UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE
General Principles
CONCEPT OF REMEDIAL LAW
CONCEPT
Remedial statute or statutes:
(1) relating to remedies or modes of procedure;
(2) do not take away or create vested rights;
(3) BUT operate in furtherance of rights already
existing. [Riano citing Systems Factor Corporation
v NLRC (2000)]
The Rules of Court, promulgated by authority of law,
have the force and effect of law, if not in conflict with
positive law [Inchausti & Co v de Leon (1913)]. The rule
is subordinate to the statute, and in case of conflict,
the statute will prevail. [Shioji v Harvey (1922)].
APPLICABILITY
The Rules of Court is applicable in ALL COURTS,
except as otherwise provided by the SC [Rule 1, Sec.
2].
It governs the procedure to be observed in civil or
criminal actions and special proceedings [Rule 1, Sec.
3]. It does not apply to the following cases: [ELCINO]
(1) Election cases,
(2) Land registration cases,
(3) Cadastral cases,
(4) Naturalization cases,
(5) Insolvency proceedings
(6) Other cases not herein provided for
Except by analogy or in a suppletory character and
whenever practicable and convenient [Rule 4, Sec. 4]
PROSPECTIVITY/RETROACTIVITY
The Rules of Court are not penal statutes and cannot
be given retroactive effect [Bermejo v Barrios (1970)].
Rules of procedure may be made applicable to
actions pending and undetermined at the time of
their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that
sense and to that extent. [In the Matter to Declare in
Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon Datumanong
(2006)].
SUBSTANTIVE LAW AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
REMEDIAL LAW
REMEDIAL LAW OR PROCEDURAL LAW
(a) provides a method of enforcing the rights
established by substantive law;
(b) prescribes the method of enforcing rights or
obtaining redress for their invasion. [Bustos v
Lucero (1948)]
PAGE 2
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(c) Judicial process for enforcing rights and duties
recognized by substantive law and for justly
administering remedy and redress for a disregard
or infraction of them. [Fabian v Desierto (1998)]
SUBSTANTIVE LAW
That part of the law which creates, defines and
regulates rights concerning life, liberty, or property, or
the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the
administration of public affairs [Bustos v Lucero
(1948)]
RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT
(a) The Rules of Court was adopted and
promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to
the provisions of Sec 5(5) of Art. VIII of the
Constitution, vesting in it the power to:
(1) Promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged.
(b) The power to promulgate rules of pleading,
practice, and procedure is no longer shared by the
Supreme Court with Congress, more so with the
executive… [Riano citing Echegaray v Secretary of
Justice (1999)]
LIMITATIONS ON THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE
SUPREME COURT
Sec 5(5) of Art. VIII of the Constitution sets forth the
limitations to the power: [SUS]
(a) that the rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for speedy disposition of
cases;
(b) that the rules shall be uniform for courts of the
same grade; and
(c) that the rules shall not diminish, increase or
modify substantive rights.
POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO AMEND AND SUSPEND
PROCEDURAL RULES
Power to amend remedial laws
(a) The constitutional faculty of the Court to
promulgate rules of practice and procedure
necessarily carries with it the power to overturn
judicial precedents on points of remedial law
through the amendment of the Rules of Court.
[Pinga v Heirs of Santiago (2006)].
(b) The SC has the sole prerogative to amend, repeal,
or even establish new rules for a more simplified
and inexpensive process, and the speedy
disposition of case [Neypes v CA (2005)]
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Power to suspend remedial laws
(a) It is within the inherent power of the Supreme
Court to suspend its own rules in a particular case
in order to do justice [De Guia v De Guia (2001)].
(b) When the operation of rules will lead to an
injustice or if their application tends to subvert
and defeat instead of promote and enhance
justice, their suspension is justified [Republic v CA
(1978)].
(c) There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes
good and sufficient cause that will merit
suspension of the rules. The matter is
discretionary upon the Court [Republic v Imperial
Jr. (1999)].
(d) The bare invocation of "the interest of substantial
justice" is not a magic wand that will
automatically compel this Court to suspend
procedural rules [Ramos v Sps Lavendia (2008)].
(e) Procedural rules are not to be belittled or
dismissed simply because their non-observance
may have resulted in prejudice to a party's
substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required
to be followed except only for the most persuasive
of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a
litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the
degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying
with the procedure prescribed. [Polanco v Cruz
(2009)].
NOTE: Although not laws in the technical sense of
the term, Rules of Court, promulgated by authority of
law, have the force and effect of law. [Riano citing
Shioji v Harvey (1922)]
Applicability: Prospective
The Rules of Court shall govern cases brought after
they take effect, and also all further proceedings
then pending, EXCEPT to the extent that in the
opinion of the Court their application would not be
feasible or would work injustice. [Riano citing Rule
114]
NATURE OF PHILIPPINE COURTS
MEANING OF A COURT
Definition
(a) A court is an organ of the government belonging
to the judicial department, the function of which is
the application of the laws to controversies
brought before it (and) as well as the public
administration of justice.
(b) Generally, the term describes an organ of the
government consisting of one person or of several
persons, called upon and authorized to
administer justice. It is also the place where
justice is administered. [Riano citing Black’s and
Am. Jur. and C. J. S.]
CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
COURT AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A JUDGE
Court Judge
Tribunal officially
assembled under Simply an officer of such
authority of law tribunal
An organ of the Person who sits in court
government with a
personality separate and
distinct from judge
An office A public officer [Riano]
The circumstances of the court are not affected by the
circumstance that would affect the judge. The
continuity of a court and the efficacy of its
proceedings are not affected by the death,
resignation, or cessation from the service of the
judge presiding over it. In other words, the judge may
resign, become incapacitated, or be disqualified to
hold office, but the court remains. The death of the
judge does not mean the death of the court [Riano
citing ABC Davao Auto Supply v. CA (1998)].
CLASSIFICATION OF PHILIPPINE COURTS
Note: Please see succeeding subsections for
discussions on a to d.
(a) Courts of law and equity
(b) Courts of Original and Appellate jurisdiction
(c) Courts of General and Special jurisdiction
(d) Constitutional and statutory courts
(e) Superior and Inferior courts
(1) Superior courts – Courts which have the
power of review or supervision over another
and lower court.
(2) Inferior courts – Those which, in relation to
another court, are lower in rank and subject to
review and supervision by the latter.
[Regalado]
(f) Courts of record and not of record
(1) Courts of record – Those whose proceedings
are enrolled and which are bound to keep a
written record of all trials and proceedings
handled by them. [Regalado] One attribute of
a court of record is the strong presumption as
to the veracity of its records that cannot be
collaterally attacked except for fraud. All
Philippine courts, including inferior courts, are
now courts of record. [Riano]
(2) Courts not of record – Courts which are not
required to keep a written record or transcript
of proceedings held therein.
PAGE 3
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
COURTS OF ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(a) Courts of original jurisdiction – Those courts in
which, under the law, actions or proceedings may
be originally commenced.
(b) Courts of appellate jurisdiction – Courts which
have the power to review on appeal the decisions
or orders of a lower court. [Regalado]
COURTS OF GENERAL AND SPECIAL JURISDICTION
(a) Courts of general jurisdiction – Those competent
to decide their own jurisdiction and to take
cognizance of all kinds of cases, unless otherwise
provided by the law or Rules.
(b) Courts of special or limited jurisdiction – Those
which have no power to decide their own
jurisdiction and can only try cases permitted by
statute. [Regalado]
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY COURTS
(a) Constitutional courts – Those which owe their
creation and existence to the Constitution and,
therefore cannot be legislated out of existence or
deprived by law of the jurisdiction and powers
unqualifiedly vested in them by the Constitution.
e.g. Supreme Court; Sandiganbayan is a
constitutionally-mandated court but created by
statute.
(b) Statutory courts – Those created, organized and
with jurisdiction exclusively determined by law.
[Regalado]
COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY
Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity.
Hence, both legal and equitable jurisdiction is
dispensed with in the same tribunal [U.S. v.
Tamparong (1998)]
PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY
(a) The judicial system follows a ladderized scheme
which in essence requires that lower courts
initially decide on a case before it is considered by
a higher court. Specifically, under the judicial
policy recognizing hierarchy of courts, a higher
court will not entertain direct resort to it unless
the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate
courts. [Riano citing Santiago v. Vasquez (1993)]
(b) The principle is an established policy necessary to
avoid inordinate demands upon the Court’s time
and attention which are better devoted to those
matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to
preclude the further clogging of the Court’s docket
[Lim v. Vianzon (2006)].
(c) When the doctrine/principle may be disregarded:
A direct recourse of the Supreme Court’s original
jurisdiction to issue writs (referring to the writs of
certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus) should be
allowed only when there are special and
CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
important reasons therefor, clearly and
specifically set out in the petition. [Mangahas v.
Paredes (2007)]. The Supreme Court may
disregard the principle of hierarchy of courts if
warranted by the nature and importance of the
issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and
avoid future litigations [Riano].
DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR DOCTRINE OF
JUDICIAL STABILITY
(a) The principle holds that courts of equal and
coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each
other’s orders [Lapu-lapu Development and
Housing Corp. v. Group Management Corp.(2002)]
The principle also bars a court from reviewing or
interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court
over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or
power of review [Villamor v. Salas (1991)].
(b) The doctrine of non-interference applies with
equal force to administrative bodies. When the law
provides for an appeal from the decision of an
administrative body to the SC or CA, it means
that such body is co-equal with the RTC in terms
of rank and stature, and logically beyond the
control of the latter [Phil Sinter Corp. v. Cagayan
Electric Power (2002)].
Jurisdiction
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to try, hear
and decide a case [Tolentino v. Leviste (2004)].
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice: [Art 8, Sec. 1, Constitution]
(a) To settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable;
(b) To determine WON there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any government
branch/ instrumentality.
All courts exercise judicial power. Only the Supreme
Court is the court created by the Constitution [Art 8,
Sec. 1, Constitution]. The Sandiganbayan is a
Constitutionally mandated court, but it is created by
statute. [PD 1486]
JURISDICTION IN GENERAL
JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES
Note: The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction over the
plaintiff and the defendant applies both to ordinary
and special civil actions.
PAGE 4
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by filing of
the complaint or petition. By doing so, he submits
himself to the jurisdiction of the court [Davao Light &
Power Co., Inc. v CA (1991)].
How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
Acquired by the
(1) voluntary appearance or submission by the
defendant or respondent to the court or
(2) by coercive process issued by the court to him,
generally by the service of summons [de Joya v.
Marquez (2006), citing Regalado]
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person
is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the
case, while in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court
provided the latter has jurisdiction over the res [Alba
v. CA (2005)].
(e) Once attached to a court, it cannot be ousted by
subsequent statute.
Exception: The statute itself conferring new
jurisdiction expressly provides for retroactive
effect. [Southern Food v. Salas (1992)]
(f) The filing of the complaint or appropriate
initiatory pleading and the payment of the
prescribed docket fee vest a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature
of the action [CB v. CA (1992)](2008 Bar Exam).
Exception: Non-payment of docket fee does not
automatically cause the dismissal of the case on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction as long as the
fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period, more so when the party
involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by
the rules prescribing such payment. [Go v. Tong
(2003)]

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction
(a) Jurisdiction: the authority to hear and determine a
Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter cause — the right to act in a case. [Arranza v. BF
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to Homes (2000)].
deal with the general subject involved in the action,
and means not simply jurisdiction of the particular ‘Exercise of Jurisdiction.’: the exercise of this
case then occupying the attention of the court but power or authority
jurisdiction of the class of cases to which the
particular case belongs (Riano citing CJS). (b) Jurisdiction is distinct from the exercise thereof.
Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case and
It is the power to hear and determine cases of the not the decision rendered therein. When there is
general class to which the proceedings in question jurisdiction over the subject matter, the decision
belong [Reyes v. Diaz (1941)] on all other questions arising in the case is but an
exercise of jurisdiction. [Herrera v. Baretto et al
How conferred and determined (1913)]
(a) It is conferred only by the Constitution or the law.
Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of
(b) Jurisdiction CANNOT be: judgment
(1) fixed by agreement of the parties;
(2) cannot be acquired through, or waived,
enlarged or diminished by, any act or omission Error of jurisdiction Error of judgment
of the parties;
(3) neither can it be conferred by the It is one where the act It is one which the court
acquiescence of the court [Regalado citing De complained of was issued may commit in the
Jesus v Garcia (1967)]. by the court without or in exercise of its
(4) cannot be subject to compromise [Civil Code, excess of jurisdiction jurisdiction [Cabrera v.
Art 2035] [Cabrera v. Lapid (2006)]. Lapid (2006)].
(c) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined It includes errors of
by the allegations of the complaint and the reliefs procedure or mistakes in
prayed for. [Gulfo v. Ancheta (2012)] the court’s mistakes in
the court’s findings
(d) It is not affected by the pleas set up by the [Banco Filipino Savings
defendant in the answer or in the answer or in a v. CA (2000)]
motion to dismiss. [Sindico v. Diaz (2004)]. Correctible only by the Correctible by appeal

PAGE 5
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

the filing or service of an answer. Lack of

Error of jurisdiction
extraordinary writ of
certiorari [Cabrera v Lapid
(2006)]
Renders a judgment void
or voidable [Rule 16 Sec.
1, Rule 65]
Error of judgment
[Cabrera v Lapid (2006)]
Ground for reversal only
if it is shown that
prejudice has been
caused [Banco Español-
Filipino v Palanca (1918)]
jurisdiction over subject matter is a ground for a
motion to dismiss. If no motion is filed, the
defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised as an
affirmative defense in the answer. [Riano citing
Sec. 1(b) and 6 of Rule 16].
(c) Jurisdiction over subject matter may be raised at
any stage of proceedings, even for the first time on
appeal [Calimlim v. Ramirez (1982)]
Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction

How jurisdiction is conferred and determined Jurisdiction by estoppel

Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the
statute in force at the time of the commencement of
the action determines the jurisdiction of the court.
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
(a) Courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy
involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially
where the question demands the exercise of
sound administrative discretion requiring the
special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical
and intricate matters of fact [Paloma v. Mora
(2005)].
(b) Objective is to guide a 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 [Riano citing Omictin v. CA (2007)]
Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction
(a) Also known as doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction
(b) The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired,
retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of
the case [Bantua v. Mercader (2001)].
(c) As a consequence, jurisdiction is not affected by a
new law placing a proceeding under the
jurisdiction of another tribunal, EXCEPT:
(d) where there is an express provision in the statute
(e) the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions
pending before its enactment [Riano citing People
v. Cawaling (1998)].
(f) Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the
statute in force at the time of the commencement
of the action determines the jurisdiction of the
court. [Municipality of Kananga v Madrona (2003)]
Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter
(a) The Court may ex mero motu, or on its own
initiative take cognizance of lack of jurisdiction
[Fabian v. Desierto (1998)].
(b) Earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of
jurisdiction is in a motion to dismiss filed before
General Rule: Estoppel does not apply to confer
jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a cause
of action. Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Where
there is none, no agreement of the parties can
provide one. Settled is the rule that the decision of a
tribunal not vested with appropriate jurisdiction is
null and void. [SEAFDEC-AQD v. NLRC (1992)]
Exception: Participation in all stages of the case
before the trial court, that included invoking its
authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively
barred petitioner by estoppel from challenging the
court’s jurisdiction. [Soliven v. Fastforms (2004)]
JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES
(a) The power of the court to try and decide issues
raised in the pleadings of the parties [Reyes v.
Diaz (1941)]
(b) How conferred & determined:
(1) Pleadings filed by the parties,
(2) Agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation
[Rule 18, Sec. 2], or
(3) Implied consent as by the failure of a party to
object to evidence on an issue not covered by
the pleadings in Rule 10, Sec. 5. [Regalado]
JURISDICTION OVER THE RES OR PROPERTY IN LITIGATION
(a) Refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or
the property which is the subject of the litigation.
(b) Acquired either by
(1) actual or constructive seizure by the court of
the thing in question, thus placing it in
custodia legis (e.g. attachment or
garnishment) or
(2) by provision of law which recognizes in the
court the power to deal with the property or
subject-matter within its territorial jurisdiction
(e.g. land registration) [Regalado]

PAGE 6
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

SPECIFIC JURISDICTION (vii) The finding of absence of facts is

contradicted by the presence of evidence
JURISDICTION OF COURTS on record;
Supreme Court (viii) The findings of the CA are contrary to
The judicial power shall be vested in one SC and in those of the trial court;
such lower courts as may be established by law. [Art. (ix) The CA manifestly overlooked certain
8, Sec. 1, Constitution] relevant and undisputed facts that, if
properly considered, would justify a
Powers of the Supreme Court [Art. 8, Sec. 5, different conclusion;
Constitution] (x) The findings of the CA are beyond the
issues of the case;
(a) EXERCISE original jurisdiction over: (xi) Such findings are contrary to the
(1) Cases affecting ambassadors and other public admissions of both parties.
ministers and consuls;
Distinction between Questions of Law and Fact
RTC also has concurrent jurisdiction
Question of law Question of fact
(2) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas There is a “question of
corpus. law” when the doubt or There is a “question of
difference arises as to fact” when the doubt or
(b) Review/revise/reverse/modify/affirm on appeal or what the law is on a controversy arises as to
certiorari, final judgments/orders of lower courts in: certain state of facts, and the truth or falsity of the
(1) All cases in which the constitutionality/validity which does not call for an alleged facts [Republic v.
of any treaty, international or executive examination of the Medida (2012)]
agreement, law, presidential probative value of the
decree/proclamation/order/ instruction, evidence presented by
ordinance or regulation is in question; the parties-litigants.
[Republic v. Medida
Note: power of review contemplates the ff. (2012)]
courts: CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA, RTC, and
other courts authorized by law. (c) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other
stations as public interest may require, which
(2) All cases involving the legality of any tax/ shall not last 6 six months without the consent of
impost/ assessment/ toll, or any penalty the judge concerned.
imposed in relation thereto;
(d) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid
(3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower a miscarriage of justice.
court is in issue;
(e) Promulgate rules on:
(4) All criminal cases in which the penalty (1) Protection and enforcement of constitutional
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher; rights;
(2) Pleading/practice/procedure in all courts;
(5) All cases in which only errors/questions of law (3) Admission to the practice of law;
are involved. (4) The Integrated Bar;
Exceptions: [Josefa v. Zhandong (2003)] (5) Legal assistance to the under-privileged.
(i) The conclusion is grounded on
speculations/ surmises /conjectures; Guidelines on the rules:
(ii) The inference is manifestly (1) Provide a simplified and inexpensive
mistaken/absurd/impossible; procedure for the speedy disposition of cases;
(iii) There is grave abuse of discretion; (2) Uniform for all courts of the same grade;
(iv) The judgment is based on a (3) Not diminish/increase/modify substantive
misapprehension of facts; rights.
(v) The findings of fact are conflicting; (4) Rules of procedure of special courts and
(vi) There is no citation of specific evidence on quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective
which the factual findings are based; unless disapproved by the SC.

PAGE 7
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE
(f) Appoint all Judiciary officials/employees in
accordance with the Civil Service Law.
Constitutional commissions
(a) COMELEC and COA – Unless otherwise provided
by this Constitution or by law, any decision/order
/ruling of each Commission may be brought to
the SC on certiorari by the aggrieved party, within
30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. [Art. 9-A,
Sec. 7, Constitution]
(b) CSC - Judgments/decisions/orders are within the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CA through
Rule 43. [BP 129, as amended by RA 7902]
(c) Sandiganbayan
(1) Decisions and final orders of the
Sandiganbayan shall be subject to review on
certiorari by the SC in accordance with Rule
45 of the Rules.
(2) Whenever, in any case decided, the death
penalty shall have been imposed, the records
shall be forwarded to the SC whether the
accused shall have appealed or nor, for review
and judgment. [PD 1606 Sec 7]
Court of Appeals [Sec. 9, BP 129]
Original Jurisdiction
To issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus and quo warranto, and auxiliary
writs/processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.
Note: former rule only allowed the CA to issue
auxiliary writs and processes in aid of jurisdiction.
The power is concurrent with the SC.
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
Annulment of RTC judgments.
Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction
(a) Final
judgments/decisions/resolutions/orders/awards
of:
(1) RTCs;
(2) Quasi-judicial agencies/instrumentalities/
boards/commissions including:
(i) SEC;
(ii) Social Security Commission;
(iii) ECC;
(iv) CSC.
Exception: Those falling within the SC’s appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with:
(a) The Constitution;
(b) Labor Code;
(c) BP 129;
PAGE 8
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(d) Sec. 17, Par. 3(1) and Par. 4(4) of the Judiciary Act
of 1948.
Review of decisions by the NLRC: [St. Martin’s Funeral
Home v. NLRC (1998)]
Supposed appeals from the NLRC to the SC are
interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer
to Petitioners for Certiorari under Rule 65.
All such petitions should be initially filed in the CA in
strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of
courts.
All special civil actions arising out of any decision or
final resolution or order of the NLRC filed with the
SC after June 1, 1999 shall not longer be referred to
the CA, but shall forthwith be dismissed.
Powers of the Court of Appeals
(a) Try cases and conduct hearings;
(b) Receive evidence
(c) Perform any and all acts necessary to resolve
factual issues raised, including the power to grant
and conduct new trials or further proceedings.
Trials or hearings must be continuous and must be
completed within 3 months, unless extended by the
Chief Justice.
Court of Tax Appeals [Sec. 7, RA 1125, as amended by
RA 9282]
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal
(a) 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 BIR;
(b) 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 BIR, where the
National Internal Revenue Code provides a
specific period of action, in which case the
inaction shall be deemed a denial;
(c) Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCS in
local tax cases originally decided or resolved by
them in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction;
(d) 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
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE
matters arising under the Customs Law or other
laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;
(e) 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;
(f) 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
Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;
(g) 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 Sec 301 and 302,
respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and
safeguard measures under RA 8800, where
either party may appeal the decision to impose or
not to impose said duties.
Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses:
General rule: Exclusive original jurisdiction over all
criminal offenses arising from violations of the
National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and
Customs Code and other laws administered by the
BIR or the Bureau of Customs
BUT, offenses or felonies where the principal amount
of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties,
claimed is less than P1,000,000.00 or where there is
no specified amount claimed shall be tried by the
regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be
appellate.
Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the
contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and
the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil
liability for taxes and penalties shall at all times be
simultaneously instituted with, and jointly
determined in the same proceeding by the CTA, the
filing of the criminal action being deemed to
necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action,
and no right to reserve the filling of such civil action
separately from the criminal action will be
recognized.
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:
(a) Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or
orders of the RTCs in tax cases originally decided
by them, in their respected territorial jurisdiction.
(b) Over petitions for review of the judgments,
resolutions or orders of the RTCs in the exercise
of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases
PAGE 9
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
originally decided by the MeTCs, MTCs and
MCTCs in their respective jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided:
General rule: Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax
collection cases involving final and executory
assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties:
BUT, collection cases where the principal amount of
taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties,
claimed is less than P1,000,000.00 shall be tried by
the proper MTC, MeTC and RTC
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:
Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or
orders of the RTCs in tax collection cases originally
decided by them, in their respective territorial
jurisdiction.
Over petitions for review of the judgments,
resolutions or orders of the RTCs in the Exercise of
their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases
originally decided by the MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs,
in their respective jurisdiction."
NOTE: RA 9282 elevated CTA’s rank to the level of
the Court of Appeals with special jurisdiction.
Sandiganbayan [Sec.4 of RA 8249]
(a) Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan
shall be subject to review on certiorari by the
Supreme Court in accordance with Rule 45 of the
Rules.
(b) Whenever, in any case decided, the death penalty
shall have been imposed, the records shall be
forwarded to the SC whether the accused shall
have appealed or nor, for review and judgment.
[PD 1606 Sec 7]
Original Exclusive Jurisdiction
(a) Violations of RA 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Law);
(b) RA 1379 (Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Wealth);
(c) Crimes by public officers or employees embraced
in Ch. II, Sec.2 Title VII, Bk. II of the RPC (Crimes
committed by Public Officers) namely:
(1) Direct Bribery under Art. 210 as amended by
BP 871, May 29, 1985;
(2) Indirect Bribery under Art. 211 as amended by
BP 871, May 29, 1985;
(3) Qualified Bribery under Art. 211-A as amended
by RA 7659, Dec. 13, 1993;
(4) Corruption of public officials under Art. 212
where one or more of the accused are officials
occupying the following positions in the
government whether in a permanent, acting
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
or interim capacity, at the time of the
commission of the offense:
(i) 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:
(ii) Provincial governors, vice-governors,
members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, provincial treasurers,
assessors, engineers and other provincial
department heads;
(iii) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the
sangguniang panglungsod, city treasurers,
assessors, engineers and other department
heads;
(iv) Officials of the diplomatic service
occupying the position of consul and
higher;
(v) Philippine Army and Air force colonels,
naval captains and all officers of higher
rank;
(vi) Officers of the PNP while occupying the
position of Provincial Director and those
holding the rank of Senior Superintendent
or higher;
(vii) City and provincial prosecutors and their
assistants; officials and the prosecutors in
the Office of the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor ;
(viii) President, directors or trustees or
managers of government owned or
controlled corporations, state universities
or educational institutions or foundations;
(5) Members of Congress and Officials thereof
classified as Grade 27 and up under the
Compensation and Classification Act of 1989;
(6) Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to
the provision of the Constitution;
(7) Chairmen and members of Constitutional
Commissions, without prejudice to the
provision of the Constitution;
(8) All other national and local officials classified
as Grade 27 and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act
of 1989.
(d) Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
complexed with other crimes committed in
relation to their office by the public officials and
employees mentioned above;
(e) Civil and Criminal Cases filed pursuant to and in
connection with EO 1, 2, 14 & 14-A issued in 1986
(f) Petitions for issuance of Writ of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction
CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction;
(g) Provided, jurisdiction is not exclusive of the
Supreme Court
(h) Petitions for Quo Warranto arising or that may
arise in cases filed or that may be filed under EO
1, 2, 14 & 14- A
(i) OTHERS provided the accused belongs to Salary
Grade 27 or higher:
(1) Violation of RA 6713 - Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards
(2) Violation of RA 7080 – The Plunder Law
(3) Violation of RA 7659 - The Heinous Crime Law
(4) RA 9160 - Violation of The Anti-Money
Laundering Law when committed by a public
officer
(5) PD 46 referred to as the gift-giving decree
which makes it punishable for any official or
employee to receive directly or indirectly and
for the private person to give or offer to give
any gift, present or other valuable thing on
any occasion including Christmas, when such
gift, present or valuable thing is given by
reason of his official position, regardless of
whether or not the same is for past favors or
the giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or
better treatment in the future from the public
official or employee concerned in the
discharge of his official functions. Included
within the prohibition is the throwing of
parties or entertainment in honor of the
official or employee or his immediate relatives.
(6) PD 749 which grants immunity from
prosecution to any person who voluntarily
gives information about any violation of
Art.210, 211 or 212 of the RPC, RA 3019,
Sec.345 of the NIRC, Sec. 3604 of the
Customs and Tariff Code and other provisions
of the said Codes penalizing abuse or
dishonesty on the part of the public officials
concerned and other laws, rules and
regulations penalizing graft, corruption and
other forms of official abuse and who willingly
testifies against the public official or employee
subject to certain conditions.
NOTE: Private individuals can be sued in cases
before the Sandiganbayan if they are alleged to be in
conspiracy with the public officer.
Appellate Jurisdiction
Over final judgments, resolutions or orders of the
RTC whether in the exercise of their original or
appellate jurisdiction over crimes and civil cases
falling within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan but which were committed by public
officers below Salary Grade 27.
PAGE 10
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Note: The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to grant
petitions for the issuance writ writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions,
and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction. [RA 7975, as amended][asked
in 2009 BAR]
Regional Trial Courts
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction in Civil Cases [Sec. 19, BP
129, Asked in the 2002 Bar Examinations]
Incapable of pecuniary estimation (2000 Bar Exam);
(a) If the action is primarily for the recovery of a sum
of money, the claim is considered capable of
pecuniary estimation, and jurisdiction over the
action will depend on the amount of the claim.
[RCPI v. CA (2002)]
(b) If the basic issue is something other than the
right to recover a sum of money, if the money
claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of,
the principal relief sought, the action is one where
the subject of the litigation may not be estimated
in terms of money. [Soliven v. Fastforms (1992)]
(c) If the thing sought to be deposited or consigned
is a sum of money, the amount of the debt due is
determinable and capable of pecuniary
estimation. [Ascue v. CA (1991)]
(d) Action for support is incapable of pecuniary
estimation because the court is asked to
determine first WON the plaintiff is indeed
entitled to support. [Baito v. Sarmiento (1960)]
(e) Action for specific performance is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. [Manufacturer’s Distributor’s
v. Yu Siu Liong (1966)]
(f) The jurisdiction of the respective courts is
determined by the value of the demand and not
the value of the transaction out of which the
demand arose.
(1) The alternative prayer for specific performance
is also of the same value, for the alternative
prayer would not have been made in the
complaint if one was more valuable than the
other. [Cruz v. Tan (1950)]
(g) Rescission is a counterpart of specific
performance therefore also incapable of
pecuniary estimation. [Lapitan v. Scandia (1968)]
(h) Action for declaration of nullity of a deed of
partition is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
[Russel v. Vestil (1999)]
(i) An action for expropriation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. [Bardillon v. Masili (2003)]
Title to, or possession of, real property (or any interest
therein) where the property’s assessed value exceeds
P20K or P50K (for civil actions in Metro Manila);
CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Exception: Forcible entry into and unlawful detainer
of lands/buildings
Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the
demand/claim exceeds P300K or P400K (in Metro
Manila);
(a) Maritime and admiralty cases involve trade and
transactions in the sea. Maritime jurisdiction
includes maritime tort. [Negre v. Cabahug (1966)]
Probate (testate and intestate) where the gross value
of the estate exceeds P300K or P400K (in Metro
Manila);
Marriage contract and marital relations;
General Original Jurisdiction
All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court/tribunal/person/ body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions;
Within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of
Agrarian Relations;
All other cases where the demand (exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses and costs) or the value of the
property in controversy exceeds P300K or P400K in
Metro Manila.
(a) The exclusion of the term “damages of whatever
kind” in determining the jurisdictional amount
under Sec. 19(8) and Sec. 33 (1) of BP 129, as
amended by RA 7691, applies to cases where the
damages are merely incidental to or a
consequence of the main cause of action.
However, if 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.[Admin
Circ. 09-94]
(b) Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are
primarily and effectively actions for the recovery
of a sum of money for the damages suffered
because of the defendant’s alleged tortious acts.
This money claim is the principal relief sought,
and is not merely incidental thereto or a
consequence thereof. [Iniego v. Purganan (2006)]
Original Jurisdiction [Sec. 21, BP 129]
(a) Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction which may be
enforced in any part of their respective regions;
CONCURRENT jurisdiction with SC and CA
PAGE 11
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
(b) Actions affecting ambassadors and other public
ministers and consuls.
CONCURRENT jurisdiction with SC
Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction [Sec. 22, BP 129]
All cases decided by MeTCs/MTCs/MCTCs in their
respective territorial jurisdictions. Metropolitan,
Municipal and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Family Courts
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
(a) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children,
habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
(b) Petitions for adoption of children and revocation
thereof;
(c) Complaints for annulment of marriage,
declaration of nullity of marriage and those
relating to marital 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;
(d) Petitions for support and/ or acknowledgement;
(e) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the
Family Code;
(f) Petitions for declaration of status of children as
abandoned, dependent or neglected children, for
voluntary or involuntary commitment of children,
and for suspension, termination or restoration of
parental authority under PD 603, EO 56 s. 1986
and other related laws;
(g) Cases for domestic violence against women and
children, as defined therein but which do not
constitute criminal offenses subject to criminal
prosecution and penalties.
Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction [Sec. 33, BP 129]
(a) Civil actions and probate proceedings (testate and
intestate), including the grant of provisional
remedies, where the value of the personal
property, estate or amount of the demand does not
exceed P300K or P400K (in Metro Manila) (value
excludes of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs);
(1) Interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses and costs shall be
included in the determination of the filing
fees.
(2) If there are several claims or causes of actions
between the same/different parties in the
same complaint, the amount of the demand
shall be the totality of the claims in all the
CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
causes of action, WON the causes of action
arose out of the same/different transactions.
(b) Forcible entry and unlawful detainer
(1) If the defendant raises the question of
ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without
deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of
ownership shall be resolved only to determine
the issue of possession.
(2) That the MeTC has jurisdiction even in cases
where the issue of possession is closely
intertwined with the issue of ownership is now
a settled doctrine in ejectment proceedings.
[Heirs of B. Hernandez v. Vergara (2006)]
(3) The authority granted to the MeTC to
preliminarily resolve the issue of ownership to
determine the issue of possession ultimately
allows it to interpret and enforce the contract
or agreement between the plaintiff and the
defendant. However, MeTC’s ruling on the
rights of the parties based on its interpretation
of their contract is, of course, not conclusive,
but is merely provisional and is binding only
with respect to the issue of possession. [Union
Bank v. Maunlad Homes (2012)]
(c) All civil actions that involve title to, or possession of,
real property (or any interest therein) where the
assessed value of the property (or interest
therein) does not exceed P20K or P50K (in civil
actions in Metro Manila).
(1) Value excludes interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and
costs
(2) If land is not declared for taxation purposes, the
value of such property shall be determined by
the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
(d) All civil cases subject to summary procedure.
Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land
Registration Cases [Sec. 34, BP 129]
(a) Lots where there is no controversy/ opposition; or
(b) Contested lots the value of which does not
exceed P100K.
(1) The value is to be ascertained:
(i) By the claimant’s affidavit;
(ii) By agreement of the respective claimants, if
there are more than one;
(iii) From the corresponding tax declaration of
the real property.
(2) MTC decisions in cadastral and land
registration cases are appealable in the same
manner as RTC decisions.
PAGE 12
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Shariah Courts
Original Jurisdiction [Article 143, CMPL]
(a) All cases involving custody, guardianship,
legitimacy, paternity and filiation arising under
the Code of Muslim Personal Laws;
(b) All cases involving disposition, distribution and
settlement of estate of deceased Muslims,
probate of wills, issuance of letters of
administration or appointment of administrators
or executors regardless of the nature or
aggregate value of the property;
(c) Petitions for the declaration of absence and
death for the cancellation or correction of entries
in the Muslim Registries mentioned in Title VI,
Book Two of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws;
(d) All actions arising from the customary contracts
in which the parties are Muslims, if they have not
specified which law shall govern their relations;
and
(e) All petitions for mandamus, prohibition,
injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus, and all other
auxiliary writs and processes in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction.
Concurrent Jurisdiction with Civil Courts
(a) Petitions by Muslim for the constitution of a
family home, change of name and commitment
of an insane person to an asylum;
(b) All other personal and legal actions not
mentioned in paragraph 1 (d) wherein the parties
involved are Muslims except those for forcible
entry and unlawful detainer, which shall fall
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal
Circuit Court; and
(c) All special civic actions for interpleader or
declaratory relief wherein the parties are Muslims
or the property involved belongs exclusively to
Muslims
Shari’a Circuit Courts are courts where Muslims can
file cases involving the following:
(a) Offenses defined and punished under PD 1083
(b) Disputes relating to :
(1) Marriage
(2) Divorce
(3) betrothal or breach of contract to marry
(4) customary dower (mahr)
(5) disposition and distribution of property upon
divorce
(6) maintenance and support and consolatory
gifts (mut’a)
(7) restitution of marital right
(8) Disputes relative to communal properties
NOTE: The Shari’a District Court or the Shari’a Circuit
Court may constitute an Agama Arbitration Council
CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
to settle certain cases amicably and without formal
trial.
The Council is composed of the Clerk of Court as
Chairperson and a representative of each of the
conflicting parties.
JURISDICTION OVER SMALL CLAIMS, CASES
COVERED BY THE RULES ON SUMMARY
PROCEDURE AND BARANGAY CONCILIATION
[A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, the Rule of Procedure for Small
Claims Cases effective October 1, 2008]
DEFINITION
Small claims courts are courts of limited jurisdiction
that hear civil cases between private litigants
[Rationale of Proposed Rule].
PURPOSE
The purpose of small claims process is to provide an
inexpensive and expeditious means to settle disputes
over small amounts [Riano].
SCOPE
This rule governs the procedure in actions before the
Metropolitan trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts for payment of money where the value of
the claim does not exceed One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.
[Sec. 2, Scope]
APPLICABILITY
The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions
which are:
(a) purely civil in nature where the claim or relief
prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or
reimbursement of sum of money, and
(b) the civil aspect of criminal action, or reserved
upon the filing of the criminal action in court,
pursuant to Rule of 111 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
These claims or demands may be:
(a) For money owed under any of the following;
(1) Contract of Lease;
(2) Contract of Loan;
(3) Contract of Services;
(4) Contract of Sale; or
(5) Contract of Mortgage;
(b) For damages arising from any of the following;
(1) Fault or negligence;
(2) Quasi-contract; or
(3) Contract;
PAGE 13
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable Cause of action Action

settlement or an arbitration award involving a
money claim covered by this Rule pursuant to (a) A cause of action is Ordinary suit in a court of
Sec. 417 of RA 7160, otherwise known as the the basis of the justice, by which one
Local Government Code of 1991. [Sec. 4, action filed [Rule 2, party prosecutes another
Applicability] Sec.1] for the enforcement or
(b) Fact or combination protection of a right, or
PROHIBITED PLEADINGS of facts which affords the prosecution or
The following pleadings, motions, and petitions shall a party a right to redress of a wrong
not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule: judicial interference
(a) Motion to dismiss the compliant except on the in his behalf. [Into v.
ground of lack of jurisdiction; Valle (2005)]
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a MEANING OF ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS
judgment, or for reopening of trial; An ordinary civil action is one that is governed by the
(d) Petition for relief from judgment; rules for ordinary civil actions [Rule 1, Sec. 3(a) par 2]
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits, or any other paper; MEANING OF SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
(f) Memoranda; A special civil action is one that is subject to the
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition specific rules prescribed for a special civil action; it is
against any interlocutory order issued by the also governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions
court; [Rule 1, Sec. 3(a) par 2]
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement; MEANING OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS
(j) Reply; A criminal action is one by which the State
(k) Third-party complaints; and prosecutes a person for an act or omission
(l) Interventions. [Sec. 14, Prohibited pleadings and punishable by law. [Rule 1, Sec. 3(b)]
motions]
CIVIL ACTIONS VERSUS SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
TOTALITY RULE A civil action is one by which a party sues another for
Where there are several claims or causes of actions the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
between the same or different parties, embodied in prevention or redress of a wrong. [Rule 1, Sec. 3(a) par
the same complaint, the amount of the demand 1]
shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of
action, irrespective of whether the causes of action A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party
arose out of the same or different transaction [Riano seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular
citing Pantranco North Express v Standard Insurance fact. [Rule 1, Sec. 3 (c)]
(2005)]
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN CIVIL ACTIONS AND SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS (Asked in the 1998 Bar Exam)

Actions Action Special Proceeding

As to Parties
Actions, in general: An ordinary suit in a court of Involves 2 or more parties Involves at least 1 party
justice by which one party prosecutes another for the or 2 or more
enforcement/ protection of a right or the parties in proper cases
prevention/redress of a wrong [Santos v. Vda. De As to cause of action
Caparas, (1959)] Involves a right and a May involve a right, but
violation of such right by there need not be a
ACTION VS CAUSE OF ACTION the defendant which violation of this right
(Asked in the 1999 Bar Exam) causes some
damage/prejudice upon
Cause of action Action the plaintiff
As to formalities

PAGE 14
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Real action Personal Mixed action

Action Special Proceeding action
Ownership or Personal Both real and
Requires the application Requires no such possession of property is personal
of legal remedies in formalities, as it real property is sought to be properties are
accordance with the may be granted upon involved recovered or involved
prescribed rules application damages for
As to governing rules breach of
Ordinary rules of Special rules of Contract or the
procedure procedure enforcement of
As to appeal from an interlocutory a contract are
Order sought
Cannot be directly and Can be immediately Founded on Founded on Founded on
immediately appealed to and directly appealed privity of real privity of both
the appellate court until to the appellate court estate contract
after final judgment on
the merits
Filed in the Filed in the The rules on
court where the court where the venue of real
PERSONAL ACTIONS AND REAL ACTIONS property (or any plaintiff or any actions govern
Real Actions: Actions affecting title to or possession portion thereof) of the
of real property, or interest therein. [Rule 4, Sec. 1 par is situated defendants
1] resides, at the
plaintiff’s
Personal Actions: All other actions are personal option
actions. [Rule 4, Sec.2]
LOCAL AND TRANSITORY ACTIONS
IMPORTANCE OF DISTINCTION:for purposes of Local action Transitory action
determining the venue of the action (Riano) (a) One that could be (a) One that could be
(a) Real actions shall be commenced and tried in the instituted in one prosecuted in any one
proper court which has jurisdiction over the area specific place [Manila of several places
wherein the real property involved, or a portion Railroad v. Attorney- [Manila Railroad v.
thereof, is situated. [Rule 4, Sec.1] General (1911)] Attorney-General
(b) Personal actions may be commenced and tried (b) Venue depends upon (1911)]
where the plaintiff or any of the principal the location of the (b) Its venue depends
plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any property involved in upon the residence of
of the principal defendants resides, or in the case the litigation (Riano) the plaintiff or the
of a non-resident defendant, where he may be defendant at the
found, at the election of the plaintiff. [Rule 4, option of the plaintiff
Sec.2] (Riano)
Note: Not every action involving a real property is a Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem
real action because the realty may only be incidental [Riano citing Domagas v. Jensen, (2005) and Biaco v.
to the subject matter of the suit. To be a real action, Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, (2007)]
it is not enough that the action must deal with real
property. It is important that the matter in litigation Action in rem Action in Action
must also involve any of the following issues: title to, personam quasi in rem
ownership, possession, paritition, foreclosure or Directed Directed Directed
mortgage or any interest in real property. (Riano) against the against against
thing itself particular particular
Real action Personal Mixed action persons persons
action

PAGE 15
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Action in rem Action in Action Action in rem Action in Action

personam quasi in rem personam quasi in rem
Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Ex: Accion Ex: Action for Ex: Action for
over the person over the person over the person reivindicatoria; specific partition; action
of the of the of the annulment of performance; to foreclose
defendant is defendant is defendant is marriage; action to real estate
NOT required required not required as naturalization recover money mortgage
long as proceedings or property
jurisdiction over (real or
the res is personal)
acquired
A proceeding to An action to A proceeding to The question of whether the trial court has
determine the impose subject the jurisdiction depends on the nature of the action, i.e.,
state/condition responsibility or interest of a whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in
of a thing liability upon a named rem. [Riano citing Biaco v. Philippine Countryside
person directly defendant over Rural Bank (2007)]
a particular
property to an The distinction is important to determine whether or
obligation/lien not jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
burdening it required and consequently to determine the type of
summons to be employed. [Riano citing Gomez v.
Deal with the Court of Appeals (2004)]
status,
ownership or
liability of a
particular
property but Cause of Action
which are
intended to MEANING OF CAUSE OF ACTION
operate on A cause of action is the act or omission by which a
these questions party violates a right of another. [Rule 2, Sec.2]
only as
between the ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION [cited in
particular Riano]
parties to the (a) Plaintiff’s legal right;
proceedings (b) Defendant’s correlative obligation to respect
and not to plaintiff’s right;
ascertain or (c) Defendant’s act/omission in violation of plaintiff’s
cut-off the right [Ma-ao Sugar Central v. Barrios (1947)]
rights or (Asked in the 1997 Bar Exam).
interest of all
possible Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause
claimants of action [Rule 2, Sec. 1]
[Domagas v.
Jensen (2005)] A cause of action stems from the sources of
Judgment is Judgment is Judgment is obligations under Art. 1156, CC - Law, Contract,
binding on the binding only binding upon Quasi-contract, Acts and omissions punishable by
whole world upon parties particular law and Quasi-delict. [Sagrada Orden etc v. National
impleaded or persons Coconut Corporation (1952)]
their successors
in interest

PAGE 16
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

RIGHT OF ACTION VERSUS CAUSE OF ACTION

[Regalado] The act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of
action into several parts or claims and bringing
Right of action Cause of action several actions thereon. (Regalado)

The remedial right or The delict or wrongful EFFECTS OF SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION: [Taken from
right to relief granted by act or omission 2011 Reviewer]
law to a party to institute committed by the (a) The filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in
an action against a defendant in violation of any one is available as a ground for the dismissal
person who has the primary rights of the of the others. [Rule 2, Sec.4]
committed a delict or plaintiff (b) Filing of the 1st complaint may be pleaded in
wrong against him abatement of the 2nd complaint, on the ground
Right to sue as a The delict or wrong of litis pendentia; or
consequence of the (c) A judgment upon the merits in any of the
delict complaints is available as ground for dismissal of
Whether such acts give Determined by the the others based on res judicata.
him right of action averments in the (d) A MTD under Rule 16 Sec. 1(e) or (f) may be filed
determined by pleading regarding the in order that the complaint may be dismissed.
substantive law acts committed by the
defendant BASIS: A party may not institute more than one suit
for a single cause of action. [Rule 2, Sec. 3]
Note: There can be no right of action without a cause
of action being first established [Regalado citing PURPOSE [City of Bacolod v. SM Brewery (1969)]
Español v. The Chairman of PVA (1985)] (a) To prevent repeated litigation between the same
parties in regard to the same subject or
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION controversy;
(a) There is a failure to state a cause of action if the (b) To protect the defendant from unnecessary
pleading asserting the claim states no cause of vexation. Nemo debet vexare pro una et eadem
action. This is a ground for a motion to dismiss. causa (No man shall be twice vexed for one and
[Rule 16, Sec.1(g)] the same cause);
(b) It is submitted that the failure to state a cause of (c) To avoid the costs and expenses incident to
action does not mean that the plaintiff has “no numerous suits.
cause of action.” It only means that the plaintiff’s
allegations are insufficient for the court to know A single act/omission can be violative of various
that the rights of the plaintiff were violated by the rights at the same time, as when the act constitutes
defendant. [Riano] juridically a violation of several separate and distinct
(c) There is a failure to state a cause of action if legal obligations. However, where there is only one
allegations in the complaint taken together, do delict/wrong, there is but a single cause of action
not completely spell out the elements of a regardless of the number of rights that may have
particular cause of action. [Riano] been violated belonging to one person. The
(d) A failure to state a cause of action is not the same singleness of a cause of action lies in the singleness
as an absence or a lack of cause of action. The of the delict/wrong violating the rights of a person. If
former refers to an insufficiency in the allegations only 1 injury resulted from several wrongful acts, only
of the complaint while the latter refers to the 1 cause of action arises. [Joseph v. Bautista (1989)]
failure to prove or to establish by evidence one’s
stated cause of action. [Riano] For a single cause of action or violation of a right, the
plaintiff may be entitled to several reliefs. It is the
TEST OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF A CAUSE OF filing of separate complaints for these several reliefs
ACTION that constitutes splitting up of the cause of action
Whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court which is proscribed by Rule 2, Sec. 3 and 4. [City of
could render a valid verdict in accordance with the Bacolod v. SM Brewery (1969)]
prayer of the complaint [Santos v. de Leo (2005)]
JOINDER AND MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF
SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND ITS ACTION
EFFECTS JOINDER OF CAUSE OF ACTION: It is the assertion of as
Definition: The act of instituting two or more suits on many causes of action as a party may have against
the basis of the same cause of action. [Rule 2, Sec.4] another in one pleading alone. It is also the process

PAGE 17
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE
of uniting 2 or more demands or rights of action in
one action. [Riano citing Rule 2, Sec. 5 and CJS]
By a joinder of actions, or more properly, a joinder of
causes of action is meant the uniting of two or more
demands or rights of action in one action, the
statement of more than one cause of action in a
declaration [Ada v. Baylon (2012)]
PURPOSES: To avoid a multiplicity of suits and to
expedite disposition of litigation at minimum cost
[Ada v. Baylon (2012)]
The rule however is purely permissive as the plaintiff
can always file separate actions for each cause of
action. [Baldovi v. Sarte, (1917)]
Joinder shall not include special civil actions
governed by special rules. [Ada v. Baylon (2012)]
REQUISITES [Rule 2, Sec. 5]:
(a) The party joining the causes of action must
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 causes of action are between the same
parties but pertain to different
venues/jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed
in the RTC provided one of the causes of action
are within the RTC’s jurisdiction and the venue
lies therein;
(d) TOTALITY RULE - Where the claims in all the
causes of action are principally for recovery of
money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be
the test of jurisdiction.
MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION [Rule 2, Sec. 6]
(a) Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for
dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of
action may, on motion or motu propio, be severed
and proceeded with separately. However, if there
is no objection to the improper joinder or the
court did not motu proprio direct a severance,
then there exists no bar in the simultaneous
adjudication of all the erroneously joined causes
of action. However, this rule exists only when the
court trying the case has jurisdiction over all of
the causes of action therein notwithstanding the
misjoinder of the same. This is because if the
court has no jurisdiction to try the misjoined
action, then the same must be severed and if not
so severed, any adjudication rendered by the
court with respect to the same would be a nullity.
[Ada v. Baylon (2012)]
(b) There is no sanction against non-joinder of
separate causes of action since a plaintiff needs
PAGE 18
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
only a single cause of action to maintain an
action (Regalado).
Parties to Civil Actions
REQUIREMENTS FOR A PERSON TO BE A PARTY
TO A CIVIL ACTION:
(A) THE MUST BE EITHER [Rule 1, Sec.3]:
(1) A natural person;
(2) A juridical person;
(i) The State and its political subdivisions;
(ii) Other corporations, institutions and entities
for public interest or purpose, created by
law; and
(iii) Corporations, partnerships and associations
for private interest or purpose to which the
law grants a juridical personality, separate
and distinct from that of each shareholder,
partner or member [Art. 44, CC]
(3) An entity authorized by law.
(i) The estate of a deceased person [Limjoco v.
Intestate Estate of Fragante (1948)];
(ii) A political party incorporated under Act 1459
[now BP 68 (Corporation Code)];
(iii) A corporation by estoppel is precluded from
denying its existence and the members
thereof can be sued and be held liable as
general partners. [Riano citing Sec. 21, BP68,
The Corporation Code of the Philippines]
(iv) A contract of partnership having a capital of
P3,000.00 or more but which fails to comply
with the registration requirements is
nevertheless liable as a partnership to third
persons. [Riano citing Art. 1772 in rel. to Art.
1768, Civil Code]
(v) A registered labor union [Sec. 243, PD 442
(Labor Code)], with respect to its property.
(vi) A legitimate labor organization may sue and
be sued in its registered name. [Riano citing
Art. 2429(e), Labor Code]
(vii) The Roman Catholic Church has legal
capacity to sue. As to its properties, the
archbishop or diocese to which they belong
may be a party. [Barlin v. Ramirez (1906);
Riano citing Barlin v. Ramirez and Versoza v.
Fernandez(1926)].
(viii) A dissolved corporation may prosecute and
defend suits by or against it provided that the
suits (i) occur within three years after its
dissolution, and (ii) the suits are in
connection with the settlement and closure
of its affairs. [Riano citing Sec. 122,
Corporation Code]
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(B) HE MUST HAVE THE LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE;

PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION
(c) HE MUST BE THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. (a) Plaintiff – One having interest in the matter of the
[Berman v. Cheng (2005)] action or in obtaining the relief demanded; the
(1) Only natural or juridical persons or entities claiming party or the original claiming party and
authorized by law may be parties in a civil is the one who files the complaint [Riano]; does
case. not exclusively apply to the original plaintiff
(2) A sole proprietorship is not vested with [Riano]; may refer to the claiming party, the
juridical personality and cannot sue or file or counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third
defend an action. (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff [Rule 3, Sec.1]
(3) There is no law authorizing sole proprietorship (b) Defendant – One claiming an interest in the
to file a suit. controversy or the subject thereof adverse to the
(4) A sole proprietorship does not possess a plaintiff. The term may also include [Rule 3, Sec 1):
judicial personality separate and distinct from (1) Unwilling Co-Plaintiff – A party who should be
the personality of the owner of the enterprise. joined as plaintiff but whose consent cannot
[Rimbunan v. Oriental (2005)] be obtained. He may be made a defendant
(5) An unlicensed foreign corporation is and the reason therefore shall be stated in the
nonetheless permitted to bring suit in the complaint. [Rule 3, Sec. 10]
Philippines if it is suing on an isolated (2) The original plaintiff becoming a defendant to
transaction. the original defendant’s counterclaim; also
(6) Thus, the ascertainment of whether a foreign refers to the cross-defendant, or the third
corporation is merely suing on an isolated (fourth, etc.)-party defendant. [Rule 3, Sec 1]
transaction or is actually doing business in the
Philippines requires the elicitation of at least a REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST; INDISPENSABLE
preponderant set of facts. PARTIES; REPRESENTATIVES AS PARTIES;
NECESSARY PARTIES; INDIGENT PARTIES;
Note: A foreign corporation may be party to an action ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS
in Philippine courts:
(a) If licensed to engage in business in the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST [Rule 3, Sec.2]
Philippines, it may sue or be sued in our courts; (a) The party who stands to be benefited/injured by
(b) If not licensed, it cannot sue, but it may be sued in the judgment in the suit;
our courts; (b) The party entitled to the avails of the suit.
(c) If not engaged in business in the Philippines, it
may sue in courts on a single isolated transaction, Rules:
but it cannot be sued in our courts on such (a) Every action must be prosecuted or defended in
transaction. the name of the real party in interest. [Rule 3,
Sec.2]
Note: Interest within the meaning of the Rules of (b) The party’s interest must be direct, substantial
Court means material interest or an interest in issue and material [Sumalo v. Litton (2006)].
to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, (c) Husband and wife shall sue and be sued jointly,
as distinguished from mere curiosity about the except as provided by law [Rule 3, Sec. 4]
question involved. [Ang v. Sps. Ang (2012)] (d) A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent
may sue or be sued, with the assistance of his
Lack of legal capacity to Lack of legal personality father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a
sue to sue guardian ad litem. [Rule 3, Sec. 5]
The plaintiff’s general The plaintiff is not the (e) Minors (represented by their parents) are real
disability to sue, such as real party in interest parties in interest under the principle of
on account of minority, intergenerational responsibility. [Oposa v.
insanity, incompetence, Factoran (1993)]
lack of juridical (f) If a party becomes incompetent/ incapacitated
personality or any other during the pendency of the action, the action
general disqualifications survives and may be continued by/against the
It can be a ground for a It can be used as ground incompetent/ incapacitated assisted by his legal
MTD [Rule 16 (1) (d)] for a MTD based on the guardian or guardian ad litem [Rule 3, Sec. 18]
failure of complaint to
state a cause of action.
[Rule 16 (1) (g)]

PAGE 19
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

INDISPENSABLE PARTIES Indispensable parties Necessary parties [Rule 3,

(a) An indispensable party is a real party-in-interest [Rule 3, Sec. 7] Sec. 8]
without whom no final determination can be had such an interest in the presence is necessary to
of an action. [Rule 3, Sec.7] controversy that a final adjudicate the whole
(b) A party who has such an interest in the decree would controversy but whose
controversy or subject matter that a final necessarily affect their interests are so far
adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, rights so that the court separable that a final
without injuring or affecting that interest. [Riano] cannot proceed without decree can be made in
(c) The joinder of a party becomes compulsory when their presence. their absence without
the one involved is an indispensable party. [Riano affecting them.
citing Rule 3, Sec.7]
(d) A person is NOT an indispensable party if his (c) Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is
interest in the controversy or subject matter is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the
separable from the interest of the other parties, pleader is under obligation to: (i) set forth the
so that it will not necessarily be directly or name of the necessary party, if known, and (ii)
injuriously affected by a decree which does not state the reason why the necessary party is
complrete justice between them. [Riano] omitted. [Riano citing Rule 3, Sec. 9 par 1]
(d) The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not
REPRESENTATIVE AS PARTIES [Rule 3, Sec. 3] prevent the court from proceeding in the action,
(a) Those acting in fiduciary capacity, such as a and the judgment rendered therein shall be
trustee/guardian/executor/administrator or a without prejudice to the rights of such necessary
party authorized by law or ROC. party [Rule 3, Sec. 9 par 3]
(b) The beneficiary shall be included in the title of the
case and shall be deemed to be the real party in INDIGENT PARTY [Rule 3, Sec. 21]
interest. (a) indigent – One who has no money or property
(c) An agent acting in his own name and for the sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be necessities.
sued without joining the principal.
(b) While the authority to litigate as an indigent party
Exception: If the contract involves things belonging may be granted upon an ex parte application and
to the principal. [Art. 1883, CC] hearing, it may be contested by the adverse party
at any time before judgment is rendered.
NECESSARY PARTY [Rule 3, Sec. 8]
(a) One who is not indispensable but ought to be If the court determines after hearing that the
joined as a party if complete relief is to be party declared indigent has sufficient income or
accorded as to those already parties, or for a property, the proper docket and other lawful fees
complete determination or settlement of the shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of
claim subject of the action court.
(b) Indispensable parties v. Necessary parties [taken
from 2011 Reviewer and Riano] (c) The authority to litigate as an indigent shall
include an exemption from:
Indispensable parties Necessary parties [Rule 3, o Payment of docket fees and other lawful
[Rule 3, Sec. 7] Sec. 8] fees;
Must be joined under Should be joined o Payment of TSN.
any and all conditions, whenever possible; the (d) The amount of docket and other lawful fees is a
his presence being a action can proceed even lien on any judgment rendered in favor of
sine qua non for the in their absence because indigent party, unless court otherwise provides.
exercise of judicial their interest is separable
power from that of the ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS [Rule 3, Sec. 13]
indispensable party Where the plaintiff is uncertain against whom of
No valid judgment if The case may be several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join
indispensable party is determined in court but any or all of them in the alternative, although a right
not joined. the judgment therein will to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right
not resolve the entire to relief against the other.
controversy if a necessary
party is not joined
They are those with They are those whose

PAGE 20
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
COMPULSORY AND PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF
PARTIES
COMPULSORY JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTIES [Rule
3, Sec. 7]
Parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be joined
either as plaintiffs or defendants
PERMISSIVE JOINDER [Rule 3, Sec. 6]
Parties can be joined, as plaintiffs or defendants, in
one single complaint or may themselves maintain or
be sued in separate suits.
Requisites [Regalado]:
Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or
series of transactions;
Note: SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS – Transactions
connected with the same subject matter of the suit.
There is a question of law or fact common to all the
plaintiffs or defendants;
Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the rules
on jurisdiction and venue.
MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES
(a) A party is misjoined when he is made a party to
the action although he should not be impleaded.
A party is not joined when he is supposed to be
joined but is not impleaded in the action. (Riano)
(b) Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a
ground for dismissal of an action. [Rule 3, Sec. 11]
(c) Parties may be dropped or added by order of the
court on motion of any party or on its own
initiative at any stage of the action and on such
terms as are just. [Rule 3, Sec.11]
(d) Any claim against a misjoined party may be
severed and proceeded with separately. [Rule 3,
Sec. 11]
(e) Non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a
ground for outright dismissal. Reasonable
opportunity must be given for his inclusion by
amendment of the complaint [Cortez v Avila
(1957)].
(f) Objections to defects in parties should be made
at the earliest opportunity.
(g) The moment such defect becomes apparent, a
motion to strike the names of the parties must be
made.
(h) Objections to misjoinder cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal [Lapanday Agricultural &
Development Corporation v. Estita (2005)].
(i) The rule on misjoinder or non-joinder of parties
does not comprehend whimsical and irrational
dropping or adding of parties in a complaint.
CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
What it really contemplates is erroneous or
mistaken non-joinder and misjoinder or parties.
The rule presupposes that the original inclusion
had been made in the honest conviction that it
was proper and the subsequent dropping is
requested because it has turned out that such
inclusion was a mistake. [Riano citing Lim Tan
Hua v. Ramolete(1975)]
CLASS SUIT
REQUISITES [Rule 3, Sec. 12]
(a) Subject matter of the controversy is one of
common/general interest to many persons;
(b) The persons are so numerous that it is
impracticable to join them all as parties (i.e.
impracticable to bring them all before the court);
(c) Parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently
numerous and representative of the class and can
fully protect the interests of all concerned;
(d) The representative sues/defends for the benefit
of all.
Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene
to protect his individual interest. [Rule 3, Sec. 12]
If a class suit is improperly brought, the action is
subject to dismissal regardless of the cause of action
[Rule 16, Sec 1 (d)].
A taxpayer's suit or a stockholder's derivative suit is
in the nature of a class suit, although subject to the
other requisites of the corresponding governing law
especially on the issue of locus standi. [Regalado]
There is no class suit in an action filed by
associations of sugar planters to recover damages in
behalf of individual sugar planters for an allegedly
libelous article in an international magazine. There is
no common or general interest in reputation of a
specific individual. Each of the sugar planters has a
separate and distinct reputation in the community
not shared by the others. [Riano citing Newsweek,
Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate court (1986)]
A class suit does not require a commonality of
interest in the questions involved in the suit. What is
required by the Rules is a common or general
interest in the subject matter of the litigation. [Riano
citing Mathay v. Consolidated Bank &Trust Company
(1974)]
Class Suit Permissive Joinder of
Parties
There is a single cause of There are multiple
action pertaining to causes of action
numerous persons. separately belonging to
several persons.
PAGE 21
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

CLASS SUIT AND DERIVATIVE SUIT, COMPARED Counsel’s duty:

(Asked in the 2005 Bar Examination)
Class Suit Derivative Suit
When the subject matter An action brought by
of the controversy is one minority shareholders in
of common or general the name of the
interest to many persons, corporation to redress
and the parties are so wrongs committed
numerous that it is against it, for which the
impracticable to bring directors refuse to sue.
them all before the
court, one or more may It is a remedy designed
sue or defend for the by equity and has been
benefit of all. [Rule 3, the principal defense of
Sec. 12] the minority
shareholders against
abuses by the majority.
(a) Inform court within 30 days after such death of
the fact thereof;
(b) Give the name and address of the legal
representatives.
Note: Failure to comply with this duty is a ground for
disciplinary action.
(a) The heirs may be substituted for the deceased
without requiring the appointment of an executor
or administrator.
(b) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the
minor heirs.
(c) The court shall order the legal representative(s)
to appear and be substituted within 30 days from
notice.

In a derivative action, the (d) If no legal representative is named or if the one so

real party in interest is
the corporation itself, not
the shareholders who
actually instituted it [Lim
v. Lim Yu (2001))
SUITS AGAINST ENTITIES WITHOUT JURIDICAL
PERSONALITY
REQUISITES [Rule 3, Sec.15]
(a) There are 2 or more persons not organized as a
juridical entity;
(b) They enter into a transaction;
(c) A wrong is committed against a 3rd person in the
course of such transaction.
Effect: Persons associated in an entity without
juridical personality may be sued under the name by
which they are generally/commonly known, but they
cannot sue under such name. [Rule 3, Sec. 15]
The service of summons may be effected upon all the
defendants by serving upon any of them, or upon the
person in charge of the office or place of business
maintained under such name. [Rule 14, Sec. 8]
EFFECT OF DEATH OF PARTY LITIGANT
SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES
Death of a party, where the claim is not extinguished
by the death of the party (e.g. cases involving
property and property rights [Bonilla v Barcena
(1976)]); [Rule 3, Sec. 16] (Asked in the 1998 and 1999
Bar Exams)
name shall fail to appear within the specified
period, the court may order the opposing party to
procure the appointment of an executor or
administrator for the estate.
(e) The substitute defendant need not be
summoned. The order of substitution shall be
served upon the parties substituted for the court
to acquire jurisdiction over the substitute party
[Ferreria v Vda de Gonzales (1986)].
Death or separation of a party who is a public officer
[Rule 3, Sec. 17]
Requisites:
(a) Public officer is a party to an action in his official
capacity;
(b) During the pendency of the action, he either
dies/resigns or otherwise ceases to hold office;
(c) It is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party,
within 30 days after the successor takes office,
(1) that there is a substantial need to
continue/maintain the action and
(2) The successor adopts/continues (or threatens
to do so) his predecessor’s action
(d) The party or officer affected was given reasonable
notice of the application therefore and accorded
an opportunity to be heard.
ACTION ON CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIMS [Rule 3, Sec.
20]
Requisites:
(a) The action must primarily be for recovery of
money/debt or interest thereon;
(b) The claim arose from express/implied contract;

PAGE 22
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(c) Defendant dies before the entry of final judgment

in the court in which the action was pending. Venue Jurisdiction
(1) The defendant’s death will not result in the
dismissal of the action. Procedural Substantive
(2) The deceased shall be substituted by his legal May be changed by the Is fixed by law and
representatives in the manner provided for in written agreement of the cannot be the subject of
Rule 3, Sec. 16, and the action will continue parties the agreement of the
until the entry of final judgment (Asked in the parties
2000 Bar Exam) Establishes a relation Establishes a relation
(3) However, execution shall not issue in favor of between plaintiff and between the court and
the winning plaintiff. It should be filed as a defendant, or petitioner the subject matter
claim against the decedent’s estate without and respondent
need of proving the claim. Not a ground for a motu Lack of jurisdiction over
propio dismissal (except the subject matter is a
TRANSFER OF INTEREST DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE in cases of summary ground for a motu
ACTION [Rule 3, Sec. 19] procedure; Rule 4, Rule proprio dismissal.
on Summary Procedure)
General rule: The rule does not consider the
transferee an indispensable party. Hence, the action VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS
may proceed without the need to implead him. (a) Shall be commenced and tried in the proper court
which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the
Exception: When the substitution by or joinder of the real property involved, or a portion thereof is
transferee is ordered by court. situated. [Rule 4, Sec. 1(1)]
(b) Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be
The case will be dismissed if the plaintiff’s interest is commenced and tried in the municipal court of
transferred to defendant unless there are several the municipality or city wherein the real property
plaintiffs, in which case the remaining plaintiffs can involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. [Rule 4,
proceed with their own cause of action. Sec. 1(2)]
(c) If the property is located at the boundaries of 2
places, file the case in either place (at the
plaintiff’s option).
Venue (d) If the case involves 2 properties located in 2
different places:
(1) If the properties are the object of the same
Venue is the place, or the geographical area where transaction, file it in any of the 2 places;
an action is to be filed and tried. In civil cases, it (2) If they are the objects of 2 distinct
relates only to the place of the suit and not to the transactions, separate actions should be filed
jurisdiction of the court. [Riano citing Manila Railroad in each place unless properly joined.
Company v. Attorney General (1911)]
VENUE OF PERSONAL ACTIONS
Choosing the venue of an action is not left to a At the plaintiff’s election: [Rule 4, Sec. 2]
plaintiff’s caprice; the matter is regulated by the (a) Where the plaintiff or any of the principal
Rules of Court. [Ang v. Sps. Ang (2012)] plaintiffs resides;
(b) Where the defendant or any of the principal
VENUE VERSUS JURISDICTION [Riano] defendants resides;
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN VENUE AND JURISDICTION
(c) In case of a non-resident-defendant, where he
(Asked in the 2006 and 2008 Bar Exams) may be found.
Venue Jurisdiction Note: The plaintiff or the defendant must be
residents of the place where the action has been
Place where the action is Power of the court to instituted at the time the action is commenced. [Ang
instituted hear and decide a case v. Sps. Ang (2012)]
May be waived Jurisdiction over the
subject matter and over
the nature of the action
is conferred by law and
cannot-be waived

PAGE 23
UP COLLEGE OF LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

VENUE OF ACTIONS AGAINST NON-RESIDENTS [Regalado, citing Hoechst Philippines v Torres

[Rule 5, Sec. 3] (1978)].

Non-resident found in the Philippines – OTHER RULES ON VENUE

(a) For personal actions – Where the plaintiff resides; (a) Improper Venue: The Court may not motu propio
(b) For real actions – Where the property is located. dismiss an action on the ground of improper
venue. [Dacoycoy v. IAC (1991)]
Non-resident not found in the Philippines – An action
may be filed only when the case involves: Exception: In summary procedures.
(a) Personal status of plaintiff - Where plaintiff
resides; (b) Change of Venue: The SC has the power to
(b) Any property of said defendant located in the change the venue to prevent a miscarriage of
Phil. - Where the property (or any portion thereof) justice. [Art. 8, Sec. 5, Consti]
is situated/found.
(c) Waiver Of Venue:
WHEN THE RULES ON VENUE DO NOT APPLY (1) Until and unless the defendant objects to the
[Rule 4, Sec. 4] venue in a motion to dismiss prior to a
(a) If a specific rule/law provides otherwise (e.g. responsive pleading, the venue cannot truly be
action for damages arising from libel); said to have been improperly laid since for all
(b) Stipulations as to Venue is permitted if the parties intents and purposes, the venue though
have validly agreed technically wrong may yet be considered
(1) in writing acceptable to the parties for whose
(2) before the filing of the action convenience the rules on venue had been
(3) on the exclusive venue devised. Although venue is mandatory, it is
waivable. [Diaz v. Adiong (1993)]
In the absence of qualifying restrictive words (e.g. (2) Means of waiving venue:
“only/solely/exclusively in such court”), venue (i) Where parties validly agreed in writing
stipulation is merely permissive; that is, the before the filing of the action on the
stipulated venue is in addition to the venue provided exclusive venue thereof [Rule 4, Sec 4 (b)];
for in the rules. [Polytrade Corp. v. Blanco (1969)] and
(ii) Failure to raise improper venue as
The mere stipulation on the venue of an action, affirmative defense or in motion to dismiss
however, is not enough to preclude parties from
bringing a case in other venues. The parties must be
able to show that such stipulation is exclusive. In the
absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the
stipulation should be deemed as merely an Pleadings
agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting
venue to the specified place. [Riano citing Spouse DEFINITION
Lantin v. Lantion, (2006)] Pleadings are the written statements of the
respective claims and defenses of the parties,
EFFECTS OF STIPULATIONS ON VENUE submitted to the court for appropriate judgment
(a) To be binding, the parties must have agreed on [Rule 6, Sec. 1]
the exclusive nature of the venue of any
prospective action between them. The agreement
of parties must be restrictive and not permissive. Pleading Motion
[Regalado]
(b) In the absence of qualifying restrictive words (e.g. Purpose: To submit a Purpose: To apply for an
“only/solely/exclusively in such court”), venue claim/defense for order not included in the
stipulation is merely permissive; that is, the appropriate judgment judgment
stipulated venue is in addition to the venue May be initiatory Cannot be initiatory as
provided for in the rules. [Polytrade Corp. v. they are always made in
Blanco (1969)] a case already filed in
(c) The court may declare agreements on venue as court.
contrary to public policy if such stipulation Always filed before May be filed even after
unjustly denies a party a fair opportunity to file judgment judgment
suit in the place designated by the Rules

PAGE 24