CHAPTER 1

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
I. REMEDIAL LAW AND THE RULES OF COURT
CONCEPT OF REMEDIAL LAW; SOURCES
Remedial law provides the means and methods whereby causes of action may be
effectuated, wrongs redressed and reliefs obtained.

SUBSTANTIVE LAW DISTINGUISHED FROM REMEDIAL LAW

Substantive law creates, defines, and regulates rights and duties concerning life,
liberty and property while remedial law, also known as adjective law, prescribes the
practice, method and procedure by which substantive law is enforced and made
effective.

The rules of procedure are subordinate to statute, and in case of conflict, the statute
will prevail. (Shioju vs De Leon)

PROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF THE RULES OF COURT

The rules of procedure may be made applicable to actions pending and undetermined
at the time of their passage and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that
extent. (In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Datumanong)

Under Rule 144 of the ROC, AM No. 19-10-20-SC or the 2019 amendments to the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern all cases filed after their effectivity on May 1,
2020, and also all pending proceedings, except to the extent that in the opinion of the
court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case
the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern.

WHEN PROCEDURAL RULES DO NOT APPLY TO PENDING ACTIONS

While a procedural rule may be made applicable to actions pending and undetermined
at the time of their passage and is retroactive in that sense, the rule does not apply:
(a) Where the statute itself or by necessary implication provides pending actions
are excepted from its operation;
(b)If applying the rule to pending proceedings would impair vested rights;
(c) When to do so would not be feasible or would work injustice;
(d)If doing so would involve intricate problems of due process or impair the
independence of the courts. (Tan vs CA)

ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS GOVERNED BY THE RULES OF COURT

Under Section 2 of Rule 1 of the ROC, these rules shall apply in all the courts, except
as otherwise provided by the SC.

Under Section 3 of Rule 1 of the ROC, these rules govern the procedure to be
observed in actions, civil, criminal, and special proceedings.

ACTIONS OR PROCEDINGS NOT GOVERNED BY THE RULES OF COURT

Under Section 4 of Rule 1 of the ROC, these rules shall not apply to election cases,
land registration, cadastral cases, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and
other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character
and whenever practicable and convenient.

The rules of procedure imposed in judicial proceedings are unavailing in cases before
administrative bodies. (DAR vs UY)

1
The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative
bodies such as the Board of Medicine. (Atienza vs Board of Medicine)

Technical rules of procedure are not applicable in labor cases, but may apply only by
analogy or in a suppletory character, as when there is a need to attain substantial
justice and an expeditious, practical and convenient solution to a labor problem. (Sime
Darby Employees vs NLRC)

A reliance on the technical rules on evidence in labor cases, like the concept of judicial
admissions is to exact compliance with technicalities contrary to the demands of
substantial justice and is misplaced. (Mayon Hotel vs Adana)

Rules prevailing in judicial proceedings are not controlling before the labor arbiter and
the NLRC. (Bantolino vs Coca-cola)

In appeals of labor cases, the requirement of proof of service may be dispensed with
since non-service of a copy of the appeal or appeal memorandum to the adverse party
is not a jurisdictional defect which calls for the dismissal of the appeal. (Millennium
Erectors vs Magallanes)

The rule on formal offer of evidence is not applicable to a case involving a petition for
naturalization. (Ong Chia vs Republic)

Quasi-judicial and administrative bodies are not bound by the technical rules of
procedure.

Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of a party, and
that every litigant should be afforded the opportunity for the proper and just
determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. (Birkenstock vs
Philippine Shoe Expo)

THE NEED TO FOLLOW FUNDAMENTAL EVIDENTIARY RULES

While administrative or quasi-judicial bodies are not bound by the technical rules of
procedure, this rule cannot be taken as a license to disregard fundamental evidentiary
rules; the decision of the administrative agencies and the evidence it relies upon
must, at the very least be substantial. (Primo vs Mendoza)

II. RULE MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE RULES
Under Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court has the
power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to
the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.

Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts
and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.

The Supreme court has the sole prerogative to amend, repeal, or even establish new
rules for a more simplified and inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of
cases. (Neypes vs CA)
2
The other branches of government are said to trespass upon the rule-making power of
the Supreme Court if they enact laws or issue orders that effectively repeal, alter or
modify any of the procedural rules promulgated by the Court. (Estipona vs Lobrigo)

Under Section 30 of Article VI of the Constitution, no law shall be passed increasing

the appellate jurisdiction of the SC as provided in this Constitution without its advice
and consent.

The Cooperative Code cannot provide for rules on summons and service of processes
which are contrary to those provided in the ROC since the service of summons in civil,
criminal or special proceedings is a matter of procedure which cannot be replaced by
the Cooperative Code. (Cathay Metal Corporation vs Laguna)

LIMITATIONS ON THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

Under Section 5 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the limitations of the rule-
making power of the SC are:
(a) The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases;
(b)The rules shall be uniform for courts of the same grade;
(c) The rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

POWER TO AMEND AND SUSPEND THE RULES

The constitutional power of the SC to promulgate rules of practice and procedure and
to amend or repeal the same necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial
precedents on points of remedial law through the amendment of the ROC. (Pinga vs
Heirs of Santiago)

Under the doctrine of finality of judgments, when a decision becomes final, the same
can, and should, never be disturbed. It is a fundamental principle of public policy and
sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts must
become final at some definite date fixed by the law. (Gonzalo vs Alcaide)

The exercise of the SC of the power to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure to the contrary for the sake of
the convenience of one side. (Macapagal-Arroyo vs People)

The suspension of the ROC may be based important factors such as:
(a) The existence of special or compelling circumstances;
(b)The merits of the case;
(c) A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored
by the suspension of rules;
(d)A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory;
and
(e) The rights of the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. (Sarmiento
vs Zaratan)

Being a mere procedural technicality, the requirement of locus standi may be waived
by the Court in the exercise of its discretion given the transcendental importance of
the constitutional issues it raises as when the petition challenges the constitutionality
of the manner which the President of the Philippines makes appointments to the
judiciary. (Aguinaldo vs Aquino)
3
PRO HAC VICE RULE
When the court, in certain exceptional circumstances, suspends a procedural rule in a
particular case, the decision therein cannot be relied on as a precedent since the
ruling is for that particular case only or pro hac vice.

Pro hac vice is a Latin term meaning for this one only, and when the ruling is qualified
as such, the same cannot be used as a precedent to govern other cases. (Highpoint
Development Corporation vs Republic)

THE RULE ON LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION; PURPOSE

Under Section 6 of Rule 1 of the ROC, these rules shall be liberally construed in order
to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding.

GENERAL RULE ON COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL RULES; EXCEPTIONS

The compliance with the procedural rules is still the general rule, and abandonment
thereof should only be done in the most exceptional circumstances. (Pilapil vs Heirs of
Briones)

The phrase in the interest of justice is not a magic wand that would automatically
compel the suspension of procedural rules. (Ramos vs Alviendia)

III. NATURE OF THE PHILIPPINE COURTS

COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY; APPLICATION OF EQUITY JURISDICTION
When the court relaxes the strict application of the rules where strong considerations
of justice are manifest, the court is said to be in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction.
(Lefebre vs A Brown)

Equity is justice outside legality. (Ocampo vs Enriquez)

Equity seeks to reach and do complete justice where the courts of law are
incompetent to do so because of the inflexibility of the rules and the lack of power to
adapt their judgments to the special circumstances of cases. It regards the spirit of
the law and not its letter, the intent and not the form, the substance rather than the
circumstance. (Air Manila vs Court of Industrial Relations)

WHEN EQUITY DOES NOT APPLY

For all its conceded merits, equity is available only in the absence of, and never
against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure and not as its replacement.
(Tankiko vs Cezar)

JUDICIAL POWER
Under Section 1 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, judicial power shall be vested
in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

4
To merit judicial review, the cases should present conflicting or opposite legal rights,
with real and substantial controversies admitting specific facts. (Land Bank vs
Fastech)

An issue becomes moot and academic when any declaration thereon would be of no
practical use or value such as there is no actual substantial relief to which the parties
would be entitled. (Ocampo vs Enriquez)

DOCTRINE OF HEIRARCHY OF COURTS

Under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, where courts have concurrent jurisdiction
over a subject matter, such concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant the party
seeking relief the absolute freedom to file a petition in any court of his choice, a case
must be filed first before the lowest court possible having the appropriate jurisdiction.

WHEN THE DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS MAY BE DISREGARDED

Direct resort to a higher court may be allowed under the following circumstances:
(a) When there are special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition;
(b)When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy;
(c) When demanded by the broader interest of justice;
(d)When the challenged orders were patent nullities;
(e) When analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and
justified the immediate and direct handling by the court;
(f) When there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at
the most immediate time;
(g)When the issues raised are of transcendental importance.

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY

Under the doctrine of non-interference, courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction
cannot interfere with each other’s orders. (Lapu-Lapu Development vs GMC)

A RTC has no power or authority to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of

possession issued by another RTC. (Suico Industrial Corporation vs CA)

When the law provides for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to
the SC or the CA, it means that such body is co-equal with the RTC in terms of rank
and stature, and logically beyond the control of the latter. (Philippine Sinter vs
Cagayan Electric)

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY COURTS

In the Philippines, only the SC is a constitutional court.

All courts in the Philippines, except the SC, are statutory courts.

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL COURTS

Under Article 100 of the RPC, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable.

COURTS OF GENERAL AND SPECIAL JURISDICTION

Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the RTC is a court of general
jurisdiction possessing the competence to exercise jurisdiction over cases not falling
within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person, or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions.

5
COURTS OF ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION
The supreme court en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions
of a division of the Supreme Court may be appealed.

ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION DISTINGUISHED

Original jurisdiction means jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case at its inception,
try it and pass judgment upon the law and facts, while exclusive jurisdiction precludes
the idea of co-existence and refers to the jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion of
others. (Cubero vs Laguna West)

CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
Concurrent jurisdiction, also called coordinate jurisdiction, is the power of different
courts to take cognizance of the same subject matter. Where there is concurrent
jurisdiction, the court first taking cognizance of the case assumes jurisdiction to the
exclusion of the other courts.

COURT DISTINGUISHED FROM A JUDGE

Jurisdiction does not attach to the judge but to the court. The continuity of a court and
the efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by the death, resignation, or cessation
from the service of the judge presiding over it. (ABC Davao vs CA)