INTRODUCTION

EXCLUSIVELY DISTRIBUTED BY THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

LAKAS ATENISTA 2015 Edition

UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED

 INTRODUCTION 
The first things that we will take up in Civil Procedure are basic concepts. We are going to discuss the legal
concept of courts. As you will know, whenever we talk of procedural law, we have no choice but to involve
courts in our discussion.

Let’s try to have a mental picture of courts. If I (Dean Iñigo) say “court”, please tell me the scene that
comes into your mind. What do you see? There is a table, a gavel and there is someone sitting there. Then
below, there are lawyers sitting down. That is how anybody would picture a court but actually what was
pictured out was a courtroom and not a court.

Similar example: How can you picture a corporation? A corporation, as you know in Persons, is a juridical
entity. It is a creature of the law. It is a person under the law but it has no physical existence. But what you see
in a corporation is a building and people who are running the office business. Well, that is the office of the
corporation.

A corporation cannot run without people running it. But a corporation can own properties and that is why
you see the building, the office and the equipment there. The president and the vice-president are among the
officers of the corporation. But the officers are not the corporation. They run the affairs of the corporation.
Ganoon din ang court. A court has no physical existence, only a legal one.

Remedial Law is a legislation providing means or methods whereby causes of action may be effectuated,
wrongs redressed, and reliefs obtained. These statutes pertain to, or affect a remedy as distinguished from
those which modify or affect a substantive right only.

Principal Sources of Remedial Law:

1. The Constitution
2. BP 129
3. Rules of Court
4. SC Circulars
5. Administrative Orders
6. Internal Rules
7. Jurisprudence

Q: What is a court?
A: A court is an entity or body vested with a portion of the judicial power.
(Lontok v. Battung, 63 Phil. 1054)

Q: Why ‘portion’ only?

A: This is because the Constitution provides that “the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
(SC) and in such other lower courts as may be established by law.” (Art. VIII, Section 1, 1987 Constitution.

LAKAS ATENISTA
Ateneo De Davao - College of Law
lakas.atenenista.acads@gmail.com
facebook.com/lakasacads
1
 INTRODUCTION
EXCLUSIVELY DISTRIBUTED BY THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
LAKAS ATENISTA 2015 Edition
The reason why the law creates different courts is to divide the cases or judicial power among them so
that one court may not be burdened with so many cases. So, judicial power is not exercised only by one court,
but by several courts. It is like a cake. You slice the cake into parts – this part is for you, this part is mine. So,
kanya-kanya tayo ng trabaho. You cannot put the burden only in one court.

For example, you want to sue your debtor for not paying a loan. You mean to tell me that you will go to
the SC? All cases in the Philippines will have to be filed there? NO. You cannot do it. You have to start from
certain courts in your city or municipality.

Ngayon, pag-sinabi mo kung saan ako mag-file, sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) ba? O sa Municipal Trial
Court (MTC)? Of course, depende yan on how much you are claiming. If you are claiming so much, dito ka. If
your claim is lower, dito ka naman. Why is that? Because each has its own work. Each one has its own portion
– what is yours is yours, what is mine is mine.

Thus, each court has its own jurisdiction and may only try cases within its jurisdiction. No court has all the
power of the judiciary but only a portion of it. So there is a division of labor.

Just as corporations cannot act without its officers, a court cannot function without a judge. But it does
not follow that the court and the judge mean the same thing. The judge is the person or officer who presides
over a court.

Q: Distinguish court from judge.

A: The following are the distinctions:
1.) Court is the entity, body, or tribunal vested with a portion of the judicial power, while a judge is
the person or officer who presides over a court;
2.) Judges are human beings – they die, they resign, they retire, they may be removed, whereas the
court continues to exist even after the judge presiding over it ceases to do so;
3.) The two concepts may exist independently of each other, for there may be a court without a
judge or a judge without a court. (Pamintuan v. Llorente, 29 Phil. 342)

EXAMPLE: The justices presiding over the present Supreme Court are not the same justices who presided
over it in the early part of this century. And yet the SC in some decisions states that “as early as 1905, ‘WE’
have already ruled such as such…” Why do they use ‘WE’? They are talking about the court; they are not
talking about themselves. The court is continuous. It does not die alongside the justices who presided on it.

Q: Classify courts in general.

A: Generally, courts may be classified as:
1.) Superior Courts and First-Level courts (inferior courts);
2.) Courts of Original jurisdiction and Courts of Appellate jurisdiction;
3.) Civil Courts and Criminal Courts;
4.) Courts of law and Courts of equity;
5.) Constitutional Courts and Statutory Courts.

SUPERIOR COURTS versus FIRST-LEVEL COURTS

Q: Distinguish superior courts from inferior courts.

A: SUPERIOR COURTS, otherwise known as courts of general jurisdiction, are those, which take cognizance
of all kinds cases, whether civil or criminal, and possess supervisory authority over lower courts.

LAKAS ATENISTA
Ateneo De Davao - College of Law
lakas.atenenista.acads@gmail.com
facebook.com/lakasacads
2
 INTRODUCTION
EXCLUSIVELY DISTRIBUTED BY THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
LAKAS ATENISTA 2015 Edition

FIRST-LEVEL COURTS (inferior courts), otherwise known as courts of special or limited jurisdiction, are
those which take cognizance of certain specified cases only. (14 Am. Jur. 249)

Q: What courts are superior or inferior?

A: It DEPENDS on what viewpoint you are looking. If you are looking from the viewpoint of the
Constitution, there is only one superior court – the Supreme Court.

From the real viewpoint, the Court of Appeals (CA) maybe inferior to the SC but it is a superior court for it
exercises supervision over the RTC. In the same manner that the RTC might be inferior to the SC and the CA
but it also has the power of supervision over the MTC. The jurisdiction of the RTC is varied. It is practically a
jack-of-all-trades.

A superior court may therefore handle civil and criminal cases while an inferior court may try specified
cases only. The SC, the CA including the RTC are considered as superior courts.

The MTC is a first-level (inferior) court so that its power is limited to specified cases despite the law, which
expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC. It is already at the bottom. Wala ng under pa sa kanya.

Q: Is the Lupong Tagapamayapa a court?

A: NO.

 1996 Bar Question: Explain the hierarchy of courts in the Philippines. Practically, the examiner is asking
for the judicial level of the court (from MTC to SC).

ORIGINAL COURT versus APPELLATE COURT

Q: Distinguish original court from appellate court.

A: ORIGINAL COURTS are those where a case is commenced while APPELLATE COURTS are those where a
case is reviewed. (Ballentine's Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 91)

So, if you are filing a case for the first time, that case is filed in an original court. But the case does not
necessarily end there. You may bring the case to the appellate court, which has the power to change the
decision of the original court.

Q: Is the SC an original or appellate court?

A: The SC is both an original and an appellate court. Some people have the impression that you cannot file
a case there for the first time – that you have to file it somewhere else, then doon (SC) mo i-akyat. But
when we study the jurisdiction of the SC, we will be able to know that it is not only an appellate court,
but also an original court. The SC has original jurisdiction on cases of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
etc. There are certain cases where one may file directly to the SC (see Article VIII, Sec. 5(1) of the 1987
Constitution).

Q: Is the CA an original or appellate court?

A: The same is true with the CA. It is both original and appellate court. (Section 9, BP 129) When we
study the jurisdiction of the CA, you will see that it is both an original and an appellate court. There are
cases, which are elevated to it from the RTC, but there are also cases that are filed there for the first time.

LAKAS ATENISTA
Ateneo De Davao - College of Law
lakas.atenenista.acads@gmail.com
facebook.com/lakasacads
3
 INTRODUCTION
EXCLUSIVELY DISTRIBUTED BY THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
LAKAS ATENISTA 2015 Edition
Q: How about the RTC? Is the RTC an original or appellate court?
A: The RTC is also both original and appellate court. You can file certain cases there for the first time, and
there are also decisions of the MTC, which are appealable to the RTC.

Q: How about the MTC? Is the MTC an original or appellate court?

A: The MTC however, is a 100% original court. It is the lowest court in the hierarchy. There are no cases
appealed to it. There is no such animal as a barangay court. The barangay captains do not decide cases,
they only conciliate.

CIVIL COURTS versus CRIMINAL COURTS

Q: Distinguish civil courts from criminal courts.

A: CIVIL COURTS are those, which take cognizance of civil cases only, while CRIMINAL COURTS are those
that take cognizance of criminal cases only. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Ballentine's Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 301)

All the courts in the Philippines are both civil and criminal courts. They can handle both types of cases.
The SC decides civil and criminal cases. The same is true with the CA, RTC and MTC.

So, in the Philippines, there is no such thing as a 100% criminal court or civil court. Unlike before, during
the 1970's some special courts existed but were later abolished by BP 129. There was the old Circuit Criminal
Court. As the name implies, it is purely a criminal court.

But with the abolition of those special courts, all their powers were transferred to the present RTC. Right
now, there is no such thing as a 100% civil court or a 100% criminal court. So, all of our courts are both civil
and criminal courts at the same time.

COURTS OF LAW versus COURTS OF EQUITY

Q: Distinguish Courts of Law from Courts of Equity.

A: COURTS OF LAW are tribunals only administering the law of the land, whereas COURTS OF EQUITY are
tribunals which rule according to the precepts of equity or justice, and are sometimes called “courts of
conscience.” (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 303)

Courts Of Law dispose cases according to what the law says – I will decide your case by what the law says.
Yan ang court of law! When we say Courts of Equity, it adjudicates cases based on the principles of equity.
Principle of equity means principles of justice, fairness, fair play. Some examples would be the estoppel and
solutio indebiti.

Q: Are Philippines courts, courts of law? Or courts of equity? Do they decide cases based on what the law
says? Or do they decide cases based on the principle of justice and fairness?
A: In the Philippines, our courts are both courts of law and of equity. In the case of substantive law, there
is a thin line which divides the principle of law from the principle of equity because principles of equity are
also found in the principles of law. Equity is what is fair and what is just and equitable. Generally, what is
legal is fair.

As a matter of fact under the Civil Code, when the law is silent, you decide it based on what is just and
fair. Kaya nga may kasabihan na EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW. In the Philippines you cannot distinguish

LAKAS ATENISTA
Ateneo De Davao - College of Law
lakas.atenenista.acads@gmail.com
facebook.com/lakasacads
4
 INTRODUCTION
EXCLUSIVELY DISTRIBUTED BY THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
LAKAS ATENISTA 2015 Edition
sometimes the principle of law and the principle of equity because principles of equity are also written in the
law.

 Example: The principle of estoppel, laches or solutio indebiti. One cannot say that they are purely
principles of equity since they are also found in our law. Under the Civil Code, when there is no
applicable law, courts still have to decide according to customs and general principles.

 Example: ESTOPPEL. Estoppel is an equitable doctrine – that it is not fair that you disown your own
representation after misleading somebody. But if you look at the Civil Code, meron mang chapter
diyan sa estoppel! So if you apply estoppel, you cannot say that you are applying a principle not
found under the law.

 Example: LACHES – the half-brother of prescription – if you sleep on it or delay the enforcement of a
certain right then you may no longer be entitled to such right. That is more of equity, rather than of
law.

 Example: SOLUTIO INDEBITI. No one should enrich himself at the expense of another. That is a
principle of equity. But if you look at the Civil Code, it's there!

The SC, when deliberating, focuses more on justice and equity – where reason can always be found. The
SC once said that equity follows the law. In the case of:

ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

May 28, 1987, J. Cruz

HELD: “The question is sometimes asked, in serious inquiry or in curious conjecture, whether we
are a court of law or a court of justice. Do we apply the law even if it is unjust or do we
administer justice even against the law? Thus queried, we do not equivocate. The answer is
that we do neither because we are a court both of law and of justice. We apply the law with
justice for that is our mission and purpose in the scheme of our Republic.”

So the SC described itself both as a court of law and a court of equity. I have already talked with so many
justices of the SC before. And I asked them on how they deliberate on cases when somebody files an appeal or
petition. They told me, if you want to convince the SC to hear your case, do not argue in the law because the
tendency of some lawyers is that they will file their petition and they will cite the law. Meaning, backed-up by
statutory provisions ba. A justice of the SC told me that that is a wrong approach. Do not tell us what is the
law. We know more law than you do! When you file a petition, fairness must be on your side! Because when
we deliberate and we agree that your side seems to be the correct one, to decide on your favor is more than
just to decide on the other side. Then, we will even look for the law to support our decision. So, you don't
have to tell us what is the law, we will look for it. And if there is no law, we will make it for you, by
interpreting… because we are a court more of equity than of law. But when we look on the equity, we will look
for the law and chances are there is the law to follow.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS versus STATUTORY COURTS

Q: Distinguish Constitutional Courts from Statutory Courts.

A: CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS are created directly by the Constitution itself, while STATUTORY COURTS
are created by law or by the legislature.

LAKAS ATENISTA
Ateneo De Davao - College of Law
lakas.atenenista.acads@gmail.com
facebook.com/lakasacads
5
 INTRODUCTION
EXCLUSIVELY DISTRIBUTED BY THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
LAKAS ATENISTA 2015 Edition

In our country, there is only one Constitutional court – the Supreme Court. Even the Sandiganbayan is not
considered a Constitutional court because it was not created by the Constitution directly. The 1973
Constitution ordered Congress to create the Sandiganbayan (a provision in the 1973 Constitution says, “There
should be created a Sandiganbayan.”). It was law (Presidential Decree 1486) that created the Sandiganbayan.

The CA, RTC, and MTC are created by Congress. Thus, Congress has the power to abolish said courts but it
can never abolish the Supreme Court.

So there is only one Constitutional court. All the rest, from the CA down and all other special courts, are
only creatures of Congress. In political law, the power to create carries with it the power to abolish. That is
why, BP 129 abolished all existing courts at that time (CFI, CA, Juvenille, etc.) and RTC, IAC, MTC were created.
That was the judicial reorganization of 1980 under BP 129. But there is only one court which the Batasan
Pambansa could not touch – the Supreme Court.

They have no power to abolish the SC because it was created by the Constitution. Pareho lang tayong
tabla eh. Congress is also created by the Constitution. So if you want to abolish the SC, you must call for a
constitutional convention to change the Constitution.

INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT

Before we leave the concepts of courts, you must know that the courts of justice have what we call
inherent powers. Just like the State have certain inherent powers, whether written or not, these things are
understood to have them – Police power, power of taxation, and power of eminent domain.

Courts also have inherent powers. Their very existence automatically necessitates the existence of these
powers. Now, that was already asked in the Bar before:

Q: What are the inherent powers of the court?

A: Section 5 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Inherent powers of courts. Every court shall have the power:
(a) to preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
(b) to enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person or persons empowered to conduct
a judicial investigation under its authority;
(c) to compel obedience to its judgments orders, and processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge
out of court, in a case therein;
(d) to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other
persons in any manner connected with a case before it, in every manner appertaining thereto;
(e) to compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending therein;
(f) to administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case pending therein, and in all. other cases
where it may be necessary in the existence of its powers;
(g) to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice;
(h) to authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other paper to be filed and used instead of
the original, and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its records and proceedings.

LAKAS ATENISTA
Ateneo De Davao - College of Law
lakas.atenenista.acads@gmail.com
facebook.com/lakasacads
6
 INTRODUCTION
EXCLUSIVELY DISTRIBUTED BY THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
LAKAS ATENISTA 2015 Edition
There are many powers enumerated. Some of them are common sense. Every court has the power to see
to it that everything of his order is enforced; to compel obedience to his order. Common sense yan. You are
inutile if you cannot even enforce your own judgment! So I've been telling some judges here, eh. Sometimes
we talk about this: they say, it seems that I don't have the power under the Rules of Court. It's beyond my
power. I made a decision but I cannot see how it was enforced.

Parang pampalakas-loob ang Rule 135, Section 5 because you can see there the powers that you do not
know you have. These are inherent eh – hindi pwedeng alisin sa iyo iyan. Otherwise, magiginginutil ka – I have
the power to decide but I do not know how to enforce my decision. That is a sign of impotence. As a matter of
fact, the next section (Section 6, Rule 135) tells us how to carry out your judgment. If you do not know how to
carry out your judgment because the law is silent, Section 6 says, look for a way. Hanapan mo ng paraan!

SITUATION: Suppose I have the power to decide and I render a decision. I want to enforce the decision,
how do I enforce? Well, usually the law provides for the procedure.

Q: But suppose the law does not provide for any manner to enforce? For example a judge has rendered a
decision, and the law is silent on how to enforce it, do you mean to say that the order is unenforceable
because the law is silent?

A: NO. Section 6 of Rule 135 answers the question.

SEC 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect – When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or a
judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and all other means to carry it into effect maybe
employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such
jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law or these rules, any suitable process or mode of
proceeding may be adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of said law or rules.

What Section 6 is trying to say is that when you have the power to decide, you have the power to enforce.
And if the law is silent, you have to think on how to do it. Be creative. Provided you conform to the spirit of
the rule. So you do not make the order useless simply because there is no rule. In other words, try to look for a
way on how to enforce your judgment. That is part of your power.

ENFORCEABILITY OF COURT WRITS AND PROCESSES

Another provision that I want to emphasize before we leave this subject of “courts” is Section 3 of the
Interim Rules.

Question: The court of Davao will issue a writ or a process. Can that writ or process be enforced in Cebu or
Manila? Or only in Davao? Or only in Region IX? Hanggang saan ba ang enforceability ng aking writ or process?
You have to distinguish what kind of writ or process you are talking about.

Under Section 3, Interim Rules:

Sec. 3. Writs and Processes. -

a) Writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction
issued by a regional trial court may be enforced in any part of the region.

LAKAS ATENISTA
Ateneo De Davao - College of Law
lakas.atenenista.acads@gmail.com
facebook.com/lakasacads
7
 INTRODUCTION
EXCLUSIVELY DISTRIBUTED BY THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
LAKAS ATENISTA 2015 Edition
b) All other processes whether issued by the RTC or MetTC, MTC, and MTC may be served
anywhere in the Philippines, and, the last three cases, without a certification by the judge of
the RTC.

Q: What is the area of enforceability of writs and processes of the courts?

A: Under Section 3 of the Interim Rules, you have to distinguish what kind of writ or process you are talking
about:

a) If it is a writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, injunction, it can be
enforced anywhere within the region. So at least, RTC can enforce it within the region and it cannot
enforce those writs outside the region.

EXAMPLE: If you are illegally detained, you can ask the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Now, a
person is detained in Bansalan and the family is here in Davao City. They filed a petition for habeas corpus
in Makilala, North Cotabato. Makilala is in Region 12 and the RTC of Bansalan is part of the 11th judicial
region. Thus, the judge in Makilala cannot issue the writ of habeas corpus due to the fact that Bansalan
belongs to the 11th judicial region while Makilala is in the 12th judicial region. The RTC of Tandag, Surigao
is in Region 12 and therefore can issue a writ of habeas corpus to be enforced in Makilala which is
hundreds of miles away because they are of the same judicial region. And yet the RTC of Bansalan cannot
issue a writ to be enforced in Makilala, North Cotabato, which is the next town, because that is not part of
their region. The law is very clear: writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction issued by a trial court may be enforced in any part of the region.

b) Section 3 further says, all other writs are enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. Suppose the MTC
issues a warrant for the arrest of the accused in the criminal case, and he fled to Baguio City, such warrant
can be enforced there. This includes summons, writs of execution or search warrants.

Doctrine of Non-Interference

Courts will not interfere with the internal affairs of an unincorporated association as they settle
disputes between the members on questions of policy, discipline, internal government as long as the
government in the society is fairly and honestly administered in conformity with the laws of the land and no
property or rights is invaded.

TARUC V. BISHOP DELA CRUZ

G.R. No. 144801. March 10, 2005

We find it unnecessary to deal on the validity of the excommunication/expulsion of the private

respondents (Taruc, et al.), said acts being purely ecclesiastical matters which this Court considers to be
outside the province of the civil courts.

Civil Courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of a religious organization except for the
protection of civil or property rights. Those rights may be the subject of litigation in a civil court, and the
courts have jurisdiction to determine controverted claims to the title, use, or possession of church property.”

Obviously, there was no violation of a civil right in the present case. The civil courts must not allow
themselves to intrude unduly in matters of an ecclesiastical nature.

LAKAS ATENISTA
Ateneo De Davao - College of Law
lakas.atenenista.acads@gmail.com
facebook.com/lakasacads
8
 INTRODUCTION
EXCLUSIVELY DISTRIBUTED BY THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
LAKAS ATENISTA 2015 Edition
We agree with the Court of Appeals that the expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious
institution/organization is a matter best left to the discretion of the officials, and the laws and canons, of said
institution/organization. It is not for the courts to exercise control over church authorities in the performance
of their discretionary and official functions. Rather, it is for the members of religious institutions/organizations
to conform to just church regulations.

Doctrine of Judicial Stability / Rule on Committee of Courts

General Rule: No Court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of another court of
coordinate jurisdiction. This also applies in quasi-judicial bodies and courts of co-equal status.

Exceptions:
 As between RTC and RTC, MTC and MTC, RTC and SEC, etc.
 When a third party complaint is involved

GO V. CLERK OF COURT
G.R. No. 154623, March 13, 2009

No court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of
concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by injunction. This doctrine of non-
interference is premised on the principle that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be
opened, modified or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction.

Since the Bacolod RTC had already acquired jurisdiction over the collection suit and rendered
judgment in relation thereto, it retained jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts over its
judgment, including all incidents relative to the control and conduct of its ministerial officers, namely public
respondent sheriffs. Thus, the issuance by the Pasig RTC of the writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No.
68125 was a clear act of interference with the judgment of Bacolod RTC in Civil Case No. 98-10404.

As long as the Bacolod RTC has jurisdiction and competence to resolve a particular question, then
Courts of co-equal status cannot interfere.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Courts will not determine a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of the administrative
tribunal when it demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring specialized knowledge and
expertise in said administrative tribunal to determine technical or intricate matters of fact.

Normally, laws will state where a party should file a certain case.

For example, an action to cancel trademark is within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Legal Affairs of the
IPO. So, if the case or cancellation is filed in the Court, the Court will not take cognizance of such because the
BLA of the IPO has primary jurisdiction.

BAVIERA vs. PAGLINAWAN

515 SCRA 171 (2007)

LAKAS ATENISTA
Ateneo De Davao - College of Law
lakas.atenenista.acads@gmail.com
facebook.com/lakasacads
9
 INTRODUCTION
EXCLUSIVELY DISTRIBUTED BY THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
LAKAS ATENISTA 2015 Edition
HELD: “Courts will not determine a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal, when the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring specialized knowledge and expertise of said administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact.”

Hearing vs Trial

Hearing is not confined to a trial but embraces several stages of litigation, including the pretrial stage. When
you file a motion, there is a hearing regarding the motion.

Trial involves the reception of evidence and other processes. It embraces the period for the introduction of
evidence by both parties. For instance in Criminal Procedure, it includes the reception of evidence and calling
the witness to the witness stand.



“For I know the plans I have for you,” says the Lord,
“plans to prosper you and not to harm you,
Plans to give you hope and a future.”
Jeremiah 29:11 

LAKAS ATENISTA
Ateneo De Davao - College of Law
lakas.atenenista.acads@gmail.com
facebook.com/lakasacads
10