CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED

INTRODUCTION

1. Major divisions in law:

a) Substantive law – a part of law which creates, defines or regulates rights concerning life,
liberty or property, or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of public
affairs. (Primicias vs. Ocampo 49 OG 2230)

b) Procedural/Adjective/Remedial Law – prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining

redress for their violation. (Bustos v. Lucero 81 Phil. 640,650)

2. Sources of Remedial law:

1) The Constitution
2) Laws creating the judiciary
3) Laws defining and allocating jurisdiction to different courts
4) Rules promulgated by the SC
5) circulars, administrative orders, internal rules and SC decisions

3. Scope of Remedial Law:

a) Constitution
b) Civil Procedure (Rules 1 to 56 and other related laws);
c) Provisional Remedies (Rules 57 to 61);
d) Special Civil Actions (Rules 62 to 71)
e) Special Proceedings (Rules 72 to 109)
f) Criminal Procedure (Rules 110 to 127)
g) Evidence (Rules 128 to 133)
h) Katarungang Pambarangay Law (RA 7160) and Implementing rules
i) Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
j) Rules on Small Claims Case
k) Rules on Environmental Cases

JUDICIAL POWER includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
The power of judicial review is the Supreme Court's power to declare a law, treaty, international
or executive agreement, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or
regulation unconstitutional.

Basic concepts in Remedial Law

1.) Court

Describe it.

There is a table, a gavel, there is someone sitting there. Then below, there are lawyers sitting
down. But actually, what is described is a courtroom and not a court.

Similarly, when you are asked to describe a corporation, you will refer to the building, the office,
the employees etc. But 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.

A court has no physical existence, only a legal one.

Q: What is a court?

A: A court is an entity or body vested with a portion of the judicial power. (Lontok vs. 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.

The reason that 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.

There is a division of labor and this division is done thru delineating jurisdiction among courts.
Jurisdiction will be discussed in the following parts.

2.) Judge

Just as corporations cannot act without its officers, a court cannot function without a judge. But
do not say 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
judge is the person or officer who presides over a court.

2.) Judges are human beings – they die, they resign, they retire, they maybe removed. The
court continues to exist even after the judge presiding over it ceases to do so. In the
Supreme Court, for example, the justices presiding over it are not the same justices who
presided it in the early part of this century yet the Court in some decisions states that “as
early 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 with the justices who presided on it.

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 vs. Llorente, 29 Phil. 342)

3.) Hearing and Trial

Hearing is not synonymous with trial. The words “hearing” and “trial” have different meanings
and connotations. Trial may refer to the reception of evidence and other processes. It embraces
the period for the introduction of evidence by both parties. Hearing, as known in law, is not
confined to trial but embraces the several stages of litigation, including the pre-trial stage. A
hearing does not necessarily mean presentation of evidence. It does not necessarily imply the
presentation of oral or documentary evidence in open court but that the parties are afforded
the opportunity to be heard. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 133)

HIERARCHY OF THE COURTS

In the 1996 BAR: One of the questions in Remedial Law was: State the hierarchy of the Courts in
the Philippines.

a.) Special courts

There are also Special Courts which are also considered part of the judiciary. These are:

1.) Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125)

2.) Sandiganbayan (PD 1486 as amended)
3.) Sharia District Courts and the Sharia Circuit Courts (PD 1083 , also known as the Code of
Muslim Personal Law);
4.) Family Courts
b.) Regular courts

SUPREME COURT

COURT OF APPEALS

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

MetTC MTCC MTC MCTC

Note:

MetTC- In Manila
MTCC- cities outside Manila e.g. Cebu, Davao
MTC- municipalities such as Minglanilla, Argao
MCTC- circuitized areas because it is impractical and expensive to maintain one MTC in
every municipality.

Policy of Judicial Hierarchy

This policy means that a higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired
cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts.

While it is true for example that the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial
Courts have concurrent original jurisdiction to issue writs of Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandfamus,
such concurrence does not accord litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to
which the application for the writ may be directed. The application should be filed with the
court of lower level unless the importance of the issue involved deserves the action of the court
of the higher level.

4.) Classification of courts in general.

A: Generally, courts may be classified as:

1.) Constitutional and Statutory Courts;

2.) Superior Courts and First-Level courts (inferior courts);
3.) Courts of Original jurisdiction and Courts of Appellate jurisdiction;
4.) Civil Courts and Criminal Courts;
5.) Courts of law and Courts of equity;
 6.) Courts of record; probate Courts; Land Registration Courts; Ecclesiastical Courts; Military
Courts

CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS vs. 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. The first cannot be abolished by Congress
without amending the Constitution while the second can be so abolished by just simply
repealing the law which created them.

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, particularly Art. XIII, Section 5 ordered the then
National Assembly to create a special court to be known as the Sandiganbayan which shall
have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such
other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-
owned or controlled corporations in relation to their office as may be determined by law.. It was
law that created the Sandiganbayan (PD 1486).

The CA, RTC, and the MTC are created by the Congress.

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, Juvenile and Domestic courts, 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.

SUPERIOR COURTS vs. 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. The refer to these courts which have the power of review or supervision over
another lower court.

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) They are those which, in
relation to another are lower in rank and subject to review and supervision of the latter.
Q: What courts are superior or inferior?

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

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

A superior court may therefore handle civil, criminal cases while an inferior court may try
specified cases only. The SC, 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 of the
law which expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC. It does not have any supervisory authority over
any lower court.

ORIGINAL COURT vs. APPELLATE COURT

Q: Distinguish original court from appellate court.

A: ORIGINAL COURTS are those where a case is originally 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. The SC has original jurisdiction on cases of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, etc. There are certain cases where one may file directly to the
SC.

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 which are filed
there for the first time like an action for annulment of an RTC judgment.
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 barangay court. The barangay captains do not
decide cases, they only conciliate.

CIVIL COURTS vs. 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 which 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. During the 70's
there was the old Circuit Criminal Court. As the name implies, it is purely a criminal court. But with
other courts, this was abolished by BP 129.

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 our courts
are both civil and criminal courts at the same time.

COURTS OF LAW vs. COURTS OF EQUITY

Q: Distinguish Courts of Law from Courts of Equity.

A: COURTS OF LAW are tribunals administering only 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 promulgated law says while Courts Of Equity
adjudicate cases based on the principles of equity. Principle of equity means principles of
justice, fairness, fair play or of what is right and just without inquiring into the terms of the statutes.
Q: Are the Philippine courts, courts of law? Or courts of equity? Do they decide cases
based on what the law says or based on the principle of justice and fairness?

A: In the Philippines, our courts, original or appellate, are both courts of law and of equity. (U.S.
vs. Tamparong 31 Phil. 321)

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, thus, the saying EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW. In the Philippines you cannot distinguish
sometimes the principle of law and the principle of equity because principles of equity are also
written in the law. Example: The principles of estoppel, laches or solutio indebiti are no longer
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.

ESTOPPEL

Estoppel is an equitable doctrine which means that it is not fair that you disown your own
representation after misleading somebody. But if you look at the Civil Code, there is a chapter
on estoppel. So if you apply estoppel, you cannot say that you are applying a principle not
found under the law.

LACHES

It is considered to be the half-brother of prescription because it means if you delay a certain

right then you must have no right. That is more of equity, rather than of law.

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!

ALONZO vs. IAC - May 28, 1987

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.”
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. RA 6031 mandates all MTCs to be courts of record.

PROBATE COURTS

Those which have jurisdiction over settlement of estate of deceased persons.

LAND REGISTRATION COURTS

Those which have jurisdiction over registration of real properties under the Torrens System.

INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT

Before we leave the concepts of courts, we must know that the courts of justice have what we
call inherent powers. Just like the State have certain inherent powers, namely; Police power,
power of taxation, and power of eminent domain.

Their very existence automatically necessitates the existence of these powers.

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.

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 courts have the power to decide, they have the
power to enforce. And if the law is silent, judges have to think of how to do it provided they
conform to the spirit of the rule. So they should not make the order useless simply because there
is no rule. That is part of their power.

ENFORCEABILITY OF COURT WRITS AND PROCESSES

Another provision that should be emphasized is Section 3 of the Interim Rules.

Question: The court of Cebu issues a writ or a process. Can that writ or process be enforced in
Manila? What is the extent of the enforceability of a writ issued by a court?

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.
 (b) All other processes whether issued by the RTC or MetTC, MCTC, and MTC may be
served anywhere in the Philippines, and, the last three cases, without a certification
by the judge of the RTC.

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 Cagayan de Oro and the family is here in Cebu City. They filed a
petition for habeas corpus here in Cebu City. Is it proper?

No. Cebu City belongs to the 7th Judicial Region while Cagayan de Oro is in the 11th or 12th
Judicial 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.

ASPECTS OF REMEDIAL LAW

Q: Give the two (2) aspects of Remedial Law.

A: There are 2 aspects of Remedial Law:

1.) PUBLIC ASPECT – one which affords a remedy in favor of the State against the individual
(e.g. criminal procedure) or in favor of the individual against the State (e.g. habeas
corpus) on the other hand,

2.) PRIVATE ASPECT – one which affords a remedy in favor of an individual against another
individual, like the rules on civil procedure. (Gamboa’s Introduction to Philippine Law, 6th
Ed., pp. 97-99)

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAW ON CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE PHILIPPINES

The origin of our law on procedure is American. Forget the law on procedure during the Spanish
regime. But the first known ancestor of the law on Civil Procedure was the old Act 190, otherwise
known as the Code of Civil Procedure, which was enacted on August 7, 1901 by the United
States and Philippine Commission.

And that was the law until 1940 because on July 01,1940 the SC enacted the Rules of Court
which we now call the Old Rules of Court. That continued for another 24 years until January 01,
1964 when the SC enacted the Revised Rules of Court repealing the Old Rules of Court. And that
continued for another 33 years until July 01,1997 where the SC enacted and which took effect
on that day (July 01, 1997) the New Rules on Civil Procedure.

SUMMARY:

1.) First Law – August 07, 1901 – Act 190 – Code of Civil Procedure (40 years)
2.) Second Law – July 01, 1940 – Old Rules of Court (24 years)
3.) Third Law – January 01, 1964 – Revised Rules of Court (33 years)
4.) Fourth Law – July 01, 1997 – New Rules of Civil Procedure.

SOURCES OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Well of course the sources are almost the same as the prior law. The old Rules of Court is also a
source. Many provisions were taken from the 1964 Rules, substantive law like the Civil Code and
jurisprudence. And of course SC circulars. Many circulars are now incorporated under the new
rule. So those are the main sources.

SOURCES

1.) Previous Rules of Court;

2.) Jurisprudence;
3.) New Civil Code;
4.) SC Circulars

RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Rules of Court (1940, 1964, 1997) have all been enacted by the SC. It is law, not enacted by
Congress but enacted by the SC.

Q: What is the authority of the SC to enact a law when actually the role of the judiciary is
only to interpret the law? Is this not a violation of the separation of powers?

A: The authority of the SC in enacting the prior rules and the present rules is what you call its rule-
making power which provision was found in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Based on the
present law, the rule-making power of the SC is expressed in Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph [5]
which is substantially the same as the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions which states that: the SC "shall
promulgate the rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts.”

LIMITATIONS TO THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SC

The Constitution has also placed limitations on these powers. As currently worded, one limitation
provided for by the Article is “the rules of procedure to be enacted by the SC "shall provide for a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases.” The second one is:
“the rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade.” And the third is: “the rules shall not
diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.”

LIMITATIONS

1.) The Rules of Court shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases;
2.) The Rules of Court shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade; and
3.) The Rules of Court shall not diminish, modify or increase substantive rights.

Substantive rights are created by substantive law so the Rules of Procedure should not increase,
diminish or modify them. In effect, the Rules of Court should not amend the substantive law. It
can only interpret substantive law but should not change it completely. Those are the limitations.
With that we are now ready to tackle the 1997 rules on civil procedure.

JURISDICTION IN GENERAL

The word JURISDICTION is derived from 2 Latin words: 1.) JURIS – law; 2.) DICO – to speak, or to
say. So, in effect, when you say jurisdiction, literally translated, it means, “I speak by the law.” It
means that you are saying “I speak with authority” because when you invoke the law, then your
act is authorized.

So when you say, “I speak by the law” you mean I will do it in the name of the law. It connotes
authority or power.

So jurisdiction implies authority or power to act.

But what act or acts is/are authorized?

If we relate jurisdiction to courts, it means authority or the power to hear, try and decide a case.
So jurisdiction means the power or authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case. In its
complete aspect, jurisdiction includes not only the powers to hear and decide a case, but also
the power to enforce the judgment (14 Am. Jur. 363-364) as the judgment or decree is the end
for which jurisdiction is exercised, and it is only through the judgment and its execution that the
power of the court is made efficacious and its jurisdiction complete (21 CJS, Courts, S 9). The
power to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. It cannot be
the subject of substantial subtraction and the most important part of the litigation is the process
of execution of decisions (Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice, 301 SCRA 96).

TEST OF JURISDICTION

Since jurisdiction refers to power or authority to hear, try and decide a case, it cannot depend
on the correctness or rightfulness of the decision made. (Century Insurance Co. v. Fuentes, 2
SCRA 1168 [1961]) Correctness or rightfulness of the decision relates to the exercise of and not to
the authority itself.

The test of jurisdiction is whether the court has the power to enter into the inquiry and not whether
the decision is right or wrong. (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25 Phil. 245)

Duty of the court to determine its jurisdiction

It is the duty of the court to consider the question of jurisdiction before it looks at other matters
involved in the case. It may, and must, do this on its own motion without waiting for the question
of jurisdiction being raised by any of the parties involved in the proceeding (20 Am Jur 2d,
Courts, S 92). Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and they may act
accordingly by dismissing the action even thought the issue of jurisdiction is not raised or not
even suggested by counsel (Ace Publicatiions vs. Commissioner of Customs, 11 SCRA 147)

Q: What is the effect if the court has no jurisdiction or of absence or lack of jurisdiction?

A: If a court has no jurisdiction, it has no power or authority to try a case and because it has no
authority it must not exercise it. Exercise of absent authority or power is necessarily nothing. Thus,
without jurisdiction, the entire proceedings would be null and void.

The only recourse for the court, absent jurisdiction, is to dismiss the case motu proprio or on
motion for without authority it cannot act.

Q: What about if it has jurisdiction?

A: It is the duty of the court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law and to render a
decision in a case properly submitted to it. Failure to do so may be enforced by way of a
mandamus proceeding (20 Am Jur. 2d, S 93).

Constitutional Guarantee of Access to Courts and Jurisdiction

The Constitutional guarantee of access to courts refers to courts with appropriate jurisdiction as
defined by law. It does not mean that a person can go to any court for redress of grievances
regardless of the nature or value of his claim. (Santos III v. Northwest Airlines, 210 SCRA 256
[1992])

JURISDICTION vs. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Q: Distinguish jurisdiction from exercise of jurisdiction.

A: Jurisdiction pertains to the authority to hear and decide a case. Any act of the court pursuant
to such authority, including the decision and its consequences is exercise of jurisdiction.

The authority to decide a case, not the decision rendered, is what makes up jurisdiction. It does
not depend upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of the
decision made. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, the resolution of
all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction. (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25 Phil.
245)

Q: Why is it important to distinguish jurisdiction from exercise of jurisdiction?

A: Definitely, a court acting as such may commit errors or mistakes and questioned later before
a higher court. The procedure or remedy in case of a mistake or error would be dependent on
whether it is an error of jurisdiction or an error in the exercise of jurisdiction also known as error of
judgment.

EXAMPLE: A case of murder was filed in the MTC. The accused, Ken Sur, files a motion to quash
because MTC has no jurisdiction over cases of murder. But the court denied the motion to
quash. Meaning, the judge has decided to assume jurisdiction. What is the error committed?

When the court without authority assumes authority over the case that is called ERROR OF
JURISDICTION – the court committed an error of jurisdiction.

EXAMPLE: Suppose the case for murder is filed in the RTC where the court has jurisdiction. But in
the course of the trial, it committed mistakes like the court misinterpreted or misapplied the
provision of the RPC or the Indeterminate Sentence Law. What error is committed?

Obviously the RTC has the authority to hear and decide the case and therefore acted with
authority or jurisdiction. There is no error of jurisdiction.

However, in the exercise of such authority it committed a mistake, thus, the error committed is
error in the exercise of jurisdiction, also known as error of judgment.
Q: Is the proceeding null and void?

A: NO. What is committed is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction and if not corrected the error
can become final and executory. In other words, if not objected to, it will stay.

ERROR OF JURISDICTION vs. ERROR OF JUDGMENT

Distinguish ERROR OF JURISDICTION from ERROR OF JUDGMENT.

A: The following are the distinctions:

1.) When a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter, the decision or order on all
other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction; Errors which the court
may commit in the exercise of such jurisdiction, like errors of procedure or mistakes in the
court's findings, are merely ERRORS OF JUDGMENT; whereas,

When a court takes cognizance of a case over the subject matter of which it has no
jurisdiction, or acts in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction, the court commits an ERROR OF JURISDICTION.(GSIS vs. Oliza 304
SCRA 421).

2.) When the court acts without authority (error of jurisdiction) such act would be null and
void or at least voidable, but if the court has authority but commits a mistake in the
exercise of such authority (error of judgment) such mistake will bind unless corrected

3.) ERRORS OF JURISDICTION are reviewable by the extraordinary writ of certiorari; whereas,
ERRORS OF JUDGMENT are reviewable by appeal.

An error of judgment should be raised on ordinary appeal, not by certiorari because

certiorari is only confined to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
The governing rule is that the remedy of certiorari is not available when the remedy of
appeal is available or even if available, when it will not be a speedy and adequate
remedy. And when the remedy of appeal is lost, you cannot revive it by resorting to
certiorari because certiorari is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.

LACK OF JURISDICTION and EXCESS OF JURISDICTION

They are distinguished thus: the respondent court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction if it does not
have the legal power to determine the case; where the respondent, being clothed with the
power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as determined by law, it is performing a
function in excess of its jurisdiction (Vette Industrial Sales Company Inc. vs. Cheng, 509 SCRA
532).

Example of excess of jurisdiction:

When the court does not conduct a pre-trial conference which is mandatory under the rules.

Q: In whom is jurisdiction vested?

A: Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judge. A court may be a single sala or may have
several branches (multiple sala). If the latter, each is not a court distinct and separate from the
others. So, when a case is filed before a branch, the trial may be had or proceedings may
continue before another branch or judge. (Tagumpay vs. Moscoso, L-14723, May 29, 1959)

EXAMPLE: The RTC of Cebu City is composed of several branches –22 all in all. But technically,
there is only one court – the RTC of Cebu City.

Q: Now, if the case is filed and is assigned to Branch 8, can that case later be transferred and
continued in Branch 9?

A: YES, because you never left the same court. You are still in the same court. This is because
jurisdiction is not with the judge. It is with the court itself.

But there is only one branch of RTC-Bogo, can RTC-Cebu City take jurisdiction over its cases?

No because they are different courts and jurisdiction is attached to the court.

TYPES OF JURISDICTION:

Types of jurisdiction:

1.) Based on cases tried: General Jurisdiction and Special or Limited Jurisdiction;
2.) Based on the nature of the cause: Original Jurisdiction and Appellate Jurisdiction; and
3.) Based on the nature and extent of exercise: Exclusive Jurisdiction and Concurrent or
Coordinate Jurisdiction;
4.) Based on situs; Territorial jurisdiction and extra-territorial jurisdiction.

1. GENERAL JURISDICTION and SPECIAL OR LIMITED JURISDICTION

a.) GENERAL JURISDICTION is the authority of the court to hear and determine all actions
and suits, whether civil, criminal, administrative, real, personal or mixed. It is very broad –
to hear and try practically all types of cases. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)
 b.) SPECIAL or LIMITED JURISDICTION is the authority of the court to hear and determine
particular cases only. Its power is limited. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)

Example: In criminal cases, the MTC has jurisdiction over offenses where the penalty
imposable does not exceed 6 years while beyond 6 years they are triable before the
RTC.

If you examine the jurisdiction of the MTC, it has a limit but none for the RTC.

The same applies in civil cases as we shall learn.

2. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION and APPELLATE JURISDICTION

1.) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION is the power of the court to take cognizance of a case at its
inception or commencement. (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd Ed., pp. 91 and 917)

2.) APPELLATE JURISDICTION is the power vested in a superior court to review and revise
the judicial action of a lower court. (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd Ed., pp. 91 and 917) If one
court has the power to correct the decision of a lower court, the power of this court is
appellate. This is because it is commenced somewhere else and it is just reviewing the
decision of the said lower court.

Note that in certiorari petition, the action of the superior court is not to correct but to
annul. The power exercised by the superior court is the power of control and supervision
over an inferior court, not appellate, that is, to limit the inferior court within its jurisdiction,
its authority.

3. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION and CONCURRENT OR COORDINATE JURISDICTION

1.) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION is that possessed by a court to the exclusion of all others.

2.) CONCURRENT or COORDINATE JURISDICTION is that possessed by the court together

with another or other courts over the same subject matter, the court obtaining jurisdiction
first retaining it to the exclusion of the others, but the choice of court is lodged in those
persons duly authorized to file the action. (Villanueva vs. Ortiz, 58 O.G. 1318, Feb. 12,
1962)

Q: Are there certain types of cases or petitions where I can file it directly with the SC or file with
the CA or file it with the RTC?

A: YES and the best example is a petition for HABEAS CORPUS. The SC, CA and RTC share
concurrent jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas corpus.
In effect, these are the instances when the SC, CA and RTC exercise concurrent jurisdiction.
There can also be concurrent jurisdiction among branches of a multiple sala court.

Exclusionary Principle

The court first acquiring jurisdiction excludes all others.

Another principle that may be relevant is the policy of judicial hierarchy.

4. TERRITORIAL AND EXTRA-TERRITORIAL

Territorial jurisdiction - exercised within the limits of the place where the court is located.

Extra-territorial jurisdiction - exercised beyond the confines of the territory where the court is
located.

Examples: Writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are enforceable only within the region
where the issuing court is located; while a writ of execution can be enforced even outside said
territory.

ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES

The word jurisdiction as applied to the faculty of exercising judicial power is used in different but
related senses which are:

1.) The authority of the court to entertain a particular kind of action, or

2.) Administer a particular kind of relief depending on the issues raised;
3.) It may refer to the power of the court over or to bind the parties, or
4.) Over or to bind the property which is the subject of the litigation.

In your study of criminal procedure where you also studied the law on jurisdiction, we studied the
authority of the court over the cases as determined by the imposable penalty; its authority to
bind the accused and the prosecution; its authority to grant the relief which is either acquittal or
conviction and over the place where the offense charged is alleged to have been committed.

So there are what we call elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases, otherwise, the proceeding
will be illegal. These elements are:

1.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter;

2.) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and
3.) Territorial jurisdiction, i.e. the case should be filed in the place where the crime was
committed.
Q: What are the elements of jurisdiction in civil cases?

A: The following:

(a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter ;

(b) Jurisdiction over the person of the parties to the case;

(c) Jurisdiction over the res; and

(d) Jurisdiction over the issues.

Q: Now, what happens if in a particular case one of these is missing?

A: The proceedings become questionable. The proceedings become void. The judgment is not
binding. That is the effect of lack of jurisdiction. The proceedings are tainted with illegality and
irregularity.

A. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Q: Define jurisdiction over the subject matter.

A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power of the court to hear and determine cases of
the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. (Banco Español-Filipino vs.
Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)

In other words, it is the jurisdiction over the nature of the action. In criminal cases you have light,
less grave and grave offenses. In civil cases we have such actions as actions for sum of money,
actions not capable of pecuniary estimation, real and personal actions, action in rem, action in
personam etc. This is what we call the NATURE or classification OF THE ACTION.

When a complaint is filed in court, the basic questions that ipso facto are to be immediately
resolved by the court on its own are:

a) What is the nature of the action filed?

b) Does the court have authority to try and determine that class of actions to which the one
before it belongs?

Jurisdiction over the “subject matter” is not to be confused with the term “subject matter of the
action”.
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is the proper ground for a motion to dismiss. This is
broad enough to include the “nature of the action.” The term should not be confused with the
terms “subject or subject matter of the action” which refer to the physical facts, the things real or
personal, the money, lands or chattels and the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted
and not the delict or wrong committed by the defendant.

So if you talk about declaration of nullity of marriage the subject matter of the action is the
marriage of the parties involved not any other contract but the nature of the action is that it is
not capable of pecuniary estimation; if it is for foreclosure of mortgage, the thing or subject of
the action is the property mortgaged, in specific performance or rescission of contract, it is the
contract involved that is the subject matter of the action.

Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action acquired?

A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, which may be either the Constitution
or a statute(Tyson’s Super Concrete, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 461 SCRA 435; de la Cruz vs. CA,
510 SCRA 103; Guy vs. CA, December 10, 2007), and is never acquired by consent or submission
of the parties or by their laches. This is a matter of legislative enactment which none but the
legislature can change. (MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523; Otibar vs. Vinson, L-18023, May 30,
1962) It cannot be acquired by an agreement of the parties, waiver, or failure to object (silence).

So Congress plays an important role in the exercise of judicial power, namely:

1. It creates the rights which are sought to be protected or enforced;

2. It defines jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Both are of course in the form of substantive laws.

The law that confers jurisdiction refers to substantive law, not a procedural law. It likewise does
not refer to an administrative order or circular (Malaloan vs. CA, 232 SCRA 249).

Q: Suppose I will file a case against you in a wrong court. Actually what you should do is file a
motion to dismiss (or in criminal cases a motion to quash.) but you did not. Since you did not
object, you did not file a motion to dismiss, you did not file a motion to quash, did the ‘wrong’
court acquire jurisdiction over the case?

A: NO. Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be conferred by silence of the parties or by
waiver. Estoppel or waiver or silence or failure to object cannot vest jurisdiction in the wrong
court because jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. And when the court has
no jurisdiction, the court by itself or motu propio has the power to dismiss.
Q: How is the subject matter or nature (class) of the action determined?

A: It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in
the complaint (Baltazar vs. Ombudsman, 510 SCRA 74) regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to his claims asserted therein (Gocotano vs. Gocotano 469 SCRA 328; Cadimas vs.
Carrion GR No. 180394, Sept. 29, 2008).

It does not depend upon the pleas or defenses of the defendant in his answer or motion to
dismiss. (Cardenas vs. Camus, L-19191, July 30, 1962; Edward J. Nell Co. vs. Cubacub, L-20842,
June 23, 1965; Serrano vs. Muñoz Motors, L-25547, Nov. 27, 1967)

How do you determine then jurisdiction over the subject matter?

It is determined by facts alleged in the complaint and the law in force at the time of the
commencement of the action. (Mercado v. Ubay 187 SCRA 719)

This is true in criminal and civil cases.

Examples:

A case of Serious Physical Injuries was alleged in the information filed with the CFI which was
then vested with jurisdiction over this type of cases, even if the medical certificate attached to
the records shows that the injuries are only slight which falls under the jurisdiction of the
municipal court. The CFI may convict for slight physical injuries. Jurisdiction was determined from
the allegations in the information. (People v. Ocaya, 83 SCRA 218[1978])

In a civil case for collection of sum of money where the complaint alleges that the totality of the
demand is P350,000.00, the case is properly filed with the RTC even if the defendant is able to
prove that it is only P50,000.00 for jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint not the defense or evidence presented.

Exception to the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint

The general rule is not applied with rigidity in ejectment cases in which the defendant averred
the defense of the existence of tenancy relationship between the parties.

In Ignacio vs. CFI of Bulacan (42 SCRA 89), it was held, ”that while the allegations in the
complaint make out a case of forcible entry, where tenancy is averred by way of defense and is
proved to be the real issue, the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the case
should properly be filed with the then Court of Agrarian Reform (now DARAB) (De la Cruz vs. CA
510 SCRA 103)

In Ignacio and other ejectment cases (Salandanan vs. Tizon 62 SCRA 388; Concepcion vs. CFI of
Bulacan 119 SCRA 222), where tenancy was the defense, the court went beyond the allegations
of the complaint in determining jurisdiction over the subject matter and required the
presentation of evidence to prove or disprove the defense of tenancy. After finding the real issue
to be tenancy, the cases were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In Salmorin vs. Zaldivar, GR No. 169691, July 23, 2008, the plaintiff entered into an agreement
with the defendant designating him as administrator of a lot with a monthly salary of P150. The
defendant allegedly did not comply with the terms of the agreement when he failed to till the
vacant areas as agreed. This compelled the plaintiff to terminate his services and eject him from
the lot. When the defendant refused to vacate the property, the plaintiff filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer against him in the MCTC.

In his Answer, the defendant alleged the existence of a tenancy relationship between him and
the plaintiff. Thus, he claimed that the case was an agrarian matter over which the MCTC had
no jurisdiction.

The Court found that the plaintiff alleged the following:

(1) That he possessed the subject lot;

(2) That he instituted the defendant as administrator thereof;
(3) That the defendant failed to administer the subject lot by not having the vacant areas
thereof planted;
(4) That for the defendant’s failure to administer the subject lot, his services as administrator
was terminated;
(5) That he advised defendant through registered mail to leave or vacate the subject lot;
and
(6) That the defendant refused to vacate the subject lot without justification.

The Court ruled that from its material allegations, the complaint concerned the unlawful
detainer by the defendant of the subject lot, a matter which is properly within the jurisdiction of
the regular courts.

The allegation of tenancy in the defendant’s answer did not automatically deprive the MCTC of
its jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the court over the nature of the action and the subject
matter thereof cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the court or upon a
motion to dismiss. Otherwise, the Court ruled, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost
entirely on the defendant. Accordingly, the MCTC does not lose its jurisdiction over an
ejectment case by the simple expedient of a party raising as defense therein the alleged
existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. It is however, the duty of the court to
receive evidence to determine the allegations of tenancy. If after hearing, tenancy had in fact
been shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court further stressed that a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. There must be
evidence to prove the tenancy relations such that all its indispensable elements must be
established, to wit:

(1) The parties are the landowner and tenant;

(2) The subject is agricultural land;

 (3) There is consent by the landowner;

(4) The purpose is agricultural production;

(5) There is personal cultivation; and

(6) There is sharing of the harvests.

All these requisites are necessary to create tenancy relationship, and the absence of one or
more requisites will not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant. All these elements must
concur. It is not enough that they are alleged.

The statement that jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law is not accurate because only
jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by substantive law. Jurisdiction over the parties,
issues and res is governed by procedural laws.

No Retroactive Effect of Law on Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that statute in force at the
time of the commencement of the action determines jurisdiction – RA 7691 has no retroactive
application. (Yu Oh v. CA GR No. 125297, June 6, 2003)

This follows the general rule on application of laws.

Q: Why is jurisdiction substantive not procedural?

A: Because the law vests, defines, regulates, authority or power.

Doctrine of Continuity of jurisdiction (Adherence of Jurisdiction)

Under this rule, jurisdiction, once it attaches cannot be ousted by the happening of subsequent
events although of such a character which should have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in
the first instance (Ramos vs. Central Bank of the Phil. 41 SCRA 586 [1971]).

The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of
the case (De La Rosa vs. Roldan, 501 SCRA 34).

As a consequence of this principle, jurisdiction is not affected by a new law placing a

proceeding under the jurisdiction of another tribunal except when otherwise provided in the
statute or if the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending even before its
enactment (People vs. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267)

Thus, when RA No. 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of the first level courts, said courts acquired
jurisdiction over cases that under BP 129 were originally within the jurisdiction of the RTC. But
cases pending already with the RTC at the time of the effectivity of the law were not affected
by such new law unless the parties by agreement, pursuant to Sec. 7 therein, agreed to transfer
the pending cases from the RTC to the lower courts especially those which have reached the
pre-trial stage.

In an action for ejectment, if the defendant voluntarily surrenders the premises subject of the
action to the plaintiff, the surrender of the property does not divest the court of jurisdiction
(Pamintuan vs. Tiglao 53 Phil. 1)

If the court has jurisdiction to act on a motion at the time it was filed, that jurisdiction to resolve
the motion continues until the matter is resolved and is not lost by the subsequent filing of a
notice of appeal. (Asmala vs. Comelec, 289 SCRA 746)

The trial court did not lose jurisdiction over the case involving a public official by the mere fact
that said official ceased to be in office during the pendency of the case (Flores vs. Sumaljag,
290 SCRA 568). Also, the jurisdiction that the court had at the time of the filing of the complaint is
not lost by the mere fact that the respondent judge ceased to be in office during the pendency
of the case (Victory Liner vs. Bellosillo, 425 SCRA 79).

Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case.
What the court loses if the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after the
judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it (Echegaray
vs. Sec. of Justice, 301 SCRA 96; Republic vs. Atlas Farms, 345 SCRA 296).

Exception to the Rule of Adherence/Continuity of Jurisdiction

(1) When there is an express provision in the statute on retroactive application; or

(2) The statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment; or

(3) The statute is curative. This means that even if originally there was no jurisdiction, the lack
of jurisdiction may be cured by the issuance of the amendatory decree which is in the
nature of a curative statute with retrospective application to a pending proceeding and
cures that lack of jurisdiction. Thus, in a case, while the CFI has no jurisdiction over a
complaint for damages arising from the dismissal of a radio station manager which was
filed on August 2, 1976, PD 1367 vesting the court with jurisdiction over such type of cases
cured the lack of jurisdiction of the trial court at the time the instant claim was filed
before it. (Garcia vs. Martinez 90 SCRA 331 [1979])

Read also Atlas Fertilizer vs. Hon. Exaltacion Navarro, 149 SCRA 432)

How Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter is Acquired By the Court

1. It is conferred by law applicable at the time of the commencement of the action; and
 2. Jurisdiction must be properly invoked by filing the complaint or information.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

Statement of the Doctrine

Under this doctrine, courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within its
jurisdiction and also of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge and experience of
said tribunal in determining technical and intricate matters of fact. (Villaflor vs. CA, GR No. 95694,
Oct. 8, 1997).

Where a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and
knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions
of fact are involved, then relief must be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a
remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of
a court. This is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. It applies “where a claim is originally
cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the
resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special
competence of an administrative body, in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending
referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.” (US v. Western Pacific Railroad Co.,
352 US 59; Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, 184 SCRA 426)

Example: Damages is claimed arising from the collision between the claimant's vessel and that
of another. Such claim can of course be determined by the courts. But in order to enforce such
claim before the courts, there must be a determination of which vessel is at fault. This is issue is
placed within the special special competence of the Maritime Industry Authority or Philippine
Coast Guard which administrative body regulates sea travel. Under this situation courts should
defer to the jurisdiction of such administrative body for it has the competence to determine
which vessel is at fault. Its finding then can serve as basis or premise for the legal consequences
to be then defined by the court.

In Far East Conference v. US 342 US 570 (1952) the Court defined the primary jurisdiction doctrine
as:

A principle, now firmly established, that in cases raising issues of fact not within the conventional
expertise of judges or cases requiring the exercise of administrative discretion, agencies created
by Congress for regulating the subject matter should not be passed over. This is even though the
facts after they have been appraised by specialized competence serve as a premise for legal
consequences to be judicially defined. Uniformity and consistency in the regulation of business
entrusted to a particular agency are secured, and the limited functions of review by the judiciary
are more rationally exercised, by preliminary resort for ascertaining and interpreting the
circumstances underlying legal issues to agencies that are better equipped than courts by
specialization, by insight gained through experience, and by more flexible procedure.
Since the inception of the doctrine courts have resisted creating any fixed rules or formulas for its
application, “in every case the question is whether the reasons for the existence of the doctrine
are present and whether the purposes it serves will be aided by its application in the particular
litigation.” As the origin and evolution of the primary jurisdiction doctrine demonstrate, the
reasons for the existence and the purposes it serves are two-fold: the desire for the uniformity
and the reliance on administrative expertise. Thus, in determining whether to apply the primary
jurisdiction doctrine, we must examine whether doing so would serve either of these purposes.

These same tests were applied by our courts in the determination of whether or not to apply the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Spouses Jose Abejo and Aurora Abejo, et a., v. Hon. Rafael de la
Cruz, etc. et al., 149 SCRA 654, citing Pambujan Sur United Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., In.,
94 Phil. 932, 941 [1954])

See GMA Network, Inc., v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No. 160703, September 23,
2005.

In Paat v. CA, 266 SCRA 167 the Court said that enforcement of forestry laws, rules and
regulations and the protection, development and management of forest lands fall within the
primary and special responsibilities of the DENR. By the very nature of the functions, the DENR
should be given a free hand unperturbed by judicial intrusion to determine a controversy which
is well within its jurisdiction. The assumption therefore of the replevin suit by the trial court filed by
the private respondents constitutes an unjustified encroachment into the domain of the
administrative agency’s prerogative.

Quasi-judicial bodies like the CSC are better equipped in handling cases involving the
employment status of employees of those in the civil service since it is within the field of its
expertise. (Paloma v. Mora GR No. 157783, Sept. 23, 2005)

Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction

It involves the inherent or implied power of the court to determine issues incidental to the
exercise of its primary jurisdiction.

Under its ancillary jurisdiction, a court may determine all questions relative to the matters brought
before it, regulate the manner in which a trial shall be conducted, determine the hours at which
the witnesses and lawyers may be heard, direct the disposition of money deposited incourt in
the course of the proceedings, appoint a receiver an grant an injunction, attachment or
garnishment.

Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-Interference

GR: No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of another court of
coordinate jurisdiction or to pass upon or scrutinize and much less declare as unjust a judgment
of another court. (Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. CA GR No. 88550, April 18, 1990)

Exc: The doctrine of judicial stability does not apply where a third party claimant is involved.
(Santos vs. Bayhon, GR No. 88643, July 23, 1991).
Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter

The court may on its own initiative object to an erroneous jurisdiction and may ex mero motu
take cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the case and has a clearly recognized
right to determine its own jurisdiction (Fabian vs. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470). “When it appears from
the pleadings or evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter,…the court shall dismiss the same” (Sec. 1, Rule 9, Rules of Court)

The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to dismiss filed
before the filing or service of an answer. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is a ground
for a motion to dismiss (Sec. 1(b), Rule 16, Rules of Court). If no motion is filed, the defense of lack
of jurisdiction may be raised as an affirmative defense in the answer (Sec. 6, Rule 16)

Under the Omnibus Motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading like a motion to dismiss, shall
include all grounds then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived
(Sec. 8 Rule 15). The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is however, a defense
not barred by the failure to invoke the same in a motion to dismiss already filed. Even if a motion
to dismiss was filed and the issue of jurisdiction was not raised therein, a party may, when he files
an answer, raise the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because this defense is not
barred under the omnibus motion rule

Thus, the prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal (Calimlim vs. Ramirez, 118 SCRA 399; Francel
Realty Corporation vs. Sycip 469 SCRA 424).

The issue is so basic that it may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. In
fact, courts may take cognizance of the issue even if not raised by the parties. There is thus no
reason to preclude the Court of Appeals, for example, from ruling on this issue even if the same
has not yet been resolved by the trial court below (Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. vs. GR No.
163445, Dec. 18, 2007).

Lack of jurisdiction is one of those excepted grounds where the court may dismiss a claim or a
case at any time when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that any of
those ground exists, even if they were not raised in the answer or in a motion to dismiss. That the
issue of lack of jurisdiction was raised only by the defendants in their memorandum filed before
the trial court did not render them in estoppel (Vda. De Barrera vs. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi GR
No. 174346 Sept. 12, 2008).

When the court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, should it
refer or forward the case to another court with the proper jurisdiction? It is submitted that the
court should not do so. Its only authority is to dismiss the complaint and not to make any other
order. CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

14

Objections to Jurisdiction and Estoppel by Laches

Estoppel means you cannot disown your act by which you have misled another while laches
means abandonment of a right for failure to assert it for a long time.

GR: You can raise your objection on jurisdiction over the subject matter even for the first time on
appeal.

The ONLY exception is when there is estoppel by laches, as laid down in TIJAM vs.
SIBONGHANOY ( Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy 23 SCRA 29, April 15, 1968).

In this case, a complaint for collection cognizable by the inferior court was filed in the CFI. The
jurisdiction was not questioned. The CFI issued a writ of preliminary attachment but was dissolved
when the defendant filed a counterbond thru a surety. After trial, the court rendered a
judgment against the defendants. That decision became final and a motion for execution was
filed and granted. When implemented, the writ of execution was unsatisfied so the plaintiff
moved that the writ be executed against the counterbond. The surety filed an opposition and
sought to be relieved from liability. The motion was denied on ground that the surety was not
notified. Plaintiff then filed a second motion for execution against the counterbond notifying the
surety this time. Since the surety failed to oppose the motion was granted. The surety moved to
quash the writ against the counterbond but was denied. The surety went to the Court of
Appeals which affirmed the order. The surety filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion
to for reconsideration which the CA granted. However, instead of filing a motion for
reconsideration the surety filed this time a motion to dismiss on ground that the CFI did not have
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Instead of deciding the CA certified the case to the
Supreme Court because the issue raised is purely legal.

The Court emphatically declared: “The facts of the case show that from the time the Surety
became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the question of the lack of
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the present action by
reason of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in force, was within the
original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the
proceedings, in the court a quo as well as in the CA, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to
obtain affirmative reliefs and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only
after an adverse decision was rendered by the CA that it finally woke up to raise the question of
jurisdiction. Were we to sanction such conduct on its part we would in effect be declaring as
useless all the proceedings had in the present case since it was commenced on July 19, 1948
and compel the judgment creditors to go up their Calvary once more. The inequity and
unfairness of this is not only patent but revolting.”

In other words, while jurisdiction as a rule, may be raised at any stage of the proceedings
(Panganiban vs. CA, 321SCRA 51, 59 [1999]), a party may be stopped from raising such
questions if he has actively taken part in the very proceedings which he questions, belatedly
objecting to the court’s jurisdiction in the event that the judgment or order subsequently
rendered is adverse to him. (Alday v. FGU Insurance Corporation, 350 SCRA 113, 120 [2001]).

In general sense, estoppel by laches is failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained
length of time to do what ought to have been done earlier. The failure to act warrants the
presumption that one has abandoned his right or that he had acquiesced to the correctness
and fairness of what has been resolved. The doctrine of estoppel is based on public policy
intended to discourage stale claims. Estoppel is not a question of time unlike the statute of
limitations. It is rather based on the inequity or unfairness of permitting a claim to be asserted at
a time such claim is presumed to have been abandoned. (Sps. Guillermo Agbada and Maxima
Agbada v. Inter-Urban Developers, Inc. GR 144029, Sept. 19, 2002)

The fact pattern common among those cases wherein the Court invoked estoppel to prevent a
party from questioning jurisdiction is a party’s active participation in all stages of a case,
including invoking the authority of the court in seeking affirmative relief and questioning the
court’s jurisdiction only after receiving a ruling or decision adverse to his case for the purpose of
annulling everything done in the trial in which he has actively participated. As clearly pointed
out in Lao vs. Republic 479 SCRA 439: “A party who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court over
a particular matter to secure affirmative relief cannot be permitted to afterwards deny the same
jurisdiction to escape liability.”

The Supreme Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting one’s case for decision,
and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if it is
not (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. ALS Management and Development Corporation, 427
SCRA 564).

Bar by Estoppel Is An Exception and Not the General Rule

The doctrine laid down in Tijam is the exception to, and not the general rule (Pangilinan v. CA,
321 SCRA 51, 59 [1999]).

Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue of jurisdiction only in cases in which the
factual milieu is analogous to that of Tijam.

In Tijam, the defense of lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed
by the Surety almost fifteen (15) years after the questioned ruling had been rendered. At several
stages of the proceedings, in the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, the Surety
invoked the jurisdiction of the said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for
final adjudication on the merits. It was only when the adverse decision was rendered by the
Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction (Regalado vs. Go, GR
No. 167988, February6, 2007)

Inspite of Tijam and subsequent cases which invoked it, the rule that the lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter may be raised CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN
CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

15

at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, still remains the prevailing rule and Tijam
should be confined only to situations prevailing in a particular case viewed in the light of the
special circumstances surrounding it.

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON (PARTIES)

Q: Define jurisdiction over the person.

A: Jurisdiction over the person is the power to render a personal judgment against a party to an
action or proceeding through the service of process or by voluntary appearance of a party
during the progress of a cause. (Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)

It is the power of the court to bring before it persons to be affected by the judgment so as to give
him an opportunity to be heard, and to render a judgment binding upon his person. (21C.J.S.,
Courts, Sec. 11, 1990)

Q: In criminal cases, how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused?

A: By having him

(1) arrested;

(2) by service of the warrant of arrest; or

(3) by his voluntary surrender.

Q: Even if he is not arrested, can the court try an accused?

A: Of course not, because the court has not acquired jurisdiction over his person. There must first
be an arrest or surrender. The accused can post bail and be released but if he jumps bail there
can be trial in absentia. There will be a valid decision because the court has already acquired
jurisdiction. Of course we cannot enforce the decision until we catch him.

How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person?

In civil cases, it is also a must that the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the parties.
The manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the parties depends on whether the
party is the plaintiff or the defendant.

As to Plaintiff

Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired by his/her filing of the complaint or
petition. By doing so, he submits himself/herself to the jurisdiction of the court. (Davao Light &
Power Co. Inc. v. CA, 204 SCRA 343, 348 [1991])

Example: X, a resident of Melbourne, Australia, presented a complaint against Y, a resident of

Manila, before the CFI of Manila for accounting and damages. X never came to the Philippines
to file the suit and is only represented in this case by counsel. Y files a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that the court acquired no jurisdiction over the person of X.

Q: Should the complaint be dismissed on said ground? Why?

A: No. It is a recognized procedural rule that jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by his/her
filing of the complaint in court. By filing the complaint through his/her counsel, X invoked the
jurisdiction of the court over his person.
As to Defendant

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in action in personam (Asiavest
Limited vs. CA, 296 SCRA 539). Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite
in an action in rem and quasi in rem (Gomez vs. CA 425 SCRA 98; Biaco vs. Phil. Countryside
Rural Bank 515 SCRA 106.

Jurisdiction Over the Person of the Defendant in Actions in Personam, How Acquired

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is obtained either by a valid service of summons
upon him or by his/her voluntary submission to the court’s authority. (Ang Ping vs. CA, 310 SCRA
343, 349 [1999]; Davao Light vs. CA)

The service of summons is intended to give official notice to the defendant or respondent that an
action has been commenced against him. He is thus put on guard as to the demands of the
plaintiff as stated in the complaint. The service of summons is an important element in the
operation of a court’s jurisdiction upon a party to a suit because it is the means by which the
court acquires jurisdiction over his person. Without service of summons, or when the service is
improper, the trial and the judgment being in violation of due process, are both null and void.
(Avon Insurance PLC v. CA, 278 SCRA 312, 325 [1997])

The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction over the plaintiff and the defendant applies to both
ordinary and special civil actions like mandamus or unlawful detainer cases (Bar 1994).

First Instance: UPON SERVICE ON HIM OF COERCIVE

PROCESS IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW

The first instance when a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is through
a service upon him of the appropriate court process which in civil law is called service of
summons. This is the counterpart of warrant of arrest in criminal procedure.

So if the defendant was never served with summons, any judgment rendered by the court will
not bind him. Even if he is the loser in the case, judgment cannot be enforced because the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person.

The same principle holds true in criminal cases. A court cannot try and convict an accused over
whose person the court never acquired jurisdiction. In criminal cases, the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person through the issuance and service of a warrant of arrest. The warrant
cannot have its effect even if it was CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN
CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

16

issued, if the same had not been served, i.e. by effecting the arrest of the accused by virtue of a
warrant.

Q: In criminal cases, how can the warrant of arrest be effected?

A: Once an information has been filed in court, the court issues a warrant. Then, the arresting
officer will arrest the accused. The court acquires jurisdiction by ENFORCEMENT OF SERVICE for
effective arrest of the accused pursuant to the warrant of arrest.

Second Instance: BY HIS VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO THE

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

Another way to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused even if the accused is not
arrested is through VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. Since there is no more need for the warrant, the
court will recall the same.

In civil cases, it is the voluntary submission of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court.

Q: Defendant was served with summons improperly or irregularly therefore, he could question
the jurisdiction of the court over his person. But instead, he did not question the jurisdiction of the
court despite the defective service of court process. Did the court acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant?

A: YES, because jurisdiction over the person can be acquired by:

a.) waiver;

b.) consent; or

c.) lack of objection by the defendant. (MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)

This is unlike the jurisdiction over subject matter wherein the case could be dismissed upon filing
in the wrong court. The SC said that when you remained silent despite the defects, your silence
has cured the defect. Meaning, the jurisdiction over your person was acquired by waiver, or
consent, or lack of objection.

Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter from jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant?

A: Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be cured by waiver, consent,
silence or failure to object, whereas jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be cured by
failure to object or by silence, waiver or consent. (MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)

Voluntary Appearance as Voluntary Submission To Court’s Jurisdiction

Voluntary appearance must be the kind that constitutes voluntary submission to the court’s
jurisdiction. Voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction cannot be inferred from the
defendant’s mere knowledge or existence of a case against him/her. In general, the form of
appearance that would be construed as a voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction is an
appearance that seeks affirmative relief except when the relief is for the purpose of objecting to
the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant.
Certain actions which could be construed as voluntary appearance are:

1.) when the defendant’s counsel files the corresponding pleading thereon;

2.) when the defendant files a motion for reconsideration of the judgment by default;

3.) when the defendant files a petition to set aside the judgment of default;

4.) when the defendant and plaintiff jointly submit a compromise agreement for the approval of
the court;

5.) when the defendant files an answer to the contempt charge;

6.) when the defendant files a petition for certiorari without questioning the court’s jurisdiction
over his person (Navale v. CA, 253 SCRA 705, 709, 710, 709-712 [1996])

Objections to jurisdiction over the person of the defendant

An objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be raised as a ground for a
motion to dismiss (Sec. 1(a) Rule 16). If no motion to dismiss has been filed, the objection may be
pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer (Sec. 6 Rule 16).

If a motion to dismiss has been filed, the objection to the lack of jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant must be pleaded in the same motion where such ground is available at the time
the motion is filed, otherwise it is deemed waived pursuant to the omnibus motion rule. The
defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not one of those defenses
which are not deemed waived if not raised in the motion to dismiss. Only lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata and prescription are not waived (Sec. 1 Rule 9 in
relation to Sec. 8 Rule 15).

Effect of pleading additional defenses aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant

Under the former procedure, if the defendant raises the objection of lack of jurisdiction over his
person in a motion to dismiss, the motion must rely only on that particular ground. If the
defendant appears in court, objects to its jurisdiction over his person and at the same time
alleges other grounds, the appearance would be deemed a general appearance which was in
effect a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court (Republic vs. Kerr 18 SCRA 207;
WANG Laboratories VS. Mendoza 156 SCRA 44).

The above rule was re-examined in La Naval Drug Corporation vs. CA 236 SCRA 78). The
pronouncements in said case are now embodied in Sec. 20 of Rule 14 which provides: ****The
inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES
COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

17
C. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES

RES is the Latin word for “thing.” It is applied to an object, subject matter (not nature of the
action), status, considered as the defendant in the action or as the object against which,
directly, proceedings are taken. (Black’s 5th Ed., 1172)

Q: Define jurisdiction over the res.

A: Jurisdiction over the res is the power or authority of the court over the thing or property under
litigation. (Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil. 186, 190 [1939])

It is the power to bind the “thing”.

How is it acquired?

It is acquired either by the (a) the seizure of the property under legal process whereby it is
brought into actual or constructive custody of the court’ or (b) as a result of the institution of legal
proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective. (Macahilig vs.
Heirs of Grace M. Magalit, GR No. 141423, Nov. 15, 2000)

Q: A files a case for recovery of ownership against B over a piece of land. What is the res of the
case?

A: The piece of land is the res of the case.

What is the nature of the action?

To recover ownership of real property or real action.

Q: However, res may not be tangible. For example, X is an illegitimate child. She wants to be
acknowledged by her father. Thus, she filed a case against her father for compulsory
recognition.

What is the res?

A: The res is the status of the child because it is the object of the litigation.

Q: Why is jurisdiction over the res important?

A: Sometimes it is a substitute for jurisdiction over the person. There are instances when the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant like when he is abroad. But if the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res, the case may go on. Even if the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant, jurisdiction over the res becomes a substitute over the person.

In the example of action for compulsory recognition, even if the defendant is a non-resident
who is out of the country the object of litigation is status here in the Philippines, then acquisition
of jurisdiction over the res confers jurisdiction to the court even if the defendant is abroad. The
res here is the thing or object or status against which or in relation to which the judgment can be
enforced.
Acquisition of jurisdiction over the res by actual seizure is exemplified by an attachment
proceeding where the property is seized at the commencement of the action or at some
subsequent stage in the action. It is also acquired through a legal provision which authorizes the
court to exercise authority over a property or subject matter such as suits involving a person’s
status or property located in the Philippines in actions in rem or quasi in rem. (Banco Espanol
Filipino vs. Palanca 37 Phil. 921, 927 [1918]; Perkins v. Dizon; Sec. 15, Rule 14, Rules of Court.)

In Land Registration cases or probate proceedings, jurisdiction is acquired by compliance with

procedural requisites, such as publication.

In a petition for change of name, the title of the petition must be complete by including the
name sought to be adopted; otherwise, the court acquires no jurisdiction over the proceedings.
(Telmo vs. Republic, 73 SCRA 29 (1976).

D. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

Meaning of Issue

An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their
several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision. (Black’s 5th Ed.,
745 citing Muller v. Muller, 235 Cal App. 2nd 341, 45 Cal. Rptr 182, 184)

How Jurisdiction Over The Issues Is Conferred and Determined

In order to determine whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the issue or issues of the case,
one must examine the pleadings.

Q: Define jurisdiction over the issues.

A: Jurisdiction over the issue is the authority to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings
of the parties. (Reyes vs. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484)

Q: What are pleadings?

A: Rule 6, Section 1 - Pleadings are the written allegation of the parties of their respective claims
and defenses submitted to the court for trial and judgment.

In a civil case, pleadings are written statements of the respective positions of the parties,
namely, the claims for the plaintiff and defenses for the defendant.

EXAMPLE: X files a case for collection of sum of money against Y. The pleading that X will file will
contain the written statements of his claim. He will narrate there for instance that Y borrowed
money from him promising to pay it on a day certain but when it became due no payment was
made despite demands so he suffered actual loss or damage aside from moral damage. CIVIL
PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

18
By way of response, X will file his position in writing stating his defenses like denying the loan; the
promissory note is a forgery or admitting the loan but claiming that it had already been paid or
the action has prescribed. This written statement of his position containing his defense or
defenses is a pleading called an answer. In the answer Y can also allege claims, if he has any
against the plaintiff like the case is merely intended to harass him for which reason he suffered
damages. This is called a counterclaim, another pleading and X can in turn file an answer to the
counterclaim where he will state his defense/s as regards the claim contained in the
counterclaim.

Based on their allegations and counter-allegations the court will know what issues are to be
resolved.

Q: So, if X says that Y borrowed money, and never paid him, while Y, in answer states that he did
borrow but already paid it, what issue is being presented to be resolved by the court?

A: The issue is, whether the obligation is still existing or is it already extinguished by payment. So
that is how the court will know what it will try in this case.

Q: Let us suppose that after the trial, the court said in its decision that the obligation has been
extinguished by condonation. Will that bind?

A: No, because the parties did not raise condonation as the issue. So the court decided that
issue over which it never acquired jurisdiction.

In other words, the court should only rule on what the parties raised in their pleadings. That is
what we call jurisdiction over the issue.

Jurisdiction over the issue is, therefore, conferred and determined by the pleadings of the
parties.

Jurisdiction over the issues may also be determined and conferred by stipulation of the parties
as when in the pre-trial, the parties enter into stipulation of facts and documents or enter into an
agreement simplifying the issues of the case (Sec. 2 Rule 18)

Jurisdiction over the issues may also be conferred by waiver or failure to object to the
presentation of evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings. Here the parties try with their
express or implied consent issues not raised by the pleadings. The issues tried shall be treated in
all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings (Sec. 5 Rule 10).

Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter Distinguished from Jurisdiction Over the Issues

Jurisdiction over the issues is conferred by the pleadings and by the express (stipulation) or
implied (failure to object to evidence) consent of the parties because an issue not duly pleaded
may be validly tried and decided by the court as long as there is no objection from the parties.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and cannot be subject to the agreement
of the parties. (Vda de Victoria v. CA, GR No. 147550, Jan. 26, 2005)

A: The following are the distinctions:

1.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and try a particular case, while

Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court to resolve legal questions involved in the
case;

2.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired upon filing of the complaint, while

Jurisdiction over the issues of the case is acquiredupon filing of the answer which joins the issues
involved in the case.

When An Issue Arises Even If Not Raised In the Pleadings

Although it is a rule that jurisdiction over the issue is to be determined by the pleadings of the
parties, an issue may arise in a case without it being raised in the pleadings. This happens when
the parties try an issue with their consent. Under Sec. 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, when issues
not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or the implied consent of the parties, they
shall be treated in all respects, as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Thus, if evidence on a
claim for salary differential is not objected to, the Labor Arbiter correctly considered the
evidence even if the claim is not mentioned in the complaint. (Cindy and Lynsy Garment v.
NLRC, 284 SCRA 38, 45 [1998])

Take note that jurisdiction over the issues in civil cases is acquired after defendant has filed an
answer. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the issues is acquired when the accused enters a plea
of not guilty or pleads guilty but seeks to prove a mitigating circumstance.

For a decision to be effective, the court must acquire the jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
person, the res in case the defendant is not around, and the last is jurisdiction over the issue.

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

THE SUPREME COURT

The highest court of the land is the Supreme Court. It was not affected by the Judiciary Law (BP
129) which reorganized the judiciary in 1983. Being a constitutional court, its jurisdiction is found
in the fundamental law itself. The SC is both an original and appellate court.

Composition

It is composed of the Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices.

The Constitution ordains that the President appoints the members of the SC and judges of lower
courts from a list of at least three CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
COLLEGE OF LAW

19
nominees prepared by the JBC for every vacancy and requires the President to issue
appointments, for lower courts, within 90 days from submission of the list (Art. VIII, Sec. 9) and to
fill the vacancy of the SC within 90 days from its occurrence. (Art. VIII Sec. 4(1). All such
appointments need no confirmation. (Sec. 9)

Divisions and En Banc

The SC sits either en banc or in divisions of 3, 5 or 7 members. At present, it has 3 divisions of 5

members each.

A decision or resolution of a division, when concurred in by a majority of its members who

actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in a case and voted thereon, and in no case
without the concurrence of at least 3 of such members, is a decision or resolution of the SC.
(Sec. 4(3) Art. VIII Constitution).

The Court en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of a division may
be appealed. (Circular No. 2-89)

No doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in
division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. (Sec. 4(3))

How a Case Before a Division is Referred to the Court en banc

At any time after a Division takes cognizance of a case and before a judgment or resolution
therein rendered becomes final and executor, the Division may refer the case en consulta to the
court en banc which, after consideration of the reasons of the division for such referral, may
return the case to the Division or accept the case for decision or resolution.

Cases assigned to a Division including motions for reconsideration which in the opinion of at
least 3 members merit the attention of the court en banc and are accepted by the majority
vote of the actual members of the court en banc may be considered as en banc cases.

A resolution of the Division denying a party’s motion for referral to the Court en banc of any
division shall be final and not appealable to the Court en banc.

When a decision or resolution is referred by a division to the Court en banc, the latter may in the
absence of sufficiently important reasons decline to take cognizance of the same, in which
case, the decision or resolution shall be returned to the referring Division. (Circular No. 2-89
effective March 1, 1989)

En Banc Cases

In a resolution dated February 23, 1984, the following are considered en banc cases:

a.) Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, executive agreement, law,
ordinance or executive order or regulation is in question;

b.) Criminal cases in which the decision imposes the death penalty;

c.) Cases raising novel questions of law;

d.) Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls;

e.) Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may be
modified or reversed;

f.) Cases assigned to a division including motions for reconsideration which in the opinion of at
least 3 members merit the attention of the Court en banc and are acceptable to a majority
vote of the actual membership of the Court en banc;

g.) All other cases as the Court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of
sufficient importance to merit its attention;

h.) Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer, or employee of
the SC, disbarment of a lawyer, or suspension of any of them for a period of more than one year
or a fine of P10,000.00, or both;

i.) Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Sandiganbayan, Comelec, COA, or
Military Tribunals;

j.) Habeas corpus against government or military officials;

Principal Functions of the Supreme Court

a. Adjudication (Judicial Power)

b. Administration or Disciplinary power

c. Rule-making (Rule-making Power)

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution enumerates the ORIGINAL jurisdiction
of the SC:

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

[1] Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

Note that the foregoing provision does not define the original jurisdiction of the SC as exclusive,
hence it can be concurrent or exclusive.

When is it exclusive and when concurrent?

Original Exclusive
The ORIGINAL EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the SC refers to petitions for the issuance of writs of
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus as defined in Rule 65 against the following:

a) the CA (Judiciary Act of 1948);

b) the COMELEC (Art. IX Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution);

c) COA (Art. IX Sec. 7 1987 Constitution; and

d) Sandiganbayan (PD No. 1606);

e) Court of Tax Appeals because it has now the same rank as the CA by virtue of RA 9282.

CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

20

Original Concurrent

A. With CA – T he cases where its original jurisdiction is CONCURRENT with the CA are: petitions
for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against the following:

a. the CSC (RA No. 7902);

b. Central Board of Assessment Appeals (PD No. 464; BP Blg. 129; RA No. 7902);

c. NLRC (St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC 295 SCRA 494; RA No. 7902) or the Secretary of Labor
under the Labor Code.

d. Quasi-judicial agencies (BP Blg. 129; RA No. 7902; Heirs of Hinog vs. Melicor, 455 SCRA 460)

e. Also, issuance of writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the RTC.

B. CONCURRENT with the RTC – are those actions affecting ambassadors and other public
ministers and consuls (Sec. 21[2] BP Blg 129; Art. VIII Sec. 5 1987 Constitution).

C. CONCURRENT with the CA and RTC – are those involving habeas corpus, quo warranto, and
writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against inferior courts and bodies (Secs. 9[1],
21[2]2, BP Blg. 129; Art. VIII Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution).
For example, a petition for mandamus against the MTC of Cebu City can be filed with the SC,
CA, or RTC although the policy of the Supreme Court is that it should be filed with the RTC based
on the hierarchy of the courts. (Vergara vs. Suelto, 156 SCRA 758)

D. CONCURRENT WITH CA, SANDIGANBAYAN and RTC – are petitions for issuance of writ of
Amparo and petitions for Habeas Data, where the action involves public data or government
office.

E. Finally, with the advent of the new law (RA 8249), there is now a CONCURRENCE between the
SC and the Sandiganbayan in so far as petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas
corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of the Sandiganbayan's APPELLATE
JURISDICTION i.e. only in connection with a case appealed to the Sandiganbayan.

This concurrent jurisdiction is subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts (Liga ng mga
Barangay National vs. Atienza 420 SCRA 562; Lacson Hermanas Inc. vs. Heirs of Ignacio 462 SCRA
290).

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The appellate jurisdiction is found in Section 5, Paragraph (2), Article VIII 1987 Constitution:

2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is
in question.

b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed
in relation thereto.

c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

e) All cases in which an error or question of law is involved.

If (a), (b), and (c) also involve questions of facts or mixed questions of fact and of law, the
aggrieved party shall appeal to the Court of Appeals; and its final judgment may be appealed
to the Supreme Court. (Subpar 4, Third Par. Sec. 17, Judiciary Act or RA 544)

a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is
in question.
So if the RTC, which has the power, declares the law as unconstitutional, the same has to be
appealed directly to the SC. It cannot pass through the CA because the SC has exclusive
appellate jurisdiction regarding the matter.

b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed
in relation thereto.

This is related to the legality of tax cases – whether a tax or tax penalty is legal or not. However,
whatever decision the lower court gives, it has to be appealed directly to the SC.

c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue

EXAMPLE: The RTC or the MTC says it has jurisdiction or it has no jurisdiction over a case. The
aggrieved party, it if wants to raise that issue, it must go to the SC. When the issue is purely
jurisdiction, the SC shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction.

Now, when the law says all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue, the cases
involve 100% pure jurisdiction as an issue. There are no factual issues involved. If the issue of
jurisdiction is mixed with a factual issue, the appeal should be in CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES
COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

21

the CA without prejudice to the filing of the same with the SC later. So, this is 100% issue of
jurisdiction. No factual issue is involved.

d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

We discussed this in Criminal Procedure.

e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

Take note that ONLY an error or question of law is involved. So, if there is a mixed question of law
and a question of fact, appeal must be filed with the CA. You only go to the SC if the appeal is
100% legal. That applies to both criminal and civil cases.

QUESTIONS OF LAW and QUESTIONS OF FACT

There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain
set of facts. There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or
falsehood of the alleged facts (Sps. Santos vs. CA 337 SCRA 67).

Example: Where the question is whether or not the debtor has paid the debt, the issue is one of
fact. Where the question is whether or not the manner of payment is of the type which produces
the legal effect of extinguishing the obligation, the issue becomes one of law. Also, when under
the set of facts the issue is whether or not the law on double sales applies, there is a question of
law.

When the issue involves a review of the evidence, it involves a question of fact because
evidence, as defined, is the means, sanctioned by the rules, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Sec. 1 Rule 128)

In an action for declaration of nullity of marriage the basis is psychological incapacity. The
RTC/Family Court dismissed the case finding that there was no psychological incapacity. If the
plaintiff wants to appeal from that judgment, can she appeal directly to the SC? Is it a question
of fact or law?

No. The appeal should be to the CA. The issue raised is a question of fact because there is need
to review the evidence to resolve it.

Suppose the court nullified the marriage on ground of impotence and the defendant wants to
appeal because he wants to raise the issue whether or not impotence is a ground for
declaration of nullity of marriage this would be a question of law because there is no need for
review of the evidence to resolve it. So appeal is to the SC.

OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Article IX, Section 7, paragraph (a), 1987 Constitution:

“Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote x x x. Unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy
thereof.”

The COMELEC, COA and the CSC act also as courts of justice. They have powers to decide
certain cases within their jurisdiction. Election cases are covered by the COMELEC, claims
against the government, by COA and eligibility or removal from government service of an
appointive employee, by CSC.
Now, according to Section 7, any decision, order or ruling of these commissions may be brought
to the SC on certiorari, etc. So you will see that the decisions of the constitutional commissions
are reviewable by the SC.

However, Congress amended the Judiciary Law particularly Section 9 on the jurisdiction of the
CA by now making decisions of the CSC no longer appealable to the SC directly but
appealable to the CA. So based on the present law, out of the three constitutional commissions,
the only ones whose decisions are appealable directly to the SC are those of the COMELEC and
the COA

What is the basis for Congress to pass such a law where a decision of a constitutional body
(CSC) is reviewable by a non-constitutional body?

Under the Constitution, decisions of the constitutional commissions are appealable to the SC.
Does Congress have the power to change that by making it appealable to the CA?

Yes because the provision, it says: “Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law..”
Meaning, the decisions are appealable to the SC unless otherwise provided by law. The
Constitution itself gave Congress the power to change it.

SC as Presidential Electoral Tribunal

Article VII, Section 4, last paragraph, 1987 Constitution:

“The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its
rules for the purpose.”

If there’s an electoral protest for the President and Vice-President, the matter is not to be
decided by the COMELEC but by the SC acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.

Judicial Review of Presidential Proclamation of Martial or Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus

Article VII, Section 18 (3), 1987 Constitution – Commander-in-Chief Clause CIVIL PROCEDURE
NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

22

“The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ or extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty
days from its filing.”

So, the SC, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen review the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law. Meaning, the SC can inquire into the basis on
why martial law is declared.
This is intended to prevent the Supreme Court from invoking the Political Question doctrine laid
down in many earlier cases that it is the prerogative of the President to determine, at his
discretion, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof.

Congress and Jurisdiction of the SC

1.) Article VIII, Section 2, 1987 Constitution:

The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated
in Section 5 hereof.

Congress may change or even remove the jurisdiction of the RTC or CA. The law can change
them because jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. However, Congress does
not have the power to lessen or deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction under Section 5,
Article VIII.

2.) However Article VI, Section 30 states:

“No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided
in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.”

Thus , Congress cannot lessen but it can increase the SC’s powers and jurisdiction, PROVIDED it is
with the latter's advice and concurrence.

So more or less, these are the scattered provisions of the Constitution dealing with the SC’s
jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts

There are important principles worthy of note in relation to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The SC is not a trier of facts which means that passing upon a factual issue is not within the
province of the Court (Romy’s Freight Service vs. Castro, 490 SCRA 160). The findings of facts of
the Court of Appeals are not generally reviewable by the SC (Sarmiento vs. Yu 497 SCRA 513).
Also, factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
generally binding on the Court (Tan vs. GVT Engineering Services 498 SCRA 93; Office of the
Ombudsman vs. Lazar0-Baldazo GR No. 170815 February 2, 2007).

It is not the function of the SC to determine the weight of the evidence supporting the assailed
decision (JR Blanco vs. Quasha 318 SCRA 373). However, factual issues may be delved into and
resolved where the findings and conclusions of the trial court or the quasi-judicial bodies are
frontally inconsistent with the findings of the CA (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Tongson 499 SCRA
567).
Exceptions

While it is settled rule that the SC in the exercise of its power of review is not a trier of facts,
jurisprudence has, however, recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be
resolved by the SC, namely:

a.) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;

b.) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

c.) when there is grave abuse of discretion;

d.) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

e.) when the findings of facts are conflicting;

f.) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;

g.) when the findings are contrary to the trial court;

h.) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based;

i.) when the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs, are
not disputed by the respondent;

j.) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record; and

k.) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which,
if properly considered, could justify a different conclusion (Cristobal Cruz vs. Cristobal 498 SCRA
37; Heirs of Dicman vs. Carino 490 SCRA 240; Safeguard Security Agency Inc. vs. Tangco 511
SCRA 67; De Los Santos vs. Elizalde 514 SCRA 14; NPC vs. De la Cruz GR No. 156093 Feb. 2, 2007;
Spouses Yu vs. Ngo Yet Te GR No. 155868 Feb. 6, 2007).

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

The jurisdiction of the CA is now governed by BP 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
BP 129 was passed in 1983 by the former Batasang Pambansa which practically abolished all the
regular courts at that time, and also the special courts except the CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES
COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

23
SC which cannot be abolished by Congress. What was also spared was the Court of Tax
Appeals which was likewise not affected.

In lieu of these, other courts were created. The constitutionality of BP 129 was challenged as
violative of the security of tenure of the judges. But its constitutionality was sustained in the case
of DELA LLANA vs. ALBA, 112 SCRA 294.

The CA is composed of over 69 justices after new divisions were created, one based in Cebu
City and the other in Cagayan de Oro City pursuant to RA 8246.

They decide cases by a division of three. They sit en banc only for administrative matters not to
decide a case as it would be impractical considering their number.

Before BP 129, the court was also called the “Court of Appeals,” the counterpart of the present
CA, though the CA now is different and more powerful than the old one. BP 129 abolished the
old CA and created another court which was called the INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (IAC).

So, from the 1983 to 1986, it was called the IAC. After the EDSA Revolution, President Aquino,
pursuant to her law-making powers, issued E.O. #33 amending the Judiciary Law and changed
the name of IAC to CA (referring to the jurisdiction of the IAC).

Many people thought that the CA of President Aquino under E.O. #33 is actually the IAC under
another name only, but in a case decided by the SC, reported in

IN RE: LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO – 210 SCRA 589 [1992]

HELD: “It is the holding of the Court that the present Court of Appeals is a new entity, different
and distinct from the Court of Appeals or the Intermediate Appellate Court existing prior to
Executive Order No. 33, for it was created in the wake of the massive reorganization launched
by the revolutionary government of Corazon C. Aquino in the aftermath of the people power
(EDSA) revolution in 1986.”

Section 5 of EO 33 also amended Sec. 9 of BP 129 to read as follows:

“The Court of Appeals shall have the power to receive evidence and perform any and all acts
necessary to resolve factual issues raised in (a) cases falling within its original jurisdiction, such as
actions for annulment of judgments of regional trial courts, as provided in paragraph (2) hereof;
and in (b) cases falling within its appellate jurisdiction wherein a motion for new trial based only
on the ground of newly discovered evidence is granted by it.”

So, Section 9 of BP 129, which defines the second highest court of the land, has been amended
by E.O. #33. In February 1995, it was amended again by RA 7902, known as “The Act expanding
the jurisdiction of the CA.”

RA 7902 restored the power of the CA to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence,
and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within the
original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant new trials or further proceedings
(without limiting the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence). Trials or hearings
in the CA must be continuous and completed within 3 months unless extended by the Chief
Justice.

The essential features of the CA’s jurisdiction are as follows:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Original Concurrent

[1] Section 9, paragraph 1, BP 129

Section 9 – Jurisdiction – The Court of Appeals shall exercise:

(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and
quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

Note: Refer to discussion the original concurrent jurisdiction of the SC with the CA; with the CA
and RTC etc.

The cases where its original jurisdiction is CONCURRENT with the SC are: petitions for the issuance
of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against the following:

the CSC (RA No. 7902);

Central Board of Assessment Appeals (PD No. 464; BP Blg. 129; RA No. 7902);

NLRC (St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC 295 SCRA 494; RA No. 7902) or the Secretary of Labor
under the Labor Code.

Quasi-judicial agencies (BP Blg. 129; RA No. 7902; Heirs of Hinog vs. Melicor, 455 SCRA 460)

Also, issuance of writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the RTC.

CONCURRENT with the SC and RTC are those involving habeas corpus, quo warranto, and writs
of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against inferior courts and bodies (Secs. 9[1], 21[2]2, BP
Blg. 129; Art. VIII Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution).

For example, a petition for mandamus against the MTC of Cebu City can be filed with the SC,
CA, or RTC although the policy of the Supreme Court is that it should be filed with the RTC based
on the hierarchy of the courts. (Vergara vs. Suelto, 156 SCRA 758)

Q: Being concurrent, what will happen if such a case is filed simultaneously in the CA and SC?

A: The consequence is found in Section 17 of the Interim Rules. In other words, the Interim Rules
are still intact.

Interim Rules, Sec. 17. Petitions for writs of certiorari, etc. - No petition for certiorari, CIVIL
PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW
24

mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus or quo warranto may be filed in the IAC if another similar
petition has been filed or is still pending in the SC. Nor may such petition be filed in the SC if a
similar petition has been filed or is still pending in the IAC, unless it is to review the action taken
by the IAC on the petition filed with it. A violation of this rule shall constitute contempt of court
and shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of both petitions, without prejudice to the taking
of appropriate action against the counsel or party concerned.

Original Exclusive

[2] Section 9, paragraph 2, BP 129

(2) “Exclusive” jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts;

Q: Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC’s, is this similar to an appeal? Is this the same as
appealing the decision of the RTC to the CA?

A: No, because in appeal, you are invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the CA. Here in
paragraph 2, it is not appellate but original jurisdiction. Meaning, you are filing an action before
the CA for the first time. And the nature of the action is to annul a judgment of the RTC.

The implementation is found in Rule 47 of the Rules.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Paragraph 3, Sec. 9 of BP 129 defines the appellate jurisdiction of the CA.

[3] Section 9, paragraph 3, BP 129

(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or
awards of the RTCs and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions,
including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the
Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling
within the appellate jurisdiction of the SC in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of
the Philippines under PD 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of
the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Sec. 17 of the Judiciary Act
of 1948.

Take note, the appellate jurisdiction of the CA is EXCLUSIVE. Now, if you will analyze paragraph
3, you will notice that the CA is a powerful court because it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over all final judgments, decisions, resolution, orders or awards of RTC’s. So as a general rule, if
the RTC, anywhere in the country renders a decision and you want to appeal, whether civil or
criminal, chances are it will go the to CA. It is a powerful court, because it covers all RTC’s and
the appellate jurisdiction is exclusive.
And not only RTC’s. The law says “and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commissions…” Not only decisions of the RTC but also of quasi-judicial agencies or bodies, also
called administrative bodies.

Administrative bodies are actually part of the executive branch but they act just like courts of
justice. They can decide cases and there are hundreds of administrative agencies in the
Philippines. And therefore, if you lose a case before anyone of these bodies, or tribunals, you
appeal the decision not with the SC, but to the CA.

The amendments by RA 7902 is even more specific by adding this phrase, “including the SEC,
SSS, the Employees Compensation commission and the Civil Service Commission (CSC).”

That is the addition.

CSC – Before this law was passed, under the Constitution, decisions of the CSC are appealed to
the SC together with the COMELEC and the COA. But with the passage of RA 7902, the appeal
from the CSC has been transferred to the CA, so what is left behind in the Constitution are the
COMELEC and the COA.

Obviously, the purpose of this statute is to unburden the SC with so many cases.

The phrase “except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court…”means
all cases should be appealed to the CA except those which belong to the SC under the
Constitution. We know that already.

And also “except those falling under the Labor Code of the Philippines.”

A labor case is not supposed to be filed in court but with a quasi-judicial agency known as the
NLRC and you start in the local level – from the Labor Arbiter, then the decisions of the Labor
Arbiter are appealable to the NLRC and then from there, where will you go?

Q: Is the decision of the NLRC appealable before the CA because it is also a quasi-judicial
agency and under the law, all decisions of quasi-judicial agencies are supposed to be
appealed to the CA.

A: NO. The decision of the NLRC is an exception – except those under the appellate jurisdiction
of the SC under the Constitution and in accordance with the Labor Code (PD 422).

NLRC decisions cannot be appealed to the CA and the only way to elevate it is to the SC by
what we call certiorari, not appeal.(This is CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF
SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

25

already modified in the St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC case.) Also, decisions of the Secretary
of Labor, under the Labor Code are not reviewable by the CA, but they are reviewable directly
by the SC.
And then there is the phrase, "the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third
paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of
1948.”

So, the new Judiciary Law still makes some reference to the old law. This shows that the entire
1948 Judiciary Law has not been totally repealed. Some provisions are still intact because of the
reference.

Now what is this subparagraph 1 of the third paragraph?

It only applies to criminal cases. EXAMPLE: A person is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, his co-
accused is sentenced to reclusion temporal or prison mayor, and all of them will appeal, all of
them should go to the SC. Otherwise, you will be splitting the appeal into two parts. (Modified in
the People vs Mateo case as discussed in Criminal Procedure.)

Subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 refers to appeal from the RTC on pure
legal question which should be filed with the SC.

Q: Suppose there are questions of fact, or it is an appeal on questions of fact and questions of
law?

A: Under the 1948 Judiciary Law, you cannot appeal directly to the SC. You must appeal to the
CA.

The same thing when the issue is on the constitutionality of a treaty, law, legality of tax, when the
jurisdiction of the lower court is in issue, as explained here in this paragraph of the Judiciary Act
of 1948, if the appeal is 100% constitutional issue, jurisdictional or legality issue – appeal is to the
SC under the Constitution. But if it is mixed with questions of fact, do not go to the SC. You go first
to the CA. That is what the paragraph is all about.

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of ordinary appeal from the RTC and the Family Courts
(Sec. 9[3] BP Blg. 129).

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review from the RTC rendered by the RTC in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction (Sec. 22 BP Blg. 129; Rule 43, Rules of Court; Sec. 9 BP Blg.
129)

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review from the decisions, resolutions or
orders or awards of the CSC, Central Board of Assessment Appeals and other bodies mentioned
in Rule 43 (Sec. 9[3]), BP Blg. 129) and of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases (Enemecio vs. Office of the Ombudsman 419 SCRA 82; Gonzales vs. Rosas 423
SCRA 488).

Note that under RA No. 9282, the judgments AND FINAL ORDERS OF THE Court of Tax Appeals are
no longer appealable by way of petition for review to the CA. Judgments of the CTA rendered
en banc are appealable to the SC by way of Rule 45 (Sec. 11 RA No. 9282)
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of MTCs in cadastral or land registration cases
pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction (Sec. 34 BP Blg. 129 as amended by RA No. 7691). This is
because decisions of MTCs in these cases cases are appealable in the same manner as
decisions of RTCs (Sec. 34 BP Blg. 129).

Power to try and conduct hearings

[4] Section 9, last paragraph, BP 129:

The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence
and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its
original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further
proceedings. Trials or hearings in the CA must be continuous and must be completed within
three (3) months unless extended by the Chief Justice. (As amended by RA 7902)

Even if the CA is not a trial court, under the law it has the power to try cases and conduct
hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues in
cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and
conduct new trials or further proceedings (Sec. 9 [3], BP 129 as amended by RA 7902). The CA
may pass upon factual issues as when a petition for certiorari is filed before it (Alcazaren vs.
Univet Agricultural Products, Inc. 475 SCRA 636).

This paragraph shows that the present CA is a more powerful court than before. It is a unique
court. Aside from being an appellate court, it also acts as a trial court. It may receive evidence
but only those evidence which were overlooked by the trial court. It can order a new trial or
conduct a new trial itself.

The CA may pass upon factual issues as when a petition for certiorari is filed before it(Alcazaren
vs. Univet Agricultural Products, Inc. 475 SCRA 636) or in petitions for writ of amparo or habeas
corpus data or in case of actions to annul judgment of the RTC over which the CA has original
jurisdiction (Bar 2008).

Q: If an issue of fact is tried before the RTC, can I always ask the CA to allow me to present
evidence? Does it mean to say now that since the CA is a very powerful court, it can take the
place of the RTC? A: That is already interpreted in the case of

LINGER AND FISHER vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT – 125 SCRA 522 [1983] CIVIL PROCEDURE
NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

26

HELD: The power of the CA to receive evidence refers only to incidental facts which were not
100 percent touched upon, or matters which were simply overlooked by the trial court. You
cannot opt not to present evidence before the RTC. It only refers to incidental facts.

“Evidence necessary in regards to factual issues raised in cases falling within the Appellate
Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction contemplates ‘incidental’ facts which were not
touched upon, or fully heard by the trial or respondent Court. The law could not have intended
that the Appellate Court would hold an original and full trial of a main factual issue in a case,
which properly pertains to Trial Courts.”

JURISDICTION OF THE

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

Q: How many RTC’s are there in the Philippines?

BP 129 Section 13 (1) Creation of Regional Trial Courts – There are hereby created thirteen (13)
Regional Trial Courts, one for each of the following regions: x x

So the Judiciary law has divided the country into 13 areas called JUDICIAL REGIONS. From the 1st
to the 12th, the 13th is actually in the National Capital Region (NCR), Metro Manila. Every division
is divided into branches.

Every RTC judge is appointed to a region which shall be his permanent station, and his
appointment states the branch of the court and seat to which he shall be originally assigned.
However, the SC may assign temporarily an RTC judge to another region as public interest may
require, provided that such temporary assignment shall not last longer than 6 months without the
consent of the RTC judge concerned.

The SC shall define the territory over which a branch of the RTC shall exercise his authority. The
law provides:

BP 129, Section 18. Authority to define territory appurtenant to each branch – The Supreme Court
shall define the territory over which a branch of the Regional Trial Court shall exercise its
authority. The territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch
concerned for purposes of determining the venue of all suits, proceedings or actions, whether
civil or criminal, as well as determining the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over which the said branch may exercise appellate jurisdiction. The
power herein granted shall be exercised with a view to making the courts readily accessible to
the people of the different parts of the region and making the attendance of litigants and witness
as inexpensive as possible.

Though RTC Cebu City is found in the 7th Judicial Region, which includes Cebu, Bohol, Negros
Oriental and Siquijor province, its territorial area is not the entire region, (7th Judicial Region),
where it belongs or even the entire province of Cebu or limited to Cebu City only because it
depends on the territory as defined by the SC.

Now, the law says, the SC has the power to define the area of its branch for purposes of
supervising that area and the MTC there. Now, as early as 1983, the SC has already come out
with the administrative order defining the area of responsibility of each branch throughout the
Philippines.

Interim Rules, Sec. 2. Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts. -

a) MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs shall exercise their jurisdiction in the city, municipality or circuit for
which the judge thereof is appointed or designated.

b) A Regional Trial Court shall exercise its jurisdiction within the area defined by the SC as the
territory over which the particular branch concerned shall exercise its authority, in accordance
with Sec. 18 of BP 129.

Jurisdiction of the RTC

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION– Note Section 19 was amended by RA 7691, effective April
15, 1994 and entitled “An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts”.

CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION with other courts – Section 21

APPELLATE JURISDICTION – Section 22

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC

Sec. 19 Jurisdiction in civil cases – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:

[1] In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

27

What does incapable of pecuniary estimation mean?

In an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, the basic issue is one other than the recovery of
a sum of money. If ever there is a claim for money, it should only be incidental to the main issue.

Where the action is principally the recovery of a sum of money, the action is one capable of
pecuniary estimation and jurisdiction would then depend on the amount of the claim exclusive
of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs. (Raymundo
vs. CA, 213 SCRA 457 [1992]; Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, 88 SCRA 623 [1979])

The basic issue in an action incapable of pecuniary estimation is one other than the recovery of
money. In this kind of action the money claim is merely incidental (ibid)

How to determine whether the action is capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation-

“In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of
pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim
is considered capable of pecuniary estimation and whether jurisdiction is in the MTCs or the CFIs
would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other
than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases
where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable
exclusively by the CFI.”

Examples: of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are those for specific performance,
support, or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment of judgment, also actions questioning the
validity of a mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the price paid
and for rescission which is a counterpart of specific performance. (Russel vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA,
739, 744-745 [1999])

Such ruling was, however, modified in Go vs. UCPB, GR No. 156182 Nov. 11, 2004 where the court
declared the following as real actions:

1) judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage;

2) actions to annul real estate mortgage;

for the reason that a real estate mortgage is a real right as well as a real property. So an action
to cancel or annul a real estate mortgage necessarily affects title to the real property, hence a
real action and jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the property.

A complaint for expropriation is incapable of pecuniary estimation (Barangay San Roque vs.
Heirs of Pastor, 334 SCRA 127).

An action seeking to annul a resolution of a government-owned and controlled corporation is

an action incapable of pecuniary estimation (Polomolok Water District vs. Polomolok General
Consumers Association GR No. 162124, October 19, 2007).

An action to annul a Deed of Declaration of Heirs and for a partition of land with an assessed
value of P5,000.00 is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation where the partition aspect is
only incidental to the action for annulment (Russel vs. Vestil 304 SCRA 739).

An action for partition of a real property located in Taytay Rizal and with an assessed value of
P20,000.00, the resolution of which involves the determination of hereditary rights, is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus, should be filed in the RTC (Suggested answer UP
Law Center Bar 2000) Note: This answer could also be subject to an alternative answer, when it is
argued that an action for partition is one which involves interest in real property. Hence,
jurisdiction would be dependent on the assessed value of the property.

An action for specific performance to compel the defendant to execute a deed of

conveyance covering a parcel of land with an assessed value of P19,000.00 is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation because the main issue is whether or not there is a right to
compel specific performance (Suggested answer, UP Law Center Bar 2000). Note: This answer is
subject to an alternative answer which asserts that where the primary purpose of the action is to
recover or obtain ownership of the real property, the action is one affecting title to real property
and is, therefore, a real action. In a real action, jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value
of the property.
An action for specific performance is one generally considered incapable of pecuniary
estimation (Russel vs. Vestil, supra).

The amount of damages that may be claimed in addition to the prayer for specific
performance is not determinative of jurisdiction. Thus, an action for specific performance and
damages of P200,000.00 is cognizable by the RTC even if the amount of damages sought to be
recovered is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.

Where, however, the demand is in the alternative, as in an action to compel the defendant to
deliver the house by completing its construction or to pay the sum of P644.31, the action is one
that is capable of pecuniary estimation (Cruz vs. Tan 87 Phil. 627). Thus an action for specific
performance or in a the alternative, for damages in the amount of P180,000.00 is one capable
of pecuniary estimation. Here, the amount of damages is determinative of jurisdiction (Bar 1997).

If as gleaned from the complaint, the principal relief sought by the complaint is for the court to
issue an injunction against the adverse party and his representatives to permanently enjoin them
from preventing the survey of the subject land, the complaint is not a possessory action but one
for injunction. As such, the subject CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN
CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

28

matter of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation and properly cognizable exclusively by

the RTC under Sec. 19(1) of BP Blg. 129, as amended by RA No. 7691 (Bokingo vs. CA 489 SCRA
521).

An action for injunction is within the jurisdiction of the RTC being an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation. (Bar 1997).

An action for replevin of a motorcycle valued at P150,000.00 is capable of pecuniary estimation.

The basis of jurisdiction is the value of the personal property sought to be recovered. The amount
of P150,000.00 falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC. (Bar 1997).

An action for interpleader is capable of pecuniary estimation. If the subject of interpleader is

real property, then the jurisdictional amount is determined by the assessed value of the land. If it
be personal property, then the value of the property.

Hence, an action of interpleader to determine who between the defendants is entitled to

receive the amount of P190,000.00 from the plaintiff is within the jurisdiction of the MTC (Bar 1997;
Makati Development Corporation vs. Tanjuatco 27 SCRA 401).

[2] In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property or any interest
therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds P20,000 or for civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such value exceeds P50,000 except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands and buildings; original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
So in all real actions outside of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, jurisdiction is determined by
the assessed value of the real property subject thereof.

What is a real action?

It is one affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. (Sec. 1, Rule 4)

Examples: would be accion publiciana (an action to recover possession of real property),
accion reinvidicatoria (action to recover ownership of real property), quieting of title, provided
the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000.00.

So, for a lesser value, MTC has jurisdiction. This is why MTCs now have jurisdiction over accion
publiciana when the value of the property is P20,000 or less.

In forcible entry and unlawful detainer, jurisdiction lies with the MTC regardless of the assessed
value.

Now, if in Metro Manila, the value is P50,000.

[3] In all civil actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds
One Hundred Thousand pesos (P100,00.00) [now PhP 300,000.00] or, in Metro Manila, where such
demand or claim exceeds Two Hundred Thousand pesos (P200,000.00)[now, PhP 400,000].

EXAMPLE: The shipper will ship to you goods involving a common carrier and while in transit, the
goods are lost or they are totally damaged. You would like to file a claim or a case against the
carrier, what kind of a case is it? That is an admiralty or maritime case.

Q: In which court will you file it?

A: It depends on how much is your claim. If your claim of the damaged or lost cargo exceeds
P300,000, then, RTC; if it is P300,000 or less, MTC. In Metro Manila, the jurisdictional amount is
higher – it should be over P400,000.

RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts
mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by
this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years
thereafter, such jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned
jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to Four
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000,00).

[4] In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate
exceeds One Hundred Thousand pesos (P100,000.00) [now php300,000] or, in probate matters in
Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred Thousand pesos (P200,000.00) [now
P400,000].

In the subject of Wills and Succession, when a person dies, his estate, his property will be settled
for the benefit of his creditors and heirs. That is what you call either as testate or intestate
proceedings depending on whether the deceased left a will or none.
If there are debts due the decedent, thus, payable by his/her estate, settlement would mean
liquidation, which includes inventory of all the assets and obligations payable, payment of the
debts, then distribution of the residue to the heirs. This is done by the court thru an administrator
appointed by it or thru the executor appointed by the decedent. CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES
COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

29

Q: Where should the estate of the deceased person be settled, RTC or MTC?

A: It depends on how much is the gross value of his estate. If it exceeds P300,000, RTC. If it is
P300,000 or less, it should be with the MTC. In Metro Manila again, the gross should be more than
P400,000.

The jurisdiction of the court as a probate or intestate court relates only to matters having to do
with the settlement of the estate and probate of the will of the decedent but does not extend to
the determination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings.

[5] In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations.

Most of these cases are under the Family Code and now fall under the jurisdiction of family
courts (RA 8369, The Family Courts Act of 1997). But because family courts have not yet been
constituted, the SC has designated RTCs to take cognizance of such cases.

Q: What are the possible actions which you can imagine involving the contract of marriage and
marital relations?

A: Annulment of marriage, legal separation, declaration of nullity, dissolution of the absolute

community of husband and wife, and action for support.

RA 8369, SECTION 5.Jurisdiction of Family Courts. — The Family Courts shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:

xxxxxx

d) 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;

xxxxxx

No. 6 will be discussed later.

[7] In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided
by law;
Before BP 129 or before 1980, there were special courts existing. Among these courts were the so
called Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts (JDRC). Then you have the Court of Agrarian
Relations (CAR) which tried cases involving tenancy, agricultural lessor, agricultural lessee,
agricultural lands. When BP 129 was enacted, the CAR and the JDRCs were abolished together
with the other courts created by law. Cases which they used to handle were automatically
transferred to the RTC. That was after BP 129 took effect.

What were the cases which were usually falling within the original jurisdiction of the former JDRC?

Usually, those involving family and children, like support filed by the child against his father,
compulsory recognition, custody of children, adoption proceedings.

Under BP 129, all of these are now within the jurisdiction of RTC.

HOWEVER, this has been amended again by RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) and these
cases are now under the jurisdiction of the FAMILY COURTS: (See Sections 5 [b], [c], [e], [g])

RA 8369, SECTION 5.Jurisdiction of Family Courts. — The Family Courts shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:

xxxx

b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;

c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;

xxxx

g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or neglected children,

petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the suspension, termination, or
restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603,
Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws;

xxxxx

As regards the law transferring the jurisdiction of the CAR to the RTC, it became partially
obsolete with the enactment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or RA 6657
(June 15, 1988). Under the CARL, all agrarian disputes between landlord and tenant, lessor and
lessee were transferred to the DAR particularly the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), making
them quasi-judicial cases. So, from CAR to RTC, from RTC to DARAB

So the RTC has NO jurisdiction, EXCEPT in the following 2 cases CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES
COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

30
QUISMUNDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS - 201 SCRA 609 [1991]

HELD: “Wth the enactment of Executive Order No. 229, which took effect on August 29, 1987, the
Regional Trial Courts were divested of their general jurisdiction to try agrarian reform matters. The
said jurisdiction is now vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform. Said provisions thus delimit
the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts in agrarian cases only to two instances:

1. petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners; and

2. prosecution of criminal offenses under said Act.

EXAMPLE: If you are a landowner and your agricultural land is placed under the CARP
coverage, the government will fix the payment for you. The trouble is that you did not agree on
the amount of payment. You want to contest the amount of compensation payable, in which
court will you file your action?

A: RTC and you ask for higher compensation.

[8] In all cases in which 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 One
Hundred Thousand pesos (P100,000.00) [now P300,000] or, in such other cases in Metro Manila,
where the demand, exclusive of the above-mentioned items exceeds Two Hundred Thousand
pesos (P200,000.00)[now P400,000]

The best example is money claim. Most cases which go to court now are money claims – an
action to collect sum of money.

Q: Unpaid loan – you would like to collect an unpaid loan of your debtor. Where will you file your
case?

A: It depends on how much are you collecting. If it is over P300,000 outside Metro Manila – RTC,
in Metro Manila, – P400,000. If the amount that you are collecting is only P300,000 or less
obviously, you file your case in the MTC.

If the value of the claim is > P300,000 – RTC

If the value of the claim is = or < P300,000 – MTC

Q: Suppose the principal amount that you borrowed from me is P300,000, the interest is P30,000.
And you are collecting P10,000 for moral damages, another P10,000 for expense of litigation,
etc. So my total claim is P350,000. Where will I file the case?

A: MTC. In determining the jurisdictional limit of P300,000, do not include the interest, damages,
attorney’s fees, etc. So you deduct those from the principal claim even if you put them in your
complaint because the law says, “xxx exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs xxx.”

Q: What are litigation expenses and costs?

A: Costs are not the same as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. Actually, attorney’s fees
and litigation expenses are part of damages. Costs are governed by Rule 141, while attorney’s
fees and litigation expenses are governed by the Civil Code.

ACTIONS PURELY FOR DAMAGES

SITUATION: Suppose the action is purely for damages, like breach of contract of carriage.
Instead of bringing you to your destination, you ended up in the hospital. You now sue the
common carrier for damages and your claim is P1 million for injuries, moral, exemplary, etc.
Where will you file the case?

This question has been clarified by SC Circular No. 09-94: “Guidelines in the Implementation of
RA 7691 Extending the Jurisdiction of the MTCs” where the SC said that the provision excluding
damages applies only if the damages are INCIDENTAL to the action. If the main cause of action
is 100% damages, you include it in determining tire P300,000 jurisdictional limit of the MTC.

EXAMPLE: Ms. Pastor rode on a PAL fight. The plane crashed but she survived. She claims for
damages for breach of contract of carriage amounting to P1 million.

Q: Where will she file her case?

A: RTC because the amount of the claim for damages exceeded P300,000. Since the case is
purely for damages, it is included in determining the jurisdiction of the court.

The rule is, you only exclude the damages if it is a secondary claim. But if damages is the primary
or only claim, you determine whether the total claim for damages is above P300,000, or equal to
or less than P300,000.

The SC said in this Circular, “the exclusive damages of whatever kind” in determining the
jurisdiction under Section 19 paragraph [8] 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, the amount of such claim should be considered in determining the
jurisdiction.

EXAMPLE: P will file a case against D to recover a piece of land worth P20,000.00 only. But her
claim for damages exceeds P300,000.

Q: In what court will P file a civil case where she wants to recover a piece of land with value of
only P20,000?

A: MTC because of paragraph [2]. As regards the damages of P300,000.00, MTC still has
jurisdiction because such damages, CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN
CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

31

being incidental, is not included in determining the jurisdiction of the RTC.

Now, the law says, “exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, and costs or THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN CONTROVERSY exceeds P300,000….”
Q: What is the property in controversy?

A: Obviously here, the property is PERSONAL PROPERTY not real. If the property sought to be
recovered is real, apply paragraph [2] of Section 19 on recovery of real property.

Q: You want to recover your car which your friend borrowed but did not return, which court has
jurisdiction?

A: MTC if the value is P300,000.00 or less, and RTC, if over.

Q: Who shall determine the value or how should the value be determined?

A: In determining the jurisdiction of the court, over the subject matter, the allegations in the
complaint governs.

Let us go to some interesting cases on this provision.

ORTIGAS AND CO., LTD PARTNERSHIP vs. HERRERA - 120 SCRA 89 [1983]

FACTS: A entered into an agreement with B where A deposited the sum of P50,000 with B. After
certain conditions are complied B has to return the amount to A. According to A the conditions
are already complied with but B still refuses to return the money. So A filed a complaint which he
denominated as sum of money and since he is only asking for the return of P50,000, A filed the
case in the MTC.

ISSUE #1: Whether or not the MTC has jurisdiction over the case.

HELD: The MTC has NO jurisdiction. It should be filed in the RTC. It is not an action to collect a
loan. You are not recovering a loan. You are compelling him to comply with the agreement – to
return the money after certain conditions are complied with. You are trying to enforce your
agreement. therefore your action is an action for SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE which should be tried
by the RTC under paragraph [1].

“When a party to a contract has agreed to refund to the other party a sum of money upon
compliance by the latter of certain conditions and only upon compliance therewith may what is
legally due him under the written contract be demanded, the action is one not capable of
pecuniary estimation.” So it is cognizable by the RTC.

ISSUE #2: But according to the plaintiff, when he filed the complaint, it is entitled “for sum of
money” which should fall under paragraph [8]. Is the plaintiff correct?

HELD: NO. The plaintiff is wrong. The title of the action is not determinative on the court. Just like
the rule on contracts where the nature of the contract is not determined by the title but by
stipulation.

“The factual allegations in the complaint seeking for the performance of an obligation of a
written contract which is a matter clearly incapable of pecuniary estimation prevail over the
designation of the complaint as one for the sum of money and damages.”

As may be seen from the foregoing enumeration, jurisdiction is determined:

(1) by the nature of the action; or

(2) by the value of the demand; or

(3) by the value of the property involved.

[6] In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions

Practically, this makes the RTC the universal catcher – what does not belong to any other court,
belongs to the RTC. That’s what this provision is saying.

That is why, because of this, there are problems reaching the SC on jurisdiction – whether a case
belongs to this, to the regular court or to a special quasi-judicial body. And we are going to go
over some of these cases.

SANDOVAL vs. CANEBA - 190 SCRA 77 [1990]

FACTS: The quarrel in this case involves the owner of the subdivision and the buyer. Later on, the
buyer refused to pay the unpaid installments. The subdivision developer filed a case for the
collection of unpaid installments over the subdivision lots.

HELD: The regular courts have no jurisdiction. That should be decided by the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) formerly known as NHA. Under PD 957, it is the HLURB not the RTC
or MTC which has the jurisdiction to hear a case involving non-payment of installments over
subdivision lots.

The counterpart of this case was the case of

CT TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. HIBIONADA – 191 SCRA 268 [1990]

FACTS: This is also the case between the buyers of a subdivision lot against the subdivision
developer. Only this time it is the subdivision lot buyers who are suing the developer of the
subdivision. The subdivision lot owners filed against the subdivision developer for not maintaining
properly the roads of the subdivision. So they filed a case for specific performance with
damages to compel the developer to comply with the contract to maintain the roads.

HELD: The jurisdiction is with the HLURB and not with the regular courts. But according to the
plaintiff “But I’m also claiming for damages so that it should be filed before the regular courts.
How can the HLURB award damages? Only the regular courts can award the damages.” Can
the HLURB award damages? According to the SC:

“The argument that only courts of justice can adjudicate claims resoluble under the provisions of
the Civil Code is out of step with the fast-changing times. There are hundreds of administrative
bodies now performing this function by virtue of a valid authorization from the legislature. This
quasi-judicial function, as it is called, is exercised by them as an incident of the principal power
entrusted to them of regulating certain activities falling under their particular expertise.”

So quasi-judicial bodies are now authorized to award damages.

As a matter of fact in Labor Relations, the question is asked whether the NLRC is authorized to
grant damages also to an employee, moral and exemplary, which normally is only awarded by
courts. The Labor Code says yes. In other words, even damages now can be awarded by
administrative bodies such as NLRC.

FAJARDO vs. BAUTISTA – 232 SCRA 291 [1994]

FACTS: Isabelo and Marita Jareno are the owners and developers of a subdivision. Fajardo and
others, as buyers, signed separate contracts each designated a contract to sell under which for
consideration therein stated, the Jarenos bound themselves to sell to Fajardo et al the lot subject
thereof, and after the latter shall have paid the purchase price and interest shall execute in
favor of Fajardo et al the corresponding deeds of sale.

When these contracts to sell are still ongoing the Jarenos sold these lots to other buyers and the
title was transferred to the second buyer. So when Fajardo et al learned about it, they filed
separate complaints with the RTC for annulment of the sale to the other buyers.

Now, according to Fajardo, the jurisdiction of the case belongs to the RTC and not with the
HLURB because the titles of the lots are transferred to the other buyers. It is no longer under the
name of Jareno. Secondly, their action is for the annulment of title to a third person. Thirdly,
these third persons are not the developers; fourthly, under the Judiciary Law, actions involving
title to a real property are to be tried by the RTC.

HELD: The RTC still has NO jurisdiction because the case involved unsound real estate business
practice on the part of the subdivision owners and developers. Under the law, unsound real
estate business practice is under the HLURB. The practice in the case is not a sound real estate
business – I am a developer, I enter into a contract with you and then later on I sold the contract
to a third person, that is unsound!

“By virtue of P.D. 1344, the HLURB has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. In
addition to involving unsound real estate business practices, the complaints also involve specific
performance of the contractual and statutory obligations of the owners or developers of the
subdivision.” So it is still with the HLURB and not with the regular courts.

BENGUET CORPORATION vs. LEVISTE – 204 SCRA 99 [1991]

FACTS: A mining company entered into an operations agreement for management with another
mining company. Then later on, one wants to file a case for rescission of the agreement for one
reason or another. So it was filed with the RTC.

HELD: The RTC has NO jurisdiction again because PD 1281 vested with the Bureau of Mines with
jurisdictional supervision and control over all issues on mining claims and that the Bureau of
Mines shall have the original exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving the
cancellation and enforcement of mining contracts.

The trend is to make the adjudication of mining cases a purely administrative matter. Another
case is the case of

MACHETE vs. COURT OF APPEALS - 250 SCRA 176 [1995]

FACTS: This case involves the collection by the landowner of unpaid back rentals from his
leasehold tenants. The landowner filed the money claims before the RTC.
HELD: The RTC has no jurisdiction over cases for collection of back rentals for the leasehold
tenants. This is an agrarian dispute which exclusively cognizable by the DARAB.

“The failure of petitioners to pay back rentals pursuant to the leasehold contract with landowner
is an issue which is clearly beyond the legal competence of the trial court to resolve. The
doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to
resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of
special competence.”

Let’s go to Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). That is the government body which
administers all government examination for professionals except members of the law profession.
Now, this is what happened in the case of

LUPANGCO ET AL vs. COURT OF APPEALS - 160 SCRA 848 [1988] CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES
COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

33
FACTS: Lupangco et al were BS Accounting graduates and reviewing to take the CPA exams in
1985.

There were some anomalies (leakages) in the 1985 CPA Board Examination. By next year, the
PRC passed a resolution prohibiting CPA examinees to attend review classes or conferences
because of leakages. They are prohibited from receiving any handouts, review materials or any
tip from any school, college or university. That was Resolution No. 105 of the PRC.

So petitioners Lupangco et al, all CPA reviewers filed an injunction suit against the PRC and to
declare the resolution unconstitutional. They filed it with the RTC. The PRC moved to dismiss
alleging that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case because the one which has the
jurisdiction is the CA – exclusive jurisdiction to review any decision, order, ruling or- resolution of
any quasi-judicial body. And the PRC is a quasi-judicial body. So their resolution can only be
questioned before the CA and not with the RTC.

HELD: The PRC is WRONG because PRC is not only a quasi-judicial body, it is also a quasi-
legislative body. It also acts as legislative body by issuing rules and regulations.

Now, what kind of resolution is being questioned here? It is a resolution pursuant to its purely
administrative function. It is a measure to preserve the integrity of licensure examination.
Therefore, it does not belong to the CA. It is not the type of resolution contemplated by Section
9.

“The authority of the CA to review all resolutions of all quasi-judicial bodies pursuant to the law
does not cover rules and regulations of general applicability issued by the administrative body
to implement its purely administrative policies and functions like Resolution No. 105 which was
adopted by the PRC as a measure to preserve the integrity of licensure examinations.” So that is
not the resolution reviewable by the CA.

Now, under what provision under Section 19 can we justify the jurisdiction of the RTC in the case.
The SC said: It is under paragraph 1 where the case is incapable of pecuniary estimation or, it
may fall under paragraph 6 where the case is not within the exclusive jurisdiction by any court,
tribunal or- body exercising Judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

So, if it is not reviewable by the CA, in what court can you question the resolution? Definitely, not
the CA, definitely not the SC. I don’t think it’s with the NLRC. So it will fall under the jurisdiction of
the RTC. Or, it can also fall under paragraph [1,] where the subject matter of the suit is not
capable of pecuniary estimation because what is the nature of the demands is to declare
unconstitutional this resolution. So it belongs to the jurisdiction of the RTC.

BERNARDO vs. CALTEX PHIL. INC. - 216 SCRA 170 [1992]

FACTS: Under E.O. No. 172, when there is a dispute between an operator or dealer and an Oil
company regarding dealership agreement, the case shall be under the jurisdiction of the Energy
Regulatory Board (ERB). So any dispute regarding their relationship agreement except disputes
arising out of the relationship as debtor and creditor. So if the dispute arose out of the
relationship as debtor and creditor, it should be filed with the RTC.

Now what happened here is that on December 5, 1990, Bernardo, a dealer of Caltex, ordered
gasoline from Caltex. So he ordered in the morning. At 6:00 at night on the same day, there was
a price increase. So when the gasoline was delivered the following day, Caltex charged
Bernardo for the increased price. Bernardo refused to pay and he filed a case before the RTC.
Caltex argued that the case should be filed with the ERB.

HELD: The RTC has jurisdiction because “a contract of sale of petroleum products was here
perfected between Caltex and its operator/dealer Bernardo; that in virtue of the payment
admittedly made by Bernardo, Caltex became a “debtor” to him in the sense that it was
obligated to make delivery to Bernardo of the petroleum products ordered by him; and that the
only issue is the manner by which Caltex shall perform its commitment in Bernardo’s favor. It is
rather one cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, as a dispute indeed ‘arising out of their
relationship as debtor and creditor.’”

“What the controversy is all about, to repeat, is simply the prices at which the petroleum
products shall be deemed to have been purchased from Caltex by Bernardo in December 5,
1990. This is obviously a civil law question, one determinable according to the provisions of the
Civil Code and hence, beyond the cognizance of the Energy Regulatory Board.”

Lack of Jurisdiction by RTC on Customs Matters

The RTC is devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity or regularity of seizure and
forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs, and to enjoin or otherwise interfere
with the said proceedings even if the seizure was illegal. Such act does not deprive the Bureau
of Customs of jurisdiction thereon. (RV Marzan Freight, Inc. v. CA, 424 SCRA 596)

The Court held that the Trial court was incompetent to pass upon and nullify: (1) the seizure of
the cargo in the abandonment proceedings, and (2) the declaration made by the District
Collector of Customs that the cargo was abandoned and ipso facto owned by the
government. It, likewise, has no jurisdiction to resolve the issue of whether or not the private
respondent was the owner of the cargo before it was gutted by fire. The trial court should have
rendered judgment dismissing the complaint, without prejudice to the right of the private
respondent to ventilate the issue before the CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF
SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

34

Commissioner of Customs and/or to the CTA as provided for in the Tariff and Customs Code.

Disputed Assessments

The CTA has jurisdiction over disputed assessments, and the ordinary courts over non-disputed
ones. Failure of a taxpayer to appeal to the CTA makes the assessment final and executory.
Thereafter, if a collection suit is filed in the court, there can no longer be any inquiry on the merits
of the original case. (Republic v. Dy Chay 1 SCRA 975; Olivares v. Marquez, 438 SCRA 679)

Non-Disputed Assessments

As provided in RA 9262, the CTA has:

“(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments
for taxes, fees, charges and penalties; Provided, however, that collection cases where the
principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than P1M
shall be tried by the proper MTC, MetTC and RTC.

The tax collection case would fall under the jurisdiction of the first level courts where the amount
does not exceed P300,000.00 or in MM where it does not exceed P400,000.00.

Where, however, what is being questioned is the very authority and power of the assessor,
acting solely and independently, to impose the assessment and of the treasurer to collect the
tax, and not merely the amounts of the increase in the tax, jurisdiction over the case was
properly with the trial courts. (Olivares v. Marquez 438 SCRA 679)

Special jurisdiction to try special cases

Certain branches of the RTC may be designated by the SC to handle exclusively criminal cases,
juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban and land reform cases which do
not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other special
cases as the SC may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice
(Sec. 233 BP Blg. 129)

Jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies

Sec. 5.2 of the Securities Regulation Code (RA No 8799) provides that the RTCs shall exercise
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:

a.) Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any act, of the board of directors,
business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which
may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the stockholders, partners, members
of associations or organizations registered with the Commission.

b.) Controversies arising out of inter-corporate or partnership relations, between and among
stockholders,

members or associates; between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or
association of which they are stockholders, members or associates, respectively, and between
such corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar as it concerns their individual
franchise or right to exist as such entity.

c.) Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or managers of

such corporations, partnerships or associations; and

d.) Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in the state of

suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership or association possesses
sufficient property to cover all its debts but foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they
respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation, partnership or association has no
sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under the management of a Rehabilitation Receiver
or Management Committee.

CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC

Sec. 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original
jurisdiction:

[1] In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus,
and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions;

Q: What is the difference between the original jurisdiction of the RTC in Section 21 and the
original jurisdiction of the RTC in Section 19?

A: In Section 19, you have the EXCLUSIVE original jurisdiction, whereas in Section 21 you have the
original jurisdiction but CONCURRENT with other courts.

Thus “original” jurisdiction stated in Section 21 is also shared with the SC and CA. Therefore , the
SC, CA, and RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction under Section 21. Like issuance of writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, etc. This is concurrent with the
CA and the SC. Such writs may be issued by (a) the RTC under Section 19; (b) CA under Section
9; and (c) SC under Article VIII Section 5 of the Constitution. The 3 courts share concurrent
jurisdiction over these cases.

However the only difference is that writs issued by an RTC can only be enforced in the same
region where the RTC belongs. Unlike writs issued by the SC and CA, they can be enforced
anywhere in the Philippines.

[2] In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls. CIVIL PROCEDURE
NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

35

The SC and RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction in actions affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls. Section 21 paragraph 2 states only of the concurrent original
jurisdiction of the SC and RTC. Section 19 on the jurisdiction of CA does not include the action
stated in section 21 paragraph 2 as part of its (CA’s) jurisdiction.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE RTC

Sec. 22. Appellate jurisdiction. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all
cases decided by MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases
shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin
and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the RTCs.
The decision of the RTCs in such cases shall be appealable by petition for review to the CA which
may give it due course only when the petition show prima facie that the lower court has
committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or
judgment sought to be reviewed.

Now take note that the RTC also has appellate jurisdiction under Section 22. These are cases
decided by the MTC. So they act as a sort of ‘court of appeals.’ The RTC exercises appellate
jurisdiction over all cases decided by the MTC in their respective territorial jurisdiction.

Q: How will the RTC decide on the appeal?

A: It shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of
origin (MTC) such as memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted. This means that witnesses
will not be made to appear again in the appeal. It is only a matter of reviewing the testimony,
stenographic notes, evidence presented, memoranda and briefs by the RTC judge.

Q: What are memoranda and briefs?

A: It is where the appealing party will argue that the decision is wrong and try to convince the
judge that the decision is wrong, and the other party to counter act that the decision is correct.

Q: Assuming that the case is originated in the MTC and subsequently dismissed by the RTC on
appeal, is the decision by the RTC rendered pursuant to its appellate jurisdiction appealable to
the CA?

A: YES, but the mode of appeal is now different. The decision of the RTC in such cases shall be
appealable by petition to review to the CA. The CA may or may not give it due course.

Q: What is the difference between an appeal made from the RTC to CA and appeal from the
MTC to RTC, which is dismissed by the latter and subsequently appealed to the CA?

A: The former (RTC – CA) is in pursuance to the original jurisdiction of the RTC. The latter (MTC-
RTC-CA) is in pursuance to the appellate jurisdiction of the RTC. (They are governed by different
rules)

To illustrate:

Pursuant to original jurisdiction of the RTC: Pursuant to appellate jurisdiction of the RTC:

COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS

Petition for Review (Rule 42)

 Ordinary appeal (Rule 41)

RTC
RTC
Ordinary Appeal (Rule 40)

MTC

Unlike in a case under the original jurisdiction of the RTC, where an appeal to the CA is a matter
of course. Meaning, for as long as your appeal is on time and properly made, the CA will
entertain it.

It is different, however, in a case under the appellate jurisdiction of the RTC, even if your appeal
is on time and properly made, there is no assurance that the CA will entertain the appeal. The
CA may give it due course only when your petition for review shows prima facie evidence that
the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification
of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.

Summary of RTC jurisdiction:

1.) As to the EXCLUSIVE original jurisdiction – Section 19 (BP 129);

2.) As to its original CONCURRENT jurisdiction – Section 21 (BP 129);

3.) As to its APPELLATE jurisdiction – Section 22 (BP 129)

JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURTS

Under RA 8369, the Family Courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the following civil cases:

1. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children and habeas corpus involving children;

2. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;

3. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to
status and

property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and
agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;

4. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;

5. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209,
otherwise known as the “Family Code of the Philippines”;

6. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent, or neglected

children, petition for voluntary of involuntary commitment of children, the suspension,
termination or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under PD No. 603,
E.O. No. 56 (series of 1986) and other related laws;

7. Petitions for the constitution of the family home (Sec. 5 RA 8369).

In areas where there are no Family Courts, the above enumerated cases shall be adjudicated
by the Regional Trial Court (Sec. 17, RA No. 8369).

JURISDICTION OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

Actually, when you know the jurisdiction of the RTC, automatically you know the jurisdiction of
the MTC. In criminal cases for example, RTC has jurisdiction when the penalty imposable is
imprisonment of more than 6 years until death penalty. So, necessarily, if it is 6 years or below,
the MTC has jurisdiction. Same with civil cases.

Summary of jurisdiction of MTC:

a) As to original jurisdiction – Section 33

b) As to delegated jurisdiction – Section 34

c) As to special jurisdiction – Section 35

A.) EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE MTC

Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts in civil cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts shall exercise:

1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and
intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the

demand does not exceed two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00), exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which
must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees: Provided
further, That where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different
parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the
claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the
same or different transactions.

RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts
mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by
this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years
thereafter, such jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned
jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to Four
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000,00).

Well if you know the jurisdiction of the RTC on money claims and probate cases, automatically
you will also know that of the MTC.

Under the law, it is only the principal claim or the main claim which is computed. Interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and cost are not included in
determining the jurisdiction when they are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main
cause of action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or
one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the
jurisdiction of the court.

Jurisdiction and Payment of Docket Fees

Even if the amount of damages and attorney’s fees do not determine jurisdiction, they must still
be specifically alleged in the complaint for the purpose of payment of docket fees. Thus, the
higher the amount one is claiming the higher the filing fee.

Why pay the docket fee?

Because it is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action. (Sun Insurance Office Ltd. [SIOLI] v. Asuncion 170 SCRA 274, 285
[1989])

SECTION 1. Xxxxxx

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral,
nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in the
complaint or information, the filing fees therefore shall constitute a first lien on the judgment
awarding such damages.

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information,
the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages.
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the
filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual
damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral,
nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees
based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these
damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount
awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.

EMNACE vs CA (2001) GR 126334

Payment of Filing fees In Case Civil Aspect Is Deemed Impliedly Instituted In the Criminal Action:

In any event, the Court now makes that intent plainer, and in the interest of clarity and certainty,
categorically declares for guidance of all concerned that when the civil action is deemed
impliedly instituted with the criminal in accordance with Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court
– because the offended party has not waived the civil action, or reserved the right to institute it
separately, or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action – the rule is as follows: (1)
when the amount of the damages, other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information
filed in court, then the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon filing
thereof in court for trial; (2) in any other case, however, -- i.e. when the amount of damages is
not so alleged in the complaint or information filed in court the corresponding filing fees need
not be paid and shall simply constitute a first lien on the judgment, except in an award for
actual damages. (General vs. Hon. Claravall, et al., 195 SCRA 623)

Q: Suppose there was no mention of any claim for moral or exemplary damages, by not stating
the amount claimed, can he still prove them during the trial? YES

But he did not pay docket fee?

A: Never mind, once it is awarded, there is now a lien in the judgment for the payment of the
docket fee.

For Independent Civil Actions

In the case of Sun Insurance if the damages was not mentioned in the complaint in the civil case
they are deemed waived. If it is mentioned, and the amount is fixed you must pay the docket
fee at the start of the case though if it is not complete, you are given the chance to complete
the payment or amend the complaint within reasonable time.

In criminal cases, even if there is no mention of damages in the information, you can still prove
and claim them as long as there is no waiver or reservation.

When docket fee is due for actual damage:

So in criminal cases, if the claim for moral or exemplary damages is mentioned in the
information, you must pay the docket fee upon filing of the information. But whether alleged in
the information or not, you can claim for actual damages and there is no docket fee for actual
damages except in cases under BP 22. That is the exception which is now embodied in Section 1
paragraph [b] which was taken from SC circular 57-97 – there is no payment of docket fee for
actual damages except in criminal cases for violation of BP 22 because paragraph [b] says:

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the
filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual
damages claimed.

OTHER CASES ON FILING FEE IN CIVIL CASES:

In the case of

MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. CA – 149 SCRA 562

FACTS: The plaintiff files a complaint and paid the docket fee but he did not specify the amount
of the damages he was claiming. He contended that he is claiming for moral damages in such
amount as the court will grant. Respondent contended, on the other hand, that it cannot be
done, there is a necessity to state the exact amount of the damages in order to determine the
correct amount of the docket fee. So the CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF
SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

38

plaintiff amended the complaint and paid the balance of the docket fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent amendment cures the defect?

HELD: No, the defect is incurable. Thus, the action has to be dismissed. The court acquires no
jurisdiction over the case. The remedy is to re-file the complaint and pay again the complete
amount of the docket fee. The prior payment made is forfeited in as much as the defect in the
first complaint is incurable.

So based on the MANCHESTER ruling, you cannot cure the defect by merely amending the
complaint.

However, the SC, after reflecting on what it said in the case of MANCHESTER, realized the
harshness of their decision. This Manchester ruling was relaxed in the subsequent case of SUN
INSURANCE OFFICE which is now the governing law:

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LTD. vs. COURT OF APPEALS – 170 SCRA 274 [1989]

HELD: Thus, the Court rules as follows:

1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of
the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or
nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment
of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no
case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third party claims and similar pleadings,
which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefore is paid. The
court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond
its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate
pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a
claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by
the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the
responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess
and collect the additional fee.

Payment of docket fee and counterclaims

Second rule:

“The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims…”

Re Compulsory Counterclaim

Rule 141 on Legal Fees was revised effective August 26, 2004 by AM No. 04-2-04-SC and the
revision includes the payment of docket fees not only for permissive counterclaim but also for
compulsory counterclaims. But the SC suspended the enforcement of the new rates of legal fees
under Rule 141 effective September 21, 2004, with respect to compulsory counterclaims, among
others. It did not suspend the imposition of legal fees.

However, in Korea Technologies Co. Ltd. Vs. Lerma, 542 SCRA 1, January 7, 2008, the Court said:

“On July 17, 1998, at the time PGSMC filed its Answer incorporating its counterclaims against
KOGIES, it was not liable to pay filing fees for said counterclaim being compulsory in nature. We
stress, however, that effective August 16, 2004, under Sec. 7 of Rule 141, as amended by AM No.
04-2-04-SC, docket fees are now required to be paid in compulsory counterclaim or cross
claims.”

And the third rule laid down in Sun Insurance:

If the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleadings, the filing fee therefor shall be a
lien in the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the clerk of Court or his duly-authorized
deputy to enforce the lien, assess and collect the additional fee.

Q: When can this possibly happen?

A: That can happen for example if I ask for damages. A man was hospitalized because of
physical injuries. While still in the hospital he filed an action for damages and based the amount
of damages on the current billing but alleged that he continues to incur expenses as may be
determined in the course of trial. He paid the docket fee corresponding to the amount
mentioned. After trial he was able to establish expenses in the sum of P50,000.00.
Q: Can the court award the P 50,000?

A: Yes, because the additional expenses came only after the filing of the case. The additional
docket fee will constitute a lien on the award.

The Sun Insurance is a leading case on docket fee. It was followed with a third case in
December 1989 which further clarified the SUN INSURANCE ruling. This is the case of

TACAY vs. RTC OF TAGUM, DAVAO DEL NORTE - 180 SCRA 433 [1989]

NOTE: When this case was filed, there was no SUN INSURANCE decision yet. The guiding rule was
still MANCHESTER. But while this was pending the SUN INSURANCE was already out. CIVIL
PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

39

FACTS: The case was for recovery of land with damages. So it is not purely for damages. So the
amount of filing fee is assessed based on the assessed value of the land because it is a real
action, which the plaintiff paid.

Defendant moved to dismiss based on MANCHESTER because the plaintiff did not specify in the
complaint how much damages he was claiming. Now the RTC of Tagum denies the motion to
dismiss. The defendant goes to the SC citing MANCHESTER.

Of course the SC said that the Manchester ruling was no longer controlling because of Sun
Insurance.

But it enunciated another rule.

HELD: “Where the action involves real property and a related claim for damages as well, the
legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of both:

a) the value of the property and

b) the total amount of related damages sought.

The court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is
accompanied by the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the
filing of the pleading, as of the time of full payment of the fees within such reasonable time as
the court may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in the meantime.”

In other words, the total docket fee must be based on the assessed value of the land and for the
damages. Thus:

1. If the docket fee for the recovery of land is paid but none for the damages, do not dismiss the
entire case! Just do not consider the claim for the damages. Or,

2. second option, citing SUN INSURANCE, give him reasonable time to pay the balance.
While Sun Insurance relaxed the rule (as to how or when to complete the payment), it did not
however, effect any change in the rule that it is not only the filing of the complaint but also the
payment of the docket fee that is necessary for the acquisition of the jurisdiction of the court
over the complaint filed. (Gensoli & Co. v. NLRC, 289 SCRA 407, 413 [1998]). If the filing of the
initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fees, the court may allow
payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive
or reglementary period. (Colarina v. CA, 303 SCRA 647, 654 [1999])

Other interesting cases on docket fees.

No “file now, pay later” policy

FILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORP vs. COURT OF APPEALS – 171 SCRA 674 [1989]

FACTS: Adrian dela Paz sued all oil companies (Shell, Caltex, Mobil, etc.) of the Philippines for
infringement of patent with prayer for the payment of reasonable compensation for damages.
According to him, these companies used in their operation a certain type of machine which he
claimed he invented. His patent was infringed. Thus, all these companies are all liable to him for
royalties. The estimated yearly royalty due him is P236,572. Since the violation has been for many
years already, his claims reached millions. The trial court ordered him to pay P945,636.90 as
docket fee. He had no money so he questioned it. The trial court ruled:

“We will allow you to file the case and the docket fee is deductible from whatever judgment of
damages shall be awarded by the court.”

HELD: There is no such thing as file now pay later. No justification can be found to convert such
payment to something akin to a contingent fee which would depend on the result of the case.

“Filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of cases in terms of cost
of supplies, use of equipments, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, etc., computed as to
man hours used in handling of each case. The payment of said fees therefore, cannot be made
dependent on the result of the action taken, without entailing tremendous losses to the
government and to the judiciary in particular.”

Q: What is the remedy of the plaintiff if he/she cannot really pay the filing fee?

A: Have himself declared by the court as a pauper litigant.

LACSON vs. REYES - 182 SCRA 729

FACTS: There was a case filed and then the lawyer filed a motion to direct the plaintiff to pay
him his attorney’s fees – a motion for payment of attorney’s fees.

Issue: Is the lawyer required to pay a filing fee?

HELD: Yes. “It may be true that the claim for attorney's fees was but an incident in the main case,
still, it is not an escape valve from the payment of docket fees because as in all actions, whether
separate or as an offshoot of a pending proceeding, the payment of docket fees is mandatory.
The docket fee should be paid before the court would validly act on the motion.”
SUSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS - 278 SCRA 284 [August 21, 1997)

FACTS: Mortz filed a case against Charles in Leyte. After filing, the court dismissed the case
because it should be filed in Cebu. Mortz wrote a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) asking that the docket fee paid in Leyte be considered applicable to Cebu. OCA
granted his request. CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE
OF LAW

40

Charles questioned it because of the rule that the payment of docket fee is jurisdictional.

HELD: “The OCA has neither the power nor the authority to exempt any party not otherwise
exempt under the law or under the Rules of Court in the payment of the prescribed docket fees.
It may be noteworthy to mention here that even in the Supreme Court, there are numerous
instances when a litigant has had to re-file a petition previously dismissed by the Court due to a
technicality (violation of a pertinent Circular), and in these instances, the litigant is required to
pay the prescribed docket fee and not apply to the re-filed case the docket fees paid in the
earlier dismissed case.”

“In the case at bar, in the strict sense, Mortz’s complaint cannot be deemed to have been ‘re-
filed’ in Cebu City because it was not originally filed in the same court but in the RTC Leyte. Thus,
when Mortz’s complaint was docketed by the clerk of court of the RTC Cebu City, it became an
entirely separate case from that dismissed by the RTC of Leyte due to improper venue. As far as
the case in Cebu is concerned, while undoubtedly the order of dismissal is not an adjudication
on the merits of the case, the order, nevertheless, is a final order. This means that when private
respondent did not appeal therefrom, the order became final and executory for all legal intents
and purposes.”

DE LEON vs. COURT OF APPEALS – 287 SCRA 94 [March 6, 1998]

FACTS: The question for decision is whether in assessing the docket fees to be paid for the filing of
an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale, the value of the real property, subject
matter of the contract, should be used as basis, or whether the action should be considered as
one which is not capable of pecuniary estimation and therefore the fee charged should be a
flat rate of P400.00 as provided in Rule 141, Section 7(b)(1) of the Rules of Court.

Defendant argued that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of real
property is a real action and, therefore, the amount of the docket fees to be paid by Plaintiff
should be based either on the assessed value of the property, subject matter of the action, or its
estimated value as alleged in the complaint.

Since Plaintiff alleged that the land, in which they claimed an interest as heirs, had been sold for
P4,378,000.00 to defendant, this amount should be considered the estimated value of the land
for the purpose of determining the docket fees.

Plaintiff countered that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of real
property is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, so, the docket fees should be the fixed
amount of P400.00 in Rule 141, Section 7(b).
HELD: Plaintiff is correct. “In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is
not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the
nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of
money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in
the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim.
“

However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or
where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought,
like in suits to have the defendant perform his part of the contract (specific performance) and in
actions for support, or for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this Court has
considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in
terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance.”

“The rationale of the rule is plainly that the second class cases, besides the determination of
damages, demand an inquiry into other factors which the law has deemed to be more within
the competence of courts of first instance, which were the lowest courts of record at the time
that the first organic laws of the Judiciary were enacted allocating jurisdiction.”

“Actions for specific performance of contracts have been expressly pronounced to be

exclusively cognizable by courts of first instance and no cogent reason appears, and none is
here advanced by the parties, why an action for rescission (or resolution) should be differently
treated, a "rescission" being a counterpart, so to speak, of ‘specific performance’.”

“In both cases, the court would certainly have to undertake an investigation into facts that
would justify one act or the other. No award for damages may be had in an action for rescission
without first conducting an inquiry into matters which would justify the setting aside of a
contract. Issues of the same nature may be raised by a party against whom an action for
rescission has been brought, or by the plaintiff himself.”

“It is, therefore, difficult to see why a prayer for damages in an action for rescission should be
taken as the basis for concluding such action as one capable of pecuniary estimation — a
prayer which must be included in the main action if plaintiff is to be compensated for what he
may have suffered as a result of the breach committed by defendant, and not later on
precluded from recovering damages by the rule against splitting a cause of action and
discouraging multiplicity of suits.”

“Thus, although eventually the result may be the recovery of land, it is the nature of the action as
one for rescission of contract which is controlling.”

“Since the action of Plaintiff against Defendant is solely for annulment or rescission which is not
susceptible of pecuniary estimation, the action should not be confused and equated with the
‘value of the property’ subject of the transaction; that by the very nature of the case, the
allegations, and specific prayer in the complaint, sans any prayer for recovery of money and/or
value of the transaction, or for actual or compensatory damages, the assessment and collection
of the legal fees should not be intertwined with the merits of the case and/or what may be its
end result.”

In Go vs. UCPB, GR No. 156182 Nov. 11, 2004 the court declared the following as real actions:
3) judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage;

4) actions to annul real estate mortgage;

for the reason that a real estate mortgage is a real right as well as a real property. So an action
to cancel or annul a real estate mortgage necessarily affects title to the real property, hence a
real action and jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the property.

EMNACE vs CA (2001) GR 126334

Issue: Whether or not respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion in taking cognizance of a case despite the failure to pay the required docket fee;

On August 8, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision, 12 dismissing the
petition for certiorari, upon a finding that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction was committed by the trial court in issuing the questioned orders denying
petitioner's motions to dismiss.

Not satisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition for review, raising the same issues resolved by the
Court of Appeals, namely:

I. Failure to pay the proper docket fee;

Xxxx xxxx xxxx

It can be readily seen that respondents' primary and ultimate objective in instituting the action
below was to recover the decedent's 1/3 share in the partnership's assets. While they ask for an
accounting of the partnership's assets and finances, what they are actually asking is for the trial
court to compel petitioner to pay and turn over their share, or the equivalent value thereof, from
the proceeds of the sale of the partnership assets. They also assert that until and unless a proper
accounting is done, the exact value of the partnership's assets, as well as their corresponding
share therein, cannot be ascertained. Consequently, they feel justified in not having paid the
commensurate docket fee as required by the Rules of Court.

We do not agree. The trial court does not have to employ guesswork in ascertaining the
estimated value of the partnership's assets, for respondents themselves voluntarily pegged the
worth thereof at Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00). Hence, this case is one which is really not
beyond pecuniary estimation, but rather partakes of the nature of a simple collection case
where the value of the subject assets or amount demanded is pecuniarily determinable. While it
is true that the exact value of the partnership's total assets cannot be shown with certainty at the
time of filing, respondents can and must ascertain, through informed and practical estimation,
the amount they expect to collect from the partnership, particularly from petitioner, in order to
determine the proper amount of docket and other fees. 14 It is thus imperative for respondents
to pay the corresponding docket fees in order that the trial court may acquire jurisdiction over
the action.
Nevertheless, unlike in the case of Manchester Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 16
where there was clearly an effort to defraud the government in avoiding to pay the correct
docket fees, we see no attempt to cheat the courts on the part of respondents. In fact, the
lower courts have noted their expressed desire to remit to the court "any payable balance or
lien on whatever award which the Honorable Court may grant them in this case should there be
any deficiency in the payment of the docket fees to be computed by the Clerk of Court." 17
There is evident willingness to pay, and the fact that the docket fee paid so far is inadequate is
not an indication that they are trying to avoid paying the required amount, but may simply be
due to an inability to pay at the time of filing. This consideration may have moved the trial court
and the Court of Appeals to declare that the unpaid docket fees shall be considered a lien on
the judgment award.

Petitioner, however, argues that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in condoning the
non-payment of the proper legal fees and in allowing the same to become a lien on the
monetary or property judgment that may be rendered in favor of respondents. There is merit in
petitioner's assertion. The third paragraph of Section 16, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court states that:

The legal fees shall be a lien on the monetary or property judgment in favor of the pauper-
litigant.

Respondents cannot invoke the above provision in their favor because it specifically applies to
pauper-litigants. Nowhere in the records does it appear that respondents are litigating as
paupers, and as such are exempted from the payment of court fees.

The rule applicable to the case at bar is Section 5(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which
defines the two kinds of claims as:

1) those which are immediately ascertainable; and

2) those which cannot be immediately ascertained as to the exact amount.

This second class of claims, where the exact amount still has to be finally determined by the
courts based on evidence presented, falls squarely under the third paragraph of said Section
5(a), which provides: CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE
OF LAW

42

In case the value of the property or estate or the sum claimed is less or more in accordance with
the appraisal of the court, the difference of fee shall be refunded or paid as the case may be.
(Emphasis ours)

In Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 19 this Court pronounced that the
above-quoted provision "clearly contemplates an initial payment of the filing fees corresponding
to the estimated amount of the claim subject to adjustment as to what later may be proved." 20
Moreover, we reiterated therein the principle that the payment of filing fees cannot be made
contingent or dependent on the result of the case. Thus, an initial payment of the docket fees
based on an estimated amount must be paid simultaneous with the filing of the complaint.
Otherwise, the court would stand to lose the filing fees should the judgment later turn out to be
adverse to any claim of the respondent heirs.

The matter of payment of docket fees is not a mere triviality. These fees are necessary to defray
court expenses in the handling of cases. Consequently, in order to avoid tremendous losses to
the judiciary, and to the government as well, the payment of docket fees cannot be made
dependent on the outcome of the case, except when the claimant is a pauper-litigant.

Applied to the instant case, respondents have a specific claim — 1/3 of the value of all the
partnership assets — but they did not allege a specific amount. They did, however, estimate the
partnership's total assets to be worth Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00), in a letter addressed to
petitioner. Respondents cannot now say that they are unable to make an estimate, for the said
letter and the admissions therein form part of the records of this case. They cannot avoid paying
the initial docket fees by conveniently omitting the said amount in their amended complaint.
This estimate can be made the basis for the initial docket fees that respondents should pay. Even
if it were later established that the amount proved was less or more than the amount alleged or
estimated, Rule 141, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court specifically provides that the court may
refund the excess or exact additional fees should the initial payment be insufficient. It is clear
that it is only the difference between the amount finally awarded and the fees paid upon filing
of this complaint that is subject to adjustment and which may be subjected to a lien.

In the oft-quoted case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, this Court held
that when the specific claim "has been left for the determination by the court, the additional
filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment and it shall be the responsibility of the
Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the
additional fee." Clearly, the rules and jurisprudence contemplate the initial payment of filing and
docket fees based on the estimated claims of the plaintiff, and it is only when there is a
deficiency that a lien may be constituted on the judgment award until such additional fee is
collected.

Based on the foregoing, the trial court erred in not dismissing the complaint outright despite their
failure to pay the proper docket fees. Nevertheless, as in other procedural rules, it may be
liberally construed in certain cases if only to secure a just and speedy disposition of an action.
While the rule is that the payment of the docket fee in the proper amount should be adhered to,
there are certain exceptions which must be strictly construed.

In recent rulings, this Court has relaxed the strict adherence to the Manchester doctrine,
allowing the plaintiff to pay the proper docket fees within a reasonable time before the
expiration of the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

In the recent case of National Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 25 this Court held that:

The court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is
accompanied by the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the
filing of the pleading, as of the time of full payment of the fees within such reasonable time as
the court may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in the meantime.

It does not follow, however, that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint for failure of
private respondent to pay the correct amount of docket fees. Although the payment of the
proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial court may allow the plaintiff in an
action to pay the same within a reasonable time before the expiration of the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period. If the plaintiff fails to comply within this requirement, the
defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be considered in estoppel.
In the latter case, the balance between the appropriate docket fees and the amount actually
paid by the plaintiff will be considered a lien or any award he may obtain in his favor. (Emphasis
ours)

Accordingly, the trial court in the case at bar should determine the proper docket fee based on
the estimated amount that respondents seek to collect from petitioner, and direct them to pay
the same within a reasonable time, provided the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period
has not yet expired. Failure to comply therewith, and upon motion by petitioner, the immediate
dismissal of the complaint shall issue on jurisdictional grounds.

TOTALITY RULE

Now, continuing with Section 33, it says there in paragraph [1]:

“Provided further, That where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or
different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the
totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action
arose out of the same or different transactions.”

Under This rule, where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or
different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the
totality of the CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

43

claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the
same or different transactions (Sec. 33 as amended by RA No. 7691; PANTRANCO North Express
Inc. vs. Standard Insurance Company Inc., 453 SCRA 482).

ILLUSTRATION of joinder of causes of action:

The defendant secured from me two loans covered by 2 promissory notes and all of them are
due and he has not paid me any. Let's say each note covers a principal amount of P175,000.00.

I decided to file one complaint embodying 2 causes of action against him although I have the
option also to file 2 separate complaints. If you will look at the value of each claim which is
P175,000 that is triable by the MTC but if you will add the claims that will be P350,000.00.

Q: Which court will have jurisdiction?

A: The RTC because the jurisdictional amount is the total amount.

Never mind that there are 2 separate loans because the law says “irrespective of whether the
cause of action arose out of the same or different transactions.”
In the example, there are two causes of action arising from two separate transactions. Illustrate
a joinder of causes of action arising from only one transaction.

Suppose the loan is payable in installments on separate dates. Each failure is a cause of action.

Now in the examples, there is only one plaintiff and one defendant.

What about when there are several plaintiffs or defendants?

EXAMPLE: There are four (4) passengers riding on a public vehicle. They were all injured when the
bus met an accident and all of them were hospitalized. So after they were discharged, the four
of them wanted to sue the bus company for damages arising from contract of carriage or culpa
contractual. They decided to file only one complaint and, in effect, joined the 4 causes of
action.

Q: What will be now the basis of jurisdiction the claim of each plaintiff or the totality of the claims
of the 4 plaintiffs?

A: The totality of the claims. You apply the totality rule because the law says “where there are
several claims or cause of action between the same or different parties.”

So whether the parties are the same or the parties are different embodied in the same
complaint the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims the totality rule applies in
both situations.

Totality Rule subject to rule on joinder of parties

Where two or more plaintiffs, having separate causes of action, sue one defendant or a plaintiff
sues one or more defendants in a single complaint, based on several causes of action for or
against each other, respectively, the totality rule applies only where there is a common question
of fact or law among them as provided in Section 6 of Rule 3.

When there are several parties-plaintiffs or defendants and there are several causes of action, as
in the last example given, when you join the causes of action there will necessarily be a joinder
of parties. In such a case there can only be a proper joinder of causes of action when there is a
proper joinder of parties and the totality rule applies only when the joinder is proper.

Q: When is a joinder of parties proper?

A: It is proper when there is a common question of fact and law. Note also that joinder of parties
is permissive (Sec. 6, R3)

Jurisdiction of the MTC in Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Sec. 33[2] Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
Provided, That when, in such cases, 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. x x
x x”
These are called accion interdictal and the only issue is physical possession of the property. The
two cases should not be confused with accion publiciana which is also the recovery of
possession.

In unlawful detainer, the plaintiff prays not only to eject the defendant but also to claim for back
rentals or the reasonable amount of the use and occupation of the property in case of forcible
entry.

Q: Suppose the unpaid rentals already amount to almost half a million pesos, where should the
case be filed?

A: The case should still be filed with the MTC. What determines jurisdiction is the nature of the
action, and not the amount of recoverable rentals.

Q: In an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, can the party present evidence of
ownership?

A: The general rule is NO because the MTC cannot adjudicate ownership. That has to be
threshed out in the proper civil action in the RTC. But if evidence of ownership is presented in the
forcible entry or unlawful detainer case, it is only incidental and it is only resolved to determine
the issue of possession. Such declaration of ownership is not final. The question of ownership must
be litigated in a separate action in the RTC. CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF
SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

44

Let us now proceed to the third paragraph of Section 33 as amended by R.A. 7691:

Real Actions other then Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

[3] Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which 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 Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases
of land not declared for tax purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the
assessed value of the adjacent lots. (As amended by RA 7691)

Aside from forcible entry and unlawful detainer, MTCs now have jurisdiction over other real
actions or actions involving title to or possession, or any interest therein, like accion publiciana
and accion reinvidicatoria cases where the assessed value of the land should not exceed
P20,000. In Metro Manila, it is not exceeding P50,000 In cases of land not declared for taxation
purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent
lots.. That is the amendment brought about by RA 7691 which expanded the jurisdiction of the
MTC.

An accion reivindicatoria is a suit which has for its object the recovery of possession over the real
property as owner. It involves recovery of ownership and possession based on said ownership.
An accion publiciana is one for the recovery of possession or the right to possess. It is also
referred to as an ejectment suit after the expiration of one year after the occurrence of the
cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. It is considered a
plenary action to recover the right of possession when dispossession is effected by means other
than unlawful detainer or forcible entry.

Q: What is the Assessed value?

A: The assessed value of real property can have reference only to the tax rolls in the municipality
where the property is located, and is contained in the tax declaration. It is elementary that the
tax declaration indicating the assessed value of the property enjoys the presumption of
regularity as it has been issued by the proper government agency (Hilario vs. Salvador, 457 SCRA
815).

In Vda. De Barrera vs. Heirs of Legaspi, GR No. 174346, Sept. 12, 2008, the facts point to a
complaint for reconveyance of possession of real property with preliminary injunction and
damages filed in the RTC of Tangub City. One of the defenses raised by the defendants was the
court’s lack of jurisdiction over the complaint, the assessed value of the subject property as
reflected in the uncontroverted tax declaration is only P11,160.00. The trial court, in its decision,
rejected the contention of the defendant holding that since the complaint alleged the
estimated value of the land as P50,000.00, such allegation must prevail over the assessed value
of P11,160.00 relied upon by the defense. What determines the nature of the action and the
jurisdiction over the complaint, said the trial court, are the facts alleged in the complaint and
not those alleged in the answer of the defendants. The CA affirmed.

On appeal by certiorari the SC held:

“The subject land has an assessed value of P11,160.00 as reflected in the Tax Declaration No.
7565, a common exhibit of the parties. The bare claim of respondents that it has a value of
P50,000.00 thus fails. The case, therefore, falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
municipal trial court.

It was error then for the RTC to take cognizance of the complaint based on the allegation that
“the present estimated value of the land is P50,000.00”…The estimated value, commonly
referred to as the fair market value of the property.”

B.) DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF THE MTC

Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. - MetTCs, MTCs and
MCTCs may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots
where the value of which does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such
value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective
claimants if there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax declarations of the real
property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of
the RTCs. (As amended by RA 7691)

As a rule cadastral and land registration cases fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC.

Q: What is the difference between a land registration proceeding and a cadastral proceeding?
A: Cadastral is compulsory registration.

This is related to your study of Land, Titles and Deeds (The Property Registration Decree). When
you file a petition for land registration, the object is to have your property registered and fall
under the Torrens System of the Land Registration.

Q: Now, what is this delegated jurisdiction all about? CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED
UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

45
A: It refers only to cadastral and land registration cases which involve the titling of property
under the Torrens system or cadastral land registration.

Under the Property Registration Decree, only the RTC has authority to entertain land registration
and cadastral cases. But now, Section 34 gives the Supreme Court the authority to DELEGATE to
MTCs to hear and decide land registration and cadastral cases under the following conditions:

1.) when there is no controversy or nobody is contesting your petition; or

2.) even if the petition is contested where the value of the land to be titled does not exceed
P100,000.

In which case, these MTCs can decide and their decisions are appealable directly to the CA
because in exercise of delegated jurisdiction it is acting as an RTC.

The value of the lot shall be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the
respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of
the real property.

Now do not confuse this P100,000 (Section 34) with the P20,000 under Section 33. Section 34
deals with cadastral and land registration cases. Section 33 involves civil cases (accion
publiciana, etc.)

C.) SPECIAL JURISDICTION OF MTC

Sec. 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. - In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a
province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial
Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in
criminal cases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.

This is what we call special jurisdiction. It only applies to two (2) types of cases: (1) Habeas corpus
and (2) hearing of petitions for bail.

Remember that habeas corpus is not within the jurisdiction of the MTC. It is with the RTC. In an
application for bail the RTC also has jurisdiction because the offense may be a heinous one, but
under the law on criminal procedure you can file a petition for bail to have your temporary
freedom while the case is going on. That’s supposed to be in the RTC.

But suppose there is no available RTC judge, all of them are sick or all of them are attending a
convention (this actually happened in Davao in 1990) Section 35 provides that the MTC, in the
absence of RTC judges, can hear and decide on habeas corpus case petitions and applications
or petitions for bail in criminal cases.

That is allowed because of the urgency of the situation. There is no need for a SC authorization.
However, this is only allowed in the absence of the RTC judges. But if the RTC judge comes back,
he has to take over the petition.

REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE as amended by A.M. 02-11-09-SC, effective November

25, 2002
Cases subject to summary procedure

(a) Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases; and

(b) All other claims where the total claim does not exceed P100,000.00 (outside Metro Manila),
or does not exceed P200,000.00 (Metro Manila) exclusive of interests and costs. Probate
proceedings are not covered by the rule on summary procedure even if the gross value of the
estate does not exceed P100,000.00 or P200,000.00.

Some basic principles to be remembered in civil cases subject to a summary procedure:

(a) Not all pleadings in an ordinary civil action are allowed in a summary procedure. The only
pleadings allowed are (1) complaint; (2) compulsory counterclaim; (3) cross-claim pleaded in
the answer, (4) answers to these pleadings (Sec. 3)

(b) The court in a summary procedure may dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for
the dismissal of a civil action (Sec. 4)

(c) Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period of ten (10) days from
service of summons, the court may motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, render judgment
(not an order declaring the defendant in default) as may be warranted by the facts alleged
and limited to what is prayed for (Sec. 6)

(d) There shall be preliminary conference held but there shall be no trial. Instead the parties shall
submit affidavits and position papers (Secs ,8,9)

(e) Within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the last affidavits and positions papers, or the
expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall render judgment (Sec. 10)

(f) As a rule a motion to dismiss is not allowed except on either of two grounds (1) lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, or (2) failure to comply with the barangay conciliation
proceedings (Sec. 19(a))

(g) Although a petition for certiorari is prohibited in cases subject to summary procedure, the
Court in one case allowed the petition because the trial court gravely abused its discretion by
indefinitely suspending the proceedings in ejectment cases thus, acting contrary to the purposes
of the Rules on Summary Procedure. The SC recognized that because the order of the trial court
cannot be appealed from it being an interlocutory and since the proceedings are covered by
the Rules on Summary Procedure, a ‘procedural void’ exists. Invoking its power to suspend the
rules to promote substantial justice, the SC gave due course to the petition pro hac vice
because of the extraordinary circumstances of the case. The Court observed that allowing the
petition would avoid the mischiefs sought to be curbed by the Rules and would give spirit and
life to the Rules on Summary Procedure (Go vs. CA 297 SCRA 574).

CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

46
(h) It must be emphasized that in a civil case governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure, no
hearing is conducted. Instead, the parties are required to submit their respective position papers
(Five Star Marketing Corporation vs. Booc, 535 SCRA 28).

Q: Now, what are the PROHIBITED documents, motions, or pleadings under the Summary Rules?

A: The following (Under Section 19):

1.) Motion to quash except when your ground is

a.) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; or

b.) failure to comply with the Barangay Conciliation;

2.) Motion for bill of particulars;

3.) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial; your
remedy here is appeal;

4.) Petition for relief from judgement;

5.) Motion for extension of time to file an affidavit;

6.) Memoranda;

7.) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory orders issued by the
court;

8.) Motion to declare the defendant in default;

9.) Dilatory motions postponements;

10.) Reply;

11.) Third-party complaints;

12.) Interventions;

Jurisdiction Over Small Claims Cases

Introduction of the Concept of Small Claims Court in the Philippines

The idea of establishing Small Claims Courts in the Philippines was first proposed to the Supreme
Court through a study conducted in 1999 by Justice Josue N. Bellosillo, former Senior Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court. After observing small claims courts and interviewing judges of such
courts in Dallas, Texas, United States in 1999, Justice Bellosillo proposed in a Report that courts
can be established in the Philippines to handle exclusively small claims without the participation
of lawyers and where ordinary litigants can prosecute and defend a small claims action through
ready-made forms. He envisioned the small claims courts as another positive approach, in
addition to mandatory pre-trial, for solving court congestion and delay.The study and report was
subsequently endorsed for legislative action to Senator Franklin Drilon who later funded a project
for this purpose. At the regular session of the Fourteenth Congress, House Bill No. 2921 entitled
“An Act Establishing Small Claims Courts” was introduced by Congressman Jose V. Yap.
Thereafter, on July 3, 2007, Senate Bill No. 800 entitled “Philippine Small Claims Court Act” was
filed by Senator Ramon A. Revilla, Jr. and, on September 3, 2007, the bill passed First Reading
and was referred to the Committee(s) on Justice and Human Rights and Finance. The same is still
pending with these committees at present. In 2007, the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) awarded a two-year grant to the American Bar Association-Rule of Law
Initiative (ABA-ROLI) to pursue judicial reform activities in the Philippines for the fiscal period
October 2007 to September 30, 2009 . In a letter to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno dated October
10, 2007, ABA-ROLI proposed the establishment of small claims pilot courts among first level
courts in different regions of the Philippines. The small claims pilot court project was proposed by
ABA to USAID after consultation with various Supreme Court officials in conjunction with the 2000
Action Plan for Judicial Reform. Among the critical issues being addressed by the APJR are case
congestion and delay. The congestion of case dockets is central to a multitude of problems,
either as cause or effect; it is either the 34 A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC manifestation or the source of
other difficulties. Addressing this concern is thus an imperative8 which is why present reforms in
judicial systems and procedures have included the following:

1. streamlining procedural rules to eliminate provisions that cause delay and permit dilatory
tactics;

2. re-engineering the jurisdictional structure of the courts to ensure easy geographical access to
the courts particularly by the poor litigants;

3. improving the case management system toward more transparency, accountability and
integrity of the judicial process and for better efficiency; and

4. strengthening of the mediation mechanism to promote early dispute resolution nationwide.

This involves the institutionalization of court-annexed mediation, and the establishment of a

Mediation Center to continually monitor and assess the performance of the system and provide
training and research.

Notwithstanding the absence of a law at the present time creating small claims courts in our
country, the Supreme Court through a program in partnership with ABA-ROLI and USAID, can
promulgate and implement a simplified rule of procedure exclusively for small claims and assign
a certain number of existing first level courts to take cognizance of small claims. This does not
need legislative action as the Court can designate several first level courts all over the country to
jump-start the pilot project. Thus, pursuant to its rule-making power, the Court under the present
Constitution can adopt a special rule of procedure to govern small claims cases and select pilot
courts that would empower the people to bring suits before them pro se to resolve legal disputes
involving simple issues of law and procedure without the need for legal representation and
extensive judicial intervention. This system will enhance access to justice especially by those who
cannot afford the high costs of litigation even in cases of relatively small value. It is envisioned
that by facilitating the traffic of cases through simple and expeditious rules and means, our
Court can improve the perception of justice in this country, thus giving citizens a renewed
“stake” in preserving peace in the land. This is a hopeful message to our people that

Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases “there is no need to despair for there is deliverance in
law; that is a promise that has been fulfilled by law in the past; it is a promise law will again fulfill
in the future.” In December 2007, the Supreme Court established a Technical Working Group
composed of the Court Administrator, CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN
CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

47

the Program Management Office Administrator, selected judges and other officials of the
Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to undertake the following activities:

1) The development of Rules and Procedures to Implement Pilot Small Claims Courts;

2) The establishment of Criteria to Select Appropriate Regions/Judges for Pilot Small Claims
Courts and set Peso Limits for the Small Claims Courts

3) Through the Philippine Judicial Academy, the conduct of training programs for Judges and
their personnel participating in the Pilot Small Claims Courts project; and

4) The employment of “Justice on Wheels” buses to launch pilot small claims tribunals.

Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases 1

A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC

RULE OF PROCEDURE

FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES

EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2008

MANILA, PHILIPPINES

SEPTEMBER 2008

RULE OF PROCEDURE

FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES

SECTION 1. Title.—This Rule shall be known as “The Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.”

SEC. 2. Scope.—This Rule shall govern 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.
Explanatory Note: The purpose of a small claims process is to provide an inexpensive and
expeditious means to settle disputes over small amounts. For purposes of the project, the amount
has been set for claims involving amounts of not more than P100,000.00. The theory behind the
small claims system is that ordinary litigation fails to bring practical justice to the parties when the
disputed claim is small, because the time and expense required by the ordinary litigation
process is so disproportionate to the amount involved that it discourages a just resolution of the
dispute. The small claims process is designed to function quickly and informally. There are no
attorneys, no formal pleadings and no strict legal rules of evidence. The small claims court
system is not a “typical inferior court.” Parties are encouraged to file small claims court actions to
resolve their minor disputes as opposed to resorting to self-help or forcible means to seek their
remedy. (Pace v. Hillcrest Motor Co., 161 Cal. Rptr. 663, 664 Ct. App. 1980)

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.—For purposes of this Rule:

(a) Plaintiff refers to the party who initiated a small claims action. The term includes a defendant
who has filed a counterclaim against plaintiff;

(b) Defendant is the party against whom the plaintiff has filed a small claims action. The term
includes a plaintiff against whom a defendant has filed a claim, or a person who replies to the
claim;

(c) Person is an individual, corporation, partnership,limited liability partnership, association, or

other juridical entity endowed with personality by law;

(d) Individual is a natural person;

(e) Motion means a party’s request, written or oral, to the court for an order or other action. It
shall include an informal written request to the court, such as a letter;

(f) Good cause means circumstances sufficient to justifythe requested order or other action, as
determined by the judge; and

(g) Affidavit means a written statement or declaration of facts that are sworn or affirmed to be
true.

SEC. 4. 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 actions, either filed before
the institution of the criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action in court,
pursuant to Rule 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; CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE
OF LAW

48

2. Quasi-contract; or

3. Contract;

(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving a

money claim covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as
the Local Government Code of 1991.

Explanatory Note: The kinds of cases that can be filed in Small Claims Court vary, but the case
must seek money only. For example, a suit cannot be brought in Small Claims Court to force a
person or business to fix a damaged good; or to demand fulfillment of a promised obligation
which is not purely for money, or to seek money to compensate for pain and suffering. Some of
the kinds of cases which are allowed as small claims include the following:

1. Actual damage caused to vehicles, other personal property, real property or person;

2. Payment or reimbursement for property, deposit, or money loaned;

3. Payment for services rendered, insurance claim, rent, commissions, or for goods sold and
delivered;

4. Money claim pursuant to a contract, warranty or agreement; and

5. Purely civil action for payment of money covered bybounced or stopped check.

SEC. 5. Commencement of Small Claims Action.—A small claims action is commenced by filing
with the court an accomplished and verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) in duplicate,
accompanied by a Certification of Non-forum Shopping (Form 1-A, SCC), and two (2) duly
certified photocopies of the actionable document/s subject of the claim, as well as the affidavits
of witnesses and other evidence to support the claim. No evidence shall be allowed during the
hearing which was not attached to or submitted together with the Claim, unless good cause is
shown for the admission of additional evidence.

No formal pleading, other than the Statement of Claim described in this Rule, is necessary to
initiate a small claims action.
SEC. 6. Joinder of Claims.—Plaintiff may join in a single statement of claim one or more separate
small claims against a defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest
and costs, does not exceed P100,000.00.

SEC. 7. Affidavits.—The affidavits submitted under this Rule shall state only facts of direct personal
knowledge of the affiants which are admissible in evidence.

A violation of this requirement shall subject the party, and the counsel who assisted the party in
the preparation of the affidavits, if any, to appropriate disciplinary action. The inadmissible
affidavit(s) or portion(s) thereof shall be expunged from the record.

SEC. 8. Payment of Filing Fees.—The plaintiff shall pay the docket and other legal fees prescribed
under Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, unless allowed to litigate as an indigent.

A claim filed with a motion to sue as indigent (Form 6-SCC) shall be referred to the Executive
Judge for immediate action in case of multi-sala courts, or to the Presiding Judge of the court
hearing the small claims case. If the motion is granted by the Executive Judge, the case shall be
raffled off or assigned to the court designated to hear small claims cases. If the motion is denied,
the plaintiff shall be given five (5) days within which to pay the docket fees, otherwise, the case
shall be dismissed without prejudice. In no case shall a party, even if declared an indigent, be
exempt from the payment of the P1,000.00 fee for service of summons and processes in civil
cases.

Explanatory Note: A plaintiff may commence an action in the small claims court by filing a
Statement of Claim under oath with the Clerk of the first level court in person or by mail. The
claim form shall be a simple nontechnical form approved or adopted by the Supreme Court.
The claim form shall set forth

1) the name and address of the defendant, if known;

2) the amount and the basis of the claim;

3) that the plaintiff, where possible, has demanded payment and, in applicable cases,
possession of the property;

4) that the defendant has failed or refused to pay, and where applicable, has refused to
surrender the property; and

5) that the plaintiff understands that the judgment on his or her claim will be conclusive and
without a right of appeal.

The plaintiff should attach to the claim all documents necessary to prove his/her right to reliefs
prayed for. The form or accompanying instructions shall include information that the plaintiff

1. may not be represented by an attorney;

2. has no right of appeal; and

3. may ask the court to waive fees for filing and serving the claim on the ground that the plaintiff
is indigent unable to pay them, using the forms approved by the Supreme Court for that
purpose.

SEC. 9. Dismissal of the Claim.—After the court determines that the case falls under this Rule, it
may, from an examination of the allegations of the Statement of Claim and such evidence
attached thereto, by itself, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds apparent from the
Claim for the dismissal of a civil action.

Explanatory Note: Jurisdiction and venue requirements in small claims actions shall be the same
as in other civil actions provided in CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN
CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

49

the Rules of Civil Procedure. A defendant may challenge jurisdiction or venue or court location
by including these defenses in his Response before appearing in the scheduled hearing. In all
cases, even if the defendant does not ask for dismissal of the case in the Response or appear at
the hearing, the court shall inquire into the facts sufficiently to determine whether jurisdiction and
authority of the court over the action are proper, and shall make its determination accordingly.

SEC. 10. Summons and Notice of Hearing.—If no ground for dismissal is found, the court shall
forthwith issue Summons (Form 2-SCC) on the day of receipt of the Statement of Claim, directing
the defendant to submit a verified Response.

The court shall also issue a Notice (Form 4-SCC) to both parties, directing them to appear before
it on a specific date and time for hearing, with a warning that no unjustified postponement shall
be allowed, as provided in Section 19 of this Rule. The summons and notice to be served on the
defendant shall be accompanied by a copy of the Statement of Claim and documents
submitted by plaintiff, and a copy of the Response (Form 3-SCC) to be accomplished by the
defendant. The Notice shall contain an express prohibition against the filing of a motion to
dismiss or any other motion under Section 14 of this Rule.

SEC. 11. Response.—The defendant shall file with the court and serve on the plaintiff a duly
accomplished and verified Response within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from
receipt of summons. The Response shall be accompanied by certified photocopies of
documents, as well as affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in support thereof. No evidence
shall be allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or submitted together with the
Response, unless good cause is shown for the admission of additional evidence.

SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Response.—Should the defendant fail to file his Response within
the required period, the court by itself shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts
alleged in the Statement of Claim limited to what is prayed for.

The court however, may, in its discretion, reduce the amount of damages for being excessive or
unconscionable.
SEC. 13. Counterclaims Within the Coverage of this Rule.— If at the time the action is
commenced, the defendant possesses a claim against the plaintiff that (a) is within the
coverage of this Rule, exclusive of interest and costs; (b) arises out of the same transaction or
event that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim; (c) does not require for its adjudication the
joinder of third parties; and (d) is not the subject of another pending action, the claim shall be
filed as a counterclaim in the Response; otherwise, the defendant shall be barred from suit on
the counterclaim.

The defendant may also elect to file a counterclaim against the plaintiff that does not arise out of
the same transaction or occurrence, provided that the amount and nature thereof are within the
coverage of this Rule and the prescribed docket and other legal fees are paid.

Explanatory Note: If a defendant has a claim against a plaintiff that exceeds the limits stated in
Section 2 of this Rule, and the claim relates to the contract, transaction, matter, or event which is
the subject of the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant may commence an action against the plaintiff
in a court of competent jurisdiction. If said claim which is beyond the limit of money claim
provided in this Rule is filed with the Response before the Small Claims Court, the latter shall
dismiss the counterclaim.

SEC. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions.—The following pleadings, motions, or petitions shall
not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:

(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction;

(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;

(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial;

(d) Petition for relief from judgment;

(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other paper;

(f) Memoranda;

(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the
court;

(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;

(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;

(j) Reply;

(k) Third-party complaints; and

(l) Interventions.

SEC. 15. Availability of Forms; Assistance by Court Personnel.—The Clerk of Court or other court
personnel shall provide such assistance as may be requested by a plaintiff or a defendant
regarding the availability of forms and other information about the coverage, requirements as
well as procedure for small claims cases.

SEC. 16. Appearance.—The parties shall appear at the designated date of hearing personally or
through a representative authorized under a Special Power of Attorney (Form 5-SCC) to enter
into an amicable settlement, to submit to Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) and to enter into
stipulations or admissions of facts and of documentary exhibits. CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES
COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

50

SEC. 17. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed.—No attorney shall appear in behalf of or
represent a party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.

If the court determines that a party cannot properly present his/ her claim or defense and needs
assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow another individual who is not an attorney to
assist that party upon the latter’s consent.

Explanatory Note: Except as permitted by this section, no attorney shall appear in a small claims
action except when the latter shall maintain or defend an action in any of the following
capacities:

(1) By or against himself or herself;

(2) By or against a partnership in which he or she is a general partner and in which all the
partners are attorneys; or

(3) By or against a professional corporation of which he or she is an officer or director and of

which all other officers and directors are attorneys.

Nothing in this section shall prevent an attorney from doing any of the following:

1) Providing advice to a party to a small claims action, either before or after the
commencement of the action; or

2) Submitting an affidavit as a witness for a party in order to state facts of which he or she has
personal knowledge and about which he or she is competent to do so.

If the court determines that a party does not speak or understand

English or Filipino sufficiently to comprehend the proceedings or give testimony, to the questions
of the court, if any, and needs assistance in so doing, the court may permit another individual
(other than an attorney) to assist that party. If the court interpreter or other competent
interpreter of the language or dialect known to the party is not available to aid that party in a
small claims action, at the first hearing of the case the court shall postpone the hearing one time
only to allow the party the opportunity to obtain another individual (other than an attorney) to
assist that party. Any additional continuances shall be at the sound discretion of the court.

SEC. 18. Non-appearance of Parties.—Failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the
dismissal of the claim without prejudice. The defendant who appears shall be entitled to
judgment on a permissive counterclaim.

Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the same effectas failure to file a Response under
Section 12 of this Rule. This shall not apply where one of two or more defendants who are sued
under a common cause of action and have pleaded a common defense appears at the
hearing. Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal with prejudice of both the
claim and counterclaim.

SEC. 19. Postponement When Allowed.—A request for postponement of a hearing may be
granted only upon proof of the physical inability of the party to appear before the court on the
scheduled date and time. A party may avail of only one (1) postponement.

Explanatory Note: A party may submit an oral or written request to postpone a hearing date for
good cause, as follows:

1) If the written request is in writing, it may be made either by letter or on a form adopted or
approved by the Supreme Court;

2) The request shall be filed before the hearing date and accompanied by proof of physical
inability, unless the court determines that the requesting party has good cause to file the request
on the date of hearing itself; and

3) If the court finds that the interests of justice would be served by postponing the hearing, the
court shall do so and shall notify all parties by mail on the same day of the new hearing date,
time and place.

This Section does not limit the inherent power of the court to order postponements of hearings in
strictly appropriate circumstances. The postponement fee of One Hundred Pesos (or as provided
in Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court, as amended on Legal Fees) shall be charged and collected
before the filing of a request for postponement and rescheduling of a hearing date.

SEC. 20. Duty of the Court.—At the beginning of the court session, the judge shall read aloud a
short statement explaining the nature, purpose and the rule of procedure of small claims cases.

SEC. 21. Judicial Dispute Resolution.—At the hearing, the judge shall conduct Judicial Dispute
Resolution (JDR) through mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation, or any other mode of
JDR. Any settlement (Form 7-SCC) or resolution (Form 8-SCC) of the dispute shall be reduced into
writing, signed by the parties and submitted to the court for approval (Form 12-SCC).

SEC. 22. Failure of JDR.—If JDR fails and the parties agree in writing (Form 10-SCC) that the
hearing of the case shall be presided over by the judge who conducted the JDR, the hearing
shall so proceed in an informal and expeditious manner and terminated within one (1) day.
Absent such agreement, (a) in case of a multi-sala court, the case shall, on the same day, be
transmitted (Form 11-SCC) to the Office of the Clerk of Court for immediate referral by the
Executive Judge to the pairing judge for hearing and decision within five (5) working days from
referral; and (b) in case of a single sala court, the pairing judge shall hear and decide the CIVIL
PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

51

case in the court of origin within five (5) working days from referral by the JDR judge.

Explanatory Note: In hearings before the small claims court, witnesses shall still be sworn in. The
judge shall conduct the hearing in an informal manner so as to do substantial justice between
the parties. The judge shall have the discretion to admit all evidence which may be of probative
value although not in accordance with formal rules of practice, procedure, pleading or
evidence provided in the Rules of Court, except that privileged communications shall not be
admissible. The object of such hearings shall be to determine the rights of the litigants on the
merits and to dispense expeditious justice between the parties.

An interventionist role by judges in such hearings is effective in eliciting evidence from litigants in
person. It is seen by unrepresented parties as a “helping hand” which they appreciate, provided
that judges avoid the danger of appearing to be partial. By discussing the facts of the case,
judges find what common ground does exist between the parties. This tends to narrow the
differences between the parties and make the final judicial decision easier – whereas traditional
open court trials, with the presence of lawyers and the use of cross-examination tend to polarize
the parties, increase antagonism and heighten the differences.

In this regard, Lord Woolf, Great Britain’s case management expert, has observed:

“The role of the judge in small claims is not only that of an adjudicator. It is a key safeguard of
the rights of both parties. In most cases, the judge is effectively a substitute for a legal
representative. His duty is to ascertain the main matters at issue, to elicit the evidence, to reach
a view on the facts of the matter and to give a decision.

In some cases he may encourage the parties to settle. In doing so he should ensure that both
parties have presented the evidence and called the witnesses germane to their case and that
he has identified and considered any issue of law which is pertinent to the case in hand. He must
also hold the ring and ensure that each party has a fair chance to present his own case and to
challenge that of his opponent.”

The key judicial skills in conducting such hearings are to maintain a balance between informality
and fairness, to ensure a level playing field and to protect the weak and the scrupulous. In
practice, this is achieved by preventing interruptions and parties talking over each other, and
making it clear that both parties will have plenty of time to say all that they wish before the end
of the hearing.

SEC. 23. Decision.—After the hearing, the court shall render its decision on the same day, based
on the facts established by the evidence (Form 13-SCC). The decision shall immediately be
entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy thereof forthwith
served on the parties. The decision shall be final and unappealable.

Explanatory Note: Despite the relative informality of the procedure, judgments are based upon
a strict application of the substantive law and an objective judicial analysis of the facts. The
judge is duty-bound to give the legal basis for the findings. The prohibition against appeals
assures immediate and swift justice.

The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part due process. It is merely a statutory privilege
and a procedural remedy of statutory origin, a remedy that may be exercised only in the
manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law authorizing such exercise.

The applicable provisions of the law allowing appeals from decisions of the first level courts are
Sections 36 and 38 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, also known as “The Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980.” The procedure on appeal is subject to the limitations and restrictions provided by
this Act and any such rules as the Supreme Court may hereafter prescribe. Sec. 36 of B.P. Blg.
129 provides an instance wherein the Supreme Court may adopt special procedures, including
cases where appeal may not be allowed, to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive
determination of particular cases requiring summary disposition.

SEC. 24. Execution.—If the decision is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, execution shall issue upon
motion (Form 9-SCC).

SEC. 25. Applicability of the Rules of Civil Procedure.—The Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply
suppletorily insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Rule.

SEC. 26. Effectivity.—This Rule shall take effect on October 1, 2008 for the pilot courts designated
to apply the procedure for small claims cases following its publication in two newspapers of
general circulation.

A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC

FORM 1-SCC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

__________________________,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Case No. ________________

For: ______________________ CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

COLLEGE OF LAW

52
__________________________,

Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Plaintiff respectfully alleges:

1. The personal circumstances of the parties are as follows:

NAME OF PLAINTIFF/S SEX AGE CIVIL STATUS

______________________ ______ _____ _________

INDIVIDUAL___ CORPORATION___ PARTNERSHIP___ SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP ___

NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE:_________________________________________

ADDRESS ZIP CODE

___________________________________________________ _________

NAME OF DEFENDANTS//S SEX AGE CIVIL STATUS

______________________ ______ _____ _________

INDIVIDUAL___ CORPORATION__ _PARTNERSHIP___ SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP ___

NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE: ________________________________________

ADDRESS ZIP CODE

___________________________________________________ _________

2. Plaintiff is suing defendant for:

CAUSE OF ACTION

_____ Collection of Sum of Money

_____ Damages

_____ Civil aspect of Criminal Case

_____ Enforcement of Barangay Agreement

Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases 13

3. Plaintiff’s cause of action arose from and is evidenced by:

ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT/S AFFIDAVIT/S

_____ Promissory Note/Undertaking How many: _____

_____ Contract/Agreement

_____ Receipt

_____ Others

4. The principal obligation of defendant/s amounting to P_____________________ became due

and demandable on ______________.

Interest at the rate of ______% per annum/per month accrued on the principal sum due from
such date of default.

5. Despite repeated demands by plaintiff, the latest of which was on _______________, defendant
has failed to pay the obligation.

6. _____(a) This claim has been referred to the appropriate barangay authorities but no
settlement was reached between the parties. A Certificate to

File Action was issued to the plaintiff, the original of which is attached hereto.

_____(b) The parties are not covered by the barangay mandatory conciliation process under the
Local Government Code of the Philippines.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment to be rendered ordering defendant to pay
plaintiff the amount of P________________________, with interest at the rate of ____% per annum/
per month, from ___________, until fully paid. ___________________________; _____20___.

PLAINTIFF

PLACE WHERE FILED

FORM 1-A-SCC

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF

NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, _________________________________, of legal age, ____________________

______________________________, and a resident of
__________________________________________________ , after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, hereby, depose and say:

1. That I am the _________________ in the above-entitled case and have caused this
______________________________ to be CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN
CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

53
prepared; that I read and understood its contents which are true and correct of my own
personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records;

2. That I have not commenced any action or proceeding involving the same issue in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; that to the best of my
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, and that, if I should learn thereafter that a similar
action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before these courts or tribunal or agency, I
undertake to report that fact to the Court within five (5) days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____________ day of __________________,
20 __. _______________________

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _________ day of _____________, 20 ___ .

NOTARY PUBLIC

(citizenship) (civil status)

(Name)

FORM 2-SCC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

__________________________,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Case No. ________________

For: ________________________

__________________________,

Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

SUMMONS

TO: ____________________

____________________

____________________
GREETINGS:

You are hereby required, within ten (10) days from receipt of this Summons, to file with this Court
and serve on plaintiff, your verified Response to the attached Statement of Claim. The form of
the required Response is attached hereto.

You are required to submit with your Response copies of documents as well as affidavits of any
witness to stand as your evidence in this case.

You must present the original documents on the day of the hearing. A motion to dismiss is
prohibited and shall not be entertained.

Your failure to respond within the 10-day period will authorize the Court to render judgment
based solely on the Statement of Claim.

Witness my hand under the seal of this Court, this ____ day of ______, 20____, at
_____________________, Philippines.

BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

FORM 3-SCC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

__________________________,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Case No. ______________

For: _______________________

__________________________,

Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

RESPONSE

Defendant/s respectfully allege/s:

1. Defendant admits all the allegations in paragraph/s ________ of the Statement of Claim.

2. Defendant specifically denies all the allegations in paragraphs ________ of the Statement of
Claim. CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

54
3. Defendant opposes the grant of the prayer in the Statement of Claim for the following
reasons, as supported by the attached documents and affidavits:

(enumerate defenses)

4. As the Statement of Claim is baseless, defendant is entitled to the following counterclaims:

_____ Actual Damages of P______________________

_____ Moral Damages of P______________________

_____ Exemplary Damages of P_____________________

_____ Costs of suit

Prayer

WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays for judgment to be rendered dismissing the Statement
of Claim, and granting the counterclaims, ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the following sums:

_____ Actual Damages of P______________________

_____ Moral Damages of P______________________

_____ Exemplary Damages of P_____________________

_____ Costs of suit

DEFENDANT

(VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON- FORUM SHOPPING, if with permissive counterclaim)

FORM 4-SCC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

__________________________,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Case No. ______________

For: _______________________

__________________________,
Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

NOTICE OF HEARING

Once issues are joined upon the filing of the defendant’s Response, this case will be called for
Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) and hearing before the Presiding Judge of this Court on
__________________ at ___________.

Failure of the plaintiff to appear at the JDR and hearing shall cause the dismissal of the
Statement of Claim, and the defendant who appears shall be entitled to a judgment on his
counterclaim. On the other hand, failure of the defendant to appear at the JDR and hearing
shall cause the Court to render judgment based solely on the Statement of Claim.

A party may not be represented by a lawyer, but may authorize any other representative to
appear in his behalf and participate in all the proceedings as if the party represented were
present. For this purpose, the required authority should be evidenced by accomplishing the
attached Form 5-SCC (Special Power of Attorney).

WITNESS the HON. _________________________, Presiding Judge

of this Court, this ____ day of _____________, 20___, at __________________________, Philippines.

BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

FORM 5-SCC

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, _______________________, of legal age, single/married, with residence at

___________________________ do hereby appoint, name and constitute
________________________________, likewise of legal age, singe/married, with residence at
________________________________ as my true and legal representative to act for and in my name
and stead and to represent me during the hearing of Civil Case No. __________, to enter into
amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution and to make
admissions or stipulations of facts and documents without further consultation from me.

I hereby grant my representative full power and authority to execute and perform every act
necessary to render effective the power to compromise as though I myself have so performed it
and hereby approving all that he may do by virtue of these presents.

In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand this ______ day of ____________________, 20_______, at
________________. CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF
LAW

55
_____________________________

Principal

_____________________

Agent

Witnesses: ________________________ ___________________________

(ACKNOWLEDGMENT)

FORM 6-SCC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_____________________________

_____________________________

_____________________________

__________________________,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Case No. ______________

For: _______________________

__________________________,

Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION TO PLEAD AS INDIGENT

_____________________, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges that:

1. I am a resident of ___________________;

2. My gross income and that of my immediate family does not exceed __________________ ;

3. I do not own real property with an assessed value of more than (amount as provided in the
Revised Rules of Court, as amended) as shown by the attached Certification issued by the
Office of the City/Municipal Assessor and the City/Municipal Treasurer’s Office;

4. Due to financial constraint, I cannot afford to pay for the expenses of a court litigation as I do
not have enough funds for food, shelter and other basic necessities;

5. Should the court render judgment in my favor, the amount of the docket and other legal fees
which I was exempted from paying shall be a lien on the judgment, unless the court orders
otherwise.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that I be exempted from the payment
of docket and other legal fees as indigent pursuant to Section 21, Rule 3 in relation to Section 18,
Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayedfor.

PLAINTIFF

FORM 7-SCC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

__________________________,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Case No. ______________

For: _______________________

__________________________,

Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

The parties respectfully allege that:

1. Plaintiff filed this claim against defendant for:

_____________ collection of sum of money

_____________ damages

_____________ civil aspect of criminal case

_____________ enforcement of barangay agreement

_____________ recovery of personal property

2. The parties have come to an amicable settlement and have executed a compromise
agreement with the following terms and conditions. (copy terms and condition here) CIVIL
PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

56
3. The parties agree that the approval of this agreement by the Court shall put an end to this
litigation, except for purposes of execution in case of default.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the parties respectfully pray that the court approve this
agreement and render judgment on the basis thereof.

_______________________________________, 20_______.

_______________________ ________________________

Plaintiff Defendant

FORM 8-SCC

(Motion for voluntary dismissal of the claim and counterclaim)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

__________________________,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Case No. ______________

For: _______________________

__________________________,

Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

JOINT MOTION

Plaintiff and defendant, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully allege that:

1. Plaintiff and defendant have mutually and voluntarily settled their claim and counterclaim to
the entire satisfaction of each other; and

2. The parties no longer have a cause of action against each other.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff and defendant respectfully pray that the plaintiff’s
statement of claim and defendant’s counterclaim incorporated in his response be dismissed.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

_______________________________________, 20_______.

_____________________________ ____________________________
Plaintiff Defendant

To the Branch Clerk of Court:

Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration of the Court without hearing and
further argument from the parties.

__________________________ _________________________

Plaintiff Defendant

FORM 9-SCC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

__________________________,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Case No. ______________

For: _______________________

__________________________,

Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION FOR EXECUTION

Plaintiff/Defendant, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges that:

1. On _______________, a judgment was rendered by the Court, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

2. The judgment is final and unappealable.

3. The defendant/plaintiff has not complied with the judgment.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that a

writ of execution be issued to implement the judgment of the Court dated __________________.

_______________________________________, 20_______. CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

57
_____________________________

Plaintiff/Defendant

NOTICE OF HEARING

NAME OF DEFENDANT

(IF FILED BY PLAINTIFF)

NAME OF PLAINTIFF

(IF FILED BY DEFENDANT)

NAME OF CLERK OF COURT.

Please be notified that the undersigned will submit the foregoing motion for the consideration
and approval of the Court on _________________ at _______________________________________,
20_______. ________________________

Plaintiff/Defendant

FORM 10-SCC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

__________________________,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Case No. ______________

For: _______________________

__________________________,

Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

AGREEMENT

Having failed to resolve the matter through Judicial Dispute Resolution, plaintiff and defendant
hereby agree that Judge _________________ shall continue with the hearing on the instant matter
and hereby waive their right to have a different judge hear the case.
_______________________________________, 20_______.
___________________________ _______________________

Plaintiff Defendant

FORM 11-SCC

(Referral to pairing judge)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

__________________________,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Case No. ______________

For: _______________________

__________________________,

Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ORDER

In view of the failure of judicial dispute resolution and there being no agreement from the parties
to let the undersigned continue hearing the instant case, the record of this case is transmitted to
the Office of the Clerk of Court for immediate referral by the Executive Judge to the Pairing
Judge for hearing and decision pursuant to Section 21 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases.

SO ORDERED.

_______________________________________, 20_______.

______________________________

JUDGE

FORM 12-SCC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________

_______________________________
_______________________________ CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
COLLEGE OF LAW

58

__________________________,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Case No. ______________

For: _______________________

__________________________,

Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION BASED ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

Plaintiff filed this case against defendant for _____________________ in the amount of
________________________.

Defendant denied plaintiff’s claim on the ground of _________________ and set up a

counterclaim for _______________________.

The parties, however, reached an amicable settlement and submitted to the court a
compromise agreement, the terms and conditions of which are as follows:

It appearing that the agreement is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public moral and
public policy, and pursuant to Articles 2028 and

2037 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the same is hereby APPROVED and ADOPTED as the
Decision of this court.

The parties are hereby ordered to faithfully comply with the terms and conditions of the
agreement.

_______________________________________, 20_______.

________________________

JUDGE

FORM 13 – SCC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_______________________________

_______________________________
_______________________________

__________________________,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Case No. ______________

For: _______________________

__________________________,

Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

This is a small claims action for (state which of the claims or demands below is the subject of the
action filed):

[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;

For damages arising from:

1. Fault or negligence;

2. Quasi-contract; or

3. Contract;

The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving a money

claim covered by this Rulepursuant to Section 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as The
Local Government Code of 1991].

Plaintiff alleges that (state material allegations and prayer in the Statement of Claim).

Defendant alleges that (state reasons for denial of the claim and other material allegations in
the Response including counterclaims, if any).

On (date), both parties appeared during the hearing conducted by (state name of Judge who
conducted the JDR. State whether parties appeared personally or through a specially
authorized representative).
Considering the failure of the parties to arrive at any settlement of the dispute, this court
proceeded with the hearing of the case which was terminated on __________________.

The issue to be resolved by this court is whether

_____________________________________________________________. CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES
COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF LAW

59

Plaintiff’s evidence consists of: (state documents of plaintiff, affidavits submitted, if any, and
statements made by plaintiff and witnesses under oath during the hearing).

Defendant’s evidence consists of: (state documents of defendant, affidavits submitted, if any,
and statements made by defendant and witnesses under oath during the hearing).

This court finds that the claim of plaintiff (or defendant in a counterclaim) is (state whether
meritorious or devoid of merit) under Article/Section (state the applicable provisions of law) or
pursuant to established jurisprudence (cite applicable jurisprudence). In this case, this court
found that (state first the factual findings established by the evidence and then the legal
conclusions).

Wherefore, the (claim/counterclaim) is (granted/denied). This court orders ____________________

to pay to _______________________ the amount of (state the monetary award or damages) with
interest of (if applicable under Civil Code and/or settled jurisprudence) until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

(Date of decision.)

(Signature)

Presiding Judge (or Pairing Judge in the absence of written agreement of theparties that the
case shall beheard by the Presiding Judgewho conducted the JDR)

Copy furnished:

All parties

Office of the Clerk of Court of ____________

RATIONALE of the Proposed Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases

A. Introduction

The most significant recurring theme of every program for judicial reform of the Supreme Court is
the pressing need for a more accessible, much swifter and less expensive delivery of justice.

Undeniably, the slow grind of the wheels of justice is the result of a variety of factors, foremost of
which is the perennial congestion of court dockets which has transformed court litigation into a
protracted battle, that invariably exhausts the time, effort and resources of party-litigants,
especially the poor. Many strategies have been devised to unclog heavy court dockets, and
one such approach is the use of mandatory Pre-trial and Alternative Dispute Resolution
mechanisms such as mediation, arbitration and conciliation. Another scheme that has been
widely used in many foreign legal systems but which has yet to be tried in the Philippines is the
small claims case processing method used by small claims courts, often referred to as the
“People’s Court,” as it comes most directly into contact with the citizenry of a jurisdiction.

Small claims courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that hear civil cases between private litigants.
Courts authorized to try small claims may also have other judicial functions, and the name by
which such a court is known varies by jurisdiction: it may be known by such names as county
court or magistrate’s court. Small claims

courts can be found in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong,
Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States.

B. The History and the Reforms of Small Claims Court

1. In the United States – For almost a century now, small claims courts have provided a form of
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the United States.

Originating around 1912 or 1913, these courts were established primarily as a means for small
businesses to collect money from borrowers through a process that was faster, less formal, and
less expensive than traditional civil litigation. Following the lead of the establishment of the initial
small claims court in Kansas, USA in 1912 or 1913, every state in the United States has created
some form of a small claims court system.

Although the financial claims limits, methods of procedure, and overall structure vary from state
to state, the concept is essentially the same, i.e., that relatively minor disputes, involving dollar
amounts that are insufficient to warrant processing the case through the normal court
procedure, justify expeditious and simplified handling.

The consumer justice reform movements of the 1960s and 1970s brought renewed research and
interest in the small claims courts. This movement emphasized the need for reform of small claims
courts to facilitate the adjudication of consumer grievances.

Although “consumer justice reformers” were concerned that businesses and corporations were
more likely to use attorneys in small claims courts thereby placing inexperienced individual
defendants at a disadvantage, studies showed that defendants with an attorney were more
likely to win against plaintiffs than unrepresented defendants, whereas plaintiffs without
attorneys did just as well as represented plaintiffs against unrepresented defendants.

The result was an appraisal of the need to bar attorneys and collection agencies from the small
claims courts.

Small claims courts in the United States are often considered courts of equity and are not
necessarily bound by the letter of the law. These courts have flexibility to use more holistic
approaches to CIVIL PROCEDURE NOTES COMPILED UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF
LAW

60
problem solving and dispute resolution than what is typical. Most judges act according to what
makes sense to them, even if this means setting aside legal formalities. Moreover, traditional rules
of evidence and court processes do not apply.

The rules of small claims courts emphasize conciliation and pragmatism over winning, and rules
of evidence and civil procedure have been simplified to allow maximum access to the courts by
individuals unable to afford an attorney.

2. Small Claims Courts in Canada – All provinces in Canada have procedures for small claims. In
general, there are two different models. In most provinces, as in British Columbia, Alberta, and
new Brunswick, small claims courts operate independently of the superior courts. In other
jurisdictions, the small claims courts are either branches or divisions of the superior courts

The small claims courts are meant to be an easier and less expensive way to resolve disputes
than in the superior courts. Small Claims Court procedure is regulated both by provincial
legislation and rules in most provinces. It is simplified and less costly with no strict pleading
requirements and formal discovery process.

3. Small Claims Courts in England and Wales – From early times, England had a tradition of local
courts where ordinary men could pursue justice in the form of civil claims without the aid of
lawyers. Some were set up by local statutes, others by custom. These local courts could not keep
pace with the changes in society brought about by the Industrial Revolution. By the 1830s, the
decade of great liberal reform, there was a great public awakening to the urgent need for
constitutional reform in the administration of justice. The result was the County Courts Act of
1846, described in its preamble as an “Act For The More Easy Recovery of Small Debts and
Demands in England.” It was initially a poor man’s court. Andrew Amos, the first judge at
Marylebone County, described regular litigants as being “a great proportion of the poorer
classes, gaining their livelihoods by bricklaying, gardening or other out of door occupations and
who subsist upon credit in the winter months, and complaints against whom are usually issued in
the summer months.” The county court’s jurisdiction for claims brought in contract and tort
gradually increased from £50 in 1888 to £5,000 in 1984.

The purpose and structure of the county court system has in many ways remained the same
since 1846. The aim is still to make civil justice available locally – there are now 223 county courts
in England and Wales. They have continued to be responsive to the needs of smaller cases
which, although small in terms of their financial value, are important to the litigants involved.
However, recent decades have seen two major changes in relation to small claims – first, the
introduction of a dedicated small claims procedure in 1973 and secondly, the introduction of
the Civil Procedure Rules reforms of 1998 with emphasis on proportionality.

Since January 1996, when the small claims limit in England and Wales was trebled overnight to
£3,000, district judges have been expected to play the role of “interventionist” and assist litigants
in presenting their own cases personally at small claims hearings. Like adjudicators in other parts
of the world, district judges in these countries have been encouraged to intervene to an
increasing extent at small claims hearings. Such interventionism is, indeed, vital and although
there may be wide variations between jurisdictions in the methods that are adopted to deal
with small claims, the idea of the adjudicator freely entering the arena of the dispute to assist
unrepresented litigants is fundamental in almost all matters about small claims.

4. Small Claims Tribunals in Singapore – The Small Claims Tribunals in Singapore have been in
operation since 1 February 1985. The Tribunals have fulfilled an integral role in providing the
community with accessible justice for civil claims involving small amounts. Various features and
programs have been put in place to enhance access to justice for the community, by removing
barriers such as cost, delay, distance, time and inconvenience. The Tribunals, constituted as part
of the Subordinate Courts of Singapore, were established for the primary purpose of providing a
quick and inexpensive avenue for the resolution of small claims arising from disputes between
consumers and suppliers. There was a need for a less expensive and less formal forum to deal
with such small claims. Hence, in 1985, the Small Claims Tribunals Act was passed, which
authorized the setting up of one or more Tribunals to help consumers who have claims of up to
$2,000 relating to disputes arising from contracts for the sale of goods or the provision of services.