0% found this document useful (0 votes)
216 views

Civpro Notes

Remedial or procedural law prescribes the methods of enforcing substantive rights and obtaining redress for violations of those rights. It establishes rules for filing suits, conducting trials, and deciding cases in courts. Procedural laws are intended to prevent unnecessary delays and promote the orderly and speedy administration of justice. The Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules of procedure for all courts, which must be followed strictly. Philippine courts are either constitutional courts created by the Constitution or statutory courts established by legislation. There is a hierarchy of courts that determines the appropriate forum for appeals and petitions to promote the efficient use of judicial resources.

Uploaded by

Buen Libetario
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
216 views

Civpro Notes

Remedial or procedural law prescribes the methods of enforcing substantive rights and obtaining redress for violations of those rights. It establishes rules for filing suits, conducting trials, and deciding cases in courts. Procedural laws are intended to prevent unnecessary delays and promote the orderly and speedy administration of justice. The Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules of procedure for all courts, which must be followed strictly. Philippine courts are either constitutional courts created by the Constitution or statutory courts established by legislation. There is a hierarchy of courts that determines the appropriate forum for appeals and petitions to promote the efficient use of judicial resources.

Uploaded by

Buen Libetario
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 33

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES C.

Substantive law vis-à-vis remedial law


A. Concept of Remedial or Procedural Law SUBSTANTIVE LAW REMEDIAL LAW
The concept of Remedial Law lies at the very core of Substantive law creates, Remedial law prescribes the
procedural due process, which means a law which hears defines and regulates rights methods of enforcing those
before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and and duties regarding life, rights and obligations
renders judgment only after trial, and contemplates an liberty or property which created by substantive law
opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. when violated gives rise to a by providing a procedural
Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the cause of action system for obtaining redress
method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their for the invasion of rights
invasion (Bustos vs.Lucero, GR No. L2068, 08/20/1948; and violations of duties and
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. CA, GR No. 110571, by prescribing rules as to
03/10/1994; Albert vs. University Publishing, GR No. L- how suits are filed, tried and
19118, 01/30/1965) decided by the courts
Creates vested rights Does not create vested
B. Nature of remedial law rights
Rules of Court, promulgated by authority of law, have the Enacted by Congress The SC is expressly
force and effect of law; and Rules of Court prescribing the empowered to
time within which certain acts must be done, or certain Promulgate procedural rules
proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable Generally prospective in May be applied
to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and application retroactively
speedy discharge of judicial business. (Gonzales v. Torres,
A.M. No. MT]-06·1653,July 30, 2007) D. Procedural laws applicable to actions pending at the time
of the promulgation
Strict compliance with the rules has been held mandatory Statutes and rules regulating the procedure of courts are
and imperative, so that failure to pay the docket fee in the considered applicable to actions pending and unresolved at
Supreme Court, within the period fixed for that purpose, will the time of their passage.
cause the dismissal of the appeal (Alvero v. De La Rosa et.
al. G.R. No. L-286, March 29, 1946).

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.com Page 1


E. Liberal construction of procedural rules (b) Statutory Courts are those created by law whose
The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote jurisdiction is determined by legislation. These may
their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive be abolished likewise by legislation. BP 129 created
disposition of every action and proceeding (Sec. 6, Rule 1). the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Courts,
Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Courts. RA 1125
F. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court created the Court of Tax Appeals, while PD 1083
Section 5 (5), Art. VIII of the Constitution provides that the created the Family Courts, and the Shari‘ah District
Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules and Circuit Courts.
concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the 2. Principle of judicial Hierarchy
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and  It must be stressed that the Court of Appeals and
legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall the Supreme Court have original concurrent
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari. The rule
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of on hierarchy of courts determines the venue of
the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify appeals. Such rule is necessary to prevent
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and inordinate demands upon the Court’s precious time
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless and attention which are better devoted to matters
disapproved by the Supreme Court. within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent
further overcrowding of the Court’s docket. (Audi
G. Nature of Philippine Courts AG v. Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27, 2007)
1. Classification of Philippine Courts  Anent the alleged breach of the doctrine of
Philippine courts are classified as either Constitutional hierarchy of courts, suffice it to say that it is not an
Court or Statutory Court: iron-clad dictum. On several instances where this
(a) Constitutional courts are those that owe their Court was confronted with cases of national
creation and existence to the Constitution. Their interest and of serious implications, it never
existence as well as the deprivation of their hesitated to set aside the rule and proceed with the
jurisdictions and power cannot be made the subject of judicial determination of the case. (COMELEC v.
legislation. The Supreme Court is the only court Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 151992, September 18,
created by the Constitution (Article VIII, Sec. 1[1], 2002)
1987 Constitution)

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.com Page 2


 That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
appeals, and also serves as a general determinant and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of this Court is
of the appropriate forum for petitions for the not exclusive but is concurrent with that of the
extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that Court of Appeals and regional trial court and does
judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that not give petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice
petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs of court forum. The hierarchy of courts must be
against first level courts should be filed with the strictly observed. Settled is the rule that the
Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must so
with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the
the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter
these writs should be allowed only when there are and immemorial tradition. A disregard of the
special and important reasons therefor, clearly and doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule,
specifically set out in the petition. This is [an] the outright dismissal of a petition. A direct
established policy. It is a policy necessary to invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction is allowed
prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s time only when there are special and important reasons
and attention which are better devoted to those that are clearly and specifically set forth in a
matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to petition. The rationale behind this policy arises
prevent further over-crowding of the Court’s from the necessity of preventing (1) inordinate
docket. (United Claimants Association of NEA v. demands upon the time and attention of the Court,
National Electrification Administration, G.R. NO. which is better devoted to those matters within its
187107, January 31, 2012) exclusive jurisdiction; and (2) further
 However, as an exception to this general rule, the overcrowding of the Court’s docket. (Emmanuel
principle of hierarchy of courts may be set aside De Castro v. Emerson Carlos, G.R. No. 194994,
for special and important reasons. (United April 16, 2013)
Claimants Association of NEA v. National
Electrification Administration, G.R. NO. 187107,
January 31, 2012)
 Although Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution explicitly provides that the Supreme
Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for
CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.com Page 3
This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative
bodies. When the law provides for an appeal from the
decision of an administrative body to the SC or CA, it
3. Transcendental importance means that such body is co-equal with the RTC in terms
In several cases, the court has allowed direct invocation of rank and stature, and logically beyond the control of
of the SC's original jurisdiction on the following grounds: the latter. (Sinter Corporation and Phividec Industrial
(1) When there are special and important reasons clearly Authority v. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc.,
stated in the petition; G.R. No. 127371, April 25, 2002)
(2) When dictated by public welfare and the advancement
of public policy; 5. Doctrine of Primary jurisdiction
(3) When demanded by the broader interest of justice; Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a
(4) When the challenged orders were patent nullities; or question which is within the jurisdiction of an
(5) When analogous, exceptional and compelling administrative tribunal, especially where the question
circumstances called for and justified the immediate demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion
and direct handling of the case (Republic v. Caquioa, requiring the special knowledge, experience and services
et al., G.R. No. 174385, February 20, 2013) of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and
(6) When there are genuine reasons of constitutionality intricate matters of fact.
that must be addressed at the most immediate time. The objective is to guide a court in determining whether
(The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after
205728, January 21, 2015). an administrative agency has determined some question
or some aspect of some question arising in the
4. Doctrine of non-interference or judicial stability proceeding before the court. (Omictin v. Court of
Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot Appeals, G.R. No. 148004, January 22, 2007)
interfere with each other‘s orders. Thus, the RTC has no
power to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of 6. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction/continuing
possession issued by another RTC. The principle also jurisdiction
bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the In view of the principle that once a court has acquired
judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has
appellate jurisdiction or power of review. done all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction.
This principle also means that once jurisdiction has

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.com Page 4


attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings to validly try and decide the case. (Afdal & Afdal
or events, although of a character which would have v. Carlos, G.R. No. 173379, December 1, 2010)
prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.
The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains B. Over the subject matter
that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case. 1. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined
(Abad, et al. v. RTC of Manila, et al., G.R. No. L-65505,  Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law because
October 12, 1987 ) it is conferred by law. This jurisdiction which is a
matter of substantive law should be construed to
refer only to jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Jurisdiction over the parties, the issues and the res
II. JURISDICTION are matters of procedure. The test of jurisdiction is
whether the court has the power to enter into the
A. Over the parties inquiry and not whether the decision is right or
1. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired wrong.
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by his filing  It is an elementary rule of procedural law that
of the complaint or petition and the payment of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is
correct docket fee. By doing so, he submits himself to conferred by law and is determined by the
the jurisdiction of the court. allegations of the complaint irrespective of
whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all
2. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired or some of the claims asserted therein. As a
 In civil cases, jurisdiction over the person of the necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the
defendant may be acquired either by service of court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses
summons or by the defendant’s voluntary set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss,
appearance in court and submission to its for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would
authority. (Optima Realty Corporation v. Hertz almost entirely depend upon the defendant. What
Phil., Exclusive, Inc., G.R. No. 183035, January 9, determines the jurisdiction of the court is the
2013) nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the
 In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the allegations in the complaint. The averments in the
person of the defendant is necessary for the court complaint and the character of the relief sought are
the matters to be consulted. (Fe V. Rapsing, et al.

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.com Page 5


v. Hon. Judge Maximino R. Ables, et al., G.R. No.
171855, October 15, 2012) 3. Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
 It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject GR: A court's jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of
matter is determined by the allegations in the the proceedings, even on appeal for the same is conferred
complaint. It is determined exclusively by the by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the
Constitution and the law. It cannot be conferred by court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the
the voluntary act or agreement of the parties, or action. It applies even if the issue on jurisdiction was
acquired through or waived, enlarged or raised for the first time on appeal or even after final
diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred judgment.
by the acquiescence of the court. Well to XPN: A party may be barred by laches from invoking the
emphasize, it is neither for the court nor the parties lack of jurisdiction at a late hour for the purpose of
to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being annulling everything done in the case with the active
legislative in character. (Mendoza v. Germino & participation of said party invoking the plea. A party
Germino, G.R. No. 165676, November 22, 2010) cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure
affirmative relief against his opponent and, after
2. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter obtaining or failing to obtain such relief repudiate or
GR: The prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the question that same jurisdiction
subject matter may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings and even for the first time on appeal. 4. Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of
XPN: judgment
(1) Estoppel by laches ERROR OF ERROR OF
(2) One cannot question the jurisdiction which he JURISDICTION JUDGMENT
invoked, not because the decision is valid and An error of jurisdiction is An error of judgment is
conclusive as an adjudication, but because it cannot one where the act one which the court may
be tolerated by reason of public policy complained of was issued by commit in the exercise of
(3) A party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court to the court without or in its jurisdiction. As long as
secure affirmative relief against his opponents cannot excess of jurisdiction. It the court acts within its
repudiate or question the same after failing to obtain occurs when the court jurisdiction, any alleged
such relief exercises a jurisdiction not errors committed in the
conferred upon it by law, or exercise of its discretion

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.com Page 6


when the court or tribunal will amount to nothing action. Jurisdiction over the res may be acquired by the court
although with jurisdiction, more than mere errors of by placing the property of thing under its custody (custodia
acts in excess of its judgment. Errors of legis). It may also be acquired by the court through statutory
jurisdiction or with grave judgment include errors of authority conferring upon it the power to deal with the
abuse of discretion procedure or mistakes in property or thing within the court‘s territorial jurisdiction.
amounting to lack of the court‘s findings. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by the seizure of the
jurisdiction. thing under legal process whereby it is brought into actual
correctible only by the correctible by appeal custody of law, or it may result from the institution of a legal
extraordinary writ of proceeding wherein the power of the court over the thing is
certiorari recognized and made effective.
Renders a judgment void or Does not make the court’s
at least voidable decision void E. Jurisdiction of Courts

1. Supreme Court
C. OVER THE ISSUES ORIGINAL AND EXLCUSIVE JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction over the issues may also be determined and (1) Petitions for the issuance of the writs of certiorari,
conferred by stipulation of the parties as when in the pre- prohibition, and mandamus against the CA,
trial, the parties enter into stipulations of facts and COMELEC, COA, Sandiganbayan, and CTA
documents or enter into agreement simplifying the issues of (2) Declaratory relief only when there is a question of
the case. constitutionality, like treaties or law
It may also be conferred by waiver or failure to object to the CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE RTC
presentation of evidence on a matter not raised in the (1) Cases affecting ambassadors
pleadings. Here the parties try with their express or implied CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE RTC
consent issues not raised by the pleadings. The issues tried AND CA
shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in (1) To issue writs of habeas corpus, habeas data, amparo,
the pleadings. quo warranto, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition
against lower courts
D. Over the res or property in litigation CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE CA
Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court‘s jurisdiction
over the thing or the property which is the subject of the

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.com Page 7


(1) Petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II,
prohibition, and mandamus against the NLRC, CSC, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
RTC Code, where one or more of the accused are officials
APPELLATE JURISDICTION occupying the following positions in the government,
(1) Petitions for review on certiorari from cases from the whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at
RTC exercising original jurisdiction on pure questions the time of the commission of the offense:
of law A. Officials of the executive branch occupying the
(2) Cases from the CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the
2. Court of Appeals Compensation and Position Classification Act of
ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically
(1) Petitions to annul judgments of the RTC based on including:
extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction (a) Provincial governors, vice-governors,
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE RTC members of the sangguniang
AND SC panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,
(1) Issues of writs of habeas corpus, habeas data, writ of assessors, engineers, and other provincial
amparo, quo warranto, certiorari, mandamus, department heads;
prohibition against lower courts (b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE SC sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers,
(1) Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, assessors, engineers, and other city
prohibition, and mandamus against the NLRC, CSC, department heads;
RTC (c) Officials of the diplomatic service
APPELLATE JURISDICTION occupying the position of consul and
(1) Cases decided by the RTC and quasi-judicial agencies higher;
(2) Cases decided by the MTC on cadastral and land (d) Philippine army and air force colonels,
registration cases naval captains, and all officers of higher
rank;
3. Sandiganbayan (e) Officers of the Philippine National Police
(1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, while occupying the position of provincial
otherwise known as the AntiGraft and Corrupt

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.com Page 8


director and those holding the rank of Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
senior superintendent and higher; where the information:
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their (a) does not allege any damage to the
assistants, and officials and prosecutors in government or any bribery; or
the Office of the Ombudsman and special (b) alleges damage to the government or
prosecutor; bribery arising from the same or closely
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or related transactions or acts in an amount
managers of government-owned or not exceeding One million pesos.
controlled corporations, state universities (4) Bribery (Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II, RPC)
or educational institutions or foundations where one or more of the principal accused are
B. Members of Congress and officials thereof occupying the following positions in the government,
classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under the whether in permanent, acting or interim capacity at
Compensation and Position Classification Act of the time of the commission of the offense:
1989; A. Officials of the executive branch occupying the
C. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
provisions of the Constitution; classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the
D. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Compensation and Position Classification Act of
Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions 1989
of the Constitution; and B. Members of Congress and officials thereof
E. All other national and local officials classified as classified as G-27 and up under RA 6758
Grade ’27’ and higher under the Compensation C. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the
and Position Classification Act of 1989 provisions of the Constitution
(2) Other offenses or felonies whether simple or D. Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional
complexed with other crimes committed by the public Commissions without prejudice to the provisions
officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of of the Constitution
this section in relation to their office. E. All other national and local officials classified as
(3) Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in Grade 27 and higher under RA 6758
connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
14-A, issued in 1986. Provided, That the Regional 4. Regional Trial Courts
ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.com Page 9


(1) Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation a. Such as support, annulment, nullity of marriage
a. Where the action cannot be measured in money. b. Courts will act as Family Courts with special
This depends on the nature of the action. jurisdiction
b. Where the basic issue is something other than the (6) All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
right to recover a sum of money, where the money court, tribunal, person, or body exercising jurisdiction
claim is only incidental or a consequence of the of any court, tribunal, person, or body exercising
principal relief sought, the action is incapable of judicial or quasi-judicial functions
pecuniary estimation. (7) All civil actions and special proceedings falling
(2) Real actions within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile
a. Actions involving title to, or possession of, real and Domestic Relations Court and the Court of
property, or any interest therein, where the Agrarian Relations as provided by law
assessed value of the property involved exceeds (8) Other cases in which the demand, exclusive of
20,000 pesos if the property is outside Metro interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
Manila, or 50,000 pesos if the property is in Metro litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the
Manila property in controversy exceeds 300,000 pesos, or
b. Assessed value is the worth or value of property 400,000 pesos if in Metro Manila
established by taxing authorities on the basis of ORIGINAL AND CONCURRENT JURISDICITION
which the tax rate is applied. WITH SC AND CA
c. XPN: actions for forcible entry and unlawful (1) Issues of writs of habeas corpus, habeas data, writ of
detainer irrespective of the amount of damages and amparo, quo warranto, certiorari, mandamus,
unpaid rentals sought to be recovered prohibition against lower courts
(3) Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction a. The rule of hierarchy of courts applies
a. Where the demand or claim does not exceed APPELLATE JURISDICTION
300,000 pesos or 400,000 pesos if in Metro Manila (1) Cases decided by the MTC, MeTC, or MTCC
(4) Matters of probate, both testate and intestate
a. Where the gross value of the estate does not 5. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
exceed 300,000 pesos or 400,000 pesos if in Metro Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Circuit
Manila Trial Court
(5) Actions involving the contract of marriage and marital ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
relations (1) Real Actions

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 10


a. Actions involving title to, or possession of, real In cases where one of the parties is a non-Muslim, the
property, or any interest therein, where the Shari’a Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over it. It
assessed value of the property involved does not would immediately divest the Shari’a court jurisdiction
exceed 20,000 pesos if the property is outside over the subject matter.
Metro Manila, or 50,000 pesos if the property is in
Metro Manila F. Jurisdiction over Small Claims
(2) Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction (1) MTCs, MeTCs and MCTCs shall have jurisdiction over
a. Where the demand or claim does not exceed actions for payment of money where the value of the
300,000 pesos or 400,000 pesos if in Metro Manila claim does not exceed P100,000 exclusive of interest and
(3) Matters of probate, both testate and intestate costs (Sec. 2, AM 08-8-7-SC, Oct. 27, 2009)
a. Where the gross value of the estate does not (2) Actions covered are (a) purely civil in nature where the
exceed 300,000 pesos or 400,000 pesos if in Metro claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for
Manila payment or reimbursement of sum of money, and (b) the
(4) Cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, civil aspect of criminal actions, either filed before the
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation institution of the criminal action, or reserved upon the
expenses, and costs or the value of the property in filing of the criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule
controversy exceeds 300,000 pesos, or 400,000 pesos 111 (Sec. 4, AM 08-8-7-SC). These claims may be:
if in Metro Manila (a) For money owed under the contracts of lease, loan,
(5) Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of services, sale, or mortgage;
the amount of damages and unpaid rentals sought to (b) For damages arising from fault or negligence, quasi-
be recovered contract, or contract; and
(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or
6. Shari’a Court an arbitration award involving a money claim
(1) Article 143 of the Muslim Code would reveal that Sharia pursuant to Sec. 417 of RA 7160
courts have jurisdiction over real actions when the
parties are both Muslims. The fact that the Shari’a courts G. Rule on Summary Procedure
have concurrent jurisdiction with the regular courts in (1) Civil Cases
cases of actions involving real property means that (a) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
jurisdiction may only be exercised by the said courts irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid
when the action involves parties who are both Muslims.

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 11


rentals sought to be recovered. Where attorney‘s fees (a) Where one party is the government or any subdivision or
are awarded, the same shall not exceed P20,000; instrumentality thereof;
(b) All other cases, except probate proceedings where the (b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the
total amount of the plaintiff‘s claim does not exceed dispute relates to the performance of his official
P100,000 (outside MM) or P200,000 (in MM), functions;
exclusive of interest and costs (c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1)
(2) Criminal Cases year or a fine exceeding P5,000;
(a) Violations of traffic law, rules and regulations; (d) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
(b) Violation of the rental law; (e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in
(c) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto
is imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or fine agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement
not exceeding P1,000, or both, irrespective of other by an appropriate lupon;
imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the (f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in
civil liability arising therefrom, provided, that in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except
offenses involving damage to property through where such barangay units adjoin each other and the
criminal negligence, RSP shall govern where the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to
imposable fine does not exceed P10,000. amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;
(3) The RSP does not apply to a civil case where the (g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may
plaintiff‘s cause of action is pleaded in the same determine in the interest of justice or upon the
complaint with another cause of action subject to the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice
ordinary procedure; nor to a criminal case where the (h) Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships,
offense charged is necessarily related to another criminal or juridical entities. The reason is that only individuals
case subject to the ordinary procedure. shall be parties to barangay conciliation proceedings
either as complainants or respondents;
H. Barangay Conciliation (i) Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to
The Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to prevent injustice from being committed or further
bring together the parties actually residing in the same continued, specifically:
municipality or city for amicable settlement of all disputes 1. A criminal case where the accused is under police
except: custody or detention

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 12


2. A petition for habeas corpus by a person illegally 1. Ordinary civil actions
detained or deprived of his liberty or one acting in his Ordinary civil action is one by which one party sues
behalf another, based on a cause of action, to enforce or
3. Actions coupled with provisional remedies, such as protect a right, or to prevent or redress a wrong,
preliminary injunction, attachment, replevin and whereby the defendant has performed an act or
support pendente lite omitted to do an act in violation of the rights of the
4. Where the action may be barred by statute of plaintiff. The purpose is primarily compensatory.
limitations 2. Special civil actions
(j) Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer- lt is one in which a party sues another for the
employee relationship; enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention
(k) Where the dispute arises from the CARL; or redress of a wrong wherein it has special features
(l) Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which can not found in ordinary civil actions. It is governed by
be directly filed in court ordinary rules but subject to specific rules prescribed
under Rules 62- 71
I. Totality Rule 3. Criminal actions
Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes
for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall a person for an act or omission punishable by law.
be the test of jurisdiction (Sec. 5, Rule 2, Rules on Civil (Rule 1, Sec. 3(b))
Procedure) 4. Civil actions vs. special proceedings
Where there are several claims or causes of actions between
the same or different parties, embodied in the same CIVIL SPECIAL
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of ACTIONS PROCEEDINGS
the claims in all the claims of action, irrespective of whether Purpose To protect a To establish a status,
the causes of action arose out of the same or different right; or right, or particular
transactions (Sec. 33[1], BP 129). to prevent or fact
redress a wrong
Governing Ordinary rules Requires the
law supplemented by application of
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE special rules specific rules as
A. Kinds of actions provided for in the

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 13


Rules of Court  Not every action involving real property is a real
Court Heard by courts Heard by courts of action because the realty may only be incidental to
of general limited jurisdiction the subject matter of the suit. Example is an action
jurisdiction for damages to real property, while involving
Procedure Initiated by a Initiated by an realty is a personal action because although it
pleading and application and involves real property, it does not involve any of
parties respond parties respond the issues mentioned.
through an through an  The distinction between real action and personal
answer opposition action is important for the purpose of determining
the venue of the action.
5. Personal actions and real actions 6. Local and transitory actions
REAL ACTION PERSONAL LOCAL TRANSITORY
ACTION ACTION ACTION
Scope Affects title to or Recovery of Venue Must be brought Dependent on the
possession of real personal property, in a particular place where one of
property, or an the enforcement of a place where the the parties reside
interest therein contract or the subject property
recovery of damages is related, unless
Basis Founded upon Founded on privity there is an
the privity of a of contracts such as agreement to the
real estate damages, money contrary
claims, etc. Privity of No privity of Founded on the
Venue Local – venue Transitory – venue contract contract; founded privity of contracts
depends upon the depends upon the on the privity of
location of the residence of the estate only
property plaintiff or the
involved in defendant 7. Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem
litigation
ACTION IN ACTION IN QUASI IN REM
REM PERSONAM
CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 14
Nature A proceeding to A proceeding to A proceeding to against the the res
determine title, enforce personal subject the person
status or rights and property of the Require Jurisdiction Jurisdiction over Jurisdiction over
condition of obligations named defendant d over the person the person of the the person of the
property within brought against or his interests Jurisdict of the defendant defendant is defendant is not
its borders the person therein to the ion is not required required required as long
obligation or lien as jurisdiction
burdening the over the res is
property acquired
Purpose To bar To impose Deals with the Effect of Judgment is Judgment is Judgment will be
indifferently all through the status, ownership Judgmen binding upon binding only binding only
who might be judgment of the or liability of a t the whole world upon parties upon the litigants,
minded to make court some particular impleaded or their privies, and
any objection responsibility or property but their successors- their successors-
against the right liability upon the which are in-interest but not in-interest, but
sought to be person of the intended to upon strangers the judgment
enforced defendant operate on these shall be executed
questions only as against a
between the particular
particular parties property. The res
to the involved will
proceedings and answer for the
not to ascertain or judgment
cut-off the right  The differences find significance in determining:
or interests of all (1) Whether or not jurisdiction over the person of
possible the defendant is required
claimants (2) The type of summons to be employed
Scope Directed against Directed against Directed against (3) Upon whom judgment is binding
the thing itself particular person particular persons
instead of with respect to 8. Independent civil action
CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 15
These are actions based on provisions of the Civil 1. If the accused died after arraignment and during
Code, namely Articles 32, 33, 34 that arise from law the pendency of the criminal action – his criminal
and Article 2176 that arises from quasi-delicts. They liability is terminated and only the civil liability
shall proceed independently of the criminal action and arising from and based solely on the offense
shall require only a preponderance of evidence. committed. But the claim for civil liability
predicated on a source of obligation other than a
Consequences of the independent character of delict survives notwithstanding the death of the
actions under Art. 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the CC accused.
(a) The right to bring the foregoing actions based on 2. If the accused dies before arraignment – the case
the Civil Code need not be reserved in the criminal shall be dismissed but the offended party may file
prosecution, since they are not deemed included the proper civil action against the estate of the
therein. deceased.
(b) The institution or the waiver of the right to file a
separate civil action arising from the crime Effect of acquittal or the extinction of the penal
charged does not extinguish the right to bring an action on the civil action or civil liability
independent civil action The extinction of the penal action does not carry with
(c) Even if a civil action is filed separately, the ex- it the extinction of the civil action where:
delicto civil liability in the criminal prosecution
remains a. The acquittal is based on reasonable doubt;
b. The court declares that the civil liability of the
When to make the reservation accused is only civil; or
It is to be made before the prosecution starts c. The civil liability of the accused does not arise
presenting its evidence and under circumstances that from or is not based upon the crime of which the
would afford the offended party a reasonable accused was acquitted
opportunity to make such reservation (Sec. 1(a), Rule
111) B. Cause of action
1. Meaning of cause of action
Effect of failure to make reservation in the A cause of action is the act or omission by which a
criminal action party (defendant) violates the right of another
(plaintiff). It is the delict or wrongful act or omission

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 16


committed by the defendant in violation of the 2. A correlative cause of action);
primary rights of the plaintiff. duty of the 2. A compliance
There is no cause of action in special proceedings. defendant to with all the
Every civil action if based on a cause of action. respect one’s conditions
right; and precedent to the
2. Elements of cause of action 3. An act or bringing of the
(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means omission of the action; and
and under whatever law it arises or is created; defendant in 3. Right to bring
(2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant violation of the and maintain the
to respect or not to violate such right; and plaintiff’s right action must be in
(3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant in the person
violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a instituting it
breach of the obligation of the defendant to the Nature The reason for the The right to
plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action action or the delict commence and
for recovery of damages. or wrong committed maintain an action
by the defendant in or the remedy or
3. Right of action versus cause of action violation of the right means afforded or
of the plaintiff the consequent
CAUSE OF RIGHT OF relief
ACTION ACTION
Basis Based on the Basis is the
Definition A formal statement A remedial right or allegations of the plaintiff’s cause of
of the operative relief granted by plaintiff in the action. There is no
facts that give rise to law to some persons complaint right of action
such remedial right – the plaintiff where there is no
whose rights have cause of action
been violated by the
Governing A matter of A matter of right
defendant
law statement and is and depends on the
Requisites 1. The existence of 1. There must be a governed by law on substantive law
a legal right of good cause procedure
the plaintiff; (existence of a
Effect of the A cause of action is A right of action

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 17


Statute of not affected by the may be taken away situation where the evidence does not prove the cause
Limitation running of the by the running of of action alleged in the pleading
statute of the statute of
limitations, by limitations by
estoppel, or other estoppel or other FAILURE TO LACK OF
circumstances circumstances STATE CAUSE CAUSE OF
OF ACTION ACTION
4. Failure to state a cause of action Definition Insufficiency of Where the
It doesn’t mean that the plaintiff has no cause of allegation in the evidence does not
action. It only means that the plaintiff’s allegations pleading sustain the cause of
are insufficient for the court to know that the rights of action
the plaintiff were violated by the defendant. Thus, As a ground Raised in a motion Raised in a
even if indeed the plaintiff suffered injury, if the same for dismissal to dismiss under demurrer to
is not set forth in the complaint, the pleading will state Rule 16 before a evidence under
no cause of action even if in reality the plaintiff has a responsive Rule 33 after the
cause of action against the defendant. pleading is filed plaintiff has rested
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the his case
insufficiency of the pleading. A complaint states a Determinatio Determined only Resolved only on
cause of action if it avers the existence of the three n from the the basis of the
essential elements: allegations of the evidence he
(a) a legal right of the plaintiff; pleading and not presented in
(b) a correlative obligation of the defendant; and from evidentiary support of his
(c) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of matters claim
said right. When made Can be made at the Made after
Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of earliest stages of an questions of fact
action are really different from each other. On the one action have been resolved
hand, failure to state a cause of action refers to the on the basis of
insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for stipulations,
dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On the admissions, or
other hand, lack of cause [of] action refers to a evidence presented

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 18


A party may nit institute more than one suit for a
single cause of action. (Rule 2, Sec. 3)
5. Test of sufficiency of a cause of action
To determine the existence of a cause of action, only If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the
the statements in the complaint may be properly same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment
considered. It is error for the court to take cognizance upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for
of external facts or hold preliminary hearings to the dismissal of the others. (Rule 2, Sec. 4)
determine their existence. If the allegations in a
complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a
complaint can be maintained, the same should not be cause of action as “the act or omission by which a
dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be party violates a right of another.” Section 3 of Rule 2
averred by the defendants. The test of sufficiency of provides that “[a] party may not institute more than
facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause one suit for a single cause of action.” Anent the act of
of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, splitting a single cause of action, Section 4 of Rule 2
the court could render a valid verdict in accordance explicitly states that “[i]f two or more suits are
with the prayer of said complaint. (Misamis instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the
Occidental II Cooperative, Inc. v. David, 468 SCRA filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one
63) is available as a ground for the dismissal of the
The test of sufficiency of a complaint is whether or others.” (Philippine National Bank v. Getway
not, assuming the truth of the facts that plaintiff Property Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 181485, February
alleges in it, the court can render judgment granting 15, 2012)
him the judicial assistance he seeks. Judgment would
be right only if the facts he alleges constitute a cause 7. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action
of action that consists of three elements: A joinder of causes of action is the assertion of as
(a) The plaintiff’s legal right in the matter; many causes of action (in the alternative or otherwise)
(b) The defendant’s corresponding obligation to honor as a party may have against another in one pleading
or respect such right; and alone.
(c) The defendant’s subsequent violation of the right It is the process of uniting two or more demands or
rights of action in one action.
6. Splitting a single cause of action and its effects

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 19


Joinder of causes of action is permissive and not 5. Indigent party
mandatory. It is up to the litigant if he wants to avail 6. Alternative defendants
of such. But when they decide to do a joinder, they 7. Compulsory and permissive joinder of parties
must comply with the requirements. 8. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties
9. Class suit
a. Borlasa v. Polistico, 47 Phil 345
C. Parties to civil actions b. Newsweek Inc., v. IAC, 142 SCRA 171
1. Real party-in-interest c. Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792
a. Salonga v. Warner Barnes & Co., 88 Phil 125 d. Ortigas & Co., Limited Partnership v. Ruiz,
b. Fortich v. Corona, 289 SCRA 624 148 SCRA 326
c. Samaniego v. Aguila, 334 SCRA 438 e. Juana Complex I Homeowners Association,
d. Theodore and Nancy Ang, etc. v. Spouses Alan Inc. et al., v. Fil-Estate Land, Inc. G.R. No.
and Em Ang, G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 152272, March 5, 2012
2012 10. Suits against entities without juridical personality
2. Indispensable party 11. Effect of death of party-litigant
a. Simny G. Guy, et al., v. Gilbert Guy, G.R. a. Riviera Filipina v. CA, G.R. No. 117355, April
No. 189486, September 5, 2012 5, 2002
b. Living @Sense, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance b. Lawas v. CA, et al., G.R. No. L-45809,
Company, Inc., G.R. No. 193753, September December 12, 1986
26, 2012 D. Venue
c. Philip L. Go,et al. v. Distinction Properties 1. Venue versus jurisdiction
Development and Construction, Inc., G.R.  Nocum and Philippine Daily Inquirer v. Tan,
No. 194024, April 25, 2012 G.R. No. 145022, September 23, 2005
d. Sepulveda, Sr. v. Pelaez, G.r. No. 152195, 2. Venue of real actions
January 31, 2005  Paglaum Management & Development Corp.
3. Representative as parties and Health Marketing Technologies, Inc. v.
 Theodore and Nancy Ang, etc. v. Spouses Alan Union Bank of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No.
and Em Ang, G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 179018, June 18, 2012
2012 3. Venue of personal actions
4. Necessary party

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 20


 Theodore and Nancy Ang, etc. v. Spouses Alan  Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Felix
and Em Ang, G.R. No. 186993, August 22, Paras and Inland Trailways, Inc., et al.,
2012 G.R. No. 161909, April 25, 2012
4. Venue of actions against non-residents f. Complaint in intervention
5. When the rules on venue do not apply g. Reply (only when the defending party attaches and
a. Theodore and Nancy Ang, etc. v. Spouses Alan actionable document to his or her Answer)
and Em Ang, G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2. Pleadings allowed and not allowed in small claim cases
2012 and cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure
b. Paglaum Management & Development Corp. 3. Parts of a pleading (Take note of new amendments (A.M.
and Health Marketing Technologies, Inc. v. Circular 19-10-20-SC, effective 01 May 2020)
Union Bank of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. a. Caption
179018, June 18, 2012 b. Signature and address
c. Polytrade Corp. v. Blanco, 30 SCRA 187 c. Verification
d. Sweet Lines v. Teves, G.R. No. 28324, May 19,  Felix Martos, et al. v. New San Jose
1972 Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 192650, October
E. Pleadings: Take note of new amendments (A.M. Circular 24, 2012
19-10-20-SC, effective 01 May 2020)  Georgia T. Estel v. Recaredo P. Diego, Sr.,
1. Kinds of pleadings et al., G.R. No. 174082, January 16, 2012
a. Complaint d. Certification against forum shopping
b. Answer (Negative defenses, Affirmative  Pascual and Santos, Inc. v. The Members of
defenses, negative pregnant) the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood
 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. Association, Inc., G.R. No. 144880,
152154, July 15, 2003 November 17, 2004
c. Counterclaims (Compulsory counterclaim,  Elsa D. Medado v. Heirs of the Late
permissive counterclaim, Effect on the Antonio Consing, G.R. No. 186720,
counterclaim when complaint is dismissed, February 8, 2012
effect if compulsory counterclaim is not  Vivian T. Ramirez, et al., v. Mar Fishing
answered) Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 168208, June 13,
d. Cross-claims 2012
e. Third (fourth, etc.) party complaints e. Effect of signature of counsel in a pleading

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 21


f. Effect of signing by a person not authorized to sign 5. Effect of failure to plead (Take note of new
 Atty. Fe Q. Palmiano-Salvador v. amendments.A.M. Circular 19-10-20-SC, effective 01
Constantino Angeles, etc., G.R. No. 171219, May 2020)
September 3, 2012 a. Failure to plead defenses and objections
 b. Failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim and
4. Allegations in a pleading(Take note of new amendments.A.M. cross-claim
Circular 19-10-20-SC, effective 01 May 2020)  Financial Building Corp. v. Forbes Park
a. Manner of making allegations PARK Association, G.R. No. 133119,
 Ceroferr Realty Corp. v. CA, 376 SCRA 144 August 17, 2000
 Asian Construction & Development Corp. v. 6. Default
Lourdes K. Mendoza, G.R. No. 176949, a. When declaration of default is proper
June 27, 2012  Natividad Lim v. National Power
 Spouses Fernando & Ma. Elena Santos v. Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 178789,
Lolita Alcazar, etc. G.R. No. 183034, March November 14, 2012
12, 2014 b. Effect of an order of default, effect of partial
b. Statement of Evidentiary facts (A.M. No.19-10-20- default
SC, effective 01 May 2020)  Magdiwang Realty Corporation, et al., v.
The Manila Banking Corporation, etc., G.R.
Alternative Causes of action No. 195592, September 5, 2012
 La Mallorca v. CA, 17 SCRA 729 c. Relief from an order of default, extent of relief
c. Condition precedent  Philippine Tourism Authority v. Philippine
d. Fraud, mistake, malice, intent, knowledge and Golf Development & Equipment, Inc. G.R.
other condition of the mind, judgments, official No. 176628, March 19, 2012
documents or acts  Leticia Diona, etc. v. Romeo A. Balangue, et
e. Pleading an actionable document al., G.R. No. 173559, January 7, 2013
 Ledda v. BPI, G.R. No. 200868, November d. Actions where default is not allowed
21, 2012 7. Filing and service of pleadings (Take note of new
g. Specific denials (effect of failure to make specific amendments.A.M. Circular 19-10-20-SC, effective 01
denial, when a specific denial requires an oath) May 2020)
a. Payment of docket fees

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 22


 Manchester Development v. CA, 149, SCRA a. Amendment as a matter of right
562 b. Amendment by leave of court
 Sun Insurance Office Ltd. (Take note of new c. Formal Amendment
amendments.A.M. Circular 19-10-20-SC, d. Substantive Amendment
effective 01 May 2020v. Asuncion, 170 e. Amendments to conform to or authorize
SCRA 274 presentation of evidence
 Ballatan v. CA, 304 SCRA 34 f. Supplemental pleadings, distinction between
 Sps. Go v. Tong, G.R. No. 151942, amended and supplemental pleadings
November 27, 2003  Ma. Mercedes Barba v. Liceo de Cagayan
 NSC v. CA, G.R. No. 123215, February 2, University, G.R. NO. 193857, November 28,
1999 2012
 Original Dev’t & Construction Corp. v. CA, g. Effect of amended pleading
202 SCRA 75 F. Summons
 Re: In the Matter of Exemption From 1. Effect if court has not validly acquired jurisdiction over
Payment of All Court and Sheriff’s Fees of the person of the defendant
Cooperatives Duly Registered in  Planters Development Bank v. Julie Chandumal,
Accordance with RA NO. 9520, [A.M. No. G.R. No. 195619, September 5, 2012
12-2-03-0, March 13, 2012] 3. Nature and purpose of summons in relation to actions in
 Ricardo Rizal, et al., v. Leoncia Naredo, et personam, in rem, and quasi-in rem
al., G.R. No. 151898, March 14, 2012 4. Voluntary appearance
8. Filing versus service of pleadings  Afdal & Afdal v. Carlos, G.R. No. 173379,
9. Periods of filing pleadings December 1, 2010
10.Manner of filing  Oaminal v. Castillo, G.R. NO. 1527756, October
 Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. 8, 2003
No. 89070, May 18, 1992  Optima Realty Corporation v. Hertz Phil
11.Modes of service of pleadings Exclusive, Inc. G.R. No. 183035, January 9, 2013
 Salvador O. Mojar, et al. v. Agro Commercial 5. Personal service
Security Service Agency, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 6. Substituted service/ Electronic service, new amendments
187188, June 27, 2012  Planters Development Bank v. Julie Chandumal,
12.Amendment G.R. No. 195619, September 5, 2012

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 23


 Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 499 SCRA 21  Heirs of Mariano Favis, et al., v. Juana
 Robinson v. Miralles, 510 SCRA 678 Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. 185922, January
7. Extraterritorial service, when allowed 15, 2014
8. Service by publication a. Instances of motu proprio dismissal: Grounds
9. Service upon  Heirs of Mariano Favis, et al., v. Juana
a. Entity without juridical personality Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. 185922, January
b. Prisoners 15, 2014
c. Minors and incompetents G. Dismissal of actions
d. Domestic private juridical entity 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff; two-dismissal rule
 E.B. Villarosa & Partner Ltd. V. Benito, 312  Go v. Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 58986, April 17, 1982
SCRA 65 2. Dismissal upon motion by plaintiff; effect on existing
e. Foreign private juridical entity counterclaim
f. Public corporations 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff
g. Defendant whose identity or whereabouts  Shimizu Philippines Contractor, Inc. v. Mrs.
unknown Leticia B. Magsalin, et al., G.R. No. 170026, June
h. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines 20, 2012
 Ma. Mercedes L. Barba v. Liceo de Cagayan
Motions in general University, G.R. No. 193857, November 28, 2012
 Eloisa Merchandising, Inc. and Trebel
Motions (Litiguous and non-litiguous (Take note of new International Inc. v. BDO Universal Bank, et al.,
amendments.A.M. Circular 19-10-20-SC, effective 01 May G.R. No. 192716, June 13, 2012
2020) H. Pre-trial
1. Concept of pre-trial; nature and purpose
a. Definition of motion 2. Notice of pre-trial
b. Motions versus pleadings 3. Appearance of parties; effect of failure to appear
c. Notice and hearing of motions 4. Pre-trial brief; effects of failure to file
 United Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. v. 5. Distinction between pre-trial in civil cases and criminal
Acropolis Central Guaranty Corp., G.R. No. cases
171750, January 25, 2012 6. Effect of failure to set case for pre-trial
d. Omnibus motion rule 7. Court Annexed Mediation (CAM)

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 24


 Real Bank, Inc. v. Samsung Mabuhay 2. Adjournments and postponements
Corporation, G.R. No. 175862, October 13, 2010 3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial
8. Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) 4. Order of trial; reversal of order
9. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) (Special Rules of 5. Consolidation or severance of trial
Court on ADR [A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC]) 6. Trial by commissioner
I. Intervention M. Demurrer to evidence
1. Definition and nature 1. Nature of demurrer to evidence
2. Requisites for intervention  Nenita Gonzales, et al. v. Mariano Bugaay, et. Al.,
3. Time to intervene G.R. No. 173008, February 22, 2012
4. Remedies if motion for intervention is denied 2. Ground
J. Subpoena and Computation of Time 3. Effect of denial or grant of demurrer
1. Subpoena duces tecum 4. Waiver of right to present evidence
2. Subpoena ad testificandum 5. Demurrer to evidence in civil cases versus demurrer to
3. Service of subpoena evidence in criminal cases
4. Compelling attendance of witnesses; contempt N. Judgments and final orders
5. Viatory right of witnesses: right not to be compelled due 1. What is judgment?
to distance 2. Requisites of a valid judgment
6. Quashing of subpoena; grounds  Accosta v. COMELEC, 293 SCRA 578
3. Contents of a judgment
K. Modes of discovery 4. Judgment without trial
1. Depositions pending action 5. Judgment on the pleadings
2. Depositions before action or pending appeal  De Luna v. Abrigo, 181 SCRA 150
3. Interrogatories to parties 6. Summary judgments
4. Request for admission by adverse party a. Requisites for a valid summary judgment
5. Production or inspection of documents or things b. Meaning of “genuine issue”
6. Physical and mental examination of persons  Spouses Ramon Villuga and Mercedita
7. Consequences of refusal to comply with modes of Villuga v. Kelly Hardware and Construction
discovery Supply, Inc., etc., G.R. NO. 176570, July 18,
L. Trial 2012
1. Notice of trial c. Summary judgment for the claimant

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 25


d. Summary judgment for the defendant o Matters not appealable
e. Partial summary judgment o Modes of appeal
f. Judgment on the pleadings versus summary  Ordinary appeal
judgment  Petition for review
g. Rendition of judgments and final orders  Petition for review on certiorari
h. Entry of judgment and final order  Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v.
i. Several judgment BPI/MS Insurance Corp., et al,
j. Memorandum decision G.R. No. 193986, January 15,
k. Doctrine of immutability of judgments 2014
 Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. o Period to appeal
Spouses Felix and Nenita Ng, et al., G.R. o Perfection of appeal
No. 161122, September 24, 2012 o Appeal from judgments or final orders of the
l. When a judgment or final order becomes final and MTC
executor o Appeal from judgments or final orders of the
m. Effects of finality of judgment
RTC
n. Doctrine of the law of the case
o Appeal from judgments or final orders of the
 DBP v. Guarina Agricultural and Realty
CA
Development Corp., G.R. No. 160758,
o Appeal from judgments or final orders of the
January 15, 2014
O. Post-judgment remedies CTA
1. Before finality o Review of final judgments or final orders of
a. Motion for new trial or reconsideration quasi-judicial bodies
o When to file  Perez v. Ombudsman, G.R. No.
o Grounds for new trial 131445, May 27, 2004
2. After finality
o Grounds for motion for reconsideration
a. Relief from judgment
o Remedy when motion is denied
o Grounds
 Neypes v. CA G.R. No. 141524, o Time to file
September 14, 2005
o Contents of petition
b. Appeal
o Judgments and final orders subject to appeal b. Annulment of judgment

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 26


o Grounds a. By motion or independent action
 Pinausukan Seafood House-Roxas  Infante v. Aran builders, Inc., G.R. No.
Blvd, Inc. v. Far East Bank and Trust 156596, August 24, 2007
Co., et al., G.R. No. 159926, January  Ting v. Heirs of Lirio, G.R. No. 168913,
20, 2014 March 14, 2007
 Leticia Diona, etc. v. Romeo b. Issuance, form and contents of a writ of execution
Balangue, et al., G.R. No. 173559, c. Execution of judgments for money
January 7, 2013  Villarin v. Munasque, G.R. No. 169444,
o Period to file action September 17, 2008
o Effects of judgment of annulment  Leachon v. Pascua, A.M. No. P-11-2972,
c. Collateral attack of judgment September 28, 2011
P. Execution, satisfaction, and effect of judgments d. Execution of judgments for specific acts
 Cagayan de Oro v. CA, G.R. No. 129713, e. Execution of special judgments
December 15, 1999 f. Removal of an improvement
 Ayo v. Violago, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1445, June 21, g. Requisites before demolition order is issued
1999 h. Effect of levy on third persons
1. Difference between finality of judgment for purposes of 4. Properties exempt for execution
appeal; for purposes of execution  Spouses Versola v. CA, G.R. No. 164740, July 31,
 Heirs of Reterta v. Mores & Lopez, G.R. No. 2006
159941, August 17, 2011 5. Proceedings where property is claimed by third persons
2. When execution shall issue (execution as a matter of  Ching v. CA, G.R. No. 124642, February 23, 2004
right; discretionary execution) a. In relation to third-party claim and replevin
 Buaya v. Stronghold Insurance, G.R. No. 149020, b. Distinction between third party complaint and third
October 11, 2000 party claim
 Vlason v. CA, G.R. Nos. 121662-64, July 6, 1999 6. Rules of Redemption
 Pallada v. RTC of Kalibo, G.R. No. 129442, 7. Remedies in aid of execution
March 10, 1999 a. Examination of judgment obligor when judgment
 Jaca V. Lumber Co., 113 SCRA 107 unsatisfied
 Eudela v. CA, G.R. No. 89265, July 17, 1992 b. Examination of obligor of judgment obligor
3. How a judgment is executed
CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 27
c. Enforcement of attendance and conduct of 3. Preliminary attachment
examination  Davao Light v. CA, 204 SCRA 343
d. Order of application of property and income a. Grounds for issuance of preliminary attachment
satisfaction of judgment  Equitable v. Special Steel, G.R. No. 175 350
e. Appointment of receiver , June 13, 2012
f. Sale of ascertainable interest of judgment obligor b. Requisites; issuance and contents of order of
in real estate attachment; affidavit and bond
g. Proceedings when indebtedness denied or another c. Purpose of ex parte issuance of writ of attachment
person claims the property d. Rule on prior or contemporaneous service of
h. Effect of judgment or final orders summons
o Two aspects of res judicata e. Manner of attaching real and personal property;
o Bar by prior judgment when property attached is claimed by third person
o Conclusiveness of judgment f. Discharge of attachment and the counter-bond
 Social Security Commission v. Rizal  Peroxide Philippines Corp. v. CA, G.R. No.
Poultry, G. R. No. 167050, June 1, 92813, July 31, 1991
2011 g. Purpose of counter-bond
 LZK Holdings and Development  Security Pacific Assurance Corp. v. Tri-
Corp. v. Planters Development Bank, Infante, 468 SCRA 526
G.R. No. 187973, January 20, 2014 h. Satisfaction of judgment out of property attached
i. Enforcement and effect of foreign judgment or 4. Preliminary injunction
final orders  Palm Tree Estates, Inc. v. PNB, G.R. No. 159370,
 St. Aviation Services v. grand International October 3, 2012
Airways, G.R. No. 140288, October 23, a. Definition and differences: preliminary injunction,
2006 temporary restraining order, and status quo ante
Q. Provisional remedies order
 Ma. Carminia Calderon, etc. v. Jose Antonio F. Roxas, b. Requisites of preliminary injunction
G.R. No. 185595, January 9, 2013 c. Kinds of injunction
1. Nature of provisional remedies d. When writ may issue
 Estares v. CA, 459 SCRA 604  Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. CA,
2. Purpose of provisional remedies G.R. No. 127930, December 15, 2000

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 28


 Executive secretary, et al. v. Forerunner b. Cases when receiver may be appointed
Multi Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 199324, c. Nature of the duty of a receiver; general powers of
January 7, 2013 a receiver
 TML Gasket Industries, Inc. v. BPI Family d. Recruitments before issuance of an order or
Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 188768, receivership
January 7, 2013 e. Kinds of bond
e. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction f. Termination of receivership
f. Purpose of injunction 6. Replevin
 Manila International Airport Authority v. a. Nature of replevin
Rivera Village, 471 SCRA 358 b. When may writ issue/requisites
g. When preliminary injunction improper c. Affidavit and bond; redelivery bond
 Spouses Nicasio Marquez and Anita J. d. Remedy of adverse party
Marquez v. Spouses Carlito Alindog and e. Sheriff’s duty in the implementation of the writ;
Carmen Alindog, G.R. No. 184045, January when property is claimed by third party
22, 2014 f. Rule in case writ was issued in favor of the
h. When can a temporary restraining order issue Republic: bond not required
 Bacolod City Water District v. Labayen, 7. Support pendente lite
G.R. No. 157494, December 10, 2004 R. Special civil actions
i. Requisites of temporary restraining order 1. Ordinary civil actions versus special civil actions
 Strategic Alliance Development Corp. v.  Reyes v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 162956, April 10, 2008
Star Infrastructure Corp., G.R. No. 187872, 2. Interpleader
April 11, 2011  Ocampo v. Tirona, G.R. No. 147382, April 6, 2005
j. Period of effectivity of temporary restraining order a. Requisites
 Australian Professional, Inc. v.  Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v.
Municipality of Padre Garcia, 668 SCRA Metro Container Corp., G.R. No. 127913,
253 September 13, 2001
k. Limitations on the issuance of a temporary b. When to file
restraining order or injunction c. Limitations in filing interpleader
5. Receivership  Wack-Wack Golf v. Won, 70 SCRA 165
a. Purpose d. Inchoate right not a basis for interpleader

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 29


 Ramos v. Ramos, 399 SCRA 43 4. Review of judgments and final orders or resolution of the
3. Declatory reliefs and similar remedies COMELEC and COA
 Province of Camarines Surv. Court of Appeals, a. Application of Rule 65 under Rule 64
600 SCRA 569  Aratuc v. COMELEC, 88 SCRA 251
 Almeda v. Bathala marketing Industries, 542  Lokin, Jr. v. COMELEC, 621 SCRA 385
SCRA 470  Reyna v. COA, 642 SCRA 210
a. Declatory relief not within the original jurisdiction 5. Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
of the Supreme Court a. Function of writ of certiorari
 Allied Broadcasting Corporation v.  Angara v. Fedman, G.R. No. 156822, October 18,
Republic G.R. No. 91500, October 18, 1990 2004
b. Who may file action b. Requisites for Certiorari
c. Requisites of action for declaratory relief  Tan v. Antazo, G.R. No. 187208, February 23,
 Jumamil v. Café, G.R. No. 144570, 2011
September 21, 2005 c. Petition for certiorari distinguished from appeal by
 Bayan Telecommunications v. Republic, 513 certiorari
SCRA 560  Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,
d. Declaratory relief treated as mandamus 456 Phil 755
 Salvacion v. Central Bank, G.R. No. 94723, d. Rule 65 not a remedy for lost appeal
August 21, 1997  Ruben C. Magtoto and Artemia Magtoto v. CA, et
e. When court may refuse to make judicial al., G.R. No. 175792, November 21, 2012
declaration e. Certiorari involving actions/omissions of MTC/RTC in
f. Proceedings considered as similar remedies (action election cases shall be filed exclusively with COMELEC
for reformation of instrument, quieting of title, and  Galang v. Geronimo, G.R. No. 192793, February
consolidation of ownership) 22, 2011
 Dionisio Manaquil, et al. v. Roberto Moico, f. Prohibition
G.R. No. 80076, November 20, 2012 g. Requisites for prohibition
 Spouses Santiago v. Villamor, G.R. No.  Ongsuko v. Malones, G.R. No. 182065, October
168499, November 26, 2012 27, 2009
 Phil-Ville Development and Housing h. Mandamus
Corporation v. Bonifacio, 651 SCRA 327

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 30


 Spouses Augusto Dacudao and Ofelia Dacudao v. c. Who may commence the action
Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzales, G.R. No. d. Judgment in quo warranto action
188056, January 8, 2013 7. Expropriation
 Special People, Inc. Foundation, etc. v. Nestor M.  ATO v. Gopuco, Jr. 462 SCRA 544
Canda, G.R. No. 160932, January 14, 2013 a. Two stages in action for expropriation
i. Exceptions to filing of motion for reconsideration before  National Power Corporation v. Joson, 206 SCRA
filing petition 520
 Barrazona v. RTC of Baguio Branch 61, 486  City of Manila v. Alegar Corporation, G.R. No.
SCRA 555 187604, June 25, 2012
 Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution, G.R. No. 162575, b. When plaintiff can immediately enter into possession of
December 15, 2010 the real property in relation to R.A. No. 8974
j. Injunctive relief necessary to stop proceedings below c. Defenses and objections
 Juliano-Llave v. Republic, 646 SCRA 637 d. Ascertainment of just compensation
k. Effects of filing of an unmeritorious petition  City of Iloilo v. Contreras Besana, 612 SCRA 458
l. Grave abuse of discretion  Republic v,. Rural Bank of Kabacan, Inc., 664
 Spouses Nicasio Marquez and Anita J. Marquez v. SCRA 223
Spouses Carlito Alindog and Carmen Alindog, e. Appointment of commissioners; commissioners’ report;
G.R. No. 184045, January 22, 2014 court action upon commissioners’ report
 Ralph P. Tua v. Hon. Cesar Mangrobang, et al.,  National Power Corporation v. De la Cruz, 514
G.R. No. 170701, January 2, 2014 SCRA 56
6. Quo warranto f. Remedy of unpaid owner
 Tecson v. COMELEC, 424 SCRA 277  Yujuico v. Atienza, Jr. 472 SCRA 463
 Divinagracia v. Consolidated Broadcasting System, G.R. 8. Foreclosure of real estate mortgage
No. 162272, April 7, 2009 a. Manner of foreclosure
a. Distinction between quo warranto under Rule 66 and b. Judgment of foreclosure for payment or sale
under the Omnibus Election Code c. Effect of sale of mortgaged property
 Fermin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179695, d. Equity redemption
December 18, 2008  Spouses Rosales v. Spouses Alfonso, G.R. No.
b. When government may commence an action against 137792, Agust 12, 2003
individuals e. Writ of possession ministerial

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 31


f. Deficiency judgment b. When demand is necessary
g. Judicial foreclosure versus extrajudicial foreclosure c. Nature of the proceedings (Summary Procedure;
9. Partition prohibited pleadings)
 Cano Vda. De Viray v. Spouses Usi, G.R. No. 192486  Delos Reyes v. Spouses Odenes, G.R. No. 178096,
November 21, 2012 March 23, 2011
a. Modes of partition d. Issue of ownership merely incidental
 Figuracion-Gerilla v. Vda De Figuracion, 499  Rural Bank of Sta. Ignacia v. Dimatulac, G.R. No.
SCRA 484 142015, April 29, 2003
b. Who are indispensable parties to partition e. How to stay immediate execution of judgment
 Sepulveda v. Pelaez, G.R. No. 152195, January  Herminia Acbang v. Hon. Jimmy Luczon, Jr. et al.,
31, 2005 G.R. No. 164264, January 15, 2014
c. Matters to allege in the complaint for partition 11.Contempt
d. Two stages in action for partition  Lorenzo Shipping v. Distribution Association, 656
 Lacbayan v. Samoy, 645 SCRA 677 SCRA 331
e. Order of partition and partition by agreement  Siy v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158971, August 25, 2005
f. Partition by commissioners  Rivulet Agro-Industrial Corporation v. Anthony
g. Action for partition imprescriptible; exceptions Parungao, et al., G.R. No. 197507, January 14,
 Heirs of Restar v. Heirs of Cichon, 475 SCRA 731 2013
h. Effects of judgment of partition  Regalado v. Go, 514 SCRA 616
10.Forcible entry and unlawful detainer a. Kinds of contempt (Direct and Inderect)
a. Definitions and distinctions of forcible entry and  Encinas v. National Bookstore, G.R. No. 162704,
unlawful detainer July 28, 2005
 Nunez v. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, G.R. No.  Re: Letter dated 21 Feb. 2005 of Atty. Noel
180542, April 12, 2010 Sorredo, A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC July 22, 2005
 Dela Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 139442, December 6,  Cruz v. Gigoyon, 658 SCRA 254
2006  SBMA v. Rodriguez, 619 SCRA 176
 Sarmiento v. Manalite Home Owner’s Association, b. How contempt proceedings commenced
G.R. No. 182953, October 11, 2010 c. Where to file
 Juanita Ermitano, etc. v. Lailanie Paglas, G.R. d. Penalties and remedies against direct and indirect
No. 174436, January 23, 2013 contempt

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 32


e. Contempt against quasi-judicial bodies
 Robosa v. NLRC, G.R. No. 176085, February 8,
2012
 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Listana, 408
SCRA 328

CIVIL PROCEDURE | cassielawst.blogspot.comPage 33

You might also like