bringing real and personal civil actions are fixed by the rules to attain the greatest convenience possible to the parties litigants by taking into consideration the maximum assessibility of the courts of the courts of justice to them. (Koh vs. Court of Appeals, 70 SCRA 298).

In action for judicial authorization to sell conjugal property, residence of plaintiff and defendant is the matter of venue. (Eusebio vs. Eusebio, 70 SCRA 268).

Document: People vs. Montilla, G.R. Nos. 241911 & 242375 (DSR-G.R. Nos. 241911 & 242375) | Section: Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished

It is important now to distinguish between Jurisdiction and venue. Venue simply refers to the physical or geographical location where court proceedings will be held, while Jurisdiction is abstract and refers to the power or authority of a court to hear and decide a case. In Radiowealth Finance Company, Inc. v. Pineda, [26] the Court aptly distinguished:

Petitioner confuses the concepts of Jurisdiction and venue. In City of Lapu-Lapu v. Philippine Economic Zone Authority:

On the one hand, Jurisdiction is "the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong." Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law. Thus, an action may be filed only with the court or tribunal where the Constitution or a statute says it can be brought. Objections to Jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be brought at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. When a case is filed with a court which has no Jurisdiction over the action, the court shall Motu Proprio dismiss the case.

On the other hand, venue is "the place of trial or geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought." In civil cases, venue is a matter of procedural law. A party's objections to venue must be brought at the earliest opportunity either in a Motion to dismiss or in the answer; otherwise the objection shall be deemed waived. When the venue of a civil action is improperly laid, the court cannot Motu Proprio dismiss the case.

Wrong venue is merely a procedural infirmity, not a jurisdictional impediment. Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law, while venue is a matter of procedural law.

In the present case, when the RTC-Davao City, Branch 16 dismissed the criminal case against Lapuz, it did not overstep the Jurisdiction of the RTC-Cotabato City, Branch 15 because the Jurisdiction over the said criminal case remained with the RTC of the territory or province where the crime or any of its essential elements occurred. The change of venue from Cotabato City to Davao City was sanctioned by this Court. The RTC-Cotabato City, Branch 15 was divested of its Jurisdiction to decide the criminal case. This Jurisdiction, along with the exercise of the inherent powers of every court, was then transferred to the RTC-Davao City, Branch 16. Thus, when the RTC-Davao City, Branch 16 ordered the dismissal of the criminal charges based on lack of probable cause, it acted well within its Jurisdiction. cHECAS

Document: Search Warrant Jurisdiction of Courts (G.R. No. 109560,) (CASE-244 SCRA 353) | Section: § IV. Venue in Criminal Proceedings is an Element of Jurisdiction

That venue of criminal action is jurisdictional is furthermore shown by the nomenclature of the Rules of Court itself. Thus, while in civil actions improper laying of venue is a ground for dismissal, improper venue is not a ground for quashal of a criminal complaint or information—it is lack of jurisdiction which is ground therefor —Jurisdiction being inclusive of venue. This nomenclature had always been so even under the earlier rules.

Document: Significant Doctrines Regarding Venue (G. R. L49847,) (CASE-ARH874-rw) | Section: Document Body

1. Civil Cases

In any event, since We are not really dealing with jurisdiction but mainly with venue, considering both courts concerned do have jurisdiction over the causes of action of the parties herein against each other, the better rule in the event of conflict between two courts of concurrent jurisdiction as in the present case, is to allow the litigation to be tried and decided by the court which, under the circumstances obtaining in the controversy, would, in the mind of this Court, be in a better position to serve the interests of justice, considering the nature of the controversy, the comparative accessibility of the court to the parties, having in view their peculiar positions and capabilities, and other similar factors. Without in any manner casting doubt as to the capacity of the Court of First Instance to adjudicate properly cases involving domestic relations, it is easy to see that the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City which was created in order to give specialized attention to family problems, armed as it is with adequate and corresponding facilities not available to ordinary courts of first instance, would be able to attend to the matters here in dispute with a little more degree of expertise and experience, resulting in better service to the interests of justice. A reading of the causes of action alleged by the contending spouses and a consideration of their nature, cannot but convince Us that, since anyway, there is an available Domestic Court that can legally take cognizance of such family issues, it is better that said Domestic Court be the one chosen to settle the same as the facts and the law may warrant. (Carmen Roa-Magsaysay vs. Cesar P. Magsaysay and Hon. Rufino T. Veridiano II, G. R. L49847, July 17, 1980).

Petitioner’s preference to file its petition for annulment of reconstituted title in the court of first instance branch in Bacolod City, which is more accesible, rather than Himamaylan, is granted. (Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental vs. Mirasol, Jr., 75 SCRA 52).

The Supreme Court may decree, under its supervisory authority over courts, that venue was transferred from one trial court to another. (Fule vs. Malvar, 74 SCRA 189).

The term “resides” in Section 1, Rule 73 on settlement of a decedent’s estate refers to his actual residence as distinguished from his legal residence or domicile. (Fule vs. Malbar, 74 SCRA 189).

Document: Lim vs Gamosa (G.R. No. 193964) (CASE-ASS284-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Primary Jurisdiction; Doctrine of Prior Resort; Words and Phrases; Primary jurisdiction, also known as the doctrine of Prior Resort, is the power and authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon an administrative body to act upon a matter by virtue of its specific competence.—Primary jurisdiction, also known as the doctrine of Prior Resort, is the power and authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon an administrative body to act upon a matter by virtue of its specific competence. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction prevents the court from arrogating unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy which falls under the jurisdiction of a tribunal possessed with special competence. In one occasion, we have held that regular courts cannot or should not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal before the question is resolved by the administrative tribunal, 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, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the premises of the regulatory statute administered. The objective of

648

the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question arising in the proceeding before the court.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Primary jurisdiction does not necessarily denote exclusive jurisdiction.—Primary jurisdiction does not necessarily denote exclusive jurisdiction. It applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view. In some instances, the Constitution and statutes grant the administrative body primary jurisdiction, concurrent with either similarly authorized government agencies or the regular courts, such as the distinct kinds of jurisdiction bestowed by the Constitution and statutes on the Ombudsman.

Document: Honasan II vs. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department (G.R. Nos. 92319-20,) (CASE-427 SCRA 46) | Section: Syllabi

• Same; Same; Same; Same; Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; Words and Phrases; “Primary jurisdiction” usually refers to cases involving specialized disputes where the practice is to refer the same to an administrative agency of special competence in observance of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.—“Primary Jurisdiction” usually refers to cases involving specialized disputes where the practice is to refer the same to an administrative agency of special competence in observance of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. This Court has said that it cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal before the question is resolved by the administrative tribunal, 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, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the premises of the regulatory statute administered. The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction 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.” It applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.

• Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Where the concurrent authority is vested in both the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction should operate to restrain the Department of Justice from exercising its investigative authority if the case will likely be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.—Where the concurrent authority is vested in both the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction should operate to restrain the Department of Justice from exercising its investigative authority if the case will likely be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. In such cases, the Office of the Ombudsman should be the proper agency to conduct the preliminary investigation over such an offense, it being vested with the specialized competence and undoubted probity to conduct the investigation.

Document: Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction (CASE-ARP558-rw) | Section: Document Body

It is fundamental rule that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission, if supported by substantial evidence, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality, and are binding upon the Supreme Court, unless the petitioner is able to show that it had arbitrarily disregarded evidence before it or had misapprehended evidence to such an extent as to compel a contrary conclusion if such evidence had been properly appreciated (Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., Inc. vs. Bitanga, 362 SCRA 365).

The judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation. In the exercise of judicial power, the Supreme Court is allowed only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable or enforceable and may not annul an act of the political departments simply because the Court feels it unwise or impractical (Cawaling, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 368 SCRA 453).

...Page Edit Line Bottom

Document: Alferez vs Canencia (G.R. No. 244542) (CASE-AVF350-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law because it is conferred only by law, as distinguished from venue, which is a purely procedural matter.—In law, nothing is as elementary as the concept of jurisdiction, for the same is the foundation upon which the courts exercise their power of

324

adjudication, and without which, no rights or obligation could emanate from any decision or resolution. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. In Padlan v. Dinglasan, the Court held: Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. 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.

Document: Office of the Ombudsman vs Heirs of Margarita Ventura (G.R. No. 151800) (CASE-AUE562-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Same; Same; Same; Same; Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; Objective of the Doctrine.—The reason behind the doctrine of primary jurisdiction may also be applied here by analogy. The objective of said doctrine is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency—which has special knowledge, experience and tools to determine technical and intricate matters of fact, has determined some question, or a particular aspect of some question, arising in the proceeding before the court. This is not to say that the Ombudsman cannot acquire jurisdiction or take cognizance of a criminal complaint until after the administrative agency has decided on a particular issue that is also involved in the complaint before it. Rather, using the same reasoning behind the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, it is only prudent and practical for the Ombudsman to refrain from proceeding with the criminal action until after the DARAB, which is the administrative agency with special knowledge and experience over agrarian matters, has arrived at a final resolution on the issue of whether Edilberto Darang is indeed entitled under the law to be awarded the land in dispute. This would establish whether the benefits or advantages given to him by the public officials charged under the complaint, are truly unwarranted.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

Public Attorney’s Office for respondents.

PERALTA, J.:

This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying that the Decision [Footnote *: ] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated February 27, 2001, and the CA Resolution [Footnote *: ] dated December 11, 2001, be reversed and set aside.

The undisputed facts are as follows.

Document: Alferez vs Canencia (G.R. No. 244542) (CASE-AVF350-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law because it is conferred only by law, as distinguished from venue, which is a purely procedural matter.—In law, nothing is as elementary as the concept of jurisdiction, for the same is the foundation upon which the courts exercise their power of

324

adjudication, and without which, no rights or obligation could emanate from any decision or resolution. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. In Padlan v. Dinglasan, the Court held: Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. 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.

Document: Department of Agrarian Reform vs Trinidad Valley Realty (G.R. No. 173386) (CASE-ASW359-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint and the allegations of the complaint.—It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint and the allegations of the complaint. Jurisdiction is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law and cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties. It cannot also be acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. It is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in character. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.

Document: Lagundi v Bautista (G.R. No. 207269) (CASE-AVH628-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter; Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint or “the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong” is conferred by law, and not by mere consent of the parties.—Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint or “the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong” is conferred by law, and not by mere consent of the parties. Being conferred by law, the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, during trial or on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is one of the exceptional grounds when the court may dismiss a case at any time, if it appears from the plead479

ings or evidence on record that this ground exists. Moreso, a party challenging a court’s lack of jurisdiction is not estopped, where that party does not secure any advantage or the adverse party does not suffer any harm.

Same; Same; Same; Same; To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the material allegations of the complaint must be examined, along with the relief sought by the party, and the law in force at the commencement of the action.—To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the material allegations of the complaint must be examined, along with the relief sought by the party, and the law in force at the commencement of the action. Courts must apply the law on jurisdiction in relation to the allegations of ultimate facts in the complaint, regardless of whether the party is entitled to recover upon some or all of the claims asserted in the complaint.

Document: Colmenares v Energy Regulatory Commission ERC (G.R. No. 210245) (CASE-AVJ366-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; “Jurisdiction” and “Justiciability,” Distinguished.—Jurisdiction of this Court should be distinguished from justiciability of the issues raised. Jurisdiction refers to the constitutional or statutory competence for the court to hear, decide, and enforce specific cases. Absent this competence, any act of a court will be legal nullity, void and thus, unenforceable. The bases of a court’s jurisdiction can be the subject matter, the type of action, the parties, or the procedure or remedy involved. Jurisdiction over the responding party needs to be acquired upon service of coercive

392

process by the court. Justiciability, on the other hand, results from the exercise of jurisdiction. For policy reasons, a court with jurisdiction may decline to hear and decide a case. These reasons may be derived from its reading of the role of courts in our constitutional order — such as the doctrine of justiciability of constitutional issues. Others may refer to judicial policies, such as the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies or the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Other matters of justiciability refer to procedural devices to make the administration of justice more efficient. This includes the doctrine of respect for the hierarchy of courts when several courts have original but concurrent jurisdiction. While jurisdiction is imperative, justiciability is not. In the same manner that judicial policy has been established, precedents which sketch the exceptions exist.

Same; Same; Same; The grant of original jurisdiction cannot be removed by law or by any rule of procedure.—The grant of original jurisdiction cannot be removed by law or by any rule of procedure. Since these are petitions for certiorari and/or prohibition, this Court certainly has jurisdiction. Despite having jurisdiction over the cases, however, it is still necessary for the Court to answer whether the doctrines of exhaustion of administrative remedies and primary jurisdiction apply. To this, the Court answers in the negative.

Document: People vs. Mariano (CASE-71 SCRA 600) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

• Courts; Jurisdiction; Definition of.—“Jurisdiction” is the basic foundation of judicial proceedings. The word “jurisdiction” is derived from two Latin words “juris” and “dico”—“I speak by the law” which means fundamentally the power or capacity given by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain, hear, and determine certain controversies. Bouvier’s own definition of the term “jurisdiction” has found judicial acceptance, to wit: “Jurisdiction is the right of a Judge to pronounce a sentence of the law in a case or issue before him, acquired through due process of law;” it is “the authority by which judicial officers take cognizance of and decide cases.”

• Same; Same; Authority to hear and determine a cause.—“Jurisdiction” has been defined simply as the authority to hear and determine a cause—the right to act in a case. “Jurisdiction” has also been aptly described as the right to put the wheels of justice in motion and to proceed to the final determination of a cause upon the pleadings and evidence.

• Same; Same; Criminal jurisdiction; Definition of.—“Criminal Jurisdiction” is necessarily the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it.

• Same; Same; Jurisdiction of courts conferred by Constitutior and law.—The conferment of jurisdiction upon courts or judicial tribunals is derived exclusively from the constitution and statutes of the forum. Thus, the question of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance over the case filed before it is to be resolved on the basis of the law or statute providing for or defining its jurisdiction.

• Same; Same; Jurisdiction of court determined by law in force at time of commencement of action.—The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action.

• Same; Same; Rule that court which first takes cognizance of case acquires jurisdiction thereof exclusive of the other applies only where both courts have concurrent jurisdiction over particular case charged; Case at bar.—The situation does not involve two tribunals vested with concurrent jurisdiction over a particular crime so as to apply the rule that the court or tribunal which first takes cognizance of the case acquires jurisdiction thereof exclusive of the other.

Document: Rules of Court in the Philippines Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines Effective January 1, 1964 (RULE-373) | Section: Sec. 4. Waiver of objection.*— When improper venue is not objected to in a motion to dismiss it is deemed waived.

Sec. 4. Waiver of objection.— When improper venue is not objected to in a motion to dismiss it is deemed waived.

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 4. Verified application and bond for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.** — A preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be granted only when

SEC. 6. *Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of, injunction or restraining order. —  The application for injunction or restraining order may be denied, upon a showing of its insufficiency. The injunction or restraining order may also be denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved, on other grounds upon affidavits of the party or person enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant also by affidavits. It may further be denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved, if it appears after hearing that although the applicant is entitled to the injunction or restraining order, the issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be, would cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined while the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer, and the former files a bond in an amount fixed by the court conditioned that he will pay all damages which the applicant may suffer by the denial or the dissolution of the injunction or restraining order. If it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction or restraining order granted is too great, it may be modified.  (6a)

SEC. 7. *Service of copies of bonds; effect of disapproval of same.—  The party filing a bond in accordance with the provisions of this Rule shall forthwith serve a copy of such bond on the other party, who may except to the sufficiency of the bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon. If the applicant's bond is found to be insufficient in amount, or if the surety or sureties thereon fail to justify, and a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties approved after justification is not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be dissolved. If the bond of the adverse party is found to be insufficient in amount, or the surety or sureties thereon fail to justify a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties approved after justification is not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be granted or restored, as the case may be.  (8a)

SEC. 8. *Judgment to include damages against party and sureties—  At the trial, the amount of damages to be awarded to either party, upon the bond of the adverse party, shall be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under the same procedure prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57.  (9a)

Document: Pre-trial under the Rules of Court of 1964 (CASE-26 SCRA 5) | Section: PRE-TRIAL UNDER THE RULES OF COURT OF 1964

"Both lawyers were counsel for plaintiffs herein. In the absence of his associate, Atty, Villamor could have and should have appeared, therefore, on behalf of the plaintiffs. at the pre-trial." (Arcuino v. Aparis, supra at 410-411.)

In Home Insurance Co. v. United States Lines, supra, the Supreme Court held that the trial court committed no reversible error in dismissing the action for the reason that only the plaintiffs' counsel (and not the plaintiffs' representative also) appeared at the pre-trial. The purpose of the Revised Rules of Court in compelling the parties to appear personally before the court for pretrial is to reach, if possible, a compromise. (Home Insurance Co. v. United States Lines Co., supra).

Thus, the Supreme Court sustained the dismissal of a suit by the trial court f or non-appearance of the plaintiff f in the pre-trial despite the manifestation of the plaintiff's counsel that he had verbal authority to compromise the case. Said the Supreme Court: "True, said counsel asserted that he had verbal authority to compromise the case. The Rules, however, require, for attorneys to compromise the litigation of their clients, a 'special authority' (Section 23, Rule 138, Rules of Court). And while the same does not state that the special authority be in writing, the court has every reason to expect that, if not in writing, the same be duly established by evidence other than the self-ser ving assertion of counsel himself that such authority was verbally given to him x x x. For, authority to compromise cannot lightly be presumed. And if, with good reason, the judge is not satisfied that said authority exists, as in this case, dismissal of the suit for non-appearance of plaintiff in pre-trial is sanctioned by the Rules." (Home Insurance Co. v. United States Lines Co., supra, at 866.)

Document: Rules of Court in the Philippines Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines Effective January 1, 1964 (RULE-373) | Section: Rule 21 SUSPENSION OF ACTIONS

Rule 21 SUSPENSION OF ACTIONS

Section 1. Grounds for suspension.— Any party to an action may, at any time before the date set for pre-trial, file a petition with the court for the suspension of the proceedings with a view of securing a possible compromise if (1) it appears that any one or both of the parties have expressed at any time willingness to discuss a possible compromise, or (2) it is alleged under oath that one of the parties, before the commencement of the action or proceeding, offered to discuss a possible compromise but the other party had refused the offer.

Sec. 2. When action shall not be suspended.— No suspension shall be granted for the purpose of discussing compromise upon any of the following questions:(a) The civil status of persons;(b) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;(c) Any ground for legal separation;(d) Future support;(e) The jurisdiction of courts;(f)Future legitime;(g) Habeas corpus and election cases.

Sec. 3. Proceeding upon suspension.— Upon the filing of such petition the case shall be placed in the pre-trial calendar.  At the pre-trial proceedings the court shall endeavor to persuade the litigants to agree upon some fair compromise, or appoint arbitrators to help in the settlement of the case. If the importance or difficulty of the matter justifies it, the court may refer the controversy to a board of arbitrators appointed as provided in Republic Act No. 876.

Sec. 4. Period of suspension.— No suspension for a period longer than sixty (60) days from notice of the order of suspension shall be allowed except upon justifiable grounds.   If no compromise is arrived at within the period provided, the case shall continue as if no suspension of the proceedings had taken place.

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction.**— A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established

SEC. 3. *Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction.—  A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:

(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;

(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or

(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.  (3a)

Document: Significant Applications of the Doctrine of Estoppel (CASE-43 SCRA 146) | Section: A. *On the Question of Jurisdiction

A. On the Question of Jurisdiction

The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law, and as the lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case, the objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. However, it has been held that a party can not invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. Correspondingly, an appellant who files his brief and submits h is case to the Court of Appeals for decision, without questioning the latter’s jurisdiction until decision is rendered therein, should be considered as having voluntarily waived so much of his claim as would exceed the jurisdiction of said Appellate Court; for the reason that a contrary rule would encourage the undesirable practice of appellants submittin g their cases for decision to the Court of Appeals in expectation of favorable judgment, but with intent of attacking its jurisdiction should the decision be unfavorable. It has been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the court’s jurisdiction. It is well settled that parties to a judicial proceeding may not, on appeal, adopt a theory inconsistent with that which they sustained in the lower court.”

The operation of the principle of estoppel on the question of jurisdiction seemingly depends upon whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same “must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by the consent of the parties or by estoppel.” However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position—that the lower court had jurisdiction. In that case, the principle of estoppel applies and the rule that jurisdiction, is conferred by law, and does not depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon.

Document: Equitable Estoppel Law Explained (CASE-AUL175-rw) | Section: Document Body

• is a defensive doctrine preventing one party from taking unfair advantage of another when, through false language or conduct, the person to be estopped has induced another person to act in a certain way, which resulted in the other person being injured in some way. [Footnote *: ]

• is a collective name given to a group of legal doctrines in common law legal systems whereby a person is prevented from making assertions that are contradictory to his or her prior position on certain matters before the court — the person is said to be “estopped.” Estoppel may operate by way of preventing someone from asserting a particular fact in court, or exercising a certain right, or from bringing a particular claim. [Footnote *: ]

- may arise, however, even where there is no intention on the part of the person estopped to relin655

quish any existing right and frequently carries the implication of fraud. It involves the conduct of both parties.

• Reliance-based estoppel (at English law) include: [Footnote *: ]

• by representation of fact, where one person asserts the truth of a set of facts to another;

• promissory estoppel, where one person makes a promise to another, but there is no enforceable contract; and

• proprietary estoppel, where the parties are litigating the title to land.

A representation can be made by words or conduct. Although the representation must be clear and unambiguous, a representation can be inferred from silence where there is a duty to speak or from negligence where a duty of care has arisen. Under English law, estoppel by representation of fact usually acts as a defence, though it may act in support of a cause of action or counterclaim. (Underlining supplied)

•Proprietary estoppel– in English law, proprietary estoppelis distinct from promissory estoppel. Proprietary estoppel is not a concept in American law, but a similar result is often reached under the general doctrine of promissory estoppel. Traditionally, proprietary estoppel, arose in relation to rights to use the land of the owner, and possibly in connection with disputed transfers of ownership. Although proprietary estoppel was only traditionally available in disputes affecting title to real property, it has now gained limited acceptance in other areas of law. Proprietary estoppel is closely related to the doctrine of constructive trust. (Underlining supplied)

656

Document: Equitable Estoppel Law Explained (CASE-AUL175-rw) | Section: Document Body

A party may be estopped to insist upon a claim, assert an objection, or take a position which is inconsistent with an admission which he had previously made and in reliance upon which the other party has changed his position.

F. Silence in Inaction

This is sometimes referred to as estoppel by “standing by” or “laches.” Mere innocent silence will not work an estoppel. There must also be some element of turpitude or negligence connected with the silence by which another is misled to his injury. But one who invokes this doctrine of estoppel must

658

show not only unjustified inaction but also some unfair injury would result to him unless the action is held barred.

Estoppel by acquiescence is closely related to estoppel by silence. In the former, a person is prevented from maintaining a position inconsistent with one in which he has acquiesced. [Footnote *: ]

Nature of Laches

Laches is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.

Elements of Laches

1. Conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation complained of;

2. Delay in asserting complainant’s rights after he had knowledge of the defendant’s conduct and after he has had an opportunity to sue;

3. Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit;

4. Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant.

659

§ IV. Kinds of Estoppel

A. Technical Estoppels

1. Estoppel by record – the preclusion to deny the truth of matters set forth in a record, whether judicial or legislative, and also to deny the facts adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Example: The conclusiveness of a judgment on the parties to a case.

1. Estoppel by deed – a bar which precludes one party to a deed and his privies from asserting as against the other party and his privies any right or title in derogation of the deed, or from denying the truth of any material facts asserted in it; a written instrument is necessary for there to be estoppel by deed.

Some Doctrines

1. If the deed or instrument is null and void because of the contract, there is no estoppel;

Document: Significant Applications of the Doctrine of Estoppel (CASE-43 SCRA 146) | Section: A. *On the Question of Jurisdiction

In its application of the foregoing principle in the case of People vs. Acierto, where accused in its appeal to the Supreme Court interposed double jeopardy and lack of jurisdiction of the trial court on account of his having been convicted by a U.S. Court Martial for the same offense, although he was subsequently acquitted by the Commanding General who reversed the Court Martial’s decision on the basis of accused’s claim of lack of jurisdiction of said court, the Supreme Court declared th at a party will not be allowed to make a mockery of justice by taking inconsistent positions which would result in brazen deception. Similarly, in the case of People vs. Casiano, where accused interposed double jeopardy against an appeal by the prosecution from the lower court’s dismissal of the charges against him on a previous motion of said accused alleging lack of jurisdiction of the trial court, the Supreme Court rejected the plea of double jeopardy against the prosecution’s appeal, because the plea of double jeopardy necessitates an assertion that the lower court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the case which is exactly the opposite of the theory sustained by the accused in filing a motion to dismiss the charges against him. Correspondingly, the Supreme Court declared that the elementary principle of fair dealing and good faith demand, accordingly, that accused be estopped from telling the opposite stand, in order to pave the way for the plea of double jeopardy, it is trifling with the courts, contrary to the principles of right dealing and good faith, for an accused to tell one court that it lacks authority to try him and, after he has succeeded in his effort, to tell the court to which he has been turned over that the first has committed an error in yielding to his plea.

Document: Significant Applications of the Doctrine of Estoppel (CASE-43 SCRA 146) | Section: I. *Concept and Characteristics of Estoppel

I. Concept and Characteristics of Estoppel

Estoppel is a concept derived from A merican law that aims bring out justice between parties, through the operation of the principle that an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and can not be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. In other words, it precludes a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officials or by his own deed or representation, either expressed or implied. Moreover, estoppel concludes the truth in order to prevent fraud or falsehood, and imposes silence on a party only when in conscience and honesty he should not be allowed to speak.

The principle of estoppel expressed in statutory form for the first time in the New Civil Code is not really an innovation. It has its origin in equity and, being based on moral and natural justice, finds applicability whatever and whenever the special circumstances of a case so demands. In fact it has been applied by the Supreme Court in the case of Llacer vs. Muñoz, et al., (12 Phil. 328) as long ago as 1908.

Estoppel has been characterized as harsh or odious, and not favored in law. W hen misapplied, estoppel becomes a most effective weapon to accomplish an injustice, inasmuch as it shuts a man’s mouth from speaking the truth and debars the truth in a particular case. For this reason, it can not be sustained by mere argument or doubtful inference but must be clearly proved in all its essential elements by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. No party should be precluded from making out his case according to its truth unless by force of some positive principle of law.

Document: Department of Agrarian Reform vs Trinidad Valley Realty (G.R. No. 173386) (CASE-ASW359-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint and the allegations of the complaint.—It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint and the allegations of the complaint. Jurisdiction is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law and cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties. It cannot also be acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. It is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in character. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.

Document: Reburiano vs De Vera (G.R. No. 243896) (CASE-AUV747-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Courts; Jurisdiction; The courts have ample authority to rule on matters not raised by the parties in their pleadings if such issues are indispensable or necessary to the just and final resolution of the pleaded issues.—As a rule, a judgment of a court upon a subject within its general jurisdiction, which is not before it by any statement or claim of the parties, and is foreign to the issues submitted for its determination, is a nullity. No error which was not assigned and argued may be considered unless such error is closely related to or dependent on an assigned error or it affects the jurisdiction over the subject matter on the validity of the judgment. We have settled that the courts have ample authority to rule on matters not

351

raised by the parties in their pleadings if such issues are indispensable or necessary to the just and final resolution of the pleaded issues.

Document: Lagundi v Bautista (G.R. No. 207269) (CASE-AVH628-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter; Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint or “the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong” is conferred by law, and not by mere consent of the parties.—Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint or “the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong” is conferred by law, and not by mere consent of the parties. Being conferred by law, the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, during trial or on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is one of the exceptional grounds when the court may dismiss a case at any time, if it appears from the plead479

ings or evidence on record that this ground exists. Moreso, a party challenging a court’s lack of jurisdiction is not estopped, where that party does not secure any advantage or the adverse party does not suffer any harm.

Same; Same; Same; Same; To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the material allegations of the complaint must be examined, along with the relief sought by the party, and the law in force at the commencement of the action.—To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the material allegations of the complaint must be examined, along with the relief sought by the party, and the law in force at the commencement of the action. Courts must apply the law on jurisdiction in relation to the allegations of ultimate facts in the complaint, regardless of whether the party is entitled to recover upon some or all of the claims asserted in the complaint.

Document: Lim vs. Pacquing (G.R. No. 16477) (CASE-236 SCRA 211) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

• Remedial Law; Courts; Jurisdiction; Fact that the decision is erroneous does not divest the court that rendered it of the jurisdiction conferred by law to try the case.—Jurisdiction should be distinguished from the exercise thereof (Lamagan v. De la Cruz, 40 SCRA 101 [1971]). The authority to decide a case at all and not the decision rendered therein, is what makes up jurisdiction. The fact that the decision is erroneous does not divest the court that rendered it of the jurisdiction conferred by law to try the case.

• Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction does not depend upon the regularity of the exercise by the court of its power.—Since jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a particular case, or the jurisdiction over the subject matter, it does not depend upon the regularity of the exercise by the court of its power.

• Same; Same; Same; The Regional Trial Court has the competence to hear and decide Civil Case No. 88-45660.—In the case at bench, there is no question that the Regional Trial Court has the competence to hear and decide Civil Case No. 88-45660, a special civil action for mandamus under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. There is also no quarrel that said court has jurisdiction over an action for specific performance under Section 19(1) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1990 (Lapitan v. Scandia, 24 SCRA 479 [1968]). Assuming arguendo that the Regional Trial Court did not have jurisdiction over the said civil case, the principle of estoppel will operate to bar petitioners from raising the question of jurisdiction for the first time in the instant case.

• Same; Same; Same; Having jurisdiction over the civil case, whatever error may be attributed to the trial court, is simply one of judgment, not of jurisdiction.—Having jurisdiction over the civil case, whatever error may be attributed to the trial court, is simply one of judgment, not of jurisdiction. An error of judgment cannot be corrected by certiorari but by appeal.

Document: Alferez vs Canencia (G.R. No. 244542) (CASE-AVF350-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law because it is conferred only by law, as distinguished from venue, which is a purely procedural matter.—In law, nothing is as elementary as the concept of jurisdiction, for the same is the foundation upon which the courts exercise their power of

324

adjudication, and without which, no rights or obligation could emanate from any decision or resolution. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. In Padlan v. Dinglasan, the Court held: Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. 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.

Document: Garcia vs. De Jesus, G.R. Nos. 88158 & 97108-09 (DSR-G.R. Nos. 88158 & 97108-09) | Section: Garcia vs. De Jesus, G.R. Nos. 88158 & 97108-09

1. REMEDIAL LAW; Jurisdiction; DEFINED AND CLASSIFICATION. — Jurisdiction or the legal power to hear and determine a cause or causes of action, must exist as a matter of law. It may be classified into original Jurisdiction and appellate Jurisdiction. Original Jurisdiction is the power of the Court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by law. Appellate Jurisdiction is the authority of a Court higher in rank to re-examine the final order or judgment of a lower Court which tried the case now elevated for judicial review (Remedial Law Compendium, Regalado, Florenz D., Fifth Revised Edition, Vol. 1, p. 3). Since the two jurisdictions are exclusive of each other, each must be expressly conferred by law. One does not flow from, nor is inferred from, the other.

2. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; Certiorari; AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WRIT INVOLVES THE EXERCISE OF ORIGINAL Jurisdiction; COMELEC ONLY WITH APPELLATE Jurisdiction. — In the Philippine setting, the authority to issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus involves the exercise of original Jurisdiction. Thus, such authority has always been expressly conferred, either by the Constitution or by law. What the Constitution granted the COMELEC was appellate Jurisdiction. The Constitution makes no mention of any power given the COMELEC to exercise original Jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus unlike in the case of the Supreme Court which was specifically conferred such authority (Art. VIII, Sec, 5[1]). The immutable doctrine being that Jurisdiction is fixed by law, the power to issue such Writs cannot be implied from the mere existence of appellate Jurisdiction. Just as implied repeal of statutes are frowned upon, so also should the grant of original Jurisdiction by mere implication to a quasi-judicial body tabooed. If appellate Jurisdiction has to be statutorily granted, how much more the original Jurisdiction to issue the prerogative Writs?

Document: Guerrero Estate Development Corporation vs Leviste (G.R. No. 253428) (CASE-AVQ439-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; “Acquisition of Jurisdiction” and “Exercise of Jurisdiction,” “Distinguished.”—It must be emphasized that “a court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over a particular case’s subject matter is different from incidents pertaining to the exercise of jurisdiction.” The Court in Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc. (Gonzales), 774 SCRA 242 (2015), differentiated these two matters as follows: Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law, whereas a court’s exercise of jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself, is governed by the Rules of Court or by the orders issued from time to time by the Court. In Lozada v. Bracewell, it was recently held that the matter of whether the RTC resolves an

36

issue in the exercise of its original jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.

Document: Department of Agrarian Reform vs Trinidad Valley Realty (G.R. No. 173386) (CASE-ASW359-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint and the allegations of the complaint.—It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint and the allegations of the complaint. Jurisdiction is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law and cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties. It cannot also be acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. It is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in character. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.

Document: Judicial Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Persons or Entities (G.R. Nos. 121576-78) (CASE-333 SCRA 561) | Section: § 4. Assumption of Jurisdiction

§ 4. Assumption of Jurisdiction

A court may choose to assume jurisdiction over a conflicts problem and apply the law of the forum or foreign law. However, since the basic law is the law of the forum, it should be applied whenever there is a good reason to do so.

The presence of any one of the following factors would justify the application of internal law:

1. 1) A specific law of the forum decrees that internal law should apply;
2. 2) The proper foreign law was not properly pleaded and proved; or
3. 3) The case falls under any of the exceptions to the application of foreign law.

Forum law decrees application of internal law where the case falls under the exception to the rule of comity. Article 16 of the Civil Code provides that real and personal property subject to the law of the country where these are situated. Another exception is when the foreign law was not properly pleaded and proved. Forum law should be applied when there is failure to plead and prove the pertinent foreign law. Our courts may not take judicial cognizance of any foreign law; hence failure to plead and prove foreign law leads to the presumption that it is the same as forum law. (Miciano v. Brimo, 50 Phil. 867 [1924])

In Fleumer v. Hix, 54 Phil. 610 (1930), Fleumer, the special administrator of the Estate of Edward R. Hix, appealed from the decision of the lower court denying probate of a document alleged to be the will of Hix. Fleumer, alleged that the will executed in West Virginia on November 3, 1925 by Hix who was residing there and therefore, the laws of West Virginia should govern. He submitted a copy of Section 3868 of Act 1882 as found in the West Virginia Code and certified by the Director of National Library. The court held that the existence of said foreign law has not been proved.

The court has jurisdiction of the case even if both parties are aliens but should apply the foreign law if the issue involves status, capacity or family rights of the parties. Thus, in Barnuevo v. Fuster, 29 Phil. 606 (1913), Gabriel Fuster and Constanza Yanez both Spanish nationals married in Spain agreed to live separately.

Document: Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals (G.R) (CASE-499 SCRA 21) | Section: Acquisition of Jurisdiction

Acquisition of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant’s voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, “any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void.” In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person. If defendant, for excusable reasons, cannot be served with the summons within a reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted to. While substituted service of summons is permitted, “it is extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual method of service.” Hence, it must faithfully and strictly comply with the prescribed requirements and circumstances authorized by the rules. Indeed, “compli-ance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as much important as the issue of due process as of jurisdiction.”

Document: Jurisdictional Defects as Ground for Motion to Dismiss (CASE-163 SCRA 550) | Section: D. *Jurisdiction over the Res

D. Jurisdiction over the Res

Jurisdiction over the res is the power or authority of courts over the thing or property under litigation. Thus, when theaction against the nonresident defendant affects the personal status of the plaintiff, as, for instance, an action for separation or for annulment of marriage, Philippine courts may yalidly try and decide the case, because, then, they have jurisdiction over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of the nonresident is not essential. Similarly, the jurisdiction for the settlement of the decedent's estate depends on the place of residence of the decedent or on the location of his estate. In this regard, the Revised Rules of Court provides that if the decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of any province in which he had estate shall settle the estate. Appropriately, as decided by the Supreme Court, where it was alleged and proven that decedent at the time of her death was a citizen and permanent resident of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., the settlement of her estate was correctly filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila where she had an estate.

Document: Guerrero Estate Development Corporation vs Leviste (G.R. No. 253428) (CASE-AVQ439-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; “Acquisition of Jurisdiction” and “Exercise of Jurisdiction,” “Distinguished.”—It must be emphasized that “a court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over a particular case’s subject matter is different from incidents pertaining to the exercise of jurisdiction.” The Court in Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc. (Gonzales), 774 SCRA 242 (2015), differentiated these two matters as follows: Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law, whereas a court’s exercise of jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself, is governed by the Rules of Court or by the orders issued from time to time by the Court. In Lozada v. Bracewell, it was recently held that the matter of whether the RTC resolves an

36

issue in the exercise of its original jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.

Document: The Age-Old Remedies Available to Recover Possession of Real Property (CASE-458 SCRA 765) | Section: § VII. Jurisdiction.—

§ VII. Jurisdiction.—

Even when, in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his plead-ings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts nevertheless have the undoubted competence to resolve the issue of possession (Cañiza vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 640).

The Metropolitan Trial Court does not lose jurisdiction over a case for ejectment even of the building is completely burned down before such party could be served with summons if the lease is on the land (Bayview Hotel, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 540).

Institution of a separate action for quieting of title is not a valid reason for defeating the summary remedy of ejectment (Gachon vs. Devera, Jr., 274 SCRA 540).

Document: Jurisdiction Over A Non-Resident Corporation (G.R. No. 105141, L-6005, L-14723, L-19671, L-71837, L-27781, L-19556, L-17953) (CASE-225 SCRA 748) | Section: D. *Jurisdiction over the Res

D. Jurisdiction over the Res

Jurisdiction over the res is the power or authority of courts over the thing or property under litigation. (Perkins vs. Dion, 69 Phil. 186). It is obtained by actual or constructive seizure or placing the property or res under the orders of the Court. (Zamora, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 279, 284; Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921). Thus, when the action against the non-resident defendant affects the personal status of the plaintiff, as, for instance, an action for legal separation or for annulment of marriage, Philippine courts may validly try and decide the case, because, then, they have jurisdiction over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident is not essential. (Tenchavez vs. Escano, 17 SCRA 674). Similarly, the jurisdiction of courts over the settlement of a decedent’s estate depends on the place of residence of the decedent or on the location of the estate. (Malig vs. Bush, 28 SCRA 449). In this regard, the Revised Rules of Court provides that if the decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Regional Trial Court of any province in which he had estate shall settle the estate. (Rule 173, Sec. 1, Revised Rules of Court). Appropriately, as decided by the Supreme Court, where it was alleged land proven that decedent at the time of her death was a citizen and permanent resident of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., the settlement of her estate was correctly filed with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila where she had an estate. (Cayetano vs. Leonidas, et. al., 129 SCRA 522, 531).

Document: Department of Agrarian Reform vs Trinidad Valley Realty (G.R. No. 173386) (CASE-ASW359-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint and the allegations of the complaint.—It is a cardinal principle in remedial law that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint and the allegations of the complaint. Jurisdiction is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law and cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties. It cannot also be acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. It is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in character. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.

Document: Land Bank of the Philippines vs Dalauta (G.R. No. 190004) (CASE-AUH075-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Words and Phrases; Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case.—Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the law. The courts, as well as administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions, have their respective jurisdiction as may be granted by law. In connection with the courts’ jurisdiction vis-à-vis

2

jurisdiction of administrative bodies, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction takes into play.

Same; Same; Same; Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; The doctrine of primary jurisdiction tells us that courts cannot, and 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 doctrine of primary jurisdiction tells us that courts cannot, and 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.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Agrarian Reform; In agrarian reform cases, primary jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), more specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) as provided for in Section 50 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657.—In agrarian reform cases, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR, more specifically, in the DARAB as provided for in Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 which reads: SEC.50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.––The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). [Emphasis supplied] Meanwhile, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 229 also vested the DAR with (1) quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters; and (2) jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Document: Alferez vs Canencia (G.R. No. 244542) (CASE-AVF350-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law because it is conferred only by law, as distinguished from venue, which is a purely procedural matter.—In law, nothing is as elementary as the concept of jurisdiction, for the same is the foundation upon which the courts exercise their power of

324

adjudication, and without which, no rights or obligation could emanate from any decision or resolution. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. In Padlan v. Dinglasan, the Court held: Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. 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.

Document: City of LapuLapu vs Philippine Economic Zone Authority (G.R. No. 184203) (CASE-AUQ142-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Same; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is indispensable in actions in personam or those actions based on a party’s personal liability.—Another aspect of jurisdiction is jurisdiction over the person. It is “the power of [a] court to render a personal judgment or to subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment and other rulings rendered in the action.” A court automatically acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff upon the filing of the initiatory pleading. With respect to the defendant, voluntary appearance in court or a valid service of summons vests the court with jurisdiction over the defendant’s person. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is indispensable in actions in personam or those actions based on a party’s personal liability. The proceedings in an action in personam are void if the court had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction over the res is necessary in actions in rem or those actions “directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world.”—Jurisdiction over the res or the thing under litigation is acquired either “by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.” Jurisdiction over the res is necessary in actions in rem or those actions “directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world.” The proceedings in an action in rem are void if the court had no jurisdiction over the thing under litigation.

Taxation; Assessment; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; In case of an erroneous assessment, the taxpayer must exhaust the administrative remedies provided under the Local Government Code (LGC) before resorting to judicial action.—Once an assessment has already been issued by the assessor, the proper remedy of a taxpayer depends on whether the assessment was erroneous or illegal. An erroneous assessment “presupposes that the taxpayer is subject to the tax but is disputing the correctness of the amount assessed.” With an erroneous assessment, the taxpayer claims that the local

528

assessor erred in determining any of the items for computing the real property tax, i.e., the value of the real property or the portion thereof subject to tax and the proper assessment levels. In case of an erroneous assessment, the taxpayer must exhaust the administrative remedies provided under the Local Government Code before resorting to judicial action.

Document: Judicial Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Persons or Entities (G.R. Nos. 121576-78) (CASE-333 SCRA 561) | Section: § 2. Jurisdiction of Courts in General

§ 2. Jurisdiction of Courts in General

Judicial jurisdiction as distinguished from legislative jurisdiction is defined as the legal authority of the state to exercise authority through its courts or administrative agencies to try and adjudicate cases determining the rights and obligations of the parties. Usually, there is not much problem when both parties are within the Philippines and can be served with summons by ordinary means. A party who files an action impliedly submits to the jurisdiction of the court, for after all, he is invoking the power of the court to grant him the remedy he prays for. Ordinarily, a court acquires jurisdiction over a defendant upon service of valid summons or when he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction by filing an answer or any responsive pleading. Voluntary appearance is equal to the service of summons. In fact, it even cures any defect in the summons. (Mejia v. CA., 214 SCRA 411 [1992]) The court may not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant if he files a motion or a means in court only to question the jurisdiction of the court.

Personal jurisdiction of the court is the power of the court to adjudicate the case and the decision of which is binding on the parties. A State has the power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over all persons whether citizens or aliens within the Philippines on one or more of the following bases: (a) presence; (b) domicile; (c) residence; (d) nationality of citizenship; (e) consent; (f) appearance in an action; (g) doing business in the State with respect to foreign corporations; (h) an act done in the State; (i) causing an effect in the State by an act done elsewhere; (j) ownership, use or possession of a thing in the State; (k) other relationships to the State which make the exercise of judicial jurisdiction reasonable. (Sec. 27, Restatement of the Conflict of Laws, Second Edition, W. Reese, Re-porter)

Document: Tagalog vs Lim Vda de Gonzales (G.R. No. 201286) (CASE-ARL206-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; The jurisdiction of a particular court is determined by the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint.—The jurisdiction of a particular court is determined by the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. In orderto determine whether the lower court had jurisdiction, it is necessary to first ascertain the nature of the complaint filed before it.

Same; Special Civil Actions; Unlawful Detainer; In De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 166 (1995), the Supreme Court (SC) held that unlawful detainer is the withholding by a person from another of the possession of a land or building to which the latter is entitled after the expiration or termination of the former’s right to hold possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied.—Based on the allegations in respondents’ complaint, it is clear that the case involves only the issue of physical possession or unlawful detainer as defined in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. In De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 166 (1995), we held that unlawful detainer is the withholding by a person from another of the possession of a land or building to which the latter is entitled after the expiration or termination of the former’s right to hold possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied. An ejectment suit is brought before the MTC to recover not possession de jure but physical possession only or possession de facto, where dispossession has lasted for not more than one year.

Same; Civil Procedure; Accion Publiciana; Words and Phrases; Accion publiciana is the plenary action in an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of the land independently of the title and is filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the land.—The conclusion would be different if the action is for the recovery of the right to possess and dispossession lasted for more than one year which would justify resort to the remedy of accion publiciana. Accion publiciana is the plenary action in an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of the land independently of the title and is filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the land. In such case, the RTC has jurisdiction.

Document: 1987 Constitution (CONST-353) | Section: SECTION 6. The Supreme Court shall have the administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

SECTION 6. The Supreme Court shall have the administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

SECTION 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines . A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age and, must have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.

(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

SECTION 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

(2) The regular Members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for one year.

(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record of its proceedings.

(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.

(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

SECTION 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.

For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list.

SECTION 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.

Document: 1987 Constitution (CONST-353) | Section: SECTION 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.

SECTION 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.

SECTION 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman, composed of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy, and at least one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed.

Document: 1987 Constitution (CONST-353) | Section: SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers

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

(1) | Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. (2) | Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) | All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (b) | All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. (c) | All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. (d) | All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. (e) | All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. (3) | Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned. (4) | Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. (5) | Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. (6) | Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

Document: 1987 Constitution (CONST-353) | Section: SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

SECTION 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.

SECTION 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service.

SECTION 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

Document: 1987 Constitution (CONST-353) | Section: ARTICLE I

ARTICLE I

National Territory

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

Document: Rules of Court in the Philippines Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines Effective January 1, 1964 (RULE-373) | Section: Sec. 4. Interruption of time to appeal.*—The time during which a motion for new trial has been pending shall be deducted from the period for perfecting an appeal.

Sec. 9. Effect of appeals.— A perfected appeal shall operate to vacate the judgment of the justice of the peace or the municipal court, and the action when duly docketed in the Court of First Instance shall stand for trial de novo upon its merits in accordance with the regular procedure in that court, as though the same had never been tried before and had been originally there commenced.  If the appeal is withdrawn, or dismissed for failure to Prosecute, the judgment shall be deemed revived and shall forthwith be remanded to the justice of the peace or municipal court for execution.

Sec. 10. Appellate powers of Courts of First Instance where action not tried on its merits by inferior court.— Where the action has been disposed of by an inferior court upon a question of law and not after a valid trial upon the merits, the Court of First Instance shall on appeal review the ruling of the inferior court and may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings.

Sec. 11. Lack of jurisdiction.— A case tried by an inferior court without jurisdiction over the subject matter shall be dismissed on appeal by the Court of First Instance.   But instead of dismissing the case, the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, may try the case on the merits if the parties therein file their pleadings and go to the trial without any objection to such jurisdiction.

Document: Rules of Court in the Philippines Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines Effective January 1, 1964 (RULE-373) | Section: Rule 45 APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS TO SUPREME COURT

Sec. 4. Review of Court of Appeals' decision, discretionary.— A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor.   The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the hurt's discretion, indicate the character of reasons which will be considered:(a) When the Court of Appeals has decided a question substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court;(b) When the Court of Appeals has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.

Sec. 5. Deposit for costs.— If the petition is given due course, the petitioner shall deposit the sum of eighty pesos (P80) for costs within five (5) days from notice unless a different period is fixed by the court.  Upon failure of petitioner to make the deposit within the said period, the petition may be dismissed.

**PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

Document: Rules of Court in the Philippines Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines Effective January 1, 1964 (RULE-373) | Section: RULE 42 APPEAL FROM COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE TO SUPREME COURT

Sec. 3. Grounds.— The petition may be filed on the ground that the body rendering the ruling, order or decision appealed from, has decided a question of substance not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way not in accord with law or the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court.Decisions of the Court of Agrarian Relations may, in discretion of the court, also be reviewed upon proper mowing that the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence.

Sec. 4. Period for filing.— Appeals from an order, ruling or decision of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Land Registration Commission, shall be brought within a period of thirty (30) days from notice of such ruling, order or decision; those from the Court of Agrarian Relations, the Social Security Commission, and the Secretary of Labor under Section 7 of the Minimum Wage Law, within a period of fifteen (15) days; and those from the Court of Industrial Relations, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Workmen's Compensation Commission, and the Commission on Elections, within a period of ten (10) days.

Sec. 5. Docketing fee.— Upon filing the petition the petitioner shall pay to the clerk of the Supreme Court the docketing fee.Sec 6. Dismissal.— Upon petition of the respondent filed within five (5) days from service of the petition, or upon its own motion, the Supreme Court may dismiss the petition on the ground that the appeal is without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.However, no petition shall be dismissed on account of a mistaken designation of the method of appeal, if the contents thereof substantially comply with the requirements of this rule, in which case the pleading shall be treated as a petition for review.

Document: Rules of Court in the Philippines Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines Effective January 1, 1964 (RULE-373) | Section: RULE 42 APPEAL FROM COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE TO SUPREME COURT

RULE 42 APPEAL FROM COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE TO SUPREME COURT

Section 1. Procedure.— The procedure of appeal to the Supreme Court from Courts of First Instance shall be governed by the same rules governing appeals to the Court of Appeals, except as hereinafter provided.

Sec. 2. Appeal on pure question of law.— Where the appellant states in his notice of appeal or record on appeal that he will raise only questions of law, no other questions shall be allowed, and the evidence need not be elevated.

Rule 43 APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OR DECISION OF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION, COURT OP AGRARIAN RELATIONS, SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, SECRETARY OF LABOR UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE MINIMUM WAGE LAW, COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Section 1. Bow appeal taken.— Any party may appeal from a final order, ruling or decision of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Land Registration Commission, the Court of Agrarian Relations, the Social Security Commission, the Secretary of Labor under Section 7 of the Minimum Wage Law, the Court of Industrial Relations, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Workmen's Compensation Commission, and the Commission on Elections by filing with said bodies a notice of appeal and with the Supreme Court twelve (12) printed or mimeographed copies of a petition for certiorari or review of such order, ruling or decision, as the corresponding statute may provide.   A copy of the petition shall be served upon the court, commission, board or officer concerned and upon the adverse party, and proof of service thereof attached to the original of the petition.

Sec. 2. Contents of petition.— The petition shall contain a concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds relied on for the petition, and shall be accompanied with a true copy of the ruling, order or decision appealed from, together with the copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to therein and other supporting papers.   The questions raised must be distinctly set forth in the petition.The petition shall be made under oath and shall show, by mention of the specific material dates, that it was filed within the period fixed in this rule.

Document: Rules of Court in the Philippines Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines Effective January 1, 1964 (RULE-373) | Section: Section 1. Who may appeal.*— Either party to an action may appeal from a judgment rendered by an inferior court to the Court of First Instance of the province where the judgment was rendered.

Section 1. Who may appeal.— Either party to an action may appeal from a judgment rendered by an inferior court to the Court of First Instance of the province where the judgment was  rendered.

Sec. 2. Appeal, how perfected.— An appeal shall be perfected within fifteen (15) days after notification to the party of the judgment complained of, (a.) by filing with the justice of the peace or municipal judge a notice of appeal; (b) by delivering a postal money order for the amount of the appellate court docket fee, or a certificate of the municipal treasurer showing that the appellant has deposited such appellate court docket fee, or, in chartered cities, a certificate of the clerk of the municipal court showing receipt of the said fee; and (c) by giving a bond.

Sec. 3. Appeal bond.— The bond to be given by the appellant shall be filed with the justice of the peace or municipal court and shall be in the sum of sixty pesos (P60), executed to the adverse party, with at least one sufficient surety, conditioned that the appellant will pay all costs which the Court of First Instance may award against him. In lieu of such bond, the appellant may file with the court a postal money order for fifty pesos (P50) or a certificate of the proper official that the appellant has deposited fifty pesos (P50) with the municipal or city treasurer and that said sum is available for the satisfaction of any judgment for costs that may be rendered against appellant by the Court of First Instance.   In case judgment is rendered in appellant's favor the sum deposited in lieu of appeal bond shall be returned to him by the official with whom it was deposited.

Document: P.D. No. 1486 - Creating a Special Court to Be Known As "Sandiganbayan" and for Other Purposes (PD-1486) | Section: SEC. 4. Jurisdiction.—Except as herein provided, the Sandiganbayan* shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide

SEC. 7. Form, finality and enforcement of decisions; petitions for reconsideration.—Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall contain complete findings of fact on all issues properly raised before it. Decisions and final orders en banc shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; and those of a division shall be appealable under Rule 42 thereof. The Supreme Court shall hear and decide any case on appeal promptly and without the necessity of placing it upon the regular calendar. Whenever, in any case decided by the Sandiganbayan en banc or by a division thereof, the death penalty or life imprisonment shall have been imposed, the records shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court whether the accused shall have appealed or not, for review and judgment, as law and justice shall dictate.

Any party may file a petition for reconsideration of any order or decision of the Sandiganbayan en banc or in division within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a certified copy of such order or decision and such petition for reconsideration shall be decided by the Sandiganbayan en banc or in division, as the case may be, within thirty (30) days from submission thereof.

Final judgments and orders of the Sandiganbayan en banc or in division shall be executed and enforced in the manner provided for in the Rules of Court.

SEC. 8. Transfer of cases.—All cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan as herein provided, the trial of which had not yet commenced in the trial courts as of the date of its organization shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan, except those cases filed in the military tribunals and those cases against military personnel which shall remain in the military tribunals.

SEC. 9. Authority over internal affairs.—The Sandiganbayan shall administer its own internal affairs and may adopt such rules governing the constitution of its divisions, the allocation of cases among them, the rotation of judges and other matters relating to its business.

SEC. 10. Proceedings free of charge; premature publicity prohibited.—All proceedings in the Sandiganbayan en banc or in division shall be conducted at no cost to the complainant and/or his witnesses.

Document: Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 116033) (CASE-268 SCRA 747) | Section: Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

It is hornbook doctrine that in order “(to) ascertain whether a court has jurisdiction or not, the provisions of the law should be inquired into.” Furthermore, “the jurisdiction of the court must appear clearly from the statute law or it will not be held to exist. It cannot be presumed or implied.” And for this purpose in criminal cases, “the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the law at the time of commencement of the action.”

In this case, the action was instituted with the filing of this information on January 12, 1990; hence, the applicable statutory provisions are those of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D. No. 1861 on March 23, 1983, but prior to their amendment by R.A. No. 7975 on May 16, 1995. At that time, Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 provided that:

“SEC. 4. Jurisdiction.—The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

1. (1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code;

2. (2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years or a fine of P6,000.00 shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court.

x x x      x x x      x x x

In case private individuals are charged as co-principals accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees.

x x x      x x x      x x x.”

Document: Relampagos vs Sandiganbayan Second Division (G.R. No. 235480) (CASE-AVR919-rw) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

Remedial Law; Courts; Sandiganbayan; Jurisdiction; After the Sandiganbayan’s own judicial determination that there was a necessity for placing herein petitioners under custody, and accordingly issued arrest warrants against them, the issue as to the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause to indict petitioners is rendered moot.—After the Sandiganbayan’s own judicial determination that there was a necessity for placing herein petitioners under custody, and accordingly issued arrest warrants against them, the issue as to the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause to indict petitioners is rendered moot. In other words, because the proceedings before the Ombudsman are distinct from those before the Sandiganbayan, as soon as probable cause is already judicially determined, all matters raised on the executive determination of probable cause already becomes moot such as in this case where petitioners’ arguments are leading to the propriety of Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause to indict them.

64

Document: P.D. No. 1606 - An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purpose (RA-8249) | Section: SEC. 5. Section 7 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows

SEC. 5. Section 7 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 7. Form, Finality and Enforcement of Decisions. – All decisions and final orders determining the merits of a case or finally disposing of the action or proceedings of the Sandiganbayan shall contain complete findings of the facts and the law on which they are based, on all issues properly raised before it and necessary in deciding the case.

"A petition for reconsideration of any final order or decision may be filed within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice of the final order or judgment, and such motion for reconsideration shall be decided within thirty (30) days from submission thereon.

"Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Whenever, in any case decided by the Sandiganbayan, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death is imposed, the decision shall be appealable to the Supreme Court in the manner prescribed in the Rules of Court.

"Judgments and orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be executed and enforced in the manner provided by law.

"Decisions and final orders of other courts in cases cognizable by said courts under this decree as well as those rendered by them in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction shall be appealable to, or be reviewable by, the Sandiganbayan in the manner provided by Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.

"In case, however, the imposed penalty by the Sandiganbayan or the regional trial court in the proper exercise of their respective jurisdiction, is death, review by the Supreme Court shall be automatic, whether or not the accused files an appeal."

SEC. 6. Appropriations. – The amount necessary to carry out the initial implementation of this Act shall be charged against the current fiscal year appropriations of the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, such sums as may be needed for its continued implementation shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.

Document: First Philippine Holdings Corporation vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 83746) (CASE-253 SCRA 30) | Section: Syllabi

Syllabi

• Remedial Law; Intervention; Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in a proceeding, becomes a litigant therein to enable him to protect or preserve a right or interest; which may be affected by such proceeding.—Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in a proceeding, becomes a litigant therein to enable him to protect or preserve a right or interest which may be affected by such proceeding. Its purpose, according to Francisco, is “to settle in one action and by a single judgment the whole controversy (among) the persons involved.”

• Same; Same; Requisites Before Intervention Shall be Allowed.—Under the rule above-quoted, intervention shall be allowed when a person has: (1) a legal interest in the matter in litigation; (2) or in the success of any of the parties; (3) or an interest against the parties; (4) or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof.

• Same; Same; Same; Instant intervention must be allowed otherwise the Sandiganbayan will not be able to determine the ultimate owner of the shares under sequestration.—Indeed, in the face of such previous rulings, the inescapable conclusion is that the instant intervention must be allowed otherwise the Sandiganbayan will not be able to determine the ultimate owner of the shares under sequestration.

• Same; Same; Sandiganbayan; Respondent Court has jurisdiction to entertain both complaints and answers in intervention over properties under sequestration by the PCGG.—In resolving to deny petitioner’s motion for intervention, respondent Court abused its discretion because, clearly, the question of ownership of the shares under sequestration is within its jurisdiction, being an incident arising from or in connection with the case under its exclusive and original jurisdiction. Indeed, as held in the above-mentioned cases, the respondent Court has jurisdiction to entertain both complaints and answers in intervention over properties under sequestration by the PCGG. With the denial of its intervention, petitioner is deprived of a remedy in law to recover its property alleged to have been taken illegally from it.

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: RULE 43

**RULE 43

APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES

TO THE COURT OF APPEALS**

SECTION 1. *Scope.—  This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No, 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.  (n)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 2. Modes of appeal.**—

SEC. 2. *Modes of appeal.—

(a)Ordinary appeal—  The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in .like manner.

(b) Petition for review.—  The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.

(c) Appeal by certiorari.—-  In all cases where only Questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. (n)

SEC. 3. *Period of ordinary appeal.—  The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order.

The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed. (n)

SEC. 4. *Appellate court docket and other lawful fees.—  Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said fees shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with the original record or the record on appeal.  (n)

SEC. 5. *Notice of appeal.—  The notice of appeal shall indicate the parties to the appeal, specify the judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from, specify the court to which the appeal is being taken, and state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal.  (4a)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: RULE 40

RULE 40

APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS**

SECTION 1. *Where to appeal.—  An appeal from a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court may be taken to the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the area to which the former pertains. The title of the case shall remain as it was in the court of origin, but the party appealing the case shall be further referred to as the appellant and the adverse party as the appellee.  (n)

SEC. 2. *When to appeal.—  An appeal may be taken within fifteen (15) days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days after notice of the judgment or final order.

The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.  (n)

SEC. 3. *How to appeal.—  The appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the judgment or final order appealed from. The notice of appeal shall indicate the parties to the appeal, the judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from, and state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal.

A record on appeal shall be required only in special proceedings and in other cases of multiple or separate appeals.

The form and contents of the record on appeal shall be as provided in section 6, Rule 41.

Copies of the notice of appeal, and the record on appeal where required, shall be served on the adverse party.  (n)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal.**— The appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or on motion of the respondent on the following grounds

SEC. 5. *Grounds for dismissal of appeal.—  The appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or on motion of the respondent on the following grounds:

(a) Failure to take the appeal within the reglementary;

(b) Lack of merit in the petition;

(c) Failure to pay the requisite docket fee and other lawful fees or to make a deposit for costs;

(d) Failure to comply with the requirements regarding proof of service and contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition;

(e) Failure to comply with any circular, directive or order of the Supreme Court without justifiable cause;

(f) Error in the choice or mode of appeal; and

(g) The fact that the case is not appealable to the Supreme Court.  (n)

SEC. 6. *Disposition of improper appeal.—  Except as provided in section 3, Rule 122 regarding appeals in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an appeal taken to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal shall be dismissed.

An appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from the Regional Trial Court submitting issues of fact may be referred to the Court of Appeals for decision or appropriate action. The determination of the Supreme Court on whether or not issues of fact are involved shall be final.  (n)

SEC. 7. *Procedure if opinion is equally divided.—  Where the court en banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall again be deliberated on, and if after such deliberation no decision is reached, the original action commenced in the court shall be dismissed; in appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and on all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.  (11a)

**PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 4. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof.**— The perfection of the appeal and the effect thereof shall be governed by the provisions of section 9, Rule 41. (n)

SEC. 4. *Perfection of appeal; effect thereof.—  The perfection of the appeal and the effect thereof shall be governed by the provisions of section 9, Rule 41.  (n)

SEC. 5. *Appellate court docket and other lawful fees.—  Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment thereof shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be.  (n)

SEC. 6. *Duty of the clerk of court.—  Within fifteen (15) days from the perfection of the appeal, the clerk of court or the branch clerk of court of the lower court shall transmit the original record or the record on appeal, together with the transcripts and exhibits, which he shall certify as complete, to the proper Regional Trial Court. A copy of his letter of transmittal of the records to the appellate court shall be furnished the parties.  (n)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 7. Procedure in the Regional Trial Court.**—

SEC. 7. *Procedure in the Regional Trial Court.—

(a) Upon receipt of the complete record or the record on appeal, the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court shall notify the parties of such fact.

(b) Within fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall be the duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum which shall briefly discuss the errors imputed to the lower court, a copy of which shall be furnished by him to the adverse party. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the appellant's memorandum, the appellee may file his memorandum.

Failure of the appellant to file a memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.

(c) Upon the filing of the memorandum of the appellee or the expiration of the period to do so, the case shall be considered submitted for decision. The Regional Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda as are filed.  (n)

SEC. 8. *Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of jurisdiction.—  If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court dismissing the case without a trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In case of affirmance and the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it. In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings.

If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the case in accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice.  (n)

SEC. 9. *Applicability of Rule 41.—  The other provisions of Rule 41 shall apply to appeals provided for herein insofar as they are not inconsistent with or may serve to supplement the provisions of this Rule.  (n)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: RULE 40

RULE 40

APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS**

SECTION 1. *Where to appeal.—  An appeal from a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court may be taken to the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the area to which the former pertains. The title of the case shall remain as it was in the court of origin, but the party appealing the case shall be further referred to as the appellant and the adverse party as the appellee.  (n)

SEC. 2. *When to appeal.—  An appeal may be taken within fifteen (15) days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days after notice of the judgment or final order.

The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.  (n)

SEC. 3. *How to appeal.—  The appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the judgment or final order appealed from. The notice of appeal shall indicate the parties to the appeal, the judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from, and state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal.

A record on appeal shall be required only in special proceedings and in other cases of multiple or separate appeals.

The form and contents of the record on appeal shall be as provided in section 6, Rule 41.

Copies of the notice of appeal, and the record on appeal where required, shall be served on the adverse party.  (n)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: RULE 5

**RULE 5

UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS**

SECTION 1. *Uniform procedure.—  The procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts shall be the same as in the Regional Trial Courts, except (a) where a particular provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either of said courts, or (b) in civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.  (n)

SEC. 2. *Meaning of terms.—  The term "Municipal Trial Courts" as used in these Rules shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.  (1a)

**PROCEDURE IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

Document: Pre-trial under the Rules of Court of 1964 (CASE-26 SCRA 5) | Section: PRE-TRIAL UNDER THE RULES OF COURT OF 1964

1. IV. Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary Judgment at Pre-Trial

The trial court may render judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment as justice may require, if at the pre-trial, it finds that facts exist upon which a judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment may be made. (Section 3, Rule 20, Revised Rules of Court).

In Taleon v. Secretary of Public Works & Communications, L-24281, May 16, 1967, 20 SCRA 69, a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction was filed to stop the Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the Engineer of Davao from demolishing the dams in question pursuant to a final decision of the Executive Secretary. An answer having been filed by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, the issues were joined and a pre-trial conference was held by the Court of First Instance of Manila. At the conference, the court allowed the defendants to file a motion to dismiss and ordered the administrative records sent to it. Acting on the respective memoranda submitted by the parties, the trial court dismissed the petition. The plaintiffs appealed contending that the trial court should have given them a full trial before dismissing the case. The Supreme Court held that full trial was not necessary. No -necessity was there for further reception of evidence because the issues raised before the trial court were purely legal such as for instance the issue of jurisdiction of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications under Republic Act No. 2056 to declare as a public navigable steam any alleged depression or bodies of water even inside titled properties was already decided in Lovina v. Moreno, L-17821, Nov. 29, 1963. See also Borja v. Moreno, L-16487, July 31, 1964. This question could be resolved on the basis of the pleadings and memoranda filed and the administrative records sent to the trial court. The Supreme Court said that the new Rules of Court now allows the trial court at pre-trial to render judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment as justice may warrant, if it finds at pre-trial that acts exist which would warrant such judgment.

Document: Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure As Amended (Rules 110-127, Rules of Court) (RULE-369) | Section: SECTION 1. Who may appeal.**—Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. (2a)

SECTION 1. *Who may appeal.—Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. (2a)

Sec. 2. *Where to appeal.—The appeal may be taken as follows:(a)  To the Regional Trial Court, in cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court;(b)  To the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the proper cases provided by law, in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court; and(c)   To the Supreme Court, in cases decided by the Court of Appeals. (1a)

Sec.  3.  *How appeal taken.—(a)  The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.(b)  The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42.(c)  The appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or where a lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed, shall be by filing a notice of appeal in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.(d)  No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the death penalty is imposed by the Regional Trial Court.  The same shall be automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court as provided in section 10 of this Rule.(e) Except as provided in the last paragraph of section 13, Rule 124, all other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. (3a)

Sec. 4. *Service of notice of appeal.—If personal service of the copy of the notice of appeal can not be made upon the adverse party or his counsel, service may be done by registered mail or by substituted service pursuant to sections 7 and 8 of Rule 13.(4a)

Document: R.A. No. 8369 - The Rule on Family Mediation Resolution (RULE-R.A. No. 8369) | Section: THE RULE ON FAMILY MEDIATION RESOLUTION

Chairperson: | Hon. Angelenc Mary W. Quimpo-Sale Associate Justice , Court of Appeals Vice Chairperson: | Judge Rosalina L. Luna-Pison (Ret.) Family Court Judge, Quezon City Members: | Hon. Emily L. San Gaspar- Gito Associate Justice, Court of Appeals Hon. Cristina Javalera-Sulit Presiding Judge , Regional Trial Court , Makati City Hon. Sita Jose-Clemente Presiding Judge , Regional Trial Court, Malolos, Bulacan Atty. Laura C.H. Del Rosario Deputy Clerk of Court and Judicial Reform Program Administrator Judge Evelyn G. Nery (Ret.) Family Court Judge , Cagayan de Oro City Judge Mona Lisa V. Tiongson-Tabora (Ret.) Regional Trial Court, Baguio City PHILJA Professor II and Member of PHILJA ADR Department Former Philippine Mediation Center Office Chief of Office Mr. Jose T. Name Chief Judicial Staff Officer Philippine Mediation Center , Office of the Court Administrator Secretariat: | Atty. Apple Jane B. Clemente Program Management Office Atty. Patricia Benilda S. Ramos Office of Associate Justice Amy C . Lazaro- Javier Atty. Gail Bernardine T. Mendiola Office of Associate Justice Angelene Mary W. Quimpo- Sale

WHEREAS, marking the beginning of the comprehensive process to draft effective and relevant rules on family mediation, the Sub-TWG on RFM held its first meeting on August 30, 2023;

WHEREAS, from September 28 to 29, 2024, the Sub-TWG on RFM conducted an onsite writeshop, which resulted in the first draft of the Rule on Family Mediation (RFM). The first draft of the Rule was then submitted by the Sub-TWG on RPM to the CFCJC on November 13, 2023 for review;

WHEREAS, the CFCJC approved the first draft of the Sub-TWG RPM during its First Validation Writeshop on December 13 to 14, 2023. Subsequently, on January 31, 2024, Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro -Javier , as Chairperson of the CFCJC, submitted the first draft of the RPM to the Supreme Court En Banc for its consideration;

Document: R.A. No. 8369 - The Rule on Family Mediation Resolution (RULE-R.A. No. 8369) | Section: SECTION 3. Mandatory Referral to Family Mediation.* - The following cases shall be referred to family mediation

SECTION 3.Mandatory Referral to Family Mediation.* - The following cases shall be referred to family mediation:

(a) all cases involving issues under the Family Code of the Philippines and other laws, which can be the subject of a compromise agreement, such as support, custody, visitation, property relations, and guardianship;

(b) settle ment of intestate estates under the Rules of Court involving parties falling under Section 1 of this Rule;

(c) cross-border disputes in international child abduction, support, custody and visitation, guardianship, and other civil cases involving children filed in the Philippines between a Filipino residing in the Philippines or temporarily residing abroad and a citizen of a member-country of the Council of ASEAN Chief Justices (CACJ); 13 and

(d) other civil cases or the civil aspect of criminal cases where mediation is allowed by law, the rules, 14 international conventions or agreements, and the like, provided that the parties involved fall under Section 1 of this Rule.

Document: R.A. No. 8369 - The Rule on Family Mediation Resolution (RULE-R.A. No. 8369) | Section: THE RULE ON FAMILY MEDIATION RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, from February to April 2024, the CFCJC conducted one onsite writeshop and one online meeting to incorporate the suggestions and comments of the members of the Supreme Court EnBanc into the draft RPM. The second draft  RFM was then presented to the Supreme Court En Bancduring its April 10, 2024 session in the City of Baguio;

WHEREAS, pending approval of the RFM by the Supreme Court En Banc,the Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Cooperation (MOU) was entered into between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia on May 15, 2024. The MOU aims to support the Supreme Court of the Philippines in its programs for judicial cooperation and to enhance its capacity to implement judicial reform programs in accordance with its Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations(SPJI) 2022-2027.

WHEREAS, through Resolution dated May 21, 2024, the Supreme Court En Bancapproved the conduct of the Study Visit on Access to Justice of Disadvantaged Groups, Family Mediation, and Social Services and Counseling in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia, on August 5 to 9, 2024 by members of the Philippine Judiciary , headed by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and joined by some members and consultants of the CFCJC. The Study Visit, which was supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Government of Australia through its Fostering Advancement of Inclusive and Right-Based Justice (FAIR Justice) Program, included sessions on Australia's good practices on family mediation, and the selection of applicants, training, and accreditation of family mediators. The Study Visit also served as the foundational activity under the MOU ;

WHEREAS,during its Second Validation Writeshop on August 19, 2024, the Sub-TWG on RFM incorporated into the existing draft RFM the subsequent comments and suggestions received from the Members of the Court EnBanc as well as the learnings gleaned from the Study Visit in Australia, particularly on observing child-inclusive practice and victim and culture sensitivity, upholding the best interests of the child, al}d establishing the qualification and training procedures for family mediators. The Writeshop culminated in the third draft of the RFM, which was also referred to the CFCJC for validation.

WHEREAS, during its August 20, 2024 meeting, the CFCJC-TWG approved the third draft of the RFM and indorsed the same for the consideration and approval of the Court En Banc;

Document: R.A. No. 8369 - The Rule on Family Mediation Resolution (RULE-R.A. No. 8369) | Section: THE RULE ON FAMILY MEDIATION RESOLUTION

THE RULE ON FAMILY MEDIATION RESOLUTION

WHEREAS,under Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, the State "recognizes the sanctity of family life" and binds itself to "protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution." Further, under Section 1, Article XV thereof, the State "recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation" and accordingly, "shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development." And, in paragraph 4, Section 3, Article XV, the State shall defend "the right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them;"

WHEREAS, the Philippines ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) on August 21, 1990. The UNCRC then entered into force on September 2, 1990. Thus, the Philippines adheres to the principle enshrined in paragraph 1, Article 3 of the UNCRC, which ordains that "in all actionsconcerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration;"

WHEREAS, on October 28, 1997, Republic Act No. 8369, otherwise known as "Family Courts Act of 1997" was enacted, in keeping with the mandate of the Constitution and the precepts of the UNCRC. The Family Courts Act of 1997 mandates the courts to "preserve the solidarity of the family, provide procedures for the reconciliation of spouses and the amicable settlement of family controversy;"1

WHEREAS, on April 2, 2004, Republic Act No. 9285, otherwise known as the "Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004" was enacted, declaring "the policy of the State to actively promote party autonomy in the resolution of disputes or the freedom of the party to make their own arrangements to resolve their disputes"and encouraging "the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as an important means to achieve speedy and impartial justice and declog court dockets;"2

Document: Recognition of Partial Divorce under the Family Code (A Reexamination (G.R. No. 133743,) (CASE-514 SCRA 318) | Section: § III. The Legislative Intent of the Second Paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code Already Found in Previous Supreme Court Decisions

§ III. The Legislative Intent of the Second Paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code Already Found in Previous Supreme Court Decisions

The Philippine Supreme Court has been confronted with problems of mixed marriages. The Court traced the origin of the legislative intent of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code (See this Annotator’s comments entitled “Some Legal Problems on Divorces Obtained by Filipino Nationals Abroad,” 300 SCRA 417 [1998]).

The Court cited the cases of Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr., 139 SCRA 139 [1985]; Pilapil vs. Hon. Somera-Ibay, 174 SCRA 653 [1974]; Quita vs. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 406 [1998] and Republic vs. Obrecido III, 472 SCRA 414 [2005]. Although no divorce was involved, I may add the case of Cheesman vs. IAC, 193 SCRA 93 [1991] as to the property relations of mixed marriages.

Document: REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE(RULES 110-127, REVISED RULES OF COURT), A.M. No. 00-5-03 (AM-A.M. No. 00-5-03_f1c2f502) | Section: Document Body

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC             October 3, 2000

REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

(RULES 110-127, REVISED RULES OF COURT).

R E S O L U T I O N

Acting on the letter of the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the consideration and approval of the Court, the Court resolved to APPROVE the same with modifications.

The Revised rules shall take effect on December 1, 2000 following its publication in the Official Gazatte and two newspapers of general circulation not later than October 31, 2000.

October 3, 2000, Manila

*Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Quisumbing, Panganiban, Pardo, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

---*

Document: Amendments to the Revised Rules of Court (CASE-62 SCRA 555) | Section: Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is corrected so as to read as follows

Sec. 7. Transcribing and filing of notes of stenographic reporter upon appeal.—When notice of appeal is filed by the defendant the trial court shall direct the stenographic reporter to transcribe his notes of the proceedings. When filed by the People of the Philippines the trial court shall direct the stenographic reporter to transcribe such portion of his notes of the proceedings as the Court, upon motion shall specify in writing. The stenographer shall certify to the correctness of the notes and the transcript thereof which shall consist of the original and four copies and shall file the original and four copies of the transcript with the clerk without unnecessary delay.

In case the death penalty is imposed, the stenographer shall within thirty (30) days after rendition or promulgation of the sentence, file the original and four copies of the duly certified transcript of his notes of the proceedings with the clerk, whether the defendant has appealed or not No extension of time for filing of said transcript of stenographic notes shall be granted except by the Supreme Court and solely upon justifiable grounds.

The same rule shall apply to appealed cases wherein the penalty of life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) has been imposed.

Sec. 9. Transmission of record in cases of death penalty or life imprisonment.—The records of all cases in which the death penalty shall have been imposed by any Court of First Instance, whether the defendant have appealed or not, shall be forwarded to the Supreme court for review and judgment as law and justice shall dictate. The records of such cases shall be forwarded to the clerk of the Supreme Court within twenty (20) days, but not earlier than fifteen (15) days, after rendition or promulgation of the sentence in the form prescribed by section 11 of Rule 41. The transcript shall also be forwarded as provided in section 12 of Rule 41 within five (5) days after the filing thereof by the stenographer.

The same rule shall apply to appealed cases wherein the penalty of life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) has been imposed. (Minutes No. 47, September 5, 1967)

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS—Publication and subscriptions.

Effective July 1, 1970, the Clerk of Court is required to publish monthly all decisions promulgated within a month and is authorized to accept local and foreign subscriptions or sell individual copies of decisions of this Court at the following rates:

Full payment according to the above prices of subscription must be remitted in advance, otherwise, subscription will not be accepted.

Payment must be made in cash, check (drawn only in Manila Banks) or in postal money order payable to the Clerk of Court.

Document: Amendments to the Revised Rules of Court (CASE-62 SCRA 555) | Section: Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is corrected so as to read as follows

1. 1. All such other cases as the Court en banc by a majority vote of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention.

The concurrence of at least ten (10) members shall be required for a declaration of unconstitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement or law or for the imposition of the death penalty. All other cases heard en banc shall be decided with the concurrence of at least eight (8) members.

The Court shall sit en banc when it exercises its power of discipline and dismissal of judges of inferior courts under Art. X, section 7 of the Constitution.

This resolution shall take effect on November 28, 1973, and shall be published in two successive issues of the Official Gazette following the promulgation hereof, and once in each of the following newspapers: Daily Express, Times Journal and Bulletin Today.

The Court’s Resolution of June 1, 1973, is hereby superseded. (Minutes No. 93, November 15, 1973)

TEACHING HOURS OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS—Limitations.

Re: In the Matter of a Petition to Modify Resolution Limiting teaching hours of Judicial Officials, Deans of Law, petitioners.—Acting on the petition of the Philippine Association of Law Schools dated May 17, 1974, the Court RESOLVED to amend its Circular No. 1 dated May 2, 1973, which limits the teaching load of members of the judiciary to six (6) hours a week, and to increase the same to a maximum of eight (8) hours provided: (a) that no Judge shall teach more than two (2) hours a day, nor earlier than 5:30 p.m. on ordinary days and 2:30 p.m. on Saturdays, and (b) that applications for permission to teach shall be subject to approval by this Court, which may deny the same or grant less than eight (8) hours, depending upon the applicant’s performance record.

This resolution shall apply also to the personnel of the Courts. (Minutes En Banc No. 37, June 4, 1974)

TOGA

See BAR MATTER

————

Document: Amendments to the Revised Rules of Court (CASE-62 SCRA 555) | Section: Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is corrected so as to read as follows

DOCUMENTARY STAMPS—Revolving Fund A Documentary Stamps Revolving Fund of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) is hereby appropriated annually from the General Fund of the Supreme Court, and the Chief Justice is authorized to designate a special disbursing officer, who shall purchase and sell documentary stamps, as well as receive, keep and account as deposit the proceeds therefrom and use the same to replenish the stock of documentary stamps. The special disbursing officer so designated shall secure a National Treasury Fidelity Bond as required by law. Let the auditors of this Court personally audit the deposit account hereof. (Minutes No. 2, August 29, 1967)

INFERIOR COURTS

See APPEALS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

INTEGRATED BAR

Creation of Commission on Bar Integration.—In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, the Court resolved:

1. 1. That a Commission on Bar Integration be created, as it is hereby created, for the purpose of ascertaining the advisability of integration of the Bar in this jurisdiction;
2. 1. That the Commission shall consist of Mr. Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, Chairman, and the Honorable Jose J. Roy, Conrado V. Sanchez, Salvador V. Esguerra, Crisolito Pascual,

3. Tecla San Andres-Ziga, and Feliciano Jover Ledesma, members; and Atty. Romeo Vicente, Recorder-Secretary;

4. 1. That the Commission be, and is hereby authorized to:

5. a. Empanel a Board of Consultants, and to add to its membership whenever advantageous, the initial composition thereof as listed hereunder;

6. b. Communicate with any and all local bar association/s wherever and whenever advisable; and

7. c. Charge against the unexpended appropriations of the Court such amounts as are necessary for its operations; and

8. 1. That the Commission shall submit its final report to the Court on or before December 31, 1972.

BOARD OF CONSULTANTS

This Resolution shall be recorded in the minutes of the Court.

Let a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the Chairman of the Commission and to each of the Members and Recorder-Secretary thereof, as well as to each of the members of the Board of Consultants. (Minutes No. 39, October 5, 1970)

Document: Amendments to the Revised Rules of Court (CASE-62 SCRA 555) | Section: Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is corrected so as to read as follows

Complimentary copies are furnished only with the approval of the Chief Justice.

All rules and instructions or parts of the same, inconsistent with any of this resolution, are hereby repealed. (Minutes No. 27, September 10, 1969)

SUPREME COURT DIVISIONS

Constitution of a Division.—

Under the authority of Section 2(1) of Article X of the Constitution of the Philippines, the Court Resolved to constitute itself into two divisions, one of which shall be composed, for the time being of nine members, namely, Querube C. Makalintal, Acting Chief Justice, and Calixto O. Zaldivar, Fred Ruiz Castro, Enrique M. Fernando, Claudio Teehankee, Antonio P. Barredo, Felix V. Makasiar, Felix Q. Antonio and Salvador V. Esguerra, Associate Justices. The presence of six Justices shall be necessary to constitute a quorum, and the concurrence of at least six Justices shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment, except (1) when the Constitution requires that the Court sit en banc and specifies the number of Justices needed for an action or decision; and (2) when not less than four Justices are of the opinion that a given case or matter should be acted upon by the Court en banc. The Court shall sit en banc when it exercises its power of administrative supervision over all courts and personnel thereof under Section 6 of Article X of the Constitution. The other Division shall be formed in due time. (Minutes No. 54, June 1, 1973)

Constitution of First and Second Divisions.—

Pursuant to Section 2 (1) of Article X of the Constitution of the Philippines, the Court Resolved to constitute itself into two divisions of six (6) members each, as follows: First Division Querube C. Makalintal, C.J., Chairman, Fred Ruiz Castro, Claudio Teehankee; Felix V. Makasiar, Salvador V. Esguerra, and Cecilia Muñoz Palma, JJ., Members Second Division Calixto O. Zaldivar, J., Chairman, Enrique M. Fernando, Antonio P. Barredo, Felix Q. Antonio, Estanislao A. Fernandez, and Ramon C. Aquino, JJ., Members

Document: R.A. No. 7160 - An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991 (RA-7160) | Section: SECTION 402. Functions of the Lupon.* - The lupon shall

(b) The lupon or pangkat members shall serve without compensation, except as provided for in Section 393 and without prejudice to incentives as provided for in this section and in Book IV of this Code. The Department of the Interior and Local Government shall provide for a system of granting economic or other incentives to the lupon or pangkat members who adequately demonstrate the ability to judiciously and expeditiously resolve cases referred to them. While in the performance of their duties, the lupon or pangkat members, whether in public or private employment, shall be deemed to be on official time, and shall not suffer from any diminution in compensation or allowance from said employment by reason thereof.

SECTION 407. Legal Advice on Matters Involving Questions of Law. - The provincial, city legal officer or prosecutor or the municipal legal officer shall render legal advice on matters involving questions of law to the punong barangay or any lupon or pangkat member whenever necessary in the exercise of his functions in the administration of the katarungang pambarangay.

SECTION 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. - The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except:

(a) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;

(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);

(d) Offenses where there is no private offended party;

(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;

(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;

(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.

The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the lupon under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial, motu proprio refer the case to the lupon concerned for amicable settlement.

Document: R.A. No. 7160 - An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991 (RA-7160) | Section: SECTION 402. Functions of the Lupon.* - The lupon shall

SECTION 402. Functions of the Lupon. - The lupon shall:

(a) Exercise administrative supervision over the conciliation panels provided herein;

(b) Meet regularly once a month to provide a forum for exchange of ideas among its members and the public on matters relevant to the amicable settlement of disputes, and to enable various conciliation panel members to share with one another their observations and experiences in effecting speedy resolution of disputes; and

(c) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or ordinance.

SECTION 403. Secretary of the Lupon. - The barangay secretary shall concurrently serve as the secretary of the lupon. He shall record the results of mediation proceedings before the punong barangay and shall submit a report thereon to the proper city or municipal courts. He shall also receive and keep the records of proceedings submitted to him by the various conciliation panels.

SECTION 404. Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo. - (a) There shall be constituted for each dispute brought before the lupon a conciliation panel to be known as the pangkat ng tagapagkasundo, hereinafter referred to as the pangkat, consisting of three (3) members who shall be chosen by the parties to the dispute from the list of members of the lupon.

Should the parties fail to agree on the pangkat membership, the same shall be determined by lots drawn by the lupon chairman.

(b) The three (3) members constituting the pangkat shall elect from among themselves the chairman and the secretary. The secretary shall prepare the minutes of the pangkat proceedings and submit a copy duly attested to by the chairman to the lupon secretary and to the proper city or municipal court. He shall issue and cause to be served notices to the parties concerned.

The lupon secretary shall issue certified true copies of any public record in his custody that is not by law otherwise declared confidential.

SECTION 405. Vacancies in the Pangkat. - Any vacancy in the pangkat shall be chosen by the parties to the dispute from among the other lupon members. Should the parties fail to agree on a common choice, the vacancy shall be filled by lot to be drawn by the lupon chairman.

SECTION 406. Character of Office and Service of Lupon Members. - (a) The lupon members, while in the performance of their official duties or on the occasion thereof, shall be deemed as persons in authority, as defined in the Revised Penal Code.

Document: R.A. No. 7160 - An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991 (RA-7160) | Section: SECTION 409. Venue.* - (a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the lupon of said barangay.

SECTION 417. Execution. - The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the lupon within six (6) months from the date of the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in the appropriate city or municipal court.

SECTION 418. Repudiation. - Any party to the dispute may, within ten (10) days from the date of the settlement, repudiate the same by filing with the lupon chairman a statement to that effect sworn to before him, where the consent is vitiated by fraud, violence, or intimidation. Such repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of the certification for filing a complaint as hereinabove provided.

SECTION 419. Transmittal of Settlement and Arbitration Award to the Court. - The secretary of the lupon shall transmit the settlement or the arbitration award to the appropriate city or municipal court within five (5) days from the date of the award or from the lapse of the ten-day period repudiating the settlement and shall furnish copies thereof to each of the parties to the settlement and the lupon chairman.

SECTION 420. Power to Administer Oaths. - The punong barangay, as chairman of the lupong tagapamayapa, and the members of the pangkat are hereby authorized to administer oaths in connection with any matter relating to all proceedings in the implementation of the katarungang pambarangay.

SECTION 421. Administration; Rules and Regulations. - The city or municipal mayor, as the case may be, shall see to the efficient and effective implementation and administration of the katarungang pambarangay. The Secretary of Justice shall promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement this Chapter.

SECTION 422. Appropriations. - Such amount as may be necessary for the effective implementation of the katarungang pambarangay shall be provided for in the annual budget of the city or municipality concerned.

CHAPTER 8. - Sangguniang Kabataan

Document: R.A. No. 7160 - An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991 (RA-7160) | Section: SECTION 409. Venue.* - (a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the lupon of said barangay.

(d) Issuance of summons; hearing; grounds for disqualification - The pangkat shall convene not later than three (3) days from its constitution, on the day and hour set by the lupon chairman, to hear both parties and their witnesses, simplify issues, and explore all possibilities for amicable settlement. For this purpose, the pangkat may issue summons for the personal appearance of parties and witnesses before it. In the event that a party moves to disqualify any member of the pangkat by reason of relationship, bias, interest, or any other similar grounds discovered after the constitution of the pangkat, the matter shall be resolved by the affirmative vote of the majority of the pangkat whose decision shall be final. Should disqualification be decided upon, the resulting vacancy shall be filled as herein provided for.

e) Period to arrive at a settlement - The pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or resolution of the dispute within fifteen (15) days from the day it convenes in accordance with this section. This period shall, at the discretion of the pangkat, be extendible for another period which shall not exceed fifteen (15) days, except in clearly meritorious cases.

SECTION 411. Form of Settlement. - All amicable settlements shall be in writing, in a language or dialect known to the parties, signed by them, and attested to by the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the case may be. When the parties to the dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the settlement shall be written in the language known to them.

SECTION 412. Conciliation. - (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. - No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.

(b) Where Parties May Go Directly to Court. - The parties may go directly to court in the following instances:

(1) Where the accused is under detention;

(2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings;

Document: R.A. No. 7160 - An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991 (RA-7160) | Section: SECTION 409. Venue.* - (a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the lupon of said barangay.

(3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support pendente lite; and

(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.

(c) Conciliation Among Members of Indigenous Cultural Communities.  - The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in settling disputes between members of the cultural communities.

SECTION 413. Arbitration. - (a) The parties may, at any stage of the proceedings, agree in writing that they shall abide by the arbitration award of the lupon chairman or the pangkat. Such agreement to arbitrate may be repudiated within five (5) days from the date thereof for the same grounds and in accordance with the procedure hereinafter prescribed. The arbitration award shall be made after the lapse of the period for repudiation and within ten (10) days thereafter.

(b) The arbitration award shall be in writing in a language or dialect known to the parties. When the parties to the dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the award shall be written in the language or dialect known to them.

SECTION 414. Proceedings Open to the Public; Exception. - All proceedings for settlement shall be public and informal: Provided, however, That the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the case may be, may motu proprio or upon request of a party, exclude the public from the proceedings in the interest of privacy, decency, or public morals.

SECTION 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers.

SECTION 416. Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award. - The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has been made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper city or municipal court.

However, this provision shall not apply to court cases settled by the lupon under the last paragraph of Section 408 of this Code, in which case the compromise settlement agreed upon by the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman shall be submitted to the court and upon approval thereof, have the force and effect of a judgment of said court.

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SECTION 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of.**— Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action. (n)

SECTION 1. *Ordinary civil actions, basis of.—  Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.  (n)

Document: RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TORULE 140 OF THE RULES OF COURTRE: DISCIPLINE OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES, A.M. No. 01-8-10 (AM-A.M. No. 01-8-10_1fd2423a) | Section: SEC. 6. Action.** - The Court shall take such action on the report as the facts and the law may warrant.

SEC. 6. *Action. - The Court shall take such action on the report as the facts and the law may warrant.

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 6. Construction.**— These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (2a)

SEC. 6. *Construction.—  These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.  (2a)

**CIVIL ACTIONS ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS

Document: RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TORULE 140 OF THE RULES OF COURTRE: DISCIPLINE OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES, A.M. No. 01-8-10 (AM-A.M. No. 01-8-10_1fd2423a) | Section: SEC. 7. Classification of charges.** - Administrative charges are classified as serious, less serious, or light.

SEC. 7. *Classification of charges. - Administrative charges are classified as serious, less serious, or light.

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: RULE 63

SEC. 6. *Conversion into ordinary action.—  If before the final termination of the case, a breach or violation of an instrument or a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation should take place, the action may thereupon be converted into an ordinary action, and the parties shall be allowed to file such pleadings as may be necessary or proper.  (6a, R64)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SECTION 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of.**— Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action. (n)

SECTION 1. *Ordinary civil actions, basis of.—  Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.  (n)

Document: RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TORULE 140 OF THE RULES OF COURTRE: DISCIPLINE OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES, A.M. No. 01-8-10 (AM-A.M. No. 01-8-10_1fd2423a) | Section: SEC. 6. Action.** - The Court shall take such action on the report as the facts and the law may warrant.

SEC. 6. *Action. - The Court shall take such action on the report as the facts and the law may warrant.

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 2. To what actions applicable.**— This Rule shall apply to original actions for certiorari, prohibition mandamus and quo warranto.

SEC. 4. *Jurisdiction over person of respondent, how acquired.—  The court shall acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by the service on him of its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by his voluntary submission to such jurisdiction.  (n)

SEC. 5. *Action by the court.—  The court may dismiss the petition outright with specific reasons for such dismissal or require the respondent to file a comment on the same within ten (10) days from notice. Only pleadings required by the court shall be allowed. All other pleadings and papers may be filed only with leave of court.  (n)

SEC. 6. *Determination of factual issues.—  Whenever necessary to resolve factual issues, the court itself may conduct hearings thereon or delegate the reception of the evidence on such issues to any of its ,members or to an appropriate court, agency or office. (n)

SEC. 7. *Effect of failure to file comment.—  When no comment is filed by any of the respondents, the case may be decided on the basis of the record, without prejudice to any disciplinary action which the court may take against the disobedient party.  (n)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 2. To what actions applicable.**— This Rule shall apply to original actions for certiorari, prohibition mandamus and quo warranto.

SEC. 2. *To what actions applicable.—  This Rule shall apply to original actions for certiorari, prohibition mandamus and quo warranto.

Except as otherwise provided, the actions for annulment of judgment shall be governed by Rule 47, for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus by Rule 65, and for quo warranto by Rule 66.  (n)

SEC. 3. *Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements.—  The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.

It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court or by his duly authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly authorized representative. The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the original.

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.

The petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition.

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.  (n)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 3. Conditions precedent.**— In any pleading a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient. (3)

SEC. 3. *Conditions precedent.—  In any pleading a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient.  (3)

SEC. 4. *Capacity.—  Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, must be averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge.  (4)

SEC. 5. *Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind.—  In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge or other condition of the mind of a person may be averred generally.  (5a)

SEC. 6. *Judgment.—  In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it.  (6)

SEC. 7. *Action or defense based on document.—  Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading.  (7)

SEC. 8. *How to contest such documents.—  When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.  (8a)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 2. To what actions applicable.**— This Rule shall apply to original actions for certiorari, prohibition mandamus and quo warranto.

SEC. 2. *To what actions applicable.—  This Rule shall apply to original actions for certiorari, prohibition mandamus and quo warranto.

Except as otherwise provided, the actions for annulment of judgment shall be governed by Rule 47, for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus by Rule 65, and for quo warranto by Rule 66.  (n)

SEC. 3. *Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements.—  The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.

It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court or by his duly authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly authorized representative. The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the original.

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.

The petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition.

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.  (n)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 3. Conditions precedent.**— In any pleading a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient. (3)

SEC. 3. *Conditions precedent.—  In any pleading a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient.  (3)

SEC. 4. *Capacity.—  Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, must be averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge.  (4)

SEC. 5. *Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind.—  In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge or other condition of the mind of a person may be averred generally.  (5a)

SEC. 6. *Judgment.—  In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it.  (6)

SEC. 7. *Action or defense based on document.—  Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading.  (7)

SEC. 8. *How to contest such documents.—  When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.  (8a)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 13. Prohibited pleadings and motions.**— The following petitions, motions, or pleadings shall not be allowed

SEC. 17. *Judgment.—  If after trial the court finds that the allegations of the complaint are true, it shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises, the sum justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, attorney's fees and costs. If it finds that said allegations are not true, it shall render judgment for the defendant to recover his costs. If a counterclaim is established, the court shall render judgment for the sum found in arrears from either party and award costs as justice requires.  (6a)

SEC. 18. *Judgment conclusive only on possession; not conclusive in actions involving title or ownership.—  The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building. Such judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building.

The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Court.  (7a)

SEC. 19. *Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same.—  If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the  Municipal Trial Court and executed  in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with the other papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the action is appealed.

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SECTION 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of.**— Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action. (n)

SECTION 1. *Ordinary civil actions, basis of.—  Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.  (n)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: SEC. 2. To what actions applicable.**— This Rule shall apply to original actions for certiorari, prohibition mandamus and quo warranto.

SEC. 4. *Jurisdiction over person of respondent, how acquired.—  The court shall acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by the service on him of its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by his voluntary submission to such jurisdiction.  (n)

SEC. 5. *Action by the court.—  The court may dismiss the petition outright with specific reasons for such dismissal or require the respondent to file a comment on the same within ten (10) days from notice. Only pleadings required by the court shall be allowed. All other pleadings and papers may be filed only with leave of court.  (n)

SEC. 6. *Determination of factual issues.—  Whenever necessary to resolve factual issues, the court itself may conduct hearings thereon or delegate the reception of the evidence on such issues to any of its ,members or to an appropriate court, agency or office. (n)

SEC. 7. *Effect of failure to file comment.—  When no comment is filed by any of the respondents, the case may be decided on the basis of the record, without prejudice to any disciplinary action which the court may take against the disobedient party.  (n)

Legal Digest and Precedent Analysis: Rule 6 (Pleadings)

Syllabus Topic: REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS, WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES; CIVIL PROCEDURE Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, E. Pleadings (Rule 6).

I. Statutory Framework: Rule 6 (Kinds of Pleadings)

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 6 serves as the foundational classification for all formal pleadings in civil actions. It defines the types of documents—such as complaints, answers, and motions—used by parties to state their claims and defenses. The distinction between "prohibited pleadings" and valid motions is critical; a motion that addresses fundamental issues (e.g., the finality of an administrative resolution) must be considered by the court if it is not prohibited under the rules [Source 3: RULE 6].

II. Procedural Intersections: Rule 6, Rule 41, and Rule 65

The application of Rule 6 pleadings often intersects with special civil actions and appellate procedures: * Interlocutory Orders: Under Rule 41, certain orders are non-appealable (interlocutory). In such cases, the appropriate remedy is a special civil action under Rule 65 [Source 2: RULE 41]. * Certiorari Requirements: When using Rule 65 to challenge an order, the submission of certified true copies of the assailed judgment or order is indispensable. While courts may occasionally decide on the substantial merits despite a failure to provide these copies, the requirement exists to assist the court in determining if the petition should be given due course [Source 1: G.R. No. 168578-79]. * Finality of Administrative Resolutions: A pleading (such as a Motion to Dismiss) may be upheld or dismissed based on whether an underlying administrative resolution has become final and executory. If a governing body’s resolution is final, the court's continued proceedings may be deemed invalid [Source 1: G.R. Nos. 149164-73].

III. Specific Pleadings and Actions

• Replevin (Rule 60): A specific type of action/pleeding for the recovery of possession of personal property. At the commencement of the action or before the filing of an answer, a plaintiff may apply for an order for delivery [Source 4: RULE 60].
  • Requirements: To secure an order, the plaintiff must file an affidavit (detailing ownership, wrongful detention, and value) and post a bond in double the value of the property to protect against potential damages or third-party claims [Source 4: Sec. 2].
  • Officer Duties & Liability: Officers are authorized to seize property even if concealed in buildings; however, they are only liable for damages to third parties if a claim is filed within 120 days. If the plaintiff is the Republic of the Philippines, no bond is required [Source 4: Sec. 7].

Precedent Analysis & Key Legal Doctrines

| Case/Rule | Key Legal Doctrine / Requirement | | :--- | :--- | | Rule 6 (Pleadings) | Defines the formal means by which parties state claims; distinguishes valid motions from prohibited pleadings. | | Racho vs. RTC [Source 1: G.R. No. 168578-79] | Substantial Evidence: In administrative cases, "substantial evidence" is required for findings of guilt/liability.
Rule 65 Requirement: Certified true copies are technically indispensable for Certiorari petitions.
Quasi-Judicial Status: Public prosecutors are quasi-judicial officers; a single adverse ruling does not automatically constitute grave abuse of discretion. | | COMELEC vs. Espol [Source 1: G.R. Nos. 149164-73] | Finality & Jurisdiction: The validity of a motion (e.g., Motion to Dismiss) can be dictated by the finality of external administrative resolutions. | | Rule 60 (Replevin) [Source 4: RULE 60] | Protective Mechanism: The "double value" bond serves as a procedural safeguard for defendants and third parties against summary seizure of property. |

Key Takeaway for Practice: Rule 6 provides the framework for all pleadings, but its practical application is governed by the specific requirements of the action (e.g., Rule 60 for personal property) and the availability of adequate remedies (Rule 65 for interlocutory orders). Proper adherence to technical requirements—such as certified copies in Rule 65 or bonds in Rule 60—is essential to ensure the validity of the pleading.

Legal Digest: Rule 7 (Pleadings) and Related Special Procedures

Syllabus Topic: REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; Rule 7 (Pleadings); Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC.

I. General Doctrine: Parts of a Pleading (Rule 7)

Rule 7 establishes the formal requirements for "Parts of a Pleading," serving as the foundational rule governing the structure and content of pleadings such as complaints and answers. [Source 1: Rule 7, Rules of Civil Procedure].

A. The Answer and Preliminary Conference (Source [1]: Rules of Civil Procedure as Amended) * The Answer: A defendant must file an answer within ten (10) days from service of summons. Failure to do so results in the waiver of affirmative/negative defenses (except lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter) and the barring of cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims. [Source 1: Sec. 6]. * Effect of Non-Appearance: If no answer is filed, the court may—motu proprio or upon motion—render judgment based on the complaint's allegations. [Source 1: Sec. 7]. * Preliminary Conference: Held within 30 days after the last answer is filed. Failure of a plaintiff to appear may lead to dismissal; failure of a sole defendant to appear may result in judgment for the plaintiff. [Source 1: Sec. 8-9].

II. Special Procedure: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (Rule 70)

Rule 70 provides specific limitations on pleadings and procedures for summary proceedings regarding possession cases.

• Scope of Pleadings: Only the Complaint, compulsory counterclaims/cross-claims in the Answer, and Answers to those claims are allowed. All must be verified. [Source 2: Rule 70, Sec. 4].
• Action on Complaint: The court may dismiss based on the complaint's allegations or issue summons if not. [Source 2: Sec. 5].
• Summary Procedure Mechanics: Includes an Order Defining Issues (Sec. 8/9), a 10-day period for submission of evidence/position papers (Sec. 10), and a 30-day window for the court to render judgment (Sec. 11). [Source 3: Rule 70, Sec. 8-11].
• Doctrine of Limited Scope: Judgment in these cases is conclusive only on possession, not on title or ownership. [Source 3: Rule 70, Sec. 7].
• Stay of Execution: To stay execution during appeal, the defendant must provide a bond and deposit rent/damages. Failure to comply results in the immediate restoration of possession regardless of the appeal's merits. [Source 3: Rule 70, Sec. 8-10].

III. Contempt (Rule 7 / Rule 71)

• Direct Contempt: Punishable summarily for misbehavior in or near the court. No appeal is allowed; only certiorari or prohibition may be sought. [Source 4: Rule 7, Sec. 1-2].
• Indirect Contempt: Requires a written charge, comment period, and hearing. Includes disobedience of writs or interference with court processes. [Source 4: Rule 7, Sec. 3 & 7].
• Coercive Measures: Imprisonment may be used as a tool to compel an act still within the respondent's power. [Source 4: Rule 7, Sec. 8].

Precedent Analysis & Practice Notes

1. Strictness of Summary Procedure (Rule 70): Unlike standard civil actions under Rule 7, Rule 70 limits pleadings to prevent the "dilution" of the summary process. The focus is on speed and the immediate determination of possession.
2. Mandatory Verification: In both general proceedings and ejectment cases, verification is a critical requirement; failure to verify may lead to non-admission or dismissal.
3. Waiver via Silence: Under Rule 7, the 10-day period for an Answer is a "use it or lose it" window regarding defenses and counterclaims.
4. Distinction of Contempt: The legal distinction between Direct and Indirect contempt lies in procedural requirements: Direct is summary (immediate), while Indirect follows due process (charge, hearing, etc.).
5. Restitution Doctrine: In cases of contempt involving violations of injunctions or TROs, the court's power extends to full restitution to ensure the status quo is restored.

Legal Digest and Precedent Analysis: Rule 8 (Pleadings) & Related Procedural Rules

Syllabus Topic: Remedial Law – Civil Procedure (Pleadings); Rule 8, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC.

I. Core Doctrine: Manner of Making Allegations (Rule 8)

The primary objective of a pleading is to provide the court with a clear, concise roadmap of the case by focusing on facts essential to legal claims or defenses.

• Requirement of Ultimate Facts [Source 1: RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED, Rule 8, Sec. 1]:
  • Pleadings must be drafted in a methodical and logical form.
  • They must contain a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts upon which the party relies for their claim or defense.
  • Exclusion of Evidentiary Facts: The rule mandates the omission of "mere evidentiary facts" (details used to prove the ultimate facts) from the pleading itself.
  • Legal Basis: If a defense is based on law, the specific provisions and their applicability to the case must be clearly stated in the pleading.
• Alternative Causes of Action or Defenses [Source 1: RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED, Rule 8, Sec. 2]:
  • A party may set forth two or more statements of claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically within a single cause of action/defense or in separate ones.
  • Sufficiency Rule: A pleading is not considered insufficient if one of several alternative statements is insufficient, provided at least one alternative is sufficient on its own.

II. Estate Proceedings: Administration and Claims (Rules 82–86)

Note: While the syllabus focuses on "Allegations" under Rule 8, the following sections provide specific procedural rules regarding the administration of estates as found in the provided source texts.

A. Management and Continuity [Source 1: Rules of Court..., Rule 82] * Revocation & Removal: Letters of administration are revoked if a will is later proved; executors/administrators may be removed for negligence, failure to perform duties, or becoming "incapable or unsuitable" [Rule 82, Sec. 1-2]. * Validity of Prior Acts: Actions performed by an administrator prior to removal remain valid [Rule 82, Sec. 3]. * Succession: Successors inherit the same powers to collect and settle assets; court-granted authorities for real estate may be renewed without notice [Rule 82, Sec. 4].

B. Inventory and Protection of Interests [Source 2: Rules of Court..., Rule 83] * Inventory: Must be submitted within three (3) months of appointment [Rule 83, Sec. 1]. * Exemptions: Items like the marriage bed, wearing apparel for children, and basic provisions are excluded from inventory to ensure family subsistence [Rule 83, Sec. 2]. * Family Allowance: The court must ensure a legal allowance for the widow and minor/incapacitated children [Rule 83, Sec. 3].

C. Accountability and Transparency [Source 3: Rules of Court..., Rule 84 & 85] * Access to Records: Administrators have rights to access partnership books; non-compliance by partners is punishable [Rule 84, Sec. 1]. * Maintenance: Property must be kept in "tenantable repair" before delivery to heirs [Rule 84, Sec. 2]. * Fiduciary Accountability: Administrators are held accountable for the full value of assets (including interest/profit) and cannot profit from market fluctuations unless they caused the change [Rule 85].

D. Claims Against Estate [Source 1, 2, & 3: Rules of Court..., Rule 86] * Mortgage Debts: Creditors with mortgages have three options: join general distribution, foreclose and claim deficiency, or rely solely on the mortgage [Rule 86, Sec. 7]. * Conflict of Interest: If an administrator has a personal claim against the estate, a special administrator must be appointed to handle that specific claim [Rule 86, Sec. 8]. * Notice to Creditors: Notice must be published for three (3) successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation; claims must generally be filed within six (6) to twelve (12) months after the first publication [Rule 86, Sec. 1-4].

III. Precedent Analysis & Practice Notes

1. Ultimate vs. Evidentiary Facts: Rule 8 emphasizes that pleadings should focus on core facts from which a legal right is derived to avoid cluttering the record with details better suited for trial [Source 1, Rule 8].
2. Strategic Use of Alternatives: Rule 8, Sec. 2 serves as a "safety net," allowing litigants to present multiple theories (e.g., "void or voidable") to ensure at least one may succeed.
3. Doctrine of Waiver on Offsets [Source 1: Rule 86, Sec. 10]: In the context of claims against estates, an administrator must allege any offsets in their initial answer; failure to do so bars the claim forever. This is a critical "notice and bar" rule.
4. Strict Compliance with Affidavits [Source 1: Rule 86, Sec. 9]: Specific affidavits for "due" vs. "contingent" claims are mandatory procedural safeguards to ensure accurate estate records.
5. Continuity of Authority: Rule 82 ensures that the transition of power in an estate does not paralyze proceedings or invalidate prior legal actions.

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: RULE 9

**RULE 9

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD**

SECTION 1. *Defenses and objections not pleaded.—  Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.  (2a)

Document: Rules of Court in the Philippines Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines Effective January 1, 1964 (RULE-373) | Section: Rule 9 EFFECT OF PLEADINGS

Rule 9 EFFECT OF PLEADINGS

Section 1. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted.— Material averment in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of damage, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury are deemed admitted if not denied specifically and under oath.

Sec. 2. Defenses and objections not pleaded deemed waived.— Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived; except the failure to state a cause of action which may be alleged in a later pleading, if one is permitted, or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits; but in the last instance, the motion shall be disposed of as provided in section 5 of Rule 10 in the light of any evidence which may have been received.   Whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, it shall dismiss the action.

Sec. 3. Omission of counterclaim or cross-claim.— When pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or  justice requires, he may, by leave of court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment.

Sec. 4. Counterclaim or cross-claim not set up barred.— A counterclaim or cross-claim not set up shall be barred if it arises out of or is necessarily connected with, the transaction or occurrence that is the subject-matter of the opposing party's or co-party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

Sec. 5. Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein.— Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these rules, upon motion made by a party within twenty (20) days after the service of the pleading upon him, or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order any pleading to be stricken out or that any sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be stricken out therefrom.

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: RULE 10

**RULE 10

AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS**

SECTION 1. *Amendments in general.—  Pleadings may be amended by adding or striking out an allegation or the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description in any other respect, so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner.  (1)

SEC. 2. *Amendments as a matter of right.—  A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served.  (2a)

SEC. 3. *Amendments by leave of court.—  Except as provided in the next preceding section, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay. Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard.  (3a)

SEC. 4. *Formal amendments.—  A defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party.  (4a)

SEC. 5. *Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence.—  When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made.  (5a)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: RULE 10

SEC. 6. *Supplemental pleadings.—  Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10) days from notice of the order admitting the supplemental pleading.  (6a)

SEC. 7. *Filing of amended pleadings.—  When any pleading is amended, a new copy of the entire pleading, incorporating the amendments, which shall be indicated by appropriate marks, shall be filed.  (7a)

SEC. 8. *Effect of amended pleadings.—  An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader; and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived.  (n)

Document: 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED (RULES 1 – 71, RULES OF COURT) (RULE-374) | Section: RULE 45

SEC. 7. *Pleadings and documents that may be required; sanctions.—  For purposes of determining whether the petition should be dismissed or denied pursuant to section 5 of this Rule, or where the petition is given due course under section 8 hereof, the Supreme Court may require or allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as it may deem necessary within such periods and under such conditions as it may consider appropriate, and impose the corresponding sanctions in case of non-filing or unauthorized filing of such pleadings and documents or non-compliance with the conditions therefore.  (n)

SEC. 8. *Due course; elevation of records.—  If the petition is given due course, the Supreme Court may require the elevation of the complete record of the case or specified parts thereof within fifteen (15) days from notice.  (2a)

SEC. 9. *Rule applicable to both civil and criminal cases.—  The mode of appeal prescribed in this Rule shall be applicable to both civil and criminal cases, except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. (n)

Legal Digest: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings (Rule 10)

Syllabus Topic: 5. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings – Rule 10 Relevant Provisions: Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC

I. Core Principles of Rule 10 (Amended and Supplemental Pleadings)

The primary objective of Rule 10 is to ensure that the actual merits of a controversy are determined speedily, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner.

• Amendments in General [Source 2: Rules of Civil Procedure as Amended, Sec. 1]: Pleadings may be amended by adding or striking out an allegation or the name of a party, or by correcting mistakes in names or inadequate descriptions to facilitate the determination of the case's merits.
• Amendments as a Matter of Right [Source 2: Rules of Civil Procedure as Amended, Sec. 2]: A party is entitled to amend their pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. In the case of a reply, it may be amended at any time within ten (10) days after it is served.
• Amendments by Leave of Court [Source 2: Rules of Civil Procedure as Amended, Sec. 3]: Substantial amendments, except those allowed as a matter of right, require the court's permission. The court may refuse such leave if the motion is intended to cause delay. Such motions must be filed with notice to the adverse party and an opportunity to be heard.
• Formal Amendments [Source 2: Rules of Civil Procedure as Amended, Sec. 4]: Clerical or typographical errors (e.g., defects in the designation of parties) may be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action, either on its own initiative or upon motion, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.
• Amendments to Conform to Evidence [Source 2: Rules of Civil Procedure as Amended, Sec. 5]: When issues not raised in pleadings are tried with the consent of the parties, they are treated as if they were in the pleadings. Amendments to conform these to evidence may be made at any time (even after judgment). If evidence is objected to because it falls outside the pleadings, the court may allow a liberal amendment to ensure substantial justice and the presentation of merits.

II. Supplemental Pleadings

• Supplemental Pleadings [Source 1: Rules of Civil Procedure as Amended, Sec. 6]: Upon motion, the court may permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading regarding transactions, occurrences, or events that happened after the date of the original pleading. The adverse party has ten (10) days from notice of the order admitting the supplement to file their response.

III. Effect and Procedure of Amendments

• Filing Requirements [Source 1: Rules of Civil Procedure as Amended, Sec. 7]: When a pleading is amended, a new copy of the entire pleading must be filed, with the specific changes clearly indicated by appropriate marks.
• Legal Effect [Source 1: Rules of Civil Procedure as Amended, Sec. 8]: An amended pleading supersedes the original. However:
  1. Admissions in the superseded pleading may still be used as evidence against the pleader.
  2. Claims or defenses in the old pleading that are not included in the new one are deemed waived.

Precedent Analysis & Syllabus Correlation

• Rule 10 Application: The core of Rule 10 is the balance between procedural technicality and substantial justice. The court favors "liberality" when it comes to amending pleadings to ensure the merits of a case are decided (Sec. 5).
• Distinction of Material & Conflict Resolution: It must be noted that several provided source segments ([Source 1] and [Source 2] in Batches 2, 3, 4, and 5) contain information regarding Rule 102 (Habeas Corpus) rather than Rule 10. Specifically:
  • Rule 102 (Habeas Corpus) covers the execution of writs [Source 1: Sec. 8-11], grounds for denial [Source 4: Sec. 4], and penalties for non-compliance [Source 3: Sec. 16].
  • Rule 100 (Rescission and Revocation of Adoption) is also noted as irrelevant to the syllabus topic of "Amended and Supplemental Pleadings."
• Conclusion: While the provided text segments in Batches 2-5 contain extensive details on Rule 102, they do not provide content for Rule 10. The specific legal requirements for Rule 10 (Amendment/Supplement) are only fully detailed in Source 2 of Batch 1. To satisfy Syllabus Item 5, the student must rely on the provisions regarding "liberality," "matter of right" vs. "leave of court," and "conformity to evidence" as outlined in Rule 10.

Legal Digest and Precedent Analysis

Syllabus Topic: 6. Filing of Responsive Pleadings – Rule 11 (Remedial Law; Civil Procedure)

I. Core Rules on Responsive Pleadings (Rule 11)

The primary rules governing the timing and manner of filing responsive pleadings in civil actions are established under Rule 11:

• Standard Answer to Complaint: A defendant must file an answer within fifteen (15) days after service of summons, unless the court fixes a different period. [Source 1: Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11, Sec. 1]
• Foreign Private Juridical Entities: If service is made on a government official designated by law, the entity is granted thirty (30) days after receipt to file an answer. [Source 1: Rule 11, Sec. 2]
• Amended Complaints:
  • As a Matter of Right: The defendant must answer within fifteen (15) days from service of the amendment. [Source 1: Rule 11, Sec. 3]
  • Not as a Matter of Right: The defendant must answer within ten (10) days from notice of the order admitting the amendment. [Source 1: Rule 11, Sec. 3]
  • Note: These timelines also apply to amended counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party complaints, and complaints-in-intervention. [Source 1: Rule 11, Sec. 3]

II. Interplay Between Civil and Criminal Actions (Rule 111)

While Rule 11 governs the timing of civil pleadings, Rule 111 dictates how these pleadings are handled when a criminal action is involved:

• Presumptive Institution & Suspension: A civil action for civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless waived, reserved (before evidence presentation), or filed prior to the criminal case. If filed prior, it is suspended until final judgment in the criminal case; however, the period of prescription is tolled. [Source 3: Rule 11, Sec. 1; Source 1: Rule 111, Sec. 2]
• Independent Civil Actions: Under Art. 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code (e.g., fraud, defamation), an independent civil action may proceed regardless of a criminal case, requiring only a preponderance of evidence. [Source 1: Rule 111, Sec. 3]
• Prohibited Pleadings in Criminal Cases: No counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party complaint may be filed by an accused in a criminal case; these must be litigated in separate civil actions. [Source 2: Rule 11, Sec. 1]
• Effect of Death: If the accused dies after arraignment, civil liability from the delict is extinguished, but independent civil actions (e.g., contract/quasi-delict) continue against the estate. [Source 1: Rule 111, Sec. 4]
• Prejudicial Questions: A criminal action may be suspended if a civil pleading involves an issue so intimately related to the criminal case that its resolution determines whether the criminal action can proceed. [Source 1: Rule 111, Sec. 6-7]

III. Preliminary Investigation & Administrative Context (Rule 112)

In the context of preliminary investigations and administrative proceedings:

• Probable Cause: Determining probable cause does not require "clear and convincing evidence" but only a belief that an act constitutes the offense charged. [Source 1: G.R. Nos. 168578-79]
• Clarificatory Hearings: Under Rule 112, Sec. 3(e), clarificatory hearings are not mandatory; the use of "may" indicates they are optional for the investigating officer. [Source 1: G.R. Nos. 168578-79; Source 2: Note 40]
• Administrative Rules: In cases under the Ombudsman, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied compared to judicial proceedings. [Source 1: G.R. Nos. 168578-79]

IV. Precedent Analysis & Practice Notes

1. Judicial Economy: The rule on consolidation and "automatic reproduction" of evidence in consolidated cases aims to prevent conflicting decisions and repetitive trials. [Source 3: Rule 11, Sec. 1]
2. Prescription Protection: Tolling the prescription for suspended civil actions ensures that the duration of criminal proceedings does not prejudice a party's right to claim civil liability. [Source 3: Rule 11, Sec. 1]
3. Standard of Proof Distinction: Practitioners must distinguish between the "preponderance of evidence" required in independent civil actions and the standard for "probable cause" in preliminary investigations (which is lower than the "clear and convincing" standard). [Source 1: G.R. Nos. 168578-79; Source 1: Rule 111, Sec. 3]
4. Substitution of Parties: A specific 30-day period is provided for the substitution of heirs/representatives upon the death of an accused to ensure civil liability against the estate remains actionable. [Source 1: Rule 111, Sec. 4]

Legal Digest and Precedent Analysis

Syllabus Topic: 7. Bill of Particulars – Rule 12 (REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS, WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES (25%), III. CIVIL PROCEDURE Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, E. Pleadings)

I. Core Doctrine: Rule 12 – Bill of Particulars

The primary function of a Bill of Particulars is to eliminate ambiguity in pleadings. It serves as a tool for "clarification" rather than "amendment." It ensures that an opposing party is not forced to guess at specific facts or claims, thereby facilitating a more efficient litigation process and preventing "trial by ambush."

• Purpose: To clarify allegations that are not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity.
• Distinction from Motion to Amend: Unlike a motion to amend (which seeks to change the substance of a pleading), a Bill of Particulars seeks only to clarify what is already alleged but stated too vaguely to be effectively answered.

II. Procedural Requirements and Mechanics

[Source: RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED, RULE 12]

• Application & Timing: A party may move for a bill of particulars or a "definite statement" before responding to a pleading. If the motion is filed against a reply, it must be filed within ten (10) days from service of said reply.
• Content Requirements: The motion must specifically identify:
  1. The defects complained of;
  2. The specific paragraphs containing those defects; and
  3. The details desired.
• Court Action: Upon filing, the clerk of court must immediately bring the motion to the court's attention. The court may deny it outright, grant it outright, or allow the parties to be heard.
• Compliance & Penalties: If granted (in whole or in part), compliance must be made within ten (10) days from notice of the order. Failure to comply or insufficient compliance may result in the striking out of the pleading or portions thereof to which the order was directed, or other orders deemed just by the court.
• Tolling of Time: Upon service of the bill of particulars (or a more definite pleading) or notice of denial of the motion, the moving party regains their original timeframe to file the responsive pleading, which shall be no less than five (5) days.

III. Contextual Notes and Related Rules

• Rule 120 (Judgment): While Rule 12 (Civil Procedure) governs the Bill of Particulars, related procedural concepts are found in Rule 120 (Criminal Procedure). Rule 120 ensures that judgments are specific enough to satisfy due process by requiring a clear statement of facts and law.
• Rule 122 (Appeal): Note that some source texts regarding "Rule 122" refer to Appeals in criminal procedure (transcription of notes, transmission of records, etc.) rather than the Civil Procedure Rule 12.
• Distinction from R.A. No. 240: While mentioned in some contexts, R.A. No. 240 (Rule 122-A) pertains to the Attachment of Property in Criminal Actions and is not a governing rule for the "Bill of Particulars."

Summary Table for Quick Reference

| Provision | Key Requirement/Rule | Period/Penalty | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Motion Timing | Before responding; 10 days if against a "Reply." | N/A | | Content of Motion | Must specify defects, paragraph numbers, and details. | Mandatory | | Compliance Period | After order is granted. | 10 days (unless specified) | | Non-compliance | Failure to provide particulars. | Striking out of the pleading/portions | | Tolling of Time | Period for responsive pleading. | Not less than 5 days after service |