August 22, 2024 {Remedial Law Review 1, 6:00pm-9:00pm}

Judge Eric Labuguen

Lecture on the ff. Topics in Remedial Law 1

Aspect of Jurisdiction

1. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

General Rule: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is

conferred by law.

It is also determined by the averments in the complaint and

the nature of the reliefs being sought. (Del Monte Land
Transport Bus, Co. v. Armenta, G.R. No. 240144,
February 3, 2021)

Exception: Jurisdiction of the SC is conferred by the

Constitution

Traditional – as provided for in Sec. 5 Article VIII of the

Constitution

Non-traditional – otherwise known as expanded/

extended jurisdiction under Sec. 1 Art. VIII of the
Constitution.

Exception to the exception

Jurisdictional Estoppel - Lack of jurisdiction over the

subject matter can always be raised anytime, even for
the first time on appeal, since jurisdictional issues
cannot be waived . . . subject, however, to the principle
of estoppel by laches." Since the defense of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not
one of those defenses which are not deemed waived
under Sec. 1 of Rule 9, such defense must be invoked
when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in order
to prevent a waiver of the defense. If the objection is
not raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the
answer, the objection to the jurisdiction over the person
of the plaintiff or the defendant is deemed waived by
virtue of the first sentence of the above-quoted Sec. 1
of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. (Boston Equity
Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
173946, June 19, 2013)
 Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be acquired
through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the
parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court."
 (Dy Buncio v. Ramos, G.R. No. 206120, March 23,
2022)
When a court lose jurisdiction over the subject matter

- It is only after expiration of the period to appeal, before

that, it has still jurisdiction. (Sec. 9, Rule 41)

2. JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES

Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the power of the court

to make decisions that are binding on persons (De Pedro v.
Romasan Development Corporation, G.R. No. 194751,
November 26, 2014)

It is basic that a court must acquire jurisdiction over a

party for the latter to be bound by its decision or orders.
Valid service of summons, by whatever mode authorized by
and proper under the Rules, is the means by which a court
acquires jurisdiction over a person. (Garcia v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 170122 & 171381, October
12, 2009)

Jurisdictional Estoppel applies only to issues involving

lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter

The principle of estoppel by laches applies only when the

issue is the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the case. It finds no application whatsoever if the
issue is the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.

In various cases, the Supreme Court barred the attack on the

jurisdiction of the respective courts concerned over the
subject matter of the case based on estoppel by laches,
declaring that parties cannot be allowed to belatedly adopt
an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of a
court to which they submitted their cause voluntarily.

Civil cases
Plaintiff - The court acquires jurisdiction over the person
of the plaintiff upon filing of the complaint/petition and
timely payment of the correct docket fees
Defendant - The court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant, co-defendant and 3rd/4th/5th
party defendant upon valid service of summons or
voluntary appearance (Rule 14)
 Intervenor - The court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the intervenor upon approval of the motion
for leave to intervene.

Criminal cases
It does not have to acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff
because it is the same party the People of the
Philippines.
Generally no docket fees are required in criminal
however if a claim for damages has been instituted with
criminal case then a docket fee is required for the claim
for damages.
The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused upon lawful arrest or voluntary surrender.
(Rule 113)

Special proceeding cases

The court acquires jurisdiction over the case and over
the petitioner upon publication.
The requirement of special services in a special
proceeding is not generally jurisdictional, as a general
rule, they are only in compliance with the due process
clause of the Constitution.

Jurisdiction Over the Plaintiff

Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired as soon as he
files his complaint or petition (De Pedro v. Romasan
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 194751,
November 26, 2014; Heirs of Josefina Gabriel v.
Cebrero, G.R. No. 222737, November 12, 2018)
because by the mere filing of the complaint, the
plaintiff, in a civil action, voluntarily submits himself to
the jurisdiction of the court (Guy v. Gacott, supra;
See also Onstott v. Upper Tagpos Neighborhood
Association, Inc., G.R. No. 221047, September 14,
2016).
*** This presupposes timely payment of the correct
amount of docket fees since the failure to pay docket
fees is jurisdictional. The court does not obtain
jurisdiction in the absence of the requisite docket fees.

Payment of docket fees is jurisdictional

Payment in full of docket fees within the prescribed
period is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. It is
an essential requirement, without which, the decision
appealed from would become final and executory as if
no appeal has been filed (St. Louis University vs.
Cobarrubias, G.R. No. 187104, August 03, 2010).
 However, while the court acquires jurisdiction over any
case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket
fees, its non-payment at the time of the filing of the
complaint does not automatically cause the dismissal of
the complaint provided that the fees are paid within a
reasonable period (Unicapital, Inc. vs. Consing, 43
Jr., G.R. Nos. 175277 & 175285, September 11,
2013).

Jurisdicion over the person of the defendant

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil
cases is acquired by service of summons. However,
"even without valid service of summons, a court may
still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant if the latter voluntarily appears before it." "If
the defendant knowingly does an act inconsistent with
the right to object to the lack of personal jurisdiction as
to them, like voluntarily appearing in the action, they
are deemed to have submitted themselves to the
jurisdiction of the court.” (Jorgenetics Swine
Improvement Corp. v. Thick & Thin Agri-Products,
Inc., G.R. Nos. 201044 & 222691, May 5, 2021)

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant cannot be

acquired notwithstanding his knowledge of the
pendency of a case against him, unless he was validly
served with summons. Thus, serving the order and TPO
to Atty. Palmero cannot be considered a valid service of
summons. (Sabado v. Sabado, G.R. No. 214270,
[May 12, 2021)

***: Filing of a motion for reconsideration and appeal is

tantamount to voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court. Any mode of appearance
in court by a defendant or his lawyer is equivalent
to service of summons, absent any indication that
the appearance of counsel was precisely to protest
the jurisdiction of the court over the person of
defendant (Delos Santos vs. Montesa, G.R. No.
73531. April 6, 1993).

3. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

In civil cases - jurisdiction over the issues is determined by the
allegations in the pleading. So, if not alleged in the
pleadings, the court does not acquire jurisdiction
over such issue.

In criminal cases - upon arraignment (Rule 116) – based on the

Constitution it is mandatory to inform the accused
of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him.
ARTICLE III Bill of Rights

SECTION 1. No person shall be

deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.

SECTION 14.
(1) No person shall be held to answer
for a criminal offense without due
process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself
and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence
of the accused provided that he has
been duly notified and his failure to
appear is unjustifiable.

If it is determined in the allegations in the pleadings

you correlate that with arraignment because
arraignment is not only for the purpose of complying
with the Constitutional provision that the accused must
be inform of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him but he must also be informed in such a way
that the court will likewise acquire jurisdiction over such
issue. So arraignment is not only for the purpose of
informing the accused of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, it will also include, a mean by
which the court, acquires jurisdiction over the issues of
the case.
Remember that under your rules of evidence, even if
there is evidence but there was no allegations, the
 evidence is inadmissible, because evidence is only
supportive of the allegations.

In jurisdiction over the issue, the issue being tried and

decided by the court must be within the issues raised in the
pleadings. (Bernabe v. Vergara, G.R. No. L-48652,
September 16, 1942)

Jurisdiction over the issue, unlike jurisdiction over the

subject-matter, may be conferred by consent either express
or implied of the parties. (Rule 17, sec. 4, Rules of Court.)
Although an issue is not duly pleaded it may validly be tried
and decided if no timely objection is made thereto by the
parties.
Jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined
by the allegations in the complaint or information. (Radaza
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 201380, August 4, 2021)

4. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES OR THE PROPERTY IN

LITIGATION
Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court's jurisdiction over
the thing or the property which is the subject of the action.
This type of jurisdiction is necessary when the action is one
in rem or quasi in rem. When the action is one in personam,
jurisdiction over the res is not sufficient to authorize the
court to render a judgment against the defendant. In an
action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is required.

Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either:

(a) by the seizure of the property under legal process,

whereby it is brought into actual custody of the
law, or

(b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings,

in which the power of the court is recognized and
made effective.

In order for the court to continue the proceeding it has

to acquire jurisdiction over the res in the absence of the
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in action
strictly in personam.

There are two sets of classification of actions:

A. REAL ACTION - the subject matter is real property.

 ACTION IN REM – Binds the whole world

B. PERSONAL ACTION - is one which is violative of personal

rights

ACTION IN PERSONAM - binds only the party involve

Jurisdiction over the res in a land registration case

- A land registration case is a proceeding in rem, and

jurisdiction over the res cannot be acquired in this case
UNLESS there is a constructive seizure of the land through
publication and service of notice (Republic vs. Herbieto,
G.R. No. 156117, May 26, 2005).

Jurisdiction over the res in a suit for annulment

against a non-resident defendant

- A suit for annulment against a non-resident defendant

may prosper when the Court acquires jurisdiction over the
res through summons by publication or any of the modes
of extraterritorial service under Sec. [17] of Rule 14
(Romualdez-Licaros vs. Licaros, G.R. No. 150656,
April 29, 2003).

Summary of Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction

and how the court acquires such jurisdiction

Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction and how the court

acquires such jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner - This is acquired

by the filing of the complaint, petition or initiatiatory pleading
before the court by the plaintiff or petitioner .

Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent - This is

acquired by the voluntary appearance or submission by the
defendant or respondent to the court or by coercive process
issued by the court to him, generally by the service of summons.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter - This is conferred by law and,
unlike jurisdiction over the parties, cannot be conferred on the
court by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties.

Jurisdiction over the issues of the case - This is determined

and conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or
by their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation, or, at times
by their implied consent as by the failure of a party to object to
evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in
Sec. 5, Rule 10.

Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or thing which is

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

Case: De Joya v. Marquez, G.R. No. 162416, January 31,

2006

*** In two cases, the court acquires jurisdiction to try the case,
even if it has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of a
nonresident defendant, as long as it has jurisdiction over the res,
as when the action involves the personal status of the plaintiff or
property in the Philippines in which the defendant claims an
interest. In such cases, the service of summons by publication
and notice to the defendant is merely to comply with due process
requirements. Under Sec. 133 of the Corporation Code, while a
foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without a
license cannot sue or intervene in any action here, it may be sued
or proceeded against before our courts or administrative
tribunals.

JURISDICTION VS. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of

jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of
jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a
cause, and not the decision rendered therein. Where
there is jurisdition over the person and the subject
matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the
case is but an exercise of the jurisdiction. And the
errors which the court may commit in the exercise of
jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the
proper subject of an appeal. (Heirs of Borras v. Heirs of
Borras, G.R. No. 213888, April 25, 2022)

DISTINGUISH JURISDICTION VS. VENUE

As to definition
Jurisdiction is the authority of the court to hear and determine a
case while Venue is the place where the case is to be heard or
tried.

As to Nature
Substantive Law (Salvador v. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834,
November 9, 2016)
Procedural Law (Salvador v. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834,
November 9, 2016)
- A wrong venue is a mere procedural infirmity, not a
jurisdictional defect (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v.
Royal Ferry Services, Inc., G.R. No. 188146,
February 1, 2017).

As to relation established
- In jurisdiction , It establishes a relationship between the
court and the subject matter of the action; while in Venue,
It establishes a relationship between plaintiff and
defendant, or petitioner and respondent;

As to susceptibility to stipulation
Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the
parties (Nocum v. Tan, 470 SCRA639, 645, While Venue,
may be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties
(Nocum v. Tan, 470 SCRA 639, 645)

As to whether it may be waived

In Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, cannot be
waived by the parties (City of Lapu-Lapu v. Philippine
Economic Zone Authority, G.R. No. 184203, Nov. 26,
2014)
While Venue may be waived only in civil cases, if not invoked
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer (City of Lapu-
Lapu v. Philippine Economic Zone Authority, G.R. No.
184203, Nov. 26, 2014)
*** In criminal cases, the venue is jurisdictional.
As to whether it may be a ground for dismissal
The court may dismiss an action motu proprio in case of lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter (Rudolf Lietz Holdings,
Inc. v. Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City, G.R. No. G.R. No.
133240 (2000))
The court may not dismiss an action motu proprio for
improper venue (Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. v. Registry of
Deeds of Parañaque City, G.R. No. G.R. No. 133240 (2000))
(except in cases subject to Summary Procedure)

As to when objection should be made

Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings since it is conferred by law, although a party may
be barred from raising it on the ground of estoppel (Lao v.
Republic, 479 SCRA 439)

The objection to an improper venue must be raised in the answer

as an affirmative defense. (Sec. 12, Rule 8, Rules of Court)
It is no longer a valid ground for a motion to dismiss.

JURISDICTION OVER CASES COVERED BY BARANGAY

CONCILIATION, AND CASES COVERED BY THE RULES ON
EXPEDITED PROCEDURES IN THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS
(Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended,
approved on March 1, 2022)

Jurisdiction over Barangay Conciliation Proceedings

Katarungang Pambarangay Law (Presidential Decree No.
1508)
It established a system of amicably settling disputes at the
barangay level. It was expressly repealed by R.A. No. 7160
(Local Government Code of 1991). Most of its provisions,
however, were incorporated (with some modifications) under
Book III, Title I, Chapter VII of R.A. No. 7160.

***: The primordial aim of the Katarungang Pambarangay

Law is to reduce the number of court litigations and prevent
the deterioration of the quality of justice which has been
brought about by the indiscriminate filing of cases in the
courts (Zamora vs. Heirs of Izquierdo, G.R. No. 146195,
November 18, 2004).

Proceedings before the barangay are not judicial

proceedings

1. The proceedings before the Lupong Tagapamayapa, or the

Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo of the barangay, are not
judicial proceedings. Legally, there is no barangay court. It
is not mentioned in B.P. 129, as amended, and other
pertinent laws on jurisdiction, as one of the courts created
by law.
2. The lupon and the pangkat do not have inherent
adjudicatory powers. They resolve disputes or attempt to
do so through amicable settlement, conciliation, and
arbitration (Secs. 410, 412, and 413, Local Government
Code of 1991).
3. Any adjudicatory power exercised by any of these bodies
must be agreed upon by the parties in writing. Such
agreement may involve their willingness to abide by any
 arbitral award given by the lupon or the pangkat (Secs.
411 and 413, Local Government Code of 1991).

Rule regarding referral of the case before the

barangay lupon

GR: No complaint, petition, action, or proceedings

involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon
shall be filed or instituted directly or indirectly in court
or in 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 as attested to by the
Lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement
has been repudiated by the parties thereto.

Venue of Barangay Conciliation Proceedings

Disputes Venue
Between persons actually Barangay where the
residing in the same persons reside; amicable
barangay. settlement before the
Lupon of said barangay.
Involving actual residents Barangay where the
of different barangays respondent or any of the
within the same city or respondents actually
municipality. resides, at the election of
the complainant.
Involving real property or Barangay where the real
any interest therein. property or the larger
portion thereof is
situated.
Arising at the workplace Barangay where such
where the contending workplace or institution is
parties are employed or at located.
the institution where such
parties are enrolled for
study.
(R.A. No. 7160, Sec. 409)

Parties to Barangay Conciliation Proceedings

- Only individuals shall be parties, either as complainants or

respondents. No complaint by or against corporations,
partnerships or other juridical entities shall be filed,
received or acted upon (A.M. Circular No. 14-93, effective
July 15, 1993).
 -
Disputes which are required to undergo amicable
settlement before the Lupon of a Barangay

- All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant

to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law (formerly
Presidential Decree No. 1508, repealed and now replaced
by Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec.
515, Title I, Book IV, Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991), and prior
recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a
complaint in court or any government offices, disputes
between parties actually residing in the same city or
municipality, except in the following disputes:

(1) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or

instrumentality thereof;
(2) Where one party is a public officer or employee and the
dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;
(3) Where the dispute involves real properties located in
different cities and municipalities, unless the parties
thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable
settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
(4) Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or
juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to
Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants
or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules);
(5) 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;
(6) Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty
of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine of over
five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
(7) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
(8) Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to
prevent injustice from being committed or further
continued, specifically the following:
(a) Criminal cases where accused is under police
custody or detention (Sec. 412[b][1], Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law);
(b) Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally
deprived of his rightful custody over another or a
person illegally deprived of or on acting in his behalf;
(c) Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as
preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of
 personal property and support during the pendency
of the action; and
(d) Actions which may be barred by the Statute of
Limitations.
(9) Any class of disputes which the President may determine
in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of
the Secretary of Justice;
(10) Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) (Secs. 46 and 47, Republic
Act No. 6657);
(11) Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-
employee relations (Montoya vs. Escayo, 171 SCRA 442;
Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants original
and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation
of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of
the Department of Labor and Employment);
(12) Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may
be filed directly in court (See Sanchez vs. Topaz, 158
SCRA 459).

***: The prescriptive period for offenses and cause of action shall
be interrupted upon filing of complaint with the punong barangay,
but this must not exceed 60 days (Uy vs. Contreras, G.R. No.
111416, September 26, 1994).

Effect of non-compliance

Subject to exemptions provided in Administrative Circular No. 14-

93, a party's failure to comply with the requirement of prior
barangay conciliation before filing a case in court would render
his complaint dismissible on the ground of failure to comply with a
condition precedent. Moreover, as a general rule, grounds for
dismissal must be invoked by the party-litigant at the earliest
opportunity, as in a motion to dismiss or in the answer; otherwise,
such grounds are deemed waived. (Ngo vs. Gabelo G.R. No.
207707, August 24, 2020)

Non-compliance with conciliation proceedings is not

jurisdictional
- It is well-settled that the non-referral of a case for
barangay conciliation, when so required under the law, is
not jurisdictional in nature and may, therefore, be deemed
waived if not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss.
Hence, a party who does not raise the defect seasonably
can no longer raise the defense of non-compliance with
the barangay conciliation proceedings to seek the
dismissal of the complaint (Spouses Santos v. Spouses
Lumbao, 519 SCRA 408)
 -
Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level
Courts(A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, )

CIVIL
(1) Cases falling under the 2016 Revised Rules of Procedure
for Small Claims Cases, Small Claims Cases, as defined
hereunder, where the claim does not exceed PHP
1,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. A “small
claim” is an action that is purely civil in nature where the
claim or relief raised by the plaintiff is solely for the
payment or reimbursement of a sum of money. It
excludes actions seeking other claims or reliefs aside from
payment or reimbursement of a sum of money and those
coupled with provisional remedies. The claim or demand
may be:
(a) For money owed under any of the following:
i. Contract of Lease
ii. Contract of Loan and other credit
accommodations;
iii. Contract of Services; or
iv. Contract of Sale of personal property, excluding
the recovery of the personal property, unless it is
made the subject of a compromise agreement
between the parties.
(b) The enforcement of barangay amicable settlement
agreements and arbitration awards, where the
money claim does not exceed PHP 1,000,000.00,
provided that no execution has been enforced by the
barangay within six (6) months from the date of the
settlement or date of receipt of the award or from
the date the obligation stipulated or adjudged in the
arbitration award becomes due and demandable,
pursuant to Sec. 417, Chapter VII of R.A. No. 7160,
otherwise known as The Local Government Code of
1991. (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)

(2) Cases-falling under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary

Procedure now consists of the following:
(a) Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases,
regardless of the amount to be recovered. Attorney’s
fees, if awarded, shall not exceed PHP100,000.00;
(b) All civil actions, except probate proceedings,
admiralty and maritime actions and small claims
where the claim does not exceed PHP2,000,000.00.
(c) Complaints for damages where the claims do not
exceed PHP2,000,000.00;
 (d) Cases for enforcement of barangay amicable
settlement agreements and arbitration award where
the money claim exceeds PHP1,000,000.00, provided
that no execution has been enforced within six (6)
months from the settlement date or receipt of award
or the date when the obligation becomes due and
demandable;
(e) Cases solely for the revival of judgment of any
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Court, pursuant to Rule 39, Sec. 6 of the ROC;
(f) The civil aspect of violations of B.P. Blg. 22 (BP 22), if
no criminal action has been instituted. Should a
criminal action be later instituted for the same
violation, the civil aspect shall be consolidated with
the criminal action and shall be tried and decided
jointly under the Rule on Summary Procedure.
b. All other cases not included herein shall be governed by
the regular rules of procedure.

CRIMINAL

The following criminal cases shall be governed by the Rule

on Summary Procedure:
(1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
(2) Violations of the rental law;
(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
(4) Violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing
Checks Law); and
(5) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed
by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not
exceeding one (1) year, or a fine not exceeding Fifty
Thousand Pesos (PHP50,000.00), or both, regardless of
other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of
the civil liability arising therefrom. In offenses involving
damage to property through criminal negligence under
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, this Rule shall
govern where the imposable fine does not exceed One
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (PHP150,000.00).
If the prescribed penalty consists of imprisonment and/or a
fine, the prescribed imprisonment shall be the basis for
determining the applicable procedure.
All other cases not included herein shall be governed by the
regular rules of procedure.
CIVIL PROCEDURE

A. General Provisions (Rule 1)

1. Applicability

The Rules of Court shall apply in all the courts, except as

otherwise provided by the Supreme Court [Sec. 2, Rule 1].

Actions or Proceedings Governed by the Rules of Court

1. Civil actions
2. Criminal actions
3. Special Proceedings [Sec. 3, Rule 1]

Actions or Proceedings Not Governed by the Rules of

Court
1. Election cases
2. Land registration cases
3. Cadastral cases
4. Naturalization cases
5. Insolvency proceedings

However, the Rules may still apply to the cases above by

analogy or in suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient [Sec. 4, Rule 1].

2. Commencement of Civil Action

The filing of the original complaint in court signifies the

commencement of the civil action [Sec. 5, Rule 1].

3. Construction

The Rules shall be liberally construed to promote a just, speedy,

and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding
[Sec. 6, Rule 1].

A strict and rigid application of the rules of procedure, especially

on technical matters, which tend to frustrate rather than promote
substantial justice, must be avoided [Tiorosio- Espinosa v.
Hofileña-Europa, G.R. No. 185746 (2016)].

However, compliance with the procedural rules is still the

general rule, and abandonment thereof should only be done in
the most exceptional circumstances [Pilapil v.Heirs of Briones,
514 SCRA 197 (2007)].
Meaning of Ordinary Civil Actions

An ordinary civil action is one which is governed by the rules

for ordinary civil actions [Sec. 3(a), par. 2, Rule 1].

 Rules for Ordinary Civil Actions refer to Rule 2

(Cause of Action) until Rule 61 (Provisional
Remedies).
 General Rules on Ordinary Civil Action - Rule 2 to
Rule 5
 Procedure in Trial Courts - Rule 6 to Rule 39
 Appeals - Rule 40 to Rule 43
 Procedure in the Court of Appeals – Rule 44 to Rule
55
 Procedure in the SC - Rule 56
 Provisional Remedies - Rule 57 to Rule 61
 Meaning of Special Civil Actions

A special civil action is one which is subject to the specific rules

prescribed for a special civil action but also governed by the rules
for ordinary civil actions [Sec. 3(a), par. 2, Rule 1].

Rules 62 to 71 provide for special civil actions. However, despite

having rules which govern the special civil actions, the rules for
ordinary civil action still apply.

Distinguish Civil Actions andSpecial Proceedings

A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the

enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress
of a wrong [Sec. 3(a), par. 1, Rule 1].
While, A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact [Sec. 3(c), Rule 1].

The rules of ordinary civil actions have suppletory application in

special proceedings (see Sec. 2, Rule 72).

Personal Actions v. Real Actions

Real Action Personal Action

A Real Action is an action affecting title to or possession of

real property, or interest therein [See Sec. 1, Rule 4].
While a Personal Action refers to all other actions which are not
real actions [Sec. 2, Rule 4].

Distinction is important because it determines the proper

venue of the action [Sec.1, Rule 4 in relation to Sec. 2, Rule 4].

For purposes of determining venue, the question of whether

the venue has been properly laid depends to a great extent on
the kind of action (real or personal) presented by the complaint
[PICOP v. Samson, G.R. No. L- 30175 (1975)].

Not every action involving real property is a real action

because the realty may only be incidental to the subject matter of
the suit. In the cases of Heirs of Bautista v. Lindo [G.R. No.
208232 (2014)] involving a complaint to redeem a parcel of land
subject of a free patent and Olivarez Realty vs Castillo [G.R. No.
196251 (2014) involving an action for rescission of a contract
involving real property], the SC held that the conveyance of
real property was only incidental to the determination of
matters incapable of pecuniary estimation. The cases were
deemed personal actions because the principal action or remedy
sought does not involve title to or possession of real property.

Distinguish: Local and Transitory Actions

- A local action is one which has to be filed in the place

where the property is located [Sec.1, Rule 4]. One that
could be instituted in one specific place [Manila Railroad
v. Attorney-General, G.R. No. L-6287 (1911)].

- A transitory action is one which may be filed in the

residence of the plaintiff or defendant, at the option of the
plaintiff [Sec. 2, Rule 4]. One that could be prosecuted in
any one of several places [Manila Railroad v. Attorney-
General, G.R. No. L-6287 (1911)].

Kinds of Actions

Actions in rem, in personam, and quasi inrem

Why distinction is important

- To determine the binding effect of a decision the court

may render over a party, whether impleaded or not
[Paderanga v. Buissan, G.R. No. 49475 (1993)]
- To determine whether or not jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is required, and the type of
summons to be employed.
 ACTION IN ACTION IN ACTION
REM PERSONAM QUASI IN
REM
Definition Action One which seeks Names a person
against the to as
thing enforce defendant, but its
personal object is
or res itself, rights to subject
instead of and that person's
against the obligations interest in a
person brought property to a
[Hernandez against the corresponding
v. Rural person lien or
[Paderanga v. obligation [Lucas
Bank of
Buissan, v. Lucas,
Lucena, Inc. GR. No. 49475 G.R. No. 190710
G.R. No. L- (1993)]. (2011)].
29791,
(1978)].
Jurisdiction Not a Necessary for Not a
over the prerequisite the court to prerequisite
person to validly try and to
confer jurisdiction decide the confer jurisdiction
on case which can on the
the court, be made court, provided
provided that through service that the
the latter has of latter has
jurisdiction over summons [Lucas jurisdiction over
the res [Lucas v. Lucas, the res [Lucas
v. Lucas, G.R. G.R. No. 190710 v. Lucas,
No. 190710 (2011)]. G.R. No. 190710
(2011)]. (2011)].
How Jurisdiction over Jurisdiction is Jurisdiction over
Jurisdiction the res acquired the res is
is acquired is acquired either: through service acquired either:
1. By the seizure of 1. By the seizure
of summons as of the
the property provided in property under
under the Rule 14 or legal
legal process, voluntary process, whereby
whereby it is appearance. it is
brought into brought into
actual actual
custody of the custody of the
law, law, or
or 2. As a result of
2. As a result of the
the institution of legal
institution of legal proceedings, in
proceedings, in which
which the power the power of the
of court
the court is is recognized and
recognized and made effective
made effective [Lucas
[Lucas v. v. Lucas, G.R.
Lucas, No.
 G.R. No. 190710 190710 (2011)].
(2011)].
Binding The decision is Any judgment Judgments
effect of binding therein is therein are
decisions as against the binding only upon binding only upon
whole the the
world parties parties who
[Paderanga v. properly joined in the
Buissan, G.R. impleaded action
No. [Paderanga v. [Macasaet v.
49475 (1993)]. Buissan, GR. Co,
No. 49475 G.R. No. 156759
(1993)]. (2013)].
Examples Petition for Action for a sum Attachment,
adoption, of money; foreclosure of
annulment of action for mortgage, action
marriage, damages for
or correction of partition and
entries action for
in the birth accounting
certificate
[Lucas v.
Lucas, G.R.
No. 190710
(2011)].

***: Service of summons for an action in rem or quasi in rem is

undertaken not to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant’s
person, but to satisfy due process requirements [Frias v. Alcayde,
G.R. No. 194262 (2018)]

Cause of Action (Rule 2)

A cause of action is an act or omission by which a party violates

a right of another [Sec. 2, Rule 2].

Without a cause of action, one cannot seek judicial relief for a

violation of one’s rights because every ordinary civil action must
be based on a cause of action [Sec. 1, Rule 2].

Elements of a cause of action

a. Plaintiff’s legal right;

b. Defendant’s correlative obligation to respect plaintiff’s
right; and
c. Defendant’s act/omission in violation of plaintiff’s right
[Ma-ao Sugar Central v. Barrios, G.R. No. L- 1539 (1947);
Colmenar v. Colmenar, G.R. No. 252467 (2021)]

When cause of action must exist

A cause of action must exist at the time of the filing of the

complaint – else, the case shall be dismissible for being a
groundless suit [Swagman Hotels and Travel v. CA, G.R. No.
161135 (2005), reiterating Surigao Mine Exploration v. Harris,
G.R. No. L-45543 (1939)].

A complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be

cured by an amended or supplemental pleading alleging the
existence or accrual of a cause of action during the pendency of
the action. At that point in time, it was premature [Turner v.
Lorenzo Shipping, G.R. 157479 (2010)].

Right of Action v. Cause of Action

Right of Action is the remedial right or right to relief granted by

law to a party to institute an action against a person who has
committed a delict or wrong against him. Right to sue as a
consequence of the delict. A right of action is determined by
substantive law.

While a Cause of Action is the delict or wrongful act or omission

committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of
the plaintiff [Racoma v. Fortich, G.R. No. L- 29380 (1971)]. The
delict or wrong.

The cause of action of the plaintiff is determined by the

averments in the pleading regarding the acts committed by the
defendant.

There can be no right of action without a cause of action

being first established [Español v. The Chairman and Members of
the Board of Administrators, Philippine Veterans Administration,
G.R. No. L-44616 (1985)].

Failure of the Complaint to State a Cause of Action v. Lack

of Cause of Action
- Failure to state a cause of action is no longer a ground for
a motion to dismiss under the Amended Rules. It is,
however, one of the enumerated Affirmative Defenses
that must be set out in the Answer or else it is deemed
waived [Sec 12, Rule 8].

The complaint must contain a concise statement of the ultimate

or essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. The
focus is on sufficiency, not veracity, of the material allegations
[Anchor Savings Bank v. Furigay, G.R. No. 191178 (2013)].

Failure to State Cause of Action - Refers to the insufficiency of

the allegations in the pleading. The proper remedy when there is
a failure to state a cause of action is to allege the same as an
affirmative defense in the Answer [Sec. 12(4), Rule 8].
Lack of Cause of Action - Refers to a situation where the
evidence failed to prove the cause of action. The proper remedy
when the complaint is not based on a cause of action is to file a
Demurrer of Evidence [Rule 33].

Test of Sufficiency of Cause of Action

The test of sufficiency of a cause of action rests on whether,

hypothetically admitting the facts alleged in the complaint
to be true, the court can render a valid judgment upon the
same, in accordance with the prayer in the complaint [Heirs of
Maramag v. Maramag, G.R. No. 181132 (2009)].

However, there is no hypothetical admission of the veracity of

the allegations if:

a. The falsity of the allegations is subject to judicial notice;

b. The allegations are legally impossible;
c. The allegations refer to facts which are inadmissible in
evidence;
d. By the record or document in the pleading, the allegations
appear unfounded; or
e. There is evidence which has been presented to the court
by stipulation of the parties or in the course of hearings
related to the case [Heirs of Maramag v. Maramag, G.R. No.
181132 (2009)]

*** Note: Whether the allegations in the complaint,

assuming them to be true, state a cause of action is a
question of law. The SC need not re-evaluate the credibility of
any witnesses or veracity of any evidence. The Court only needs
to examine the complaint itself [Colmenar v. Colmenar, G.R. No.
252467 (2021)].

How to determine existence of cause of action

General rule: Determination shall be based only on facts

alleged in the complaint and from no other, and
the court cannot consider other matters aliunde
[Manaloto v. Veloso III, G.R. No. 171635 (2010)].

Exception: Instances when the SC considered matters aside

from the facts alleged in the complaint, such as:

a. Documents attached to the complaint [Agrarian Reform

Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 168394 (2008)]
 – this case refers to actionable documents which by express
provision of the ROC are deemed part of the pleading.
b. Appended annexes, other pleadings, and admissions on
record [Zepeda v. China Banking Corp., G.R. No. 172175
(2006)] – the jurisprudence establishing this supposed
exception ultimately points to dismissals based on a lack
of a cause of action, opposed to a failure of the complaint
to state a cause of action.

Splitting a Single Cause of Action and its Effects

- The act of instituting two or more suits on the basis

of the same cause of action [Sec. 4, Rule 2], or
splitting a single cause of action, is prohibited by the
Rules. Such is referred to as “splitting a single cause of
action”. A party may not institute more than one suit for
a single cause of action [Sec. 3, Rule 2].

Such violates the policy against multiplicity of suits, whose

primary objective is to avoid unduly burdening the dockets of the
court [Dynamic Builders & Construction Co Inc v. Presbitero, Jr.
G.R. No. 174202 (2015)].

Tests to determine a “single” cause of action

The tests to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or
common cause of action are:

a. Whether the same evidence would support and sustain

both causes of action (Same Evidence Test);
b. Whether the defenses in one case may be used to
substantiate the complaint in the other; and
c. Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at
the time of filing of the first complaint.
[Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corp., G.R. No. 167246
(2011)]

Plaintiff's remedy if other reliefs not included in the

complaint: Amendment
If a plaintiff has omitted to include in the complaint one or several
other reliefs to which he may be entitled, the proper remedy of
the plaintiff is not to institute another or several other
actions – instead he should move to amend the complaint to
include the omitted relief or reliefs [Bayang v. CA, G.R. No. L-
53564 (1987)].

Dismissal as effect of splitting of cause of action

 - The filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one
is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others
[Sec. 4, Rule 2].
The defendant facing a complaint which is infirm due to the
plaintiff splitting causes of action may either allege the infirmity
as an

Affirmative Defense in his Answer [Sec. 5(b), Rule 6], or file a

Motion to Dismiss on the following grounds:

a. Litis Pendentia: There is another action pending between

the same parties for the same cause [Sec. 12 (a)(2), Rule
15], or
b. Res Judicata: The cause of action is barred by a prior
judgment [Sec. 12 (a)(3), Rule 15].

Joinder and Misjoinder of Causes ofAction

Joinder of causes of action - It is the assertion of as many

causes of action as a party may have against another in one
pleading alone [Sec. 5, Rule 2]. It is the process of uniting two or
more demands or rights of action in one action.

Rule merely permissive

The rule however is purely permissive as there is no positive
provision of law or any rule of jurisprudence which compels a
party to join all his causes of action and bring them at one and
the same time [Nabus v. CA, G.R. No. 91670 (1991)].

Requisites

a. The plaintiff asserts numerous causes of action in one

pleading
b. The causes of action are against the opposing party
c. The party joining the causes of action complies with the
rules on joinder of parties under Sec 6, Rule 3, and
d. The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions
governed by special rules.

Where causes of action are between the same parties but

pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may
be allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of action are
within that court’s jurisdiction and venue lies therein [Sec. 5, Rule
2].

Totality Rule applies in Joinder of Actions - Where the claims

in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money,
the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
Misjoinder of causes of action- There is misjoinder of causes
of action when conditions for joinder under Section 5, Rule 2
are not met [Perez v. Hermano, G.R. No. 147417 (2005)].

An erroneously joined cause of action may, on motion of a party

or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with
separately. Misjoinder is not a ground for dismissal of an action
[Sec. 6, Rule 2].

Subject to waiver - If there is no objection to the improper

joinder or the court did not motu proprio direct a severance, then
there exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication of all the
erroneously joined causes of action, if the court trying the case
has jurisdiction over all of the causes of action therein
notwithstanding the misjoinder [Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435
(2012)].

If the court has no jurisdiction to try the misjoined action, then

it must be severed.

Otherwise, adjudication rendered by the court with respect to it

would be a nullity [Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435 (2012)].

TOPIC FOR NEXT MEETING parties to Civil Actions (Rule 3)

– Onwards