REMEDIAL LAW AND THE RULES OF COURT (CONCEPT OF REMEDIAL LAW)

 Remedial law is the traditional term given to the rules which prescribe the procedure for the
protection and enforcement of all claims arising from the rights and duties created by law.

Remedial law is like the rules we follow to fix problems or get justice in court.

REAL LIFE:
This is like when you have a problem with your neighbor, like they built a fence on your land. You need to
know the steps to file a complaint in barangay or court to fix it.

TINY STEPS:

1. "Cause of action" = Problem to fix

o Example: Your neighbor built on your land.

o This is your "cause of action" (reason to complain).

2. "Remedial law" = Steps to fix it

o Example: You file a complaint in court.

o Remedial law tells you how to do this properly.

3. "Relief" = What you want to happen

o Example: You want the fence removed.

o Remedial law helps you ask for this in court.

IN SIMPLE WORDS:
Remedial law is like a guidebook for solving problems in court. It tells you the steps to take, how to
explain your problem, and what you can ask the court to do to fix it.

REMEMBER:
Remedial law is not about the problem itself but about the process to solve it. It’s like following a recipe
to get the result you want.

SUBSTANTIVE LAW DISTINGUISHED FROM REMEDIAL LAW (BAR 2006)

Substantive law creates, defines, and regulates rights and duties concerning life, liberty or
property. The violation of which gives rise to a cause of action.
Primicias v. Ocampo, 93 Phil. 446, 452
Facts: Cipriano P. Primicias, the petitioner, sought to prohibit Judge Felicisimo Ocampo from
proceeding with the trial of two criminal cases against him without the assistance of assessors,
as mandated by Section 49 of Republic Act No. 409. The petitioner argued that the right to a
trial with assessors is a substantive right and should not be denied.
Issue: The main issue was whether the right to trial with the aid of assessors is a substantive
right that cannot be impaired by the Supreme Court's rule-making power.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Primicias, stating that the right to trial with
assessors is indeed a substantive right and not merely procedural. The Court emphasized that
the provisions regarding assessors in the Code of Civil Procedure remain in force and can be
invoked. The respondent Judge was found to have acted with abuse of discretion by denying the
petitioner's request for assessors.
Significance: This case underscores the importance of the right to a fair trial and the role of
assessors in ensuring that justice is served. It clarifies that substantive rights, such as the right to
trial with assessors, cannot be overridden by procedural rules established by the Supreme
Court.
Conclusion: The petition was granted, and the Court ordered that the trial proceed with the
assistance of assessors, reaffirming the substantive nature of this right in the judicial process.
Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640, 650
Facts: Dominador B. Bustos, the petitioner, was accused in a criminal case and sought to
remand the record of his case to the lower court to cross-examine the complainant and her
witnesses. His motion was denied by the judge, who ruled that the defendant cannot compel
the complainant and witnesses to testify again at the preliminary investigation.
Issue: Whether the denial of the motion to remand the record for cross-examination
constituted an abuse of discretion by the judge.
Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, stating that the judge did not act
in excess of his jurisdiction or abuse his discretion. The court emphasized that preliminary
investigations do not guarantee the right to cross-examine witnesses, and the constitutional
right to confront witnesses does not apply at this stage.
Legal Principle: The court ruled that preliminary investigations are procedural and do not
infringe on substantive rights. The right to cross-examine witnesses is not absolute in
preliminary investigations, and the absence of such a right does not violate due process.
Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, affirming the lower court's ruling that the denial of the
motion to remand was justified and did not violate the petitioner's rights.

Remedial law prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and obligations created by
substantive law (Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640, 653-654) by providing a procedural system for
obtaining redress for the invasion of rights and violations of duties and by laying out rules as to
how suits are filed, tried and decided upon by the courts.
Key Distinction
The primary distinction lies in their function:
 Substantive law establishes the rights and obligations of individuals.
 Remedial law provides the mechanism to enforce those rights and obligations.
In summary, substantive law answers "what" the law is, while remedial law answers "how" the
law is applied or enforced.
Substantive law tells us what our rights and duties are, while remedial law explains how to
protect or enforce those rights.
REAL LIFE:
This is like when:
 Substantive law: "Bawal magnakaw" (No stealing) – it tells you stealing is a crime and
you can go to jail.
 Remedial law: "Paano ka magsusumbong sa pulis" (How to report to the police) – it
shows the steps to make sure the thief is punished.
TINY STEPS:
1. Substantive law = What is right or wrong.
o Example: It says stealing is bad and punishable.
2. Remedial law = How to fix the problem.
o Example: It shows how to file a case in court.
3. Substantive law = Creates the rule.
o Example: It defines crimes, like theft or murder.
4. Remedial law = Gives the process.
o Example: It explains how to arrest someone or go to trial.
IN SIMPLE WORDS:
Substantive law is about the rules (what you can or cannot do), while remedial law is about the
process (how to solve problems when rules are broken).
REMEMBER:
Substantive law = "What is the law?"
Remedial law = "How to use the law?"
For example, in People v. Moner (2018), the court explained that substantive law defines crimes
and punishments, while remedial law provides the steps to enforce those laws.
People v. Moner (2018)
The procedural rules under the Rules of Court are not laws
The statement "The procedural rules under the Rules of Court are not laws" reflects the
distinction between procedural rules and substantive laws in the Philippine legal system.
Procedural rules, such as the Rules of Court, are not legislative enactments but are promulgated
by the Supreme Court under its constitutional authority to regulate court procedures. These
rules are considered "adjective law," which governs the process of enforcing rights and
obligations, as opposed to "substantive law," which defines those rights and obligations.
The Rules of Court are essential for the orderly administration of justice, ensuring that cases are
resolved efficiently and fairly. However, they are not laws in the strict sense because they do not
originate from Congress. Instead, they derive their authority from the Supreme Court's rule-
making power under the Constitution.
SIMPLIER FORM
The rules of court are like instructions for how cases are handled in court, but they are not laws
that create rights or crimes.
REAL LIFE:
This is like when you play basketball. The referee has rules for how the game is played (like
dribbling or fouls), but those rules are not the same as laws like "bawal magnakaw" (no
stealing). They just guide how the game is done properly.

TINY STEPS:
1. Rules of Court = Court instructions
o Like how to file a case or what papers to submit.
o Example: If you want to sue someone, you need to follow the steps in the Rules
of Court.
2. Laws = Rights and wrongs
o Laws tell us what is allowed or not allowed.
o Example: Stealing is a crime under the law, not just a rule.
3. Rules help apply laws
o Rules make sure cases are handled fairly and orderly.
 o Example: If you don’t follow the rules, your case might be delayed or dismissed.

IN SIMPLE WORDS:
The Rules of Court are like a guidebook for how to handle cases in court. They don’t create
crimes or rights, but they help make sure the law is followed properly.

REMEMBER:
The Rules of Court Rules of Civil Procedure (1997) are not laws, but they are very important
because they make sure cases are done in an orderly and fair way. If you don’t follow them,
your case might not move forward.
Shioji v. Harvey, 43 Phil. 333 (1922)
Facts: The case revolves around the authority of lower courts in relation to decisions made by
the Supreme Court. The issue arose when a lower court attempted to overrule a decision made
by the Supreme Court, which led to concerns about judicial chaos and the integrity of the
judicial system.
Issue: The primary issue was whether a lower court has the authority to disregard or overrule a
final decision made by the Supreme Court.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that lower courts do not have the privilege to overrule
decisions of the Supreme Court. It emphasized that if each lower court could overrule the
Supreme Court, it would lead to endless litigation and chaos within the judicial system. The
Court reiterated the importance of maintaining a structured and hierarchical judicial system
where the decisions of higher courts must be respected and followed by lower courts.
Significance: This case is significant as it establishes the principle of judicial hierarchy in the
Philippine legal system, affirming that lower courts must adhere to the rulings of the Supreme
Court. It underscores the necessity for strict compliance with judicial decisions to ensure the
orderly administration of justice.

Prospective effect of the Rules of Court (Bar 2011)

The quoted provision pertains to Rule 144 of the Rules of Court, which governs the effectivity
and applicability of procedural rules in the Philippine legal system. It establishes the principle
that procedural rules are prospective in application, meaning they apply only to cases filed after
their effectivity. However, they may also apply to pending cases, provided their application does
not result in injustice or impracticality.
This principle is rooted in the distinction between substantive law and procedural law:
  Substantive law creates, defines, and regulates rights and obligations (e.g., criminal laws,
civil rights).
 Procedural law, such as the Rules of Court, prescribes the method or process by which
rights are enforced or defended.
The Rules of Court (mga patakaran sa korte) are like instructions for how cases are handled in court. They
apply to new cases after the rules start, but for old cases, they only apply if it’s fair and practical.

REAL LIFE
This is like when a barangay changes its rules for basketball games. The new rules apply to new
games, but for games already ongoing, the old rules might still be used if switching to the new
rules would cause problems or unfairness.
TINY STEPS
1. Rules are like instructions = They guide how court cases are handled.
2. New rules apply to new cases = If a case starts after the rules are made, the new rules
are followed.
3. Old cases might use old rules = If a case started before the new rules, the court decides
if it’s fair to use the new rules or stick to the old ones.
IN SIMPLE WORDS
The Rules of Court are not like punishments (penal laws). They are just instructions for court
cases. New cases follow the new rules, but old cases might still use the old rules if the new ones
would cause unfairness.
REMEMBER
The court always checks if applying new rules is fair. If not, the old rules will still be used.
Bermejo v. Barrios, G.R. No. L-23614 (1970)
Facts: Pedro M. Bermejo and Jovita Carmorin filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition
against the City Judge and City Fiscal of Roxas City. They were charged with falsification of a
public document and perjury. The petitions were dismissed by the Court of First Instance of
Capiz, which lacked jurisdiction to hear the petitions. The case arose from allegations that
Bermejo and Carmorin conspired to falsify a petition for habeas corpus.
Issue: The primary issue was whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the
petitions for certiorari and prohibition, and whether the actions of the City Judge and City Fiscal
were lawful.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance of Capiz erred in taking
cognizance of the petitions, as the City Court of Roxas City had concurrent jurisdiction over the
criminal cases. The Court emphasized that the petitions should have been filed with the Court
of Appeals. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and declared the warrants of arrest and
informations filed against Bermejo and Carmorin as lawful.
Legal Principle: The case highlights the importance of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings and
the procedural requirements for filing petitions for certiorari and prohibition. It reiterates that
the absence of jurisdiction renders decisions null and void, and that parties must adhere to the
proper channels for appeals.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court's decision underscored the necessity for adherence to
jurisdictional boundaries in legal proceedings, affirming the validity of the actions taken by the
City Judge and City Fiscal in the context of their jurisdiction.
This case is significant in understanding the procedural aspects of criminal law and the
importance of jurisdiction in the Philippine legal system.

Applicability to pending actions; retroactivity (Bar 2011)

"Rules of procedure, however, 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," refers
to the principle that procedural laws or rules can be applied retroactively to ongoing cases. This
is because procedural laws do not create, modify, or extinguish substantive rights but merely
prescribe the methods or processes by which rights are enforced or protected.
Legal Basis and Explanation

1. Procedural vs. Substantive Laws:

o Substantive laws define rights and obligations, while procedural laws govern the
methods of enforcing those rights.

o Procedural laws are generally retroactive because they do not impair vested rights or
create new rights but only affect the process of litigation.

2. Retroactive Application:

o Procedural laws can apply to cases that are pending or undetermined at the time of their
enactment. This principle is supported by jurisprudence, such as in Cabarios v. People of
the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 228097-103 & 228139-41 (2021), where the Supreme Court
emphasized that procedural laws are retrospective in nature and can be applied to
ongoing cases unless explicitly excluded.

3. Illustration:

o For example, if a new rule of procedure shortens the period for filing a motion, it can
apply to cases already in progress, provided the litigants are given reasonable time to
comply.

4. Jurisprudence Support:
 o In Cabalit, et al. v. Miro, et al., G.R. No. 180236 (2012), the Court reiterated that
procedural statutes are retroactive because no vested right arises from procedural laws.

o Similarly, in SAGING, Inc., et al. v. Standard Fruit Company, et al., G.R. No. 206005 (2023),
the Court explained that procedural laws operate retroactively to pending proceedings,
as they do not impair substantive rights.

Conclusion

The retroactive application of procedural laws ensures the efficient administration of justice without
violating substantive rights. This principle is well-established in Philippine jurisprudence and is
consistently upheld by the Supreme Court.

REMEMBER:
Court rules (patakaran sa korte) are about the process, not your rights. So, they can change and still
apply to your case. This is okay because no one "owns" the old rules.

GENERAL RULE
"As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural laws cannot be considered violative of any
personal rights because no vested right may attach to nor arise therefrom,"

The principle means that procedural laws can be applied retroactively to ongoing or pending cases
because they do not create or impair vested rights. A vested right is a right that has already been
acquired or is fixed and cannot be taken away without due process. Since procedural laws only govern
the process and not the substance of rights, they do not violate personal rights when applied
retroactively.

To understand this principle better, let us break it down:

1. Retroactive Application of Procedural Laws:

o Procedural laws are generally applied retroactively to cases that are still pending or
unresolved at the time the new procedural law takes effect.

o This is because procedural laws are considered to be remedial in nature—they are

designed to improve or streamline the process of enforcing rights, not to alter the rights
themselves.

2. No Vested Rights in Procedure:

o A person does not have a vested right in a specific procedural rule or remedy. For
example, if a new rule of evidence is introduced, it can apply to ongoing cases because it
does not affect the substantive rights of the parties—it only changes how those rights
are proven or enforced.

3. Illustrative Example:

o Suppose a new rule of court is enacted that changes the deadline for filing an appeal
from 15 days to 30 days. If a case is pending and the appeal period has not yet lapsed,
the new rule can apply retroactively, giving the litigant 30 days instead of 15. This does
 not violate any vested right because the right to appeal is not taken away; only the
procedure for exercising it is modified.
4. Bar Strategy:
o When faced with a bar exam question on retroactivity, always identify
whether the law in question is procedural or substantive. Procedural laws are
retroactive unless expressly excluded, while substantive laws are not.

Interactive Exercise

Hypothetical Scenario:
A new rule of court is enacted requiring all pleadings to be filed electronically. A case is
pending, and one party has already submitted a hard copy of their pleading before the new
rule took effect. The opposing party argues that the pleading should be rejected because it
was not filed electronically under the new rule.

Question: Should the new rule apply retroactively to the pending case? Why or why not?

Suggested Answer:
The new rule should apply retroactively because it is procedural in nature. Procedural laws
govern the method of enforcing rights and do not impair vested rights. The party who filed
the hard copy pleading should be allowed to comply with the new rule by submitting an
electronic copy, as the rule does not affect the substantive rights of the parties.

(Neypes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005)

"... In the light of this decision, a party litigant may now file his notice of appeal either within fifteen days
from receipt of the original decision or within fifteen days from the receipt of the order denying the
motion for reconsideration. Being procedural in nature, Neypes is deemed to be applicable to actions
pending and undetermined at the time of its effectivity and is thus retroactive in that sense and to that
extent”
 The conclusion you provided refers to the "fresh period rule" established in the
landmark case of Neypes v. Court of Appeals. This rule allows a party-litigant to
file a notice of appeal within a new 15-day period, counted from the receipt of
the order denying a motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial, instead of
being limited to the original 15-day period from the receipt of the decision. This
rule was created to standardize appeal periods and eliminate confusion regarding
when the 15-day appeal period should begin.

 The retroactive application of the rule means that it applies to cases that were
still pending and unresolved at the time the rule was promulgated. Procedural
laws, such as this rule, are generally retroactive because they do not create new
rights or take away vested rights but merely prescribe the manner in which rights
are enforced. This principle was reiterated in several cases, including First Aqua
Sugar Traders, Inc. v. Bank of the Philippine Islands G.R. No. 154034
(2007) and Sumiran v. Damaso G.R. No. 162518 (2009).

 In essence, the "fresh period rule" ensures fairness by giving litigants a uniform
and clear timeframe to appeal, even if they first sought reconsideration of the
 decision. This procedural innovation promotes justice by preventing premature
finality of decisions due to technicalities.

When procedural rules do not apply to pending cases

1. Where the statute itself or necessary implication provides that

pending action are excepted from its operation.

2. If applying the rule to pending proceeding would impair vested

rights;

3. When to do so would not be feasible or would work injustice, or

4. In doing so would involve intricate problems to due process or

impair the independence of the court.

Applicable actions or proceedings (Sec. 3, rule 1 Rules of Court)

1. Civil action

2. Criminal actions

3. Special proceedings

Inapplicable actions or proceedings Sec. 4, rule 1 Rules of Court)

1. Election cases - Election cases refer to legal disputes or controversies arising

from the conduct of elections, including issues related to the qualifications of
candidates, the validity of election results, and violations of election laws. These
cases are governed by specific laws and procedures to ensure the prompt
resolution of disputes, given the public interest involved.

Governing Law: Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, also known as the Omnibus Election
Code of the Philippines.

2. Land registration cases - Land registration cases involve judicial proceedings

aimed at determining and confirming ownership of land, as well as registering
such ownership under the Torrens system. These cases are governed by specific
laws and procedures to ensure the proper adjudication and registration of land
titles.

Governing Law: The process is primarily governed by the Land Registration Act,
Act No. 496, and its amendments, as well as the Property Registration Decree
(Presidential Decree No. 1529).

3. Cadastral cases - Cadastral cases are special judicial proceedings initiated by the
government to systematically settle and adjudicate land titles within a specific
area. These cases aim to resolve disputes over land ownership, clarify property
boundaries, and register titles under the Torrens System. The process is
governed by the Cadastral Act (Act No. 2259), as amended by subsequent laws.
 4. Naturalization cases - Naturalization cases refer to legal proceedings where an
alien (a non-citizen) applies to acquire citizenship of a particular country, in this
case, the Philippines. Under Act No. 2927 (1920), also known as the
Naturalization Law, an alien may file a petition for naturalization with the Court of
First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) in the province or district where they
reside.

5. Insolvency proceedings - Insolvency proceedings are a way to fix money

problems when someone can’t pay their utang (debts). The court helps make
sure everyone gets paid fairly, even if it’s not the full amount.

Governing Law: Presidential Decree No. 1771 (1981) allows the court to step in
and manage your money or property to pay your creditors.

Explanation:

1. Scope of Non-Applicability: The Rules of Court explicitly exclude certain types

of cases, such as election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization, and
insolvency proceedings. These cases are governed by their respective special
laws and rules.
2. Suppletory Application: While the Rules of Court are not directly applicable to
these cases, they may still be applied by analogy or in a suppletory manner. This
means that if the special laws governing these cases are silent on a particular
procedural matter, the Rules of Court may be used to fill the gap, provided it is
practicable and convenient.

they may be used to fill gaps or address deficiencies in the applicable rules,
provided it is practical and does not conflict with the specific rules governing
those cases.

3. Purpose: This provision ensures that the Rules of Court do not override
specialized procedural rules designed for specific types of cases, while still
allowing flexibility to address procedural gaps.

Why does the rules of court do not apply to non-judicial proceedings?

- The Rules of Court do not apply in non-judicial proceedings because these

rules are specifically designed to govern judicial actions and proceedings
within the courts. Non-judicial proceedings, by their nature, occur outside
the judicial system and are not subject to the procedural framework
established for court cases. This distinction is explicitly recognized in the
Rules of Court.

 The Rules of Court don’t apply in non-judicial proceedings because these are not
handled by judges in courts, and they follow their own special rules.
 REAL LIFE:
This is like when barangay officials handle a fight between neighbors. They don’t
follow court rules because they have their own barangay mediation process
 “It 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” refers to the
exclusive authority of the Supreme Court of the Philippines to create, modify, or abolish
procedural rules in the judiciary. This power is enshrined in the Constitution and
reinforced by jurisprudence.

 Under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court is
empowered to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in
all courts, as well as the admission to the practice of law and the integration of
the Bar. These rules must ensure a simplified and inexpensive process for the
speedy resolution of cases and must not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights 1987 Constitution (1987).

Reasons which would warrant the suspension of the Rules;

a. The existence of special compelling circumstances - that justify deviation

from procedural norms.

b. The merit of the case - where the substantive rights of a party are at stake.

c. A cause not entirely attributed to the fault or negligence of the party

favoured by the suspension of the case - seeking the suspension of the
rules.

d. A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and
dilatory - ensuring that the suspension is not abused for delay.

e. The other party will not be unjustly prejudice thereby - ensuring fairness
in the application of the rules.

These principles have been consistently reiterated in various cases, such as Sideño v.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 235640 (2020), Sarmiento v. Zaratan, G.R. No.
167471 (2007), and Philippine Bank of Communications v. Yeung, G.R. No. 179691
(2013). The courts emphasize that the suspension of procedural rules is a matter of
judicial discretion, exercised only when it serves the demands of substantial justice.

Distinction Between Jurisdiction and Venue

Aspect Jurisdiction Venue

The power or authority of a court to hear and The geographical location where a case is
Definition
decide a case. filed and tried.
Nature Substantive law. Procedural law.
Determined by procedural rules (e.g.,
Source Determined by the Constitution or statute.
Rules of Court).
Cannot be waived; objections can be raised Can be waived if not objected to at the
Waivability
at any stage of the proceedings. earliest opportunity.
Effect of A case filed in a court without jurisdiction is A case filed in the wrong venue may
Improper Filing void and must be dismissed. proceed if the objection is waived.
Jurisdiction over subject matter, person, or Venue in civil cases (e.g., where the
Examples
res. plaintiff or defendant resides).
Deep Dive: Key Differences

1. Issue: What is the difference between jurisdiction and venue, and how do they
affect the filing and resolution of cases?

2. Rule:

o Jurisdiction is defined as the authority of a court to hear and decide cases

of a particular class or subject matter. It is conferred by law and cannot be
waived (Radiowealth Finance Company, Inc. v. Pineda, G.R. No. 227147
(2018)).

o Venue refers to the place where an action is to be filed and is a matter of

procedural convenience. It can be waived if not timely objected to (Gacad,
Jr. v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 216107 (2022)).

3. Analysis:

o Jurisdiction is a threshold issue that determines whether a court has the

legal authority to hear a case. For example, the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
has jurisdiction over cases involving sums exceeding ₱400,000, as
provided by law.

o Venue, on the other hand, is concerned with the physical location of the
court. For instance, in civil cases, venue is determined by the residence of
the parties or the location of the property in dispute.

o Improper jurisdiction renders a case void, while improper venue is a

procedural defect that can be waived if not raised in a motion to dismiss
or answer.

4. Conclusion: Jurisdiction and venue serve distinct purposes in legal proceedings.

Jurisdiction ensures that the court has the authority to decide the case, while
venue ensures convenience for the parties. Both must be properly understood to
avoid procedural errors.

Jurisdiction is a fundamental concept in law that refers to the authority of a court to

hear and decide a case. It is the foundation upon which courts exercise their power of
adjudication. Without jurisdiction, any decision rendered by a court is void and without
legal effect. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be waived or conferred by the
parties.

In Philippine law, jurisdiction is classified into several types, each addressing different
aspects of a court's authority. Understanding these classifications is crucial for
determining the proper forum for a case and ensuring the validity of judicial
proceedings.
Types of Jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter

o Definition: This refers to the court's authority to hear and decide cases of
a particular nature or class, as determined by law.
o Legal Basis: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the
Constitution or statutes, such as Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (1981), which
reorganized the judiciary and defined the jurisdiction of various courts.
o Key Principle: It is determined by the allegations in the complaint,
regardless of the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. For example, Regional
Trial Courts (RTCs) have jurisdiction over cases involving amounts
exceeding ₱20,000 in civil cases, as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
Sec. 21.
2. Jurisdiction Over the Parties
o Definition: This refers to the court's authority over the persons involved
in the case, whether as plaintiffs or defendants.
o How Acquired:
 Over the plaintiff: By the voluntary filing of the complaint.
 Over the defendant: By service of summons or voluntary
appearance in court.
o Example: In Hasegawa, et al. v. Kitamura, G.R. No. 149177 (2007), the
Supreme Court emphasized that jurisdiction over the defendant is
essential for the court to validly proceed with the case.
3. Jurisdiction Over the Res (Property or Thing)
o Definition: This pertains to the court's authority over the property or
thing that is the subject of the litigation.
o How Acquired: By the court's control or custody of the property, either
through seizure or attachment.
o Example: In land registration cases, jurisdiction over the res is acquired
when the court takes control of the property through the filing of the
petition.
4. Jurisdiction Over the Issues
o Definition: This refers to the court's authority to resolve the specific legal
questions raised by the parties in the pleadings.
o How Acquired: By the pleadings of the parties, which define the issues to
be resolved.
o Example: In Denila v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 206077 (2020),
the Supreme Court highlighted that jurisdiction over the issues is
determined by the allegations and defenses raised in the pleadings.
5. Jurisdiction Over the Remedy
o Definition: This pertains to the court's authority to grant the specific
relief or remedy sought by the parties.
o Example: A court must have jurisdiction to issue writs such as certiorari,
prohibition, or mandamus, as pro vided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec.
21.

A cause of action is a fundamental concept in civil procedure. It refers to the act or

omission by which a party violates the right of another, giving rise to a legal claim. It is
the basis upon which a plaintiff may file a case in court. Without a valid cause of action,
a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action under Rule 16,
Section 1(g) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
The definition and elements of a cause of action are provided under Section 2, Rule 2
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC (2019).
Jurisprudence further elaborates on its application and importance.

Elements of a Cause of Action

The essential elements of a cause of action are as follows:

1. A right in favor of the plaintiff: This is a legal right that exists under the law
or contract.
2. An obligation on the part of the defendant: The defendant has a duty to
respect or not to violate the plaintiff's right.
3. An act or omission by the defendant: This is the breach or violation of the
plaintiff's right by the defendant, which gives rise to the plaintiff's claim for relief.

These elements must all be present for a cause of action to exist. If any of these
elements is missing, the complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a cause of
action.

Deep Dive: Legal Basis and Jurisprudence

1. Legal Basis:
o Section 2, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines a cause of
action as "the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another" 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (1997).
o The same definition is retained in the amendments under A.M. No. 19-10-
20-SC (2019).
2. Jurisprudence:
o In Selerio, et al. v. Bancasan, G.R. No. 222442 (2020), the Supreme Court
emphasized that a cause of action arises only when the last element (the
act or omission violating the plaintiff's right) occurs. The Court explained
that the right to file a case accrues when there is a breach of the plaintiff's
right.
o Similarly, in Virra Mall Tenants Association, Inc. v. Virra Mall Greenhills
Association, Inc., G.R. No. 182902 (2011), the Court reiterated that the
absence of any of the three elements renders the complaint dismissible
for failure to state a cause of action.

Hypothetical Scenario: X owns a parcel of land. Y, without X's consent, builds a

structure on the land. X files a complaint for ejectment against Y. Does X have a cause
of action?

Answer Guide:

1. Right: X has a right to possess the land.

2. Obligation: Y has an obligation not to encroach on X's property.
3. Act or Omission: Y violated X's right by building a structure on the land without
consent. Conclusion: X has a valid cause of action for ejectment.