The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Civil Procedure Proper

2001 Edition

CIVIL PROCEDURE PROPER

Laws are classified as either Remedial or Substantive Law. Remedial Law is also known as
Adjective or Procedural Law.

REMEDIAL LAW vs. SUBSTANTIVE LAW

Q: Distinguish Remedial law from Substantive law?

A: SUBSTANTIVE LAW is that branch of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights.
(Bustos vs. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640; Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd., pp. 66, 1023) Like the Civil Code, the rights
of children, husband and wife, creditor and debtor are all found there.

REMEDIAL LAW is that branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or
obtaining redress for their invasion. (Ibid) Example of Remedial Law is the Rules of Court.

So a right is useless unless you enforce it. And the manner of enforcing rights is now prescribed by
remedial law. Like in civil cases, my neighbor borrowed from me but until now, despite several
demands, he refused to pay. Under the law on Obligations and Contracts, I have the right to collect.
But how do I collect? Is it by writing a letter to the judge, “Dear Judge…”? or Is it by calling him on the
phone? I-text ko kaya? Di puwede yan! There must be a procedure. That is where the Civil Code leaves
you behind and that is where the Rules of Court will take over. So the 2 laws go hand in hand. That is
what the SC said in the 1992 case of

DE DIOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS

212 SCRA 519 [1992] Cruz, J.

HELD: The 2 laws have a symbiotic relationship. They go hand in hand – one supports
the other. They are not antagonistic towards each other.
“Procedural rules are designed to insure the orderly and expeditious administration of
justice by providing for a practical system by which the parties to a litigation may be
accorded a full and fair opportunity to present their respective positions and refute each
other's submissions under the prescribed requirements, conditions and limitations.
Adjective law is not the counterfoil of substantive law. In fact, there is a symbiotic
relationship between them. By complying faithfully with the Rules of Court, the bench and
the bar are better able to discuss, analyze and understand substantive rights and duties and
consequently to more effectively protect and enforce them.”

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)

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 49

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Civil Procedure Proper
2001 Edition

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 tile 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. Only everytime they amend the
Constitution, it is getting longer and longer.

Rut the pertinent portion which has not been changed is that the SC “shall have the power to
promulgate rules on pleading, practice and procedure.” That is the authority of the SC in enacting the
Rules of Court. But you should know also the limitations.

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

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 50

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Civil Procedure Proper
2001 Edition

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.

published by

LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 – 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles • Glenda Buhion •
Joseph Martin Castillo • Aaron Philip Cruz • Pearly Joan Jayagan • Anderson Lo •
Yogie Martirizar • Frecelyn Mejia • Dorothy Montejo • Rowena Panales • Regina Sison •
Ruby Teleron • Marilou Timbol • Maceste Uy • Perla Vicencio • Liberty Wong • Jude Zamora •
Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena

SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong • Emily Aliño • Karen Allones • Joseph Apao • Melody Penelope
Batu • Gemma Betonio • Rocky Cabarroguis • Charina Cabrera • Marlon Cascuejo •
Mike Castaños • Karen de Leon • Cherry Frondozo • Jude Fuentes • Maila Ilao • Ilai Llena •
Rocky Malaki • Jenny Namoc • Ines Papaya • Jennifer Ramos • Paisal Tanjili

LAKAS ATENISTA 2001–2002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez • Jessamyn Agustin •

Judee Uy • Janice Joanne Torres • Genie Salvania • Pches Fernandez • Riezl Locsin •
Kenneth Lim • Charles Concon • Roy Acelar • Francis Ampig • Karen Cacabelos •
Maying Dadula • Hannah Examen • Thea Guadalope • Myra Montecalvo • Paul Ongkingco •
Michael Pito • Rod Quiachon • Maya Quitain • Rina Sacdalan • Lyle Santos •Joshua Tan •
Thaddeus Tuburan • John Vera Cruz • Mortmort

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 51