Module 1
The rules of
Tan Jr. vs. CA (2002)
General Rule: There is no dispute that rules of
procedure can be given retroactive effect. Statutes
regulating the procedure of the courts will be
construed as applicable to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural
laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent.
Exception: The rule that procedural laws are
applicable to pending actions or proceedings admits
certain exceptions. The rule does not apply where the
statute itself expressly or by necessary implication
provides that pending actions are excepted from its
operation, or where to apply it to pending
proceedings would impair vested rights. Under
appropriate circumstances, courts may deny the
retroactive application of procedural laws in the event
that to do so would not be feasible or would work
injustice. Nor may procedural laws be applied
retroactively to pending actions if to do so would
involve intricate problems of due process or impair
the independence of courts.
Fabian vs. Desierto (1998)
In determining whether a rule prescribed by the
Supreme Court, for practice and procedure of the
lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any
substantive right, the tests is whether the rule really
regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process for
enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive
law and for justly administering remedy and redress
for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule takes
away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule
creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be
classifies as a substantive matter; but if it operates as
a means of implementing an existing right then the
rule deals merely with procedure.
Panay Railways Inc. vs. Heva Management
(2012)
The retroactive application of procedural laws and
regulations do not violate any right of a person
adversely affected. Neither is it constitutionally
objectionable. The reason is that, as a general rule,
no vested right may attach to or rise from procedural
laws and rules. It has been held that “a person has no
vested right in any particular remedy, and a litigant
cannot insist on the application to the trial of his case,
whether civil or criminal, of any other than the
existing rules of procedure.
Martos vs. New San Jose Builders Inc. (2012)
The liberal construction of the rules may be invoked
in situations where there may be some excusable
formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that
the same does not subvert the essence of the
proceeding and it at least connotes a reasonable
attempt at compliance with the rules.
procedure are meant to facilitate the attainment of
justice; hence their rigid application may, for
deserving reasons, be subordinated by the need for
an apt dispensation of substantial justice in the
normal course.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Mirant
( 2006)
The courts have the power to relax or suspend
technical or procedural rules or to except a case from
their operation when compelling reasons so warrant
or when the purpose of justice requires it. What
constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit
suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the
courts.
CMTC International Marketing Corp vs. Bhagis
The Court has emphasized that procedural rule should
be treated with utmost respect and due regard, since
they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of
cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in
the resolution of rival claims and in the administrative
of justice. From time to time, however, we have
recognized exceptions to the Rules, but only for the
most compelling reasons where stubborn obedience
to the Rules would defeat rather than serve the ends
of justice.
Prieto vs. Alpadi Development Corp. (2013)
While procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest
of justice, it is well-settled that these are tools
designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. The
relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of justice
was never intended to be a license of erring litigants
to violate the rules with impunity.
Cu-Unjieng vs. CA ( 2006)
The rules may be relaxed but only for persuasive and
weighty reasons, to relieve a litigant of an injustice
commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure.
Security Bank Corp vs. Victorio ( 2005)
Jurisdiction over a specific issue is to be determined
by an examination of the parties pleadings. Whether
or not the Court has jurisdiction over a specific issue
is to be determined by an examination of the parties’
pleadings. It is conferred by the pleadings of the
parties.
Heirs of Hinog v. Melicor ( 2005 )
The Supreme Court elucidated its ruling Court’s
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive.
It is shared by this Court with the RTC and CA. Thus
concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however to be
taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs
an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the
court to which application therefor will be directed.
There is after all the hierarchy of courts, That matter to secure an affirmative relief to afterwards
hierarchy is determinative of the venue of the appeals deny that same jurisdiction to escape penalty.
and also serves as a general determinant of the
appropriate forum for petition for extraordinary writs.

This Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless

the redress desired cannot be obtained in the
appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling
circumstances, such as cases of national interest and
of serious implications, justify the availment of the
extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for
the exercise of its primary jurisdiction

Cang vs. CA ( 1998)

Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the
established rule is that the statute in force at the time
of the commencement of the action determined the
jurisdiction of the court.

Magpale vs. CSC

Settles is the rule that a tribunal, board, or officer
exercising judicial functions acts without jurisdiction if
no authority has been conferred by law to hear and
decide the case.

Delos Santos vs. Spouses Sarmiento

Not every case involving buyers and sellers of real
estate may be filed with the HLURB. Its jurisdiction is
limited to those cases filed by the buyer or owner of a
subdivision or condominium and based on any of the
causes of action enumerated under Sec. 1 of PD
1344, and which jurisdictional facts must be clearly
alleged.

Flores v. Mallare (1986)

The totality rule is applied in cases where two or more
plaintiffs having separate causes of action against a
defendant join in a single complaint, as well as cases
where a plaintiff has separate causes of action against
two or more defendants joined in a single complaint.
However, the causes of action in favor of the two or
more plaintiffs or against two or more defendants
should arise out of the same transaction or series of
transactions and there should be a common question
of law or fact.

Berba vs. Pablo ( 2005)

If the complaint/ plaintiff fails to comply with the
requirements of the Local Government Code, such
complaint with the court may be dismissed for failure
to exhaust all administrative remedies.

Jakihaca vs. Spouses Aquino

As a general rule, jurisdiction over the subject matter
of a case may be objected to at any stage of the
proceeding even on appeal, but this is not without
exception. In the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, we
held that it is not right for a party who has affirmed
and invoked the jurisdiction of the court in a particular