Substantive law (what?)

 
REM
All about remedies
Answers the question HOW
Civil action
ordinary (ROC)
special - interpleader to contempt)
Crim
And special proc
 
 
Overview of Civil Procedure
 
1. Complaint
-summons (in between)-
2. Answer
3. Issues are joined
4. Pre-trial
-possibility of settlement (mediation and conciliation proceeding; if not
successful, the court may set it for judicial dispute resolution)
5. Trial
1st remedy: demurrer (after presentation of evidence by the P)
6. Judgment (final judgment is not executory; but an executory
judgment is necessarily final)
o Remedies for final but not executory judgment: NT,
MR (37), and appeals
o No remedies: F & E - (entered judgement)
7. After entry, remedies 38 - relief from judgment, and annulment
of judgment
8. Execution and satisfaction of judgment (39)
 
 
Overview of Criminal Procedure
 
1. Complaint-affidavit -> Information
2. Preliminary Investigation
3. If there's Probable Cause - charge officially the accused -
arrest
 4. Remedy of the accused - BAIL
5. Pre-trial
6. Trial
7. Judgment
2 kinds of judgment
a. Acquittal - no remedy; immediately executory
b. Conviction
______________________________
 
JURISDICTION
 Most fundamental principle:
Any judgment, decision, or final order, rendered by the court without
jurisdiction is null and void.
 Authority to hear and decide the case
o Jurisdiction over the subject matter - vested by law; where there
is JUSTICIABLE controversy; otherwise, not within the authority
of the court (may be within the authority of other branches of
the government; e.g. administrative agencies or legislative)
 Doctrine of Primary
Jurisdiction -
 Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a
question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal, especially where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the
special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate
matters of fact (Paloma vs. Mora, GR 157783, September
23, 2005).
 If a case is such that its determination requires the
expertise, specialized training and knowledge of an
administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an
administrative proceeding before resort to the courts is had
even if the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction
(Euro-Med vs Province of Batangas, G.R. No. 148106, July
17, 2006)
o Justiciable if there is cause of action (G.R.):
 Cause of Action - there is a
right, that is violated which results to
irreparable damage or injury
 o XPN: jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (vested by the
Constitution) - even the Congress cannot encroach
upon the jurisdiction of the SC (Sec. 5, Art. 8 -
MEMORIZE)
 
Jurisdiction according to nature
 
1. Original - for the 1st time
a. Exclusive
No cases that can reach the SC, except cases emanating from
these tribunals:
i. CA
ii. SB (original and appellate)
iii. CTA en banc (RA 9282) (original and appellate) -
Jurisdictional amount - 1M above
iv. Appellate Shari'a Courts
v. COA (R. 64)
vi. COMELEC (R. 64)
a. Concurrent - more than 1 court to take cognizance of 1 case;
but you cannot choose, because (principles)
1. Hierarchy of Courts
2. Transcendental Importance
3. Principle that SC is not a trier of facts (purely questions of
law)
2. Appellate - 2nd, 3rd, on so on, time
o Always exclusive
 
 
SC - can take cognizance of cases on justiciable disputes through:
 Appeal - error on judgment (45) - Mode of Appeal under R. 41
 Certiorari - error on jurisdiction (65) - SCA
 
Expanded jurisdiction of the SC
 No justiciable issue per se, but the Constitution allows review of
other co-equal branches.
 Judicial review (under R.65) - if there is grave abuse of
jurisdiction
 
Office of the President - quasi-judicial tribunal
 
Bangsamoro Law
 Circuit
 District
 Appellate - decision can still be assailed in a petition filed before
the SC (because we only have one SC)
 
Military Courts - not regular courts; but in the Mislang case, the SC held that
military courts are REGULAR courts.
 Decisions of the military - principle of res judicata is applied
 Service-oriented (Articles of War)
 Charge in military, can still be charged in regular court
(concurrent)- but decision in one court, bars the decision in the
other
 
 
According to purpose
 
1. Subject matter
o Conferred by law (GR)
o XPN: SC (conferred by the Constitution, S.5 Art. VIII)
2. Persons of the parties
o CIV
i. Plaintiff - upon commencement of the action by filing of
the complaint, and timely payment of docket fees
ii. Defendant - valid service of summons or voluntary
appearance
iii. Co-defendant - valid service of summons or voluntary
appearance
iv. 3rd, 4th and so on, party defendant - valid service of
summons or voluntary appearance
v. Intervenor (R.19) - court grants a motion for leave to
intervene (upon approval of motion for leave to
intervene, court acquired JD)
o CRIM
i. People of the Philippines
ii. Accused - upon lawful arrest or voluntary
surrender
 
 c. Special Proceedings (publication not for the purpose of
acquiring jurisdiction, but for compliance with the due
process requirement)
i. Only Petitioner (no need for
respondent/defendant)
ii. But when one opposes, he becomes OPPOSITOR
iii. XPNs (requires a DEFENDANT):
 Habeas Corpus
 Amparo
 Habeas Data
 Kalikasan
3. Res or thing
A. Personal or real
i. Personal - directed against the person
ii. Real - directed against the thing
B. In personam or in rem
i. In Personam - binds the person only (requires
that the court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant)
ii. In Rem - binds the whole world (the court does
not have to acquire jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant, as long as it has jurisdiction
over the res)
iii. (Principle) Quasi In Rem - convert in personam to
quasi in rem if the court cannot acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant (attachment -
converts an action strictly in personam to action
quasi in rem)
2. Issues
o How acquired
 In CIV- by the allegations in the pleading
 In CRIM- upon arraignment; without
arraignment, double jeopardy cannot
attach because jurisdiction over the
issued was not acquired
o Evidence not objected to becomes admissible;
CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY cannot be applied
2. Territory - not applicable in civil cases
o Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases.
 o In CIV (jurisdiction=authority; venue=place where
jurisdiction must be exercised; therefore,
jurisdiction cannot be agreed upon by the parties)
o JD=relationship between the court and the subject
matter;
V=relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, and petitioner
and respondent
o JD not waivable;
V=waivable (except in criminal cases)
o JD - substantive law;
V - procedural law
 
 
 Jurisdiction through estoppel (Tijam vs Sibonghanoy)
 G.R.:
 The issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by
estoppel.
 XPN:
 Estoppel by laches, to bar a litigant from asserting the court's
absence or lack of jurisdiction, only supervenes in exceptional
cases similar to the factual milieu of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.
 …the party, knowing his rights, has not sought to
enforce them until the condition of the party pleading
laches has in good faith become so changed that he
cannot be restored to his former state, if the rights be
then enforced, due to loss of evidence, change of title,
intervention of equities, and other causes.
 …the Court therein considered the patent and revolting
inequity and unfairness of having the judgment creditors
go up their Calvary once more after more or less 15
years. 
 
 
 Boston Equity Resources case (new Tijam case)
The CA, therefore, erred as the question of jurisdiction involved here is
that over the person of the defendant Manuel. The same is deemed
waived if not raised in the answer or a motion to dismiss. In any case,
respondent cannot claim the defense since "lack of jurisdiction over the
person, being subject to waiver, is a personal defense which can only
be asserted by the party who can thereby waive it by silence."
 
 
Under R. 7, evidence is now part of the pleading (decision on First
Sarmiento Property case by Justice Leonen - not anymore applicable)