Part I Flashcards
What is jurisdiction?
It is the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case, and to execute its decision.
Jurisdiction is the power of the judge. T or F.
False. It is the authority of the court, not the judge.
Jurisdiction refers to the decision itself. T or F.
False.
Aspects or classes of jurisdiction
a. jurisdiction over the subject matter
b. jurisdiction over the parties
c. jurisdiction over the issues of the case; and
d. jurisdiction over the res or thing involved in the litigation
Jurisdiction over the subject matter
real actions, personal actions, actions incapable of pecuniary estimation
Can a court refer a case to another court if the case is not within its jurisdiction?
No. The court may only dismiss the case.
Jurisdiction v. exercise of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the power or authority authority of the court. The exercise of this power is called the exercise of jurisdiction.
Error of jurisdiction v. error of judgment
Error of jurisdiction
- when the court exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law
- when a court acts in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
- when the court issues orders clearly contrary to the facts and the law and whimsically and capriciously refuses to reconsider said orders despite having the opportunity of doing so
- correctible by extraordinary writ of certiorari
Error of judgment
- when the court commits mistakes in the appreciation of the facts and the evidence leading to an erroneous judgment
- correctible by appeal
Is erroneous judgment void?
No.
Cause of action
The act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
How is jurisdiction over the subject matter determined?
Jurisdiction is CONFERRED by law. It is DETERMINED by
a. allegations in the complaint - determine nature of the action and jurisdiction of the court
b. character of the relief sought
The defenses and the evidence do not determine jurisdiction. T or F.
True. Why? The defendant may easily delay a case by raising other issues, then, claim lack of jurisdiction.
The amount awarded does not determine jurisdiction. T or F.
True.
A complaint seeks for the payment of P1,000,000. It was filed with the RTC but after having considered the evidence, the court rendered a judgment for only P300,000. Shall the RTC lose jurisdiction and dismiss the case so it can be filed with the proper court (Municipal Trial Court)?
No.
A complaint for the recovery of loan of P300,000 is filed with the Municipal Trial Court. After consideration of the evidence, it was shown that the amount recoverable is P1,000,000. Can the Municipal Trial Court continue with the case?
No. The amount is within the RTC’s jurisdiction, not the MTC.
Who has jurisdiction over agrarian reform cases?
Department of Agrarian Reform (more specifically the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board)
Sec. 50 of RA 6657
Who has jurisdiction over money claims against government agencies and instrumentalities?
Commission on Audit
Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Sec. 26 of PD 1445
Who has jurisdiction on determining which bid for a waterworks project is compatible with its development plan?
MWSS
Who handles cases involving the employment status of employees?
Civil Service Commission
Who determines factual issues in labor situations?
Mediator-Arbiter and the Department of Labor and Employment
Who primarily handles disputes regarding the validity of circulars implementing the GSIS law?
GSIS Board
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
Courts are precluded from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special competence.
Exceptions to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
a. where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine
b. where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction
c. where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant
d. where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive
e. where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice
f. where judicial intervention is urgent
g. when its application may cause great and irreparable damage
h. where the controverted acts violate due process
i. when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot
j. when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
k. when strong public interest is involved
l. in quo warranto proceedings
Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction (continuity of jurisdiction)
Once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.
Doctrine of ancillary (incidental) jurisdiction
Authority of an office or tribunal to do all things necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction, and for the enforcement of its judgment and mandate. It is the power of every court to adopt such means and perform such acts necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect.
Doctrine of judicial stability
One which precludes a court from interfering by injunction with the regular orders of a co-equal court.
Jurisdiction may be raised even after final judgment. T or F.
True.
Estoppel by laches
Only applicable where the factual settings of the case are similar to that of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.
Omnibus motion
A motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding.
Sec. 8, Rules 15, Rules of Court
A motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion. T or F.
True.
Motion to dismiss
Seeking for the dismissal of a claim –> attacks a pleading
When a motion to dismiss is filed, all the objections of defenses available to the movant, at the time of the filing of the same, shall be invoked. Those not invoked despite their unavailability, shall be deemed waived. T or F.
True.
Non-waivable defenses
a. lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
b. litis pendencia
c. res judicata
d. prescription
Jurisdiction over the person/Jurisdiction in personam
Refers to the power of the courts to make decisions that are binding on persons. It is the legal power of the court to render a personal judgment against a party to an action or proceeding.
How is jurisdiction over the persons of the parties acquired?
- depends on whether the party is the plaintiff or the defendant
- jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired as soon as he files his complaint or petition
- jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases is acquired either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority or by service of summons
- voluntary appearance of the defendant (equivalent to service of summons according to Sec. 20, Rule 14, Rules of Court)
A person voluntarily submits to the court’s jurisdiction when he or she participates in the trial despite improper service of summons. T or F.
True.
This can be countered by an explicit objection.
If a defendant objects to the jurisdiction of the court at the same time he alleges any non-jurisdictional ground for dismissing the actions, the court acquires jurisdiction over him. T or F.
False. Sec. 20, Rule 14.
Action in personam
An action against a person on the basis of his personal liability.
Action in rem
An action against the thing itself.
Regardless of the nature of the action, proper service of summons is imperative. T or F.
True.
Jurisdiction over the issue
The power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties.
Issue
A disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision.
How is jurisdiction over the issue conferred and determined?
- by the allegations in the pleadings of the parties
- by stipulation of the parties
- by waiver or failure to object to the presentation of evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings
Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading, the court may; on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved. T or F.
True. This is Rule 34.
Question of law v. Question of fact
Question of law - when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts
Question of fact - when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts
When issues not raised in the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. T or F.
True.
Can an action in personam be converted into an action quasi in rem?
Yes. When the defendant is out of the country and has a property in the Philippines.
How is jurisdiction over the res acquired?
- by placing the property or thing under the court’s custody (custodia legis) or constructive seizure
- through statutory authority conferring upon it the power to deal with the property or thing
- constructive seizure of the land through publication and service of notice (land registration case)
Limitations of court’s jurisdiction in actions in rem
- jurisdiction extends only to the value of the property over which its jurisdiction is based. If the proven claim exceeds the value of the property, the court has no authority to render a deficiency judgment
- judgment will extend only to the property attached or its value (if award exceeds value, wala magagawa yung court – in personam to quasi in rem)
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- generally questions of law. questions of fact are not entertained
- can refer an appeal to the Court of Appeals if the certiorari submits issues of fact
- when the findings of facts of the trial court and the reviewing court are conflicting, factual issues may be resolved by the SC
- when the findings of the court below are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures, SC may also resolve factual issues
Original exclusive jurisdiction of the SC
In petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the
a. Court of Appeals
b. Commission on Elections
c. Commission on Audit
d. Sandiganbayan
e. Court of Tax Appeals
Original concurrent jurisdiction of the SC
In petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the
a. Regional Trial Court
b. Civil Service Commission
c. Central Board of Assessment Appeals
d. National Labor Relations Commission
e. Other quasi-judicial agencies
f. with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court in petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts and bodies, and in petitions for quo warranto and habeas corpus
g. with the Regional Trial Court in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls.
*subject to hierarchy of courts
Appellate jurisdiction of the SC
By way of petition for review on certiorari against the
a. Court of Appeals
b. Sandiganbayan
c. Regional Trial Courts on pure questions of law and in cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation, legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or penalty, jurisdiction of a lower court
d. Court of Tax Appeals in its decisions rendered en banc
Original cases cognizable by the SC
- petition for certiorari
- petition for prohibition
- petition for mandamus
- petition for quo warranto
- petition for habeas corpus
* #1-5 shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Constitution and provisions of laws and the provisions of Rules 46, 48, 51 and 52 - disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary and attorneys
- cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls
- petition for a writ of amparo
- petition for a writ of habeas corpus
10.
Passing upon a factual issue is within the province of the Supreme Court. T or F.
False.
Findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are not generally reviewable by the SC.
The question of whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that there was falsification of public documents can be reviewed by the SC. T or F.
False. It is a factual issue.
*only allowed if there is record before the Court to show that the CA committed grave reversible error in its factual review of the decision.
Exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by the SC
- when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures
- when the interference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible
- when there is grave abuse of discretion
- when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts
- when the findings of facts are conflicting
- when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee
- when the findings are contrary to the trial court
- when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based
- when the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent
- when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record
- when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, could justify a different conclusion
Under Rule 52, motion for reconsideration shall be filed within __ from notice of the judgment or final resolution.
15 days
Effect of motion for reconsideration that was timely filed by the proper party
It shall have the effect of staying the execution of the judgment or final resolution sought to be reconsidered, unless the court otherwise directs for good reasons.
A second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party may be entertained. T or F.
False. Sec. 2 of Rule 52: “x x x No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.”
Appeal to the Supreme Court
petition for review on certiorari
EXCEPT in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment
The mode of appeal to the Supreme Court referred to under Sec. 3 of Rule 56 is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. T or F.
True
Cases which under the 1987 Constitution must be heard en banc
- all cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law
- all cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc
- all cases involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations
- cases heard by a division when the required number in the division is not obtained
- cases involving a modification or reversal of a doctrine or principle of law laid down previously by the Supreme Court in a decision rendered en banc or by a division
- cases involving the discipline of judges of lower courts
- contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-president
The Court of Appeals may sit en banc. T or F.
True. Only for the purpose of exercising administrative, ceremonial, or other non-adjudicatory functions.
Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
- exclusive original jurisdiction in actions for the annulment of the judgments of the RTC
- concurrent and original jurisdiction with the SC to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against a) RTC b) Civil Service Commission c) Central Board of Assessment Appeals d) other quasi-judicial agencies mentioned in Rule 43 and e) National Labor Relations Commission
- exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of ordinary appeal from the RTC and family courts
- exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review from the RTC rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
- exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review from the decisions, resolution orders or awards of the Civil Service Commission, and other bodies mentioned in Rule 43.
- appeal on decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases
- appellate jurisdiction over decisions of Municipal Trial Courts in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction
The original jurisdiction of the CA to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes may be exercised whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. T or F.
False.
Used to be allowed but previously, the CA could issue these writs only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Judgments and final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals are appealable by way of petition for review to the Court of Appeals. T or F.
False. Not anymore as per RA 9282
They are appealable to SC na but such decisions shall have been rendered by Court of Tax Appeals en banc.
CA has the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. T or F.
True.
Sec. 9 of BP 129:
“x x x The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try
cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings x x x”
Exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC
- All civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation
- All civil actions which involve title to, or possession of real property or an interest therein, where the assessed value of such property involved exceeds P20,000 outside Metro Manila, or for civil actions in Metro Manila where such value exceeds P50,000
* **Excepted from the above rule are actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer of land or buildings, exclusive original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the MTC. - All actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds P300,000 outside Metro Manila, or in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds P400,000.
- All matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000 outside Metro Manila or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds P400,000.
- In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations **in areas where there are no Family Courts
- All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
- All civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (subject to RA 8369, law establishing Family Courts) and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law.
- All other cases in which the demand or the value of the property in controversy exceeds P300,000 outside Metro Manila, or in Metro Manila where the demand exceeds P400,000, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs.
Why is the RTC called a court of ‘general jurisdiction?’
Because all cases, the jurisdiction of which is not specifically provided by law to be within the jurisdiction of any other court falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
RTC’s concurrent original jurisdiction
- with the Supreme Court in actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls
- with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts and bodies and in petitions for quo warranto and habeas corpus
Appellate jurisdiction of RTC
- over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions
- The decisions of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals. The appeal shall be given due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that would warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed
RTC’s special jurisdiction to try special cases
Certain branches of the Regional Trial Court may be designated by the Supreme Court to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban and land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
RTC’s jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
- Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any acts, of the board of directors, business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the stockholders, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the Commission.
- Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or part-nership relations, between and among stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity.
- Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations; and
- Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in the state of suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership or association possesses sufficient property to cover all its debts but foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation, partnership or association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under the management of a Rehabilitation Receiver or Management Committee.
RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation. What actions are incapable of pecuniary estimation?
Generally, if it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, it is capable of pecuniary estimation. Jurisdiction over the action would then depend upon the amount of the claim. Where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or the money claim is merely incidental to the principal relief, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
EXAMPLES OF ACTIONS INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION:
a. an action for reformation of an instrument, rescission of a contract or an action for specific performance
b. complaint for expopriation - does not involve recovery of money but deals with the exercise by the govt of its authority and right to take private property for public use
c. action seeking to annul a resolution of a government-owned and controlled corporation
d. an action to annul a Deed of Declaration of Heirs and for a partition of land with an assessed value of P5,000 WHERE the partition aspect is only incidental to the action for annulment
e. an action for the annulment of an extrajudicial foreclosure sale of real property with an assessed value of P50,000 located in Laguna
f. action for partition of a real property located in Taytay, Rizal and with an assessed value of P20,000 and in which the resolution involves the determination of hereditary rights
g. An action for specific performance to compel the defendant to execute a deed of conveyance covering a parcel of land with an assessed value of P19,000.00 (because the main issue is whether or not there is a right to compel specific performance)
h. action for writ of injunction
i.
To determine if an action is incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the action is not determined by what is stated in the caption of the complaint but by the allegations of the complaint and the relief prayed for. T or F.
True. The ultimate objective must be inquired into.
i.e. an action for reconveyance of real property will not be deemed one incapable of pecuniary estimation where the ultimate objective is to obtain title to the property
The amount of damages that may be claimed in addition to the prayer for specific performance is not determinative of jurisdiction. T or F.
True. Thus, an action for specific performance and damages of P200,000.00 is cognizable by the Regional Trial Court even if the amount of damages sought to be recovered is within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
Where however, the demand is in the alternative, as in an action to compel the defendant to deliver the house by completing its construction QL to pay the sum of P644.31, the action is one that is capable of pecuniary estimation. Thus, an action for specific performance or in the alternative, for damages in the amount of P180,000.00 is one capable of pecuniary estimation because of the alternative prayer which is for a sum of money. Here, the amount of damages is determinative of jurisdiction
Is an action for the replevin of a motorcycle valued at P150,000 capable of pecuniary estimation?
Yes. The basis of jurisdiction is the value of the personal property sought to be recovered. The amount of P150 thousand falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC
Is an action for interpleader capable of pecuniary estimation?
Yes, if the subject matter is either real or personal property. If the subject of interpleader is real property, then the jurisdictional amount is determined by the assessed value of the land. If it be personal property, then the value of the property.
However, if the subject matter of the case is the performance of an obligation, the subject matter is one incapable of pecuniary estimation and the MTC has no jurisdiction. Hence, an action for interpleader to determine who between the defendants is entitled to receive the amount of P190,000.00 from the plaintiff is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
Concurrent jurisdiction
Also called ‘coordinate’ jurisdiction, is the power of different courts to take cognizance of the same subject matter.
Rules on Intellectual Property Courts
a. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, the Special Commercial Courts in the judicial regions where the violation of intellectual property rights occurred shall have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of search and seizure.
b. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, the Special Commercial Courts in the judicial regions where the violation of intellectual property rights occurred shall have concurrent jurisdiction to issue search warrants.
c. The complaint shall be filed with the Department of Justice or the office of the prosecutor that has jurisdiction over the offense charged
Jurisdiction of the Family Courts
exclusive original jurisdiction over the ff civil cases:
- petitions for guardianship, custody of children and habeas corpus involving children
- petitions for adoption for children and the revocation thereof
- complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains
- petitions for support and/or acknowledgment
- summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the “Family Code of the Philippines”
- petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children, the suspension, termination or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under P.D. 603, E.O. 56 (series of 1986) and other related laws
- petitions for the constitution of the family home
- cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended
- violations of R.A. 7610, otherwise known as the “Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act
- Cases of domestic violence against: a) women b) children
* If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject to criminal proceedings and the corresponding penalties. If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any case pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court
**In areas where there are no Family Courts, the above-enumerated cases shall be adjudicated by the Regional Trial Court
History of amount falling within the jurisdiction of Municipal Trial Courts
1994 - an amount not exceeding P100,000 outside Metro Manila and not exceeding P200,000 in Metro Manila.
5 years after - an amount not exceeding P200,000 outside Metro Manila and not exceeding P400,000 in Metro Manila
5 years after - an amount not exceeding P300,000 outside Metro Manila and not exceeding P400,000 in Metro Manila *** currently used
The jurisdictional amount referred to is the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand involved in the civil action or proceedings
Exclusive original jurisdiction of MTC
- over civil actions where the value of the personal property, estate or amount of the demand does not exceed P300,000 outside Metro Manila or not more than P400,000 within Metro Manila
- over probate proceedings, testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate does not exceed P300,000.00 outside Metro Manila or, P400,000.00 within Metro Manila
- A petition for probate of a will involving an estate valued at P200,000.00 falls under the jurisdiction of the MTC
- to grant provisional remedies in proper cases. This rule presupposes that the MTC has jurisdiction over the principal action
- over forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases
- over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000 outside Metro Manila or P50,000 in Metro Manila. The amounts mentioned are exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs
Jurisdictional amount in determining the MTC’s jurisdiction does not include the ff:
a. interest
b. damages of whatever kind** applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court
c. attorney’s fees
d. litigation expenses
e. costs
EDI WOW
Although excluded in determining the jurisdiction of the court, the above items however, shall be included in the determination of the filing fees
Totality Rule
Under the totality rule, where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions.
The totality rule presupposes that the various claims of the same or different parties are allowed to be embodied in the same complaint or that the different causes of action which are joined accrue in favor of the same plaintiffs and against the same defendant/s and that no misjoinder of parties is involved. If so, then the total amount of the claims shall be the basis of the court’s jurisdiction and not the amount of the individual claims. This rule is applied in relation to the rules on permissive joinder of parties in Sec. 6 of Rule 3 and the rules on joinder of causes of action under Sec. 5 of Rule 2.
DD owes PP the following: P250,000 representing the balance on the purchase price of a car; P200,000 based on a simple loan; P275,000 also based on another loan. All debts are due and a demand to pay went unheeded. If an action is filed and the causes of action are joined, the basis of jurisdiction would be the total amount due. Who has jurisdiction over the case?
The RTC, in this case, has jurisdiction. If each debt is made the subject of a separate complaint, the MTC, by reason of the amount, has jurisdiction.
MTC’s delegated jurisdiction
in cadastral and land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the value of which does not exceed P100,000.00, as may be delegated by the Supreme Court
MTC’s special jurisdiction
to hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the absence of all the Regional Trial Court judges in the province or city
The MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over cases falling under the 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure and the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases. T or F.
True.
The jurisdiction of the court under R.A. 7691, over an action involving title to or possession of land is now determined by the assessed value of the said property and not the market value thereof. T or F.
True. The assessed value of real property is the fair market value of the real property multiplied by the assessment level. It is synonymous to taxable value. The fair market value is the price at which a property may be sold by a seller, who is not compelled to sell, and bought by a buyer, who is not compelled to buy.
The above rule excludes the real actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases which are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC regardless of the assessed value of the property involved.
The real actions for example, of accion reivindicatoria and accion publiciana used to be under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Jurisdiction over these actions under R.A. 7691 is now determined by the assessed value of the property and depending on such value may not be filed in the Regional Trial Court but in the Municipal Trial Court.
k
Accion publiciana
a. an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title
b. also used to refer to an ejectment suit where the cause of dispossession is not among the grounds for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, or when possession has been lost for more than one year and can no longer be maintained under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The objective of the plaintiff in an accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership
c. plenary action for recovery of possession in an ordinary civil proceeding, in order to determine the better and legal right to possess, independently of title
d. The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership. However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties has the right to possess the property. This adjudication, however, is not a final and binding determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property
Exclusive original jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
- Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
a. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads:
b. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;
c. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
d. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;
e. Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher;
f. City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
g. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. - Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
- Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution
- Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution
- All other national and local officials classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in relation to their office.
C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
**BALIKAN MO YUNG JURISDICTION NG SANDIGANBAYAN ANDAMING SINASABE
shorturl.at/gpIJT
Court of Tax Appeals’ exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal
- Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue
- Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial
- Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction
- Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs
- Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals
- Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government under Sec. 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code
- Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under Secs. 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under R.A. 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties
Court of Tax Appeals’ jurisdiction over tax collection cases
- Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provided, however, That collection cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (PI,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, and Regional Trial Court.
- Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:
a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their respective jurisdictions.
Juridiction of quasi-judicial tribunals
RULE 43
Appeals From the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals
Section 1. Scope. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Invention Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. (n)
Shari’a courts
Created to recognize the legal system of the Muslims in the Philippines as part of the law of the land and seeks to make Islamic institutions more effective.
Types of Shari’a courts
a. Shari’a District Courts
b. Shari’a Circuit Courts
Art. 137, PD 1083
Exclusive original jurisdiction of Shari’a Courts
- All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, paternity and filiation arising under the Code
- All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of the estate of the deceased Muslims, probate of wills, issuance of letters of administration or appointment of administrators or executors regardless of the nature or the aggregate value of the property
- Petitions for the declaration of absence and death and for the cancellation or correction of entries in the Muslim Registries mentioned in Title VI of Book Two of the Code
- All actions arising from customary contracts in which the parties are Muslims, if they have not specified which law shall govern their relations
- All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus, and all other auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
Concurrent jurisdiction of Shari’a District Courts
- Petitions by Muslims for the constitution of a family home, change of name and commitment of an insane person to an asylum
- All other personal and real actions not mentioned in paragraph (d) of the immediately preceding topic, wherein the parties involved are Muslims except those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which shall fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Court;
- All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory relief wherein the parties are Muslims or the property involved belongs exclusively to Muslims
Appellate jurisdiction of Shari’a District Courts
- Shari’a District Courts shall have appellate jurisdiction over all cases tried in the Shari’a Circuit Courts within their territorial jurisdiction.
- The Shari’a District Court shall decide every case appealed to it on the basis of the evidence and records transmitted as well as such memoranda, briefs or oral arguments as the parties may submit
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of Shari’a Circuit Courts
- All cases involving offenses defined and punished under this Code.
- All civil actions and proceedings between parties who are Muslims or have been married in accordance with Art. 13 involving disputes relating to:
a. marriage
b. divorce recognized under the Code (PD 1083)
c. betrothal or breach of contract to marry
d. customary dower (mahr)
e. disposition and distribution of property upon divorce
f. maintenance and support, and consolatory gifts
g. restitution of marital rights - All cases involving disputes relative to communal properties.
Lomondot v. Balindong
FACTS: This case is a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of writ of demolition seeking to annul the order of the 4th judicial district of the Shariah District Court in Marawi City.
The petitioners Omaira and Saripa Lomondot filed with the SDC Marawi a complaint for recovery of possession and damages with prayer for mandatory injunction and TRO against respondents who illegally entered 100sqm of their property. They claim that they are owners by succession of a 800sqm parcel of land in Marawi. The SDC ruled in favor of the sps. Lomondot in January 2005.
Respondents file an appeal before the SC but was dismissed. January 2005 order became final and executory. However, said motion was held in abeyance twice due to sultan alioden’s involvement in the negotiation an the defendant’s motion to re-survey the disputed land since the latter claim that they have already complied with the January 2005 order and their buildings are not within the disputed land.
The negotiation efforts became futile and Lomondot asked for another writ of demolition, but the defendants again opposed the said motion and prayed for another surveyance of the disputed land. By this reason, the court denied Lomondot’s motion for a writ of demolition. Lomondot filed for an MR but was denied.
Lomondot appealed before the CA but the CA dismissed the appeal due to the lack of jurisdiction because the case emanates from the shariah courts which the CA cannot exercise their appellate jurisdiction.
ISSUE: W/N Judge Lomondot exercised grave abuse of discretion and W/N the CA has the jurisdiction over the appeal
RULING: The CA doesn’t have jurisdiction over the cases emanated from the SDC. The Shariah Appellate Court shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and decisions of the Shariah Courts. On the other hand, the SC found the SDC gravely abused its discretion when it denied Lomondot’s motion for an issuance of writ of demolition. It is true that an execution of judgment may be postponed by a supervening event. A supervening event consists of facts that transpire AFTER the judgment became final and executory, including matters that the parties were not aware of prior to or during the trial because such matters were not yet in existence at that time. In this case, the matter of whether respondents’ houses intruded petitioners’ land is the issue in the recovery of possession compliant filed by petitioners in the SDC which was already ruled upon, this cannot be considered a supervening event that would postpone an execution of judgment.
Delegated jurisdiction
The grant of authority to inferior courts to hear and determine cadastral and registration cases under certain conditions
Special jurisdiction
Court’s jurisdiction only for a particular purpose or courts that are clothed with special powers for the performance of specified duties beyond which they have no authority of any kind.
Limited jurisdiction
Limited jurisdiction is a type of jurisdiction conferred on courts with legal authority restricted to specific subjects, cases or persons. Examples of limited jurisdiction courts include family courts, traffic courts, probate courts and military courts.
Primary jurisdiction
- Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially when the question demands the sound exercise of administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. The court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction of which is initially lodged with the administrative body of special competence.
In other words, if a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the court is had even if the matter may well be within the latter’s proper jurisdiction.
- The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court.
In Nestle, the Court declared: “It is not for th[e] Court to intrude, at this stage of the rehabilitation proceedings, into the primary administrative jurisdiction of the SEC on a matter requiring its technical expertise. Pending a decision of the SEC on SEC En Banc Case No. 12-09-183 and SEC En Banc Case No. 01-10-193, which both seek to resolve the issue of whether the rehabilitation proceedings in this case should be terminated, [th]e [Court] [is] constrained to dismiss th[e] petition for prematurity.”
- Examples: (a) The Supreme Court recognized that the MWSS was in the best position to evaluate and decide which bid for a waterworks project was compatible with its development plan (Concerned Officials of the MWSS v. Vasquez, 240 SCRA 502); (b) The Civil Service Commission is better equipped in handling cases involving the employment status of employees as it is within its field of expertise(Paloma v. Mora, 470 SCRA 711); (c) The court upheld the primary jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board (DARAB) in an agrarian dispute over the payment of back rentals under a leasehold contract (Machete v. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 176). The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, with exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Cubero v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperatives, Inc., 509 SCRA 410).
It is settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but also finality, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals (Shinryo [Philippines] Company, Inc. v. RRN Incorporated, 634 SCRA 123, 130, October 20, 2010). - The doctrine of primary jurisdiction will not apply where the matter involved is a purely legal question which will be ultimately resolved by a court of justice
Residual jurisdiction
Residual jurisdiction refers to the authority of the trial court to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal; to approve compromises; to permit appeals by indigent litigants; to order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2, Rule 39; and to allow the withdrawal of the appeal, provided these are done prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, even if the appeal has already been perfected or despite the approval of the record on appeal or in case of a petition for review under Rule 42, before the CA gives due course to the petition.
> They are powers which the trial court retains even after the perfection of the appeal
For example: X was charged and convicted with a crime so he filed a notice of appeal. If he wants to put up bail, where should he file his application? If the records of the case have not been
transmitted to the appellate court, X can file the application with the trial court. However, once the records have been transmitted to the appellate court, the trial court loses his jurisdiction over the bail application.
Is the rule on residual jurisdiction absolute?
No, if the decision of the trial court upgraded the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application should be filed with and could only be resolved by the appellate court.
Requisites of residual jurisdiction
a. trial b. judgment c. appeal
Available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
From the foregoing, it is clear that before the trial court can be said to have residual jurisdiction over a case, a trial on the merits must have been conducted; the court rendered judgment; and the aggrieved party appealed therefrom.
Equity jurisdiction
The power of the court to resolve issues presented in a case in accordance with the natural rules of fairness and justice in the absence of a clear, positive law governing such issues.
Is the principle of equity in cases absolute?
Equity is not to be applied in all cases. Equity does not apply when there is a law applicable to a given case. For all its conceded merits, equity is available only in the absence of law and not as replacement. It cannot supplant, although it may, as it often happens, supplement the law. It is availed of only in the absence of a law and is never availed of against statutory law or judicial pronouncements.
Epistolary jurisdiction
A legal innovation devoid of many procedural technicalities through which the wronged or those seeking redress from the Courts may channel their concerns to the courts by way of informal documentation such as letters, telegrams, and newspaper articles, amongst others.
Similarly, epistolary jurisdiction is considered to be an innovation through liberal interpretation of the locus standi where any person can apply to the Court on behalf of those who are economically or physically unable to come before it or are unaware of their legal entitlements. In India particularly, where the term was first coined, the Court has allowed actions to be brought on their behalf by social activists and lawyers. Judges, themselves have in some cases initiated suo moto action based on newspaper articles or letters.
It jurisdiction is a response to the need to make the judicial process more accessible to poor, down trodden, socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society.
Split Jurisdiction
A situation where the law seemingly provides appellate remedies to different courts. This is against public policy because it encourages forum shopping and conflicting rulings between court).
Expanded/extended jurisdiction
The 1987 Constitution expanded the concept of judicial power by granting the courts the power 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 (Article VIII, Section 1). This is commonly called the expanded power of judicial review or the so-called certiorari jurisdiction of the courts.
This expanded jurisdiction has been used by practitioners as a tool to indiscriminately appeal cases to the Supreme Court. A quick survey on the reported cases decided by the SC would show that even ejectment cases and those involving infractions of municipal ordinances are being elevated all the way to the SC for review, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of lower courts.
The elevation of cases to the high court under this expanded concept of judicial review unnecessarily clogs its dockets. It curtails the SC’s function in dispensing justice.
Residual Prerogatives
Refers to the power that the trial court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, may still validly exercise even after perfection of an appeal. It follows that such powers are not possessed by an appellate court.
Action
A formal demand of one’s legal rights in a court of justice in a manner prescribed by the court for by the law. It is governed by ordinary rules.
Civil action
One by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
May be ordinary or special.
Special civil action
Contains special features not found in ordinary civil actions. It is also governed by special rules (Rules 62-71) but the rules for regular actions apply suppletorily.
Criminal action
One by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law.
Special proceeding
A remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
Commencement of civil action
A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on the dated of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.
Construction of rules of court
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.
Some ordinary civil actions must be based on a cause of action. T or F.
False. EVERY ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.
Cause of action
A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
A party may institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. T or F.
False. A party may NOT institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.
If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same 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. T or F.
True.
A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions:
a. the party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties
b. the joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules
c. where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein
d. Where the claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction
Misjoinder of causes of action is a ground for dismissal of an action. T or F.
False. Misjoinder of causes of action is NOT a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately.
Who may be parties in civil actions
Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.
Plaintiff v. Defendant
The term “plaintiff” may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff. The term “defendant” may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant.
Party in interest
A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real property in interest. Who may be authorized as representatives?
A representative may be a trustee of an expert trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. T or F.
True.
A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem. T or F.
True.
Cases governed by Rules of Court
a. civil action
b. criminal action
c. special proceeding
Permissive Joinder of Parties v. Compulsory Joinder of Indispensable Parties
Permissive Joinder of Parties
- All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest.
Compulsory Joinder of Indispensable Parties
- Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
- An indispensable party is a real party in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action. (Sec. 7) Without the presence of this party, the judgment cannot attain real finality.
- A person is not an indispensable party, however, if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously affected by a decree which does complete justice between them. Also, a person is not an indispensable party if his presence would merely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to the action, or if he has no interest in the subject matter of the action. It is not a sufficient reason to declare a person to be an indispensable party that his presence will avoid multiple litigation. In a joint obligation for instance, the interest of one debtor is separate and distinct from that of his co-debtor and a suit against one debtor does not make the other an indispensable party to the suit.
Necessary party
A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.
Class Suit
When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest.
Duty of counsel when a party has died
Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a specified time to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs.
What happens when the public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office?
When a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard.
What happens if a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated?
If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem.
In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. T or F.
True.
What happens when a defendant dies before entry of final judgment in an action for recovery of money arising from contract?
When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person.
Which court has jurisdiction over forcible entry and detainer actions?
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Venue of real actions
Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Venue of personal actions
All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
Venue of actions against nonresidents
If any of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in the Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found.
Rule 4 on Venue of Actions is not applicable in which cases?
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.
Summary Procedure v. Small Claims suit
BALIKAN KITA
Pleadings
Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.
The claims of a party are asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the pleading asserting a claim against him or her.
An answer may be responded to by a reply ONLY IF the defending party attaches an actionable document to the answer.
Kthanks.
Complaint
The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s or claiming party’s cause or causes of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.
Answer
An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his or her defenses.
Defenses
Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.
(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of action.
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him or her. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.
- may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint, specifically that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.
Counterclaim
A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party.
Compulsory counterclaim
A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof, except that in an original action before the Regional Trial Court, the counter-claim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount. A COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM NOT RAISED IN THE SAME ACTION IS BARRED, UNLESS OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY THESE RULES.
Cross-claim
A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may cover all or part of the original claim.
Counter-counterclaims and counter-crossclaims
A counter-claim may be asserted against an original counter-claimant.
A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant.
Reply
All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable document to his or her answer.
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document.
In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is based solely on an actionable document.
Third, (fourth, etc.)—party complaint
A third (fourth, etc.) — party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent’s claim.
The third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be denied admission, and the court shall require the defendant to institute a separate action, where: (a) the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant cannot be located within thirty (30) calendar days from the grant of such leave; (b) matters extraneous to the issue in the principal case are raised; or (c) the effect would be to introduce a new and separate controversy into the action.
When the presence of parties other than those to the original action is required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be obtained. T or F.
True.
Answer to third (fourth, etc.)—party complaint
A third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant may allege in his answer his defenses, counterclaims or cross-claims, including such defenses that the third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff may have against the original plaintiff’s claim. In proper cases, he may also assert a counterclaim against the original plaintiff in respect of the latter’s claim against the third-party plaintiff.
Pleading v. Motion
(1)
p: a submission of claims or defenses for appropriate judgment
m: an application for an order not included in the judgment
(2)
p: may be initiatory
m: cannot be initiatory as motions are made in a case already filed in court
(3)
p: must be written
m: may be oral when made in open court or in the course of a hearing or a trial
(4)
p: must be filed before judgment
m: may be filed after judgment
Pleadings allowed by the Rules of Court
- complaint
- pleading alleging the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action - answer
- a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses
- may be an answer to a complaint, a counterclaim or a cross-claim - counterclaim
- any claim, which a defending party may have against an opposing party
* when a defendant files a counterclaim against the plaintiff, he becomes the plaintiff in the counterclaim and the original plaintiff becomes the defendant
- may be compulsory or permissive - cross-claim
- any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein - third (fourth, etc. - party complaint)
- a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent’s claim. - complaint-in-intervention
- a legal proceeding by which a person who is not a party to the action is permitted by the court to become a party by intervening in a pending action after meeting the conditions and requirements of the Rules of Court
- if the purpose of the motion for intervention is to assert a claim against either or all of the original parties, the pleading shall be called a complaint-in-intervention - reply
- a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense in the answer and thereby join or make issue as to such new matters
