General Principles of Remedial Law Flashcards
What is Remedial Law?
Remedial Law prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion.
What are the differences between Substantive Law and Remedial Law?
Substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights and duties, the violation of which gives rise to a cause of action. Remedial law prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion.
Substantive law creates vested rights whereas no vested rights may attach or arise from remedial law.
Substantive law is prospective in application whereas remedial law 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 except if it impairs vested rights.
Substative law originates from the legislature . It cannot be enacted by the Supreme Court. Remedial law does not originate from the legislature but has the force and effect of law.
State the rule-making power of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has the CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to PROMULGATE RULES concerning PLEADING, PRACTICE, and PROCEDURE.
Is the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure exclusive to the Supreme court?
Yes. Unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitution, which empowered Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement the Rules of the Supreme Court concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, the 1987 Constitution removed this power from Congress. Hence, the Supreme Court now has the SOLE AUTHORITY to PROMULGATE RULES concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts.
Give the limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court?
The following limitations are imposed by the Constitution on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court:
- The Rules shall provide a SIMPLIFIED and INEXPENSIVE procedure for the SPEEDY DISPOSITION of cases.
- The Rules shall be UNIFORM for courts of the same grade; and
- The Rules shall NOT DIMINISH, INCREASE or MODIFY substantive rights.
Does the Supreme Court have the power to amend procedural Rules?
Yes. 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.
Does the Supreme Court have the power to suspend procedural Rules?
Yes. The Supreme Court has the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural Rules or to except a case (pro hac vice) from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause is discretionary upon the courts.
What is a court?
A court is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function of which is the application of the laws to controversies brought before it as we as the public administration of justice.
What are courts of original jurisdiction?
This refers to those courts which, under the law, have the power to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the first time under the conditions set by the law. In other words, it is where a case is commenced.
What are courts of appellate jurisdiction?
Courts of appellate jurisdiction refer to those courts which have the power to review on appeal the decisions or orders of a lower court.
What are courts of general jurisdiction?
They refer to courts with competence to decide on their own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all cases EXCEPT those expressly withheld from them either by the Rules or by law. A court may also be considered general if it has 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, i.e., Regional Trial Court.
What are courts of special/limited jurisdiction?
These refer to courts whose jurisdiction extends only for a particular purpose or are clothed with special powers for the performance of specified duties beyond which they have no authority of any kind, i.e., Family Courts, Court of Tax Appeals.
Discuss the Principle of Judicial Hierarchy (Hierarchy of Courts).
Lower courts shall initially decide a case before it is considered by a higher court. A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts.
What is the rationale for the Principle of Judicial Hierarchy?
The rationale is two-fold:
(a) it would be an imposition upon the limited time of the court; and
(b) it would inevitably result in a delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances, had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the Rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues because the Court is not a trier of facts.
Is the Principle of Judicial Hierarchy absolute?
No. In several instances, the court has allowed direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction on the following grounds:
1) Special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition;
2) When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy;
3) When demanded by the broader interest of justice;
4) When the challenged orders were patent nullities; or
5) When analogous or exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct handling of the case.
