CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.
Rules must be simplified and inexpensive;
2. Rules must be applicable to courts of co-equal
jurisdiction; and
Rule-making power of the Supreme Court () 3. Rules must not increase, modify, and decrease
substantive rights.
1935 Constitution: Rule-making power is shared Quintos v. Nicolas
by the SC and the Congress A and B are co-owners.
GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero; Neypes v. CA; Subsequently, A filed a petition
Echegaray v. People: The rule-making power for partition. But the petition was
belongs solely to the SC. dismissed for failure to
GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero prosecute. Hence, the dismissal
The Congress enacted a law exempting is with prejudice and thus res
GSIS from payment of docket fees judicata lies therein.
SC: Notwithstanding the provisions of Consequently, B filed an action
the substantive laws, the rule-making for quieting of title against A. A,
power belongs solely to the SC. Thus, in his answer alleged partition
GSIS shall pay the docket fees. as a counterclaim.
Moreover, this rule is due to the Issues:
separation of powers and the SC 1. Can partition be used
(Judiciary) has fiscal autonomy where it as a counterclaim?
can generate sources of income to fund YES.
its programs and activities. 2. Can the claim for
De Lima v. Jimeno partition prosper
Issue: Is the DO 41 which authorizes the notwithstanding the
Sec. of DOJ to issue a Hold Departure dismissal of the prior
Order constitutional? petition for partition?
SC: DO 41 is unconstitutional because it YES. Article 494 of the
violates the rule-making power of the Civil Code, the co-
SC as the rule-making power belongs owner has the right to
solely to the SC. demand partition
Estipona v. Lobrigo anytime. As a
Sec. 23 of RA 9165 prohibits plea- substantive right, Rule
bargaining in drug-related cases 17 Section 3 of the
Issue: Is Sec. 23 of RA 9165 Rules of Court (ROC)
constitutional? will not prevail over the
SC: Sec. 23 of RA 9165 is right of the co-owner to
unconstitutional because it violates the demand partition.
rule-making power of the SC as the rule- Doctrines
making power belongs solely to the SC.
Carpio-Morales v. CA 1. Liberal Construction Doctrine – Sec. 6, Rule 1
Ombudsman issued an order of of the ROC. ROC shall be construed liberally in
preventive suspension against Binay. order to promote its objectives.
Consequently, Binay went to CA and CA 2. The SC has the power to suspend or relax the
issued a TRO and a Writ of Preliminary application of the ROC for weighty and
Injunction (PI). Ombudsman countered persuasive reasons to relieve a litigant from
the same by invoking that Sec. 40 of RA injustice.
8770 which provides that only the SC 3. Courts are both courts of law and equity.
has the power to issue a TRO and a Courts can apply equity if there is no
Writ of PI on the imposition of preventive applicable laws or jurisprudence or
suspension. established principle on the matter.
Issue: Can the CA issue a TRO and a (Equity outside legality)
Writ of PI? Republic v. Cagandahan
SC: Sec. 40 of RA 8770 is In the absence of a law, equity
INEFFECTIVE. The rule-making power shall be applied in deciding the
belongs solely to the SC. case.
Limitations to the rule-making power of the SC Retroactive Application of Remedial Laws
Neypes v. CA Jurisdiction cannot be a subject of
NOTE: Fresh-period rule stipulation. Venue may be stipulated of
applies to Rule 40 and 41 agreed upon
Issue: Can the fresh-period rule Objection as to Jurisdiction cannot be
be retroactively applied? waived. Objection as to Venue may be
SC: YES, because there are no waived.
vested rights in the rules of The court can motu propio dismiss the
procedure. complaint if the court has no jurisdiction.
Issue: Can remedial laws be The Court cannot motu propio dismiss
applied retroactively? the case if the complaint was filed in an
SC: YES, remedial laws apply in improper venue.
pending cases and on appeal at
Jurisdiction over the subject matter
the time of the passage of the
rule. Principle of Judicial Hierarchy
Rodriguez v. People in relation to MTC to RTC to CA to SC
Fortune v. COA It applies to Rule 65 (Certiorari,
FPR need not apply in Rules 42, prohibition, and Mandamus),
43 and 45 because it is already Petition for Habeas Corpus, and
explicit in the said Rules. Petition for Quo Warranto.
FPR do not apply in Rule 65 Exceptions
(Petition for Certiorari) and Rule Cases involving
64 because the FPR applies transcendental import.
only in a mode of appeal. Since The issue involves a
Rule 65 is not a mode of appeal pure question of law
and a special civil action, FPR Question of
does not apply. Law: if the issue
Yu v. Tatad can only be
Can the FPR be applied in resolved
criminal cases? through the
SC: YES, because Rules 40 application of
and 41 applies also in criminal the law.
cases. National Interest cases
Alolino v. CA; San Lorenzo Builders Doctrine of Judicial Stability or
v. Bayan Doctrine of Non-Judicial Interference
Can the FPR be applied in No court may interfere with the
administrative cases? ruling of a court of equal
SC: NO, FPR applies only in jurisdiction.
judicial appeals. Quasi-judicial bodies are
equivalent to RTC. Thus, the
Jurisdiction
RTC issue an Injunction or TRO
Echegaray v. SOJ over decisions of the Divisions
OSG: The SC can no longer issue a of the NLRC and SEC (Santos
TRO during the execution of sentence. v. Baylon)
SC: Jurisdiction is not only the power to RA 8282 (The Law Expanding
hear, try, and decide cases but also the the jurisdiction of the CTA)
power to execute the judgment after the The CTA is a co-equal
final disposition of case in civil cases body of the CA.
and until full and complete service of Rule 43 of the ROC is
sentence of the accused in criminal amended by RA 8282
cases. (Expanded Concept of and the decisions of the
Jurisdiction) CTA is no longer
Jurisdiction v. Venue appealable with the CA.
Jurisdiction is substantive. Venue is Exception: Third-party claim
procedural When the property
levied upon is not the
property of the
defendant, the owner
may ask the issuance of defendant even when there’s no service
a TRO or Injunction with of summons or there’s defective service
the RTC to prevent the of summons:
auction. And such will Voluntary appearance of the
not violate the Doctrine defendant with the court.
of Judicial Stability. (Section 20, Rule 14 of the
(Santos v. Baylon) ROC)
Principle of Continuity of Jurisdiction Filing of a motion for
If jurisdiction over a case extension to file an
attaches to the court, such court answer.
has jurisdiction over the case Filing a Motion to
until final disposition. Dismiss by way of a
A filed an action for collection of special and conditional
sum of money in the amount of appearance to question
1 million against B with the the jurisdiction of the
MTC. But B alleged, in his court over the person
Motion to Dismiss, that it is true of the defendant.
that he borrowed money from A, o Inclusion of
the amount he borrowed is only other grounds
300k. Hence, the RTC has no in a motion to
jurisdiction. Shall the Motion be dismiss except
granted? NO, because of the lack of
Principle of Continuity of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction where the court, over the
once it obtains jurisdiction person of the
over the case, it will retain defendant is
such until final disposition of NO LONGER
the case. Moreover, considered as
jurisdiction can only be a voluntary
determined in the allegations appearance.
in the complaint and the RTC Filing a Motion to
will hypothetically admit the Quash
allegations in the complaint o Inclusion of
as true (Hypothetical other grounds
Admission Rule), take in a Motion to
cognizance of the case, and Quash aside
decide the case. from lack of
jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the parties
over the
As to the plaintiff, the court acquires jurisdiction person of the
over his person upon filing of the complaint accused is NO
AND after payment of the required docket fees. LONGER
A filed a complaint with the RTC and considered as
has paid the docket fees against B. B a voluntary
alleged that the complaint shall be appearance.
dismissed because A is in abroad. GR: A party can invoke lack of jurisdiction over
Hence, the court has not acquired the parties at anytime even for the first time on
jurisdiction over A’s person. Does the appeal
court have jurisdiction over A’s person? Exception: Estoppel or laches
YES, the court acquired jurisdiction Exception to the Exception: If
over his person upon filing of the the party assailing the court’s
complaint AND after payment of the jurisdiction actively participated
required docket fees. in the trial, he cannot invoke
As to the defendant, the court acquires estoppel or laches. (Tijam v.
jurisdiction upon service of summons. Sibonghanoy)
Instances where the court can acquire In a collection of sum of money case,
jurisdiction over the person of the jurisdiction of the court can be determined by
the principal amount only. However, in payment
of docket fees, interest, damages and other
expenses shall be considered.
Spouses Sante v. Claraval
If the claim of damages is merely
incidental to the main action, interest
and other damages shall not be
considered in determining the
jurisdiction of the court.
However, if the main action is for the
claim of damages, include the amount
of damages, including attorney’s fees in
determining court’s jurisdiction
Gomez v. Montalban
In the determination of jurisdiction of
the court, include the amount of interest
if:
the said amount is the primary
and inseparable in the cause of
action;
the said amount is
determinable at the time of the
filing of the case;
it should be included in the
determination of the court’s
jurisdiction; and
it is expressly agreed upon in
the loan contract.
