2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS

REMEDIAL LAW
Notes: All Bar candidates should be guided that only laws with their respective amendments and canonical
doctrines pertinent to these topics as of June 30, 2019 will be covered in the 2020 Bar Examinations, except
when provided in this syllabus. The Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M No. 19-10-20-SC promulgated on
October 15, 2019) and the Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M No. 19-08-15-SC promulgated on October 8, 2019)
are included. Principles of law are not covered by the cut-off period.
This syllabus is only a guide for the bar examinations. It should not be mistaken for a course syllabus.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A. Distinguish: substantive law and remedial law

Substantive Law Remedial Law

Part of the law which creates, defines or Prescribes the methods of enforcing those
regulates rights concerning life, liberty or rights and obligations created by substantive
property (Primicias v. Ocampo, 81 Phil 650) law (Ibid.).
or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities
for the administration of public affairs, which
when violated gives rise to a cause of action
(Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil 640).
Creates vested rights Does not create vested rights
Generally prospective in application GR: May be applied retroactively

NOTE: 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 (Tan Jr. v. CA,
G.R. No. 136368, January 16, 2002).

XPNs:
1. The statute itself expressly or by necessary
implication provides that pending actions are
excepted from its operation To apply it to
pending proceedings would impair vested
rights;
2. 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; or
3. If to do so would involve intricate
problems of due process or impair the
independence of the courts (Ibid.)
Enacted by Congress The SC is expressly empowered to
 promulgate procedural rules
B. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court
1. Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court
(Article VIII, Section 5 (5), 1987 Philippine Constitution)

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

2. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules

Power of the SC to amend the Rules of Court

The SC has the power to amend, repeal or even establish new rules for a more simplified and
inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases (Makati Insurance Co., Inc. v. Reyes, G.R.
No. 167403, August 6, 2008).

Power of the SC to suspend the application of the Rules of Court and exempt a case from its
operation
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
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Migrant Pagbilao Corporation, G.R. No. 159593, October
12, 2006).

Reasons that would warrant the suspension of the Rules of Procedure

1. The existence of special or compelling circumstances;
2. The merits of the case;
3. A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension
of rules; 4. A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and
5. The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby (Sarmiento v. Zaratan, G.R. No. 167471,
February 5, 2007)

Power to stay proceedings and control its processes

The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the
disposition of the cases on its dockets, considering its time and effort, and that of counsel and the
litigants. But if proceedings must be stayed, it must be done in order to avoid multiplicity of suits
and prevent vexatious litigations, conflicting judgments, and confusion between litigants and courts
(Security Bank Corp. v. Judge Victorio, 468 SCRA 609).

C. Nature of Philippine courts

1. Meaning of a court

Court is an organ of the government, belonging to the judicial department, whose function is the
application of laws to controversies brought before it and the public administration of justice (Black’s
Law Dictionary, 8thed.).
2. Distinguish: court and judge

Court Judge
It is a tribunal officially assembled under Simply an officer of such tribunal (Wagenhorst v. Philadelphia
authority of law. Life Insurance Co., 358 Pa. 55, cited by Black’s 5th ed.)
Disqualification of a judge does not affect May be disqualified.
the court.
It is a being in imagination comparable to a Physical person (People ex rel. Herndon v. Opekl, 188 III 194,
corporation. 58 NE 1996, cited by Blacks 5th ed.)
Jurisdiction attaches to court Jurisdiction does not attach to judge

3. Classification of Philippine courts

1. Regular courts:

a. Supreme Court;
b. Court of Appeals;
c. Regional Trial Courts; and
d. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts,
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;

2. Special courts:

a. Sandiganbayan;
b. Court of Tax Appeals; and
c. Shari’a District Courts, Shari’a Circuit Courts;

3. Quasi-Courts or Quasi-Judicial Agencies

4. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction

Courts of Original jurisdiction Courts of Appellate jurisdiction

Courts exercising jurisdiction in the first instance Superior courts reviewing and deciding cases
previously decided by a lower

5. Courts of general and special jurisdiction

Courts of general jurisdiction Courts of special jurisdiction

Those with competence to decide on their own Those which have only a special jurisdiction for a particular
jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all purpose or are clothed with special powers for the
cases, civil and criminal, of a particular nature performance of specified duties beyond which they have no
(21 CJS Courts 3). authority of any kind (21 CJS Courts 3).
6. Constitutional and statutory courts

Constitutional Court Statutory Court

Created by the Constitution, e.g. SC. Created by law other than Constitution, e.g. CA,
Sandiganbayan, CTA, RTC, MTC, MeTC, MCTC,
MTCC.
Cannot be abolished by Congress without amending May be abolished by Congress by just simply
the Constitution repealing the law which created those courts

NOTE: All courts in the Philippines except the SC are statutory courts. They have been created by
statutory enactments (Riano, 2011).

The Sandiganbayan is only a constitutionally mandated court since, although its existence is provided
under Constitution, its creation was by statutory enactment.

7. Courts of law and equity

Courts of Law Courts of Equity

Any tribunal duly administering the laws of the land
Decides a case according to the promulgated law
Any tribunal administering justice outside the law,
being ethical rather than jural and belonging to the
sphere of morals rather than of law. It is grounded on
the precepts of conscience and not on any sanction of
positive law, for equity finds no room for application
where there is law (Herrera, 2007).
Adjudicates a controversy according to the common
precepts of what is right and just without inquiring
into the terms of the statutes

Courts of law – renders decision based on legislations passed by the Congress

Courts of equity – renders decision based on principles of fairness and justice.

In the Philippines, all courts are both courts of law and of equity.

Limitation: When there is a law that is applicable to a case, principles of equity may not be used as the
basis.

8. Principle of judicial hierarchy

The principle provides that lower courts shall initially decide a case before it is considered by a higher
court. A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in
the appropriate courts (Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 99289-90, January 27, 1993).
The rule on hierarchy of courts determines the venue of appeals. Such rule is necessary to prevent
inordinate demands upon the Court's precious time and attention which are better devoted to matters
within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further overcrowding of the Court's docket (Ang v.
Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27, 2007).
NOTE: The rationale is two-fold:

1. It would be an imposition upon the limited time of the Supreme Court; and

2. It would inevitably result in a delay, intended or otherwise, in adjudication of cases, which in some
instances, had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of
procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts
(Heirs of Hinog v. Melicor, G.R. No. 140954, April 12, 2005).

The SC is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the duty assigned to
it.

Principle of judicial hierarchy is NOT absolute

In several cases, the court has allowed direct invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction on the
following grounds:

1. Special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition;

2. When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy;
3. When demanded by the broader interest of justice;
4. When the challenged orders were patent nullities; or
5. When analogous, exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate
and direct handling of the case (Republic v. Caguioa, et al., G.R. No. 174385, February 20, 2013).

NOTE: The SC may disregard the principle of hierarchy of courts if warranted by the nature and
importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations (Riano,
2011).

The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an ironclad dictum. Endowed with a broad perspective that
spans the legal interest of virtually the entire government officialdom, the OSG may transcend the
parochial concerns of a particular client agency and instead, promote and protect the public wealth
(COMELEC v. JudgeQuijano-Padilla, G. R. No. 151992, September 18, 2002).

When may the principle of judicial hierarchy be disregarded?

1. Special and important reasons;
2. Public welfare and public policy;
3. Broader interest of justice;
4. Order is a patent nullity;
5. Analogous circumstances;
6. Issue of constitutionality; and
 7. Transcendental importance.

9. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability

GR: No court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent
jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction (Atty. Cabili v. Judge Balindog,
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225, September 6, 2011).
Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders.
Reason: To provide stability in the judicial system.

XPN: The doctrine does not apply where a third-party claimant is involved (Santos v. Bayhon, G.R. No.
88643, July 23, 1991).

The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over
the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other
coordinate courts, for its execution and overall its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the
conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment (United Alloy vs UCPB, G.R. No.
179257, November 23, 2015, Del Castillo, J.).

Settled is the rule that where the law provides for an appeal from the decisions of administrative bodies
to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, it means that such bodies are co-equal with the Regional
Trial Courts in terms of rank and stature, and logically, beyond the control of the latter (Philippine
Sinter Corporation v. Cagayan Electric Power And Light Co. Inc., G.R. No. 127371, April 25, 2002).

II. JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction refers to the power and authority of a court to try, hear, and decide a case and the power to
enforce its determination. (21 CJS, 9)

NOTE: It is derived from the Latin words “juris” and “dico,” which literally means “I speak of the law.”

Jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law

Only jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by substantive law. Jurisdiction over the parties,
issues and res is governed by procedural laws (Riano, 2011).

A. Classification of jurisdiction

1. Distinguish: original and appellate

Courts of Original jurisdiction Courts of Appellate jurisdiction

Courts exercising jurisdiction in the first instance Superior courts reviewing and deciding cases
 previously decided by a lower court (21 CJS Courts
3)

Original jurisdiction - Actions or proceedings are to be directly filed before it.

Appellate jurisdiction - Power to review judgments.

2. Distinguish: general and special

Courts of General jurisdiction Courts of Special jurisdiction

Those with competence to decide on their own
jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all cases, civil
and criminal, of a particular nature (21 CJS Courts
3).
Those which have only a special jurisdiction for a
particular purpose or are clothed with special powers
for the performance of specified duties beyond which
they have no authority of any kind (21 CJS Courts
3).

General jurisdiction – Courts which can pass upon all kinds of cases such as MTCs and RTCs.
Special jurisdiction – Courts which can only pass upon certain types of cases such as the CTA,
Commercial courts, and Family courts.

3. Distinguish: exclusive and concurrent

Exclusive – It means that it is the only court that can take cognizance of a case. BP 22 cases falls within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC, regardless of the amount involved.

Concurrent – Different courts can take cognizance of a case. Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 can be
filed with the RTC, CA, or SC.

B. Doctrines of hierarchy of courts and continuity of jurisdiction

Hierarchy of courts – the case must be filed before the lowest court possible. (see Judicial hierarchy)

Continuity of jurisdiction – once the court acquires jurisdiction, it retains the same until the case is
decided.

DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION (CONTINUITY OF JURISDICTION)

GR: Jurisdiction, once attached, cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events although of a
character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, and the court
retains jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.

XPNs:

1. Where a subsequent statute expressly prohibits the continued exercise of jurisdiction;

 2. Where the law penalizing an act which is punishable is repealed by a subsequent law;
3. When accused is deprived of his constitutional right such as where the court fails to provide counsel
for the accused who is unable to obtain one and does not intelligently waive his constitutional right;
4. Where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to
actions pending before its enactment;
5. When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned or declared void; 6.
Once appeal has been perfected; and
7. Curative statutes (Herrera, 2007)

NOTE: The rule of adherence of jurisdiction until a cause is finally resolved or adjudicated does not
apply when the change in jurisdiction is curative in character (Abad,et al. v. RTC, G.R. No. L-65505,
October 12, 1987).
Effect of retroactivity of laws on jurisdiction

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 determines jurisdiction (Herrera, 2007).

C. Jurisdiction of various Philippine courts

1. Supreme Court

Cases to be decided by SC En Banc

1. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law; 2.
Cases involving the constitutionality, application or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations,
orders, instructions, ordinances and other regulations;
3. A case where the required number of votes in a division is not obtained;
4. A doctrine or principle laid down in a decision rendered en banc or by division is modified, or
reversed; and
5. All other cases required to be heard en banc under the Rules of Court (Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution).

Civil Criminal
Exclusive Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari,
Original prohibition and mandamus against the prohibition and mandamus against the
following: following:
1. CA; 1. CA;
2. Court of Tax Appeals; 2. Sandiganbayan
3. Commission on Elections En Banc;
4. Commission on Audit;
5. Sandiganbayan.
Appellate 1. Petitions for review on certiorari against: 1. In cases where the CA imposes reclusion
a. CA; perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser
b. CTA en banc (Sec. 11, R.A.9282) (2006 penalty, the judgment may be appealed to
Bar); the SC by notice of appeal filed with the CA
 c. SB; (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, September 28,
d. RTC, in cases involving: 2004);
2. Automatic review for cases of death
i. If no question of fact is involved and penalty rendered by the CA (A.M. No. 00-5-
the case involves: 03-SC, September 84, 2004);

a) Constitutionality or validity of NOTE: Where the judgment also imposes a

treaty, international or executive lesser penalty for offenses committed on the
agreement, law, presidential decree, same occasion or which arose out of the
proclamation, order, instruction, same occurrence that gave rise to the more
ordinance or regulation; severe offense for which the penalty of
b) Legality of tax, impost, death is imposed, and the accused appeals,
assessments, or toll, or penalty in the automatic review from the CA to the SC
relation thereto; or shall include such lesser offense (A.M. No.
c) Cases in which jurisdiction of lower 00-5-03-SC, September 28, 2004).
court is in issue;
3. Petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45)
ii. All cases in which only errors or from the SB if penalty is less than death, life
questions of law are involved; imprisonment or reclusion perpetua in
criminal cases, and, in civil cases (A.M. No.
2. Special civil action of certiorari – filed 005-03-SC, October 12, 2004);
within 30 days against the COMELEC/COA. 4. Notice of appeal from the Sandiganbayan
if it imposes life imprisonment or reclusion
perpetua or where a lesser penalty is
imposed involving offenses committed on
the same occasion or which arose out of the
same occurrence that gave rise to the more
serious offense for which the penalty of
death, reclusion perpetua of life
imprisonment is imposed (A.M. No. 00-5-
03-SC, October 12, 2004);
5. Automatic review of death penalty
imposed by the Sandiganbayan in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction (A.M.
No. 00-5-03-SC, October 12, 2004);
6. Criminal case from the Ombudsman are
appealable to the Supreme Court (Sec. 14
R.A. 6770) (2006 Bar);
7. Automatic review whenever the
Sandiganbayan, in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction, finds that the penalty
of death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment should be imposed (A.M. No.
00-5-03-SC, October 12, 2004); and
8. Appeals from RTC in which only errors or
questions of law are involved.
Concurrent
With CA 1. Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus against the prohibition and mandamus against the RTC
 following: and lower courts.

a. NLRC under the Labor Code;

NOTE: The petitions must first be filed with

the CA, otherwise, they shall be dismissed
(St. Martin Funeral Homes v. CA, G.R. No.
130866, September 16, 1998).

b. Civil Service Commission;

c. Quasi-judicial agencies (file with the CA
first);
d. RTC and lower courts;

2. Petitions for issuance of writ of Kalikasan

(Sec. 3, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
With CA and 1. Petitions for habeas corpus and quo Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari,
RTC warranto; and prohibition and mandamus against the lower
2. Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, courts or bodies.
prohibition and mandamus against the lower
courts or other bodies.
With CA, SB 1. Petitions for the issuance of writ of amparo; Petitions for the issuance of writ of amparo
and RTC and and writ of habeas data
2. Petition for writ of habeas data, where the
action involves public data or government
office.

With RTC Actions affecting ambassadors and other

public ministers and consuls.
With SB Petitions for mandamus, prohibition,
certiorari, injunctions and ancillary writs in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction including quo
warranto arising or that may arise in cases
filed under EOs. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.

2. Court of Appeals

Civil Criminal
Exclusive Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC 1. Actions for annulment of judgments of
and Original based upon extrinsic fraud or lack of RTC (Sec. 9, BP 129);
jurisdiction (Sec. 9, BP 129; Rule 47, 1997 2. Crimes of Terrorism under the Human
Rules of Civil Procedure). Security Act of 2007 or RA 9372.

Appellate 1. Final judgments, decisions, resolutions, Judgments or decisions of RTC via notice of
orders, awards of: appeal (except those appealable to the SC or
a. RTC (original jurisdiction or appellate SB):
jurisdiction); 1. Exercising its original jurisdiction;
b. Family Courts; RTC on the questions of 2. Exercising its appellate jurisdiction; and
 constitutionality, validity of tax, jurisdiction 3. Where the imposable penalty is:
involving questions of fact, which should be a. Life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua;
appealed first to the CA; or
c. Appeals from RTC in cases appealed from b. A lesser penalty for offenses committed
MTCs which are not a matter of right; on the same occasion or which arose from
the same occurrence that gave rise to the
2. Appeal from MTC in the exercise of its offense punishable reclusion perpetua or life
delegated jurisdiction (land registration or imprisonment (Sec. 3, Rule 122).
cadastral cases) (RA 7691);
3. Appeals from Civil Service Commission; Automatic review in cases of death penalty
4. Appeals from quasi-judicial agencies under rendered by the RTC, in which case, it may
Rule 43; decide on whether or not to affirm the
5. Appeals from the National Commission on penalty of death. If it affirms the penalty of
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP); and death, it will render a decision but will not
6. Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman enter the judgment because it will then be
in administrative disciplinary cases forwarded to the SC.
(Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman,
G.R. No. 149148, April 5, 2002) (2006 Bar). NOTE: Death penalty imposed by the RTC
is elevated to the CA by automatic review
while death penalty imposed by the
Sandiganbayan whether in its original or
appellate jurisdiction is elevated to the SC
for automatic review.
Concurrent
With SC 1. Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus against the prohibition and mandamus against the RTCs
following: and lower courts

a. NLRC under the Labor Code;

b. Civil Service Commission;
c. Quasi-judicial agencies; and
d. RTCs and other lower courts;

2. Petitions for issuance of writ of Kalikasan

(Sec. 3, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8SC).
With SC 1. Petitions for habeas corpus and quo Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari,
and RTC warranto; and prohibition and mandamus against the lower
2. Petitions for the issuance of writs of courts or bodies.
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against
the lower courts.
With SC, 1. Petitions for the issuance of writ of amparo; Petitions for the issuance of writ of amparo
SB, and 2. Petition for writ of habeas data, where the and writ of habeas data
RTC action involves public data or government
office.

3. Court of Tax Appeals

 Tax Cases Criminal Cases
Exclusive In tax collection cases involving final and All criminal cases arising from violation of
Original executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges the NIRC of the TCC and other laws, part of
and penalties where the principal amount of laws, or special laws administered by the
taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and BIR or the BOC where the principal amount
penalties claimed is not less than Php 1M. of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and
penalties claimed is less that Php 1M or
where there is no specified amount claimed
(the offenses or penalties shall be tried by
the regular courts and the jurisdiction of the
CTA shall be appellate).
Appellate In tax collection cases involving final and 1. Over appeals from the judgment,
executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax
and penalties where the principal amount of cases originally decided by them, in their
taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and respective territorial jurisdiction.
penalties claimed is less than Php 1M tried by 2. Over petitions for review of the
the proper MTC, MeTC and RTC. judgments, resolutions or orders of the
RTC in the exercise of their appellate
jurisdiction over tax cases originally
decided by the MeTCs, MTCs, and
MCTCs in their respective jurisdiction.
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal (Sec.7, RA 9282)
From 1. Decisions in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees
Commissioner or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or
of Internal other laws administered by BIR;
Revenue 2. Inaction by CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of IR taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws
administered by BIR, where the NIRC or other applicable law provides a specific period of
action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed an implied denial via petition for review
under Rule 42.
From RTC Decisions, orders or resolutions in local taxes originally decided or resolved by them in the
exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction via petition for review under Rule 43.
From 1. Decisions in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other charges, seizure,
Commissioner detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation
of Customs thereto; or
2. Other matters arising under the Customs law or other laws, part of laws or special laws
administered by BOC (via petition for review under Rule 42).
From Central Decisions in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and
Board of taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment
Assessment appeals via petition for review under Rule 43.
Appeals
From Decision on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review from decisions of the
Secretary of Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the government under Sec. 2315 of the TCC
Finance via petition for review under Rule 42.
From Decisions of Secretary of Trade and Industry in the case of non-agricultural product,
Secretary of commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product,
Trade and commodity or article, involving dumping duties and counterveiling duties under Secs. 301
Industry and and 302, respectively, of the TCC, and safeguard measures under RA 8800, where either
the Secretary party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties (via petition for review
 of Agriculture under Rule 42).

4. Sandiganbayan

RA 10660
Section 4. Jurisdiction
c. Provided, that the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction· where the
information:
(a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or
(b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).
Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, the cases falling under the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court under this section shall be tried in a judicial region other than where the official
holds office.
GN 2018 + updates in GN 2019 (but scanned)
(ChanRobles)
a. RA 3019 – Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
b. RA 1379 – Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Wealth
c. Revised Penal Code – Crimes committed by public officers (SG 27?):
i. Direct Bribery – Art. 210
ii. Indirect Bribery – Art. 211
iii. Qualified Bribery – Art. 211-A
iv. Corruption of Public Officials – Art. 212
d. RA 6713 – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
e. RA 7080 – Plunder Law
f. RA 7659 – Heinous Crime Law
g. RA 9160 – Anti Money Laundering Law committed by a public officer
h. PD 46 – Gift Giving Decree
i. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed in relation to
their office by the covered public officials or employees
j. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO 1, 2, 14, and 14-A issued in
1986
k. Petitions for issuance of Writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, injunction, and
other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; Provided, jurisdiction is not
exclusive of the Supreme Court
l. Petitions for Quo Warranto arising or that may arise in cases filed or that may be filed under EO 1, 2,
14, and 14-A series of 1986
EO 1 – Presidential Commission on Good Government
EO 2 – Regarding the assets illegally acquired by former Pres. Marcos
EO 14 – Defining jurisdiction over cases involving ill-gotten wealth of former Pres. Marcos
EO 14-A – Amended EO 14
5. Regional Trial Court

Civil Cases Criminal Cases

Exclusive 1. Actions in which the subject of litigation is 1. Criminal cases not within exclusive
Original incapable of pecuniary estimation; jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body
(Sec. 20, BP 129):
2. Actions involving title to or possession of
real property or any interest therein where a. Cases where the penalty provided by
the assessed value exceeds Php 20,000 or law exceeds 6 years imprisonment
Php 50,000 in Metro Manila, except irrespective of the fine (RA 7691); and
forcible entry and unlawful detainer; b. Cases not falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the
3. Actions in admiralty and maritime Sandiganbayan where the imposable
jurisdiction where demand or claim penalty is imprisonment more than 6
exceeds Php 300,000 or Php 400,000 in years and none of the accused is
Metro Manila; occupying positions classified as “Grade
27” and higher (Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as
4. Matters of probate, testate or intestate, amended by RA 8249).
where gross value of estate exceeds Php
300,000 or Php 400,000 in Metro Manila; 2. Cases where the only penalty provided by
law is a fine exceeding Php 4,000;
5. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction
of any court, tribunal, person or body 3. Other laws which specifically lodge
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial jurisdiction in the RTC:
function;
a. Law on written defamation or libel;
6. Civil actions and special proceedings b. Decree on Intellectual Property; and
falling within exclusive original c. Violations of Dangerous Drugs Act
jurisdiction of Juvenile and Domestic regardless of the imposable penalty
Relations Court and Court of Agrarian except when the offender is under 16
Reforms; and there are Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court in the province;
7. Other cases where the demand, exclusive
of interest, damages, attorney’s fees, 4. Cases falling under the Family Courts in
litigation expenses and costs, or value of areas where there are no Family Courts
property in controversy exceeds P300,000 (Sec. 24, BP 129); and
or Php 400,000 in Metro Manila (Sec. 19,
BP 129 as amended by RA 7691); and 5. Election offenses (Omnibus Election
Code) even if committed by an official with
8. Intra-corporate controversies under Sec. salary grade of 27 or higher.
5.2 of the Securities and Regulation Code.
(2016 Bar)
Concurrent Jurisdiction
With SC, SB 1. Writ of amparo; Petitions for the issuance of writs of amparo
and CA 2. Writ of habeas data. and habeas data
With SC Actions affecting ambassadors and other
public ministers and consuls [Sec. 21(2), BP
129].
With SC and 1. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
CA against lower courts and bodies;
2. Habeas corpus and quo warranto.
With MTC Cases involving enforcement or violations of
environmental and other related laws, rules
and regulations (Sec. 2, Rule 1, A.M. No. 09-
6-8-SC).
Special SC may designate certain branches of RTC to try exclusively:
1. Criminal cases;
2. Juvenile and domestic relations cases;
3. Agrarian cases;
4. Urban land reform cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any quasi-judicial body; and
5. Other special cases in the interest of justice (Sec. 23, BP 129).
Appellate
GR: All cases decided by lower courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions.

XPN: Decisions of lower courts in the exercise of delegated jurisdiction.

Test to determine whether an action is capable of pecuniary estimation

The criterion is the nature of the principal action or the 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 in the RTCs 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 like specific
performance suits and in actions for support, or for annulment of a judgment or foreclosure of mortgage,
such actions are incapable of pecuniary estimation, and are cognizable exclusively by the RTCs
(Barangay Piapi v. Talip, G.R. No. 138248, September 7, 2005).

Intra-corporate controversies that are within the jurisdiction of the RTC

1. Devices or schemes employed by, or any act of, the board of directors, business associates, officers
or partners, amounting to fraud or misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the
public and/or of the stockholders, partners, or members of any corporation, partnership, or
association;

2. Controversies arising out of intra-corporate, partnership, or association relations, between and

among stockholders, members, or associates; and between, any or all of them and the corporation,
partnership, or association of which they are stockholders, members, or associates, respectively;

3. Controversies in the election or appointment of directors, trustees, officers, or managers of

corporations, partnerships, or associations;

4. Derivative suits; and

5. Inspection of corporate book (Rule 1, IRR of RA 8799)

6. Family Court
Civil Cases
Exclusive 1. Petitions for guardianship, custody of
Original children, habeas corpus in relation to
minor;
2. Petitions for adoption of children and its
revocation;
3. Complaints for annulment and declaration
of nullity of marriage and those relating to
marital status and property relations of
spouses 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 under the
Family Code of the Philippines;
6. 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 PD 603, EO 56 (Series of
1986) and other related laws; and
7. Petitions for the constitution of the family
home (rendered unnecessary by Art. 153,
Family Code) (Sec. 5, RA 8369).
(ChanRobles)
Family Court
a. Guardianship, custody, habeas corpus involving children (not involving children – Regular RTC)
b. Adoption
c. Marriage – Annulment, nullity, property relations, dissolution of CPG.
d. Support and Acknowledgment
e. Summary Proceedings under the Family Code
f. Declaration of Status of Children
g. Cases involving Family Home
h. Drugs cases against minors
i. Cases under RA 7610 (Law on Special Protection of Children)
j. Cases under RA 9262 (VAWC)
7. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts
Criminal Cases
1. Where one or more of the accused is/are
below 18 years of age but not less than 9
years of age;
2. When one or more of the victims is a
minor at the time of the commission of the
offense (RA 8369, Act Establishing the
Family Courts);
3. Cases against minors cognizable under the
Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;
4. Violations of RA 7610 or the Special
Protection of Children Against Child
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act, as amended by RA 7658; and
5. Cases of domestic violence against:
a. Women – involving acts of gender-
based violence that result, or likely to
result in physical, sexual or
psychological harm or suffering to
women; and other forms of physical
abuse such as battering or threats and
coercion which violate a woman’s
personhood, integrity and freedom of
movement; and
b. Children – which include the
commission of all forms of abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence
and discrimination and all other
conditions prejudicial to their
development (Sec. 5, RA 8369).
 Civil Cases
Exclusive 1. Actions involving personal property where 1.
Original the value of the property does not exceed
Php 300,000 or, in Metro Manila Php
400,000;
2. Actions for claim of money where the
demand does not exceed Php 300,000 or, in 2. In offenses involving damage to property
Metro Manila Php 400,000;
3. Probate proceedings, testate or intestate,
where the (gross) value of the estate does
not exceed Php 300,000 or, in Metro 3. Where the only penalty provided by law is
Manila Php 400,000;
NOTE: In the foregoing, claim must be 4. Those covered by the Rules on Summary
exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s
fees, litigation expense, and cost (Sec. 33,
BP 129 as amended by RA 7691).
4. Actions involving title to or possession of
real property or any interest therein where
the value or amount does not exceed Php
20,000 or, in Metro Manila Php 50,000
exclusive of interest damages, attorney’s
fees, litigation expense, and costs (2008
Bar);
5. Maritime claims where the demand or
claim does not exceed Php 300,000 or, in
Metro Manila Php 400,000 (Sec. 33, BP
129, as amended by RA 7691);
6. Inclusion or exclusion of voters (Sec. 138, 5. All offenses committed by public officers
BP 881);
7. Those covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure:
8. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer;
9. Those covered by the Rules on Small
Claims, i.e. actions for payment of money
where the claim does not exceed Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00)
exclusive of interest and costs (A.M. No.
08-8-7-SC, as amended, effective February
1, 2016).
NOTE: On July 10, 2018, A.M. No. 08-8-
7SC was amended by the SC to increase the
amount of small claims from P200,000.00 to
P300,000.00 (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as
amended, effective August 1, 2018).
Delegated Cadastral or land registration cases covering
Criminal Cases
All offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding 6 years
irrespective of the amount of fine and
regardless of other imposable accessory or
other penalties;
through criminal negligence where the
imposable fine does not exceed Php 10,000
(Sec. 32, BP 129 as amended by RA 7691);
a fine not exceeding Php 4,000 (Admin.
Circular No. 09-94, June 14, 1994);
Procedure, i.e.:
a. Violations of traffic laws, rules and
regulations;
b. Violations of the rental law;
c. Violations of municipal or city
ordinances;
d. Violations of BP 22 (A.M. No. 00-
1101-SC); and
e. All other criminal cases where the
penalty is imprisonment not exceeding
6 months and/or a fine of Php 1,000
irrespective of other penalties or civil
liabilities arising therefrom;
and employees in relation to their office,
including government-owned or –
controlled corporations, and by private
individuals charged as co-principals,
accomplices or accessories, punishable
with imprisonment not more than 6 years
or where none of the accused holds a
position classified as “Grade 27” and
higher (Sec. 4, P.D. 1606, as amended by
RA 8249).
Delegated
 lots where:
1. There is no controversy or opposition;
2. Contested but the value does not exceed
Php 100,000 (Sec. 34, BP 129, as amended
by RA 7691)

NOTE: The value shall be ascertained by the

affidavit of the claimant or agreement of the
respective claimants (Sec. 34, BP 129 as
amended by RA 7691).
Special Petition for habeas corpus in the absence of Application for bail in the absence of all
all RTC judges in the province or city (Sec. RTC judges in the province or city.
35, BP 129).
With RTC Cases involving enforcement or violations of
environmental and other related laws, rules
and regulations (Sec. 2, Rule 1, A.M. No. 09-
6-8SC).

D. Aspects of Jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction over the parties (Jurisdiction in personam)

It is the power of the court to make decisions that are binding on persons. [De Pedro v. Romasan
Development Corporation, 743 SCRA 52 (2014)]

a. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired

b. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired

Plaintiff Defendant
Acquired when the action is commenced by the filing 1. By his voluntary appearance in court and his
of the complaint. This presupposes payment of the submission to its authority;
docket fees. 2. By valid service of summon; or
3. By other coercive process upon him (arrest in
criminal cases)

NOTE: Jurisdiction over the defendant is not

essential in actions in rem or quasi in rem as long
as the court has jurisdiction over the res (Herrera,
2007).

2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

a. Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter

Jurisdiction of court over the class of cases to which a particular case belongs. [Geronimo v. Calderon,
744 SCRA 564 (2014)]
 It is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question
belong (Herrera, 2007).

b. Distinguish: jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Exercise of Jurisdiction

It is the authority to hear and decide cases. It does not
depend upon the regularity of the exercise of that
power or upon the rightfulness of the decision made
(Lim, et al. v. Hon. Felipe Pacquing, et al., G.R. No.
115044, September 1, 1994).
It is any act of the court pursuant to such authority,
which includes making decisions. If 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 v. Baretto, 25
Phil. 245; Palma v. Q&S, Inc., G.R. No. L-20366,
May 16, 1966).

Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case. Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court. [Arranza
v. B.F. Homes, Inc., 333 SCRA 799, 812 (2000)]

The exercise of this power or authority is called the exercise of jurisdiction and where there is
jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case
is but an exercise of that jurisdiction. [Republic v. “G.” Holdings, Inc., 475 SCRA 608, 619(2005)]

c. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined

It is conferred by law, that is, BP 129, otherwise known as “Judiciary Reorganization Act.” It does not
depend on the objection or the acts or omissions of the parties or anyone of them (Republic v.
Sangalang, 159 SCRA 515; PNB v. Florendo, 206 SCRA 582).

Instances when jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be conferred

1. By the administrative policy of any court;

2. A court’s unilateral assumption of jurisdiction;
3. An erroneous belief by the court that it has jurisdiction;
4. By the parties through a stipulation, e.g. contract;
5. The agreement of the parties acquired through, or waived, enlarged or diminished by, any act or
omission of the parties; or 6. Parties’ silence, acquiescence or consent (Riano, 2011).

Determination of jurisdiction over the subject matter

It is determined by the allegations of the complaint (Baltazar v. Ombudsman, 510 SCRA 74) regardless
of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claims asserted therein (Gocotano v. Gocotano, 469
SCRA 328).

Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, as well as by the character of the relief
sought. [Geronimo v. Calderon, 744 SCRA 564 (2014)]

d. Distinguish: doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction and doctrine of exhaustion of

administrative remedies

Doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction

  The court cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to resolving the same, where the question
demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge,
experience and services in determining technical and intricate matters of fact (Omictin v. CA,
G.R. No. 148004, January 22, 2007).

 A remedy within the administrative office must be resorted to give the administrative officers
every opportunity to decide a matter within his jurisdiction. Such remedy must be exhausted
first before the court's power of judicial review can be sought. [Garcia v. Tolentino, 12 August,
766 SCRA 277 (2015)]

 If the determination of the case requires the expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of
an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before
resort to the court is made even if the matter may well be within the latter's proper jurisdiction
[ Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Uniwide Sales , Inc., 634 SCRA 232, 240, (2010)]

Objective of Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

The objective is to guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its
jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspects of some
question arising in the proceeding before the court. [ Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Uniwide Sales, Inc., 634
SCRA 232, 240 (2010)]

NOTE: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over
which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special competence. For
instance, in agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform; more
specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) (Spouses Fajardo
v.Flores, G.R. No. 167891, January 15, 2010).

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

It states that recourse through court action cannot prosper until after all such administrative remedies
have first been exhausted. The non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
results in lack of cause of action (National Electrification Administration v. Villanueva, G.R. No.
168203, March 9, 2010).

NOTE: The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies and doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies
only when the administrative agency exercises quasijudicial or adjudicatory function (Associate
Communications and Wireless Services v. Dumalao, G.R. No. 136762, November21, 2002).

RATIONALE: The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their
functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence
(Caballes v. Perez-Sison, G.R. No. 131759, March 23, 2004).

It entails lesser expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of controversies. Comity and
convenience also impel courts of justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative
redress has been completed (Universal Robina Corporation v. Laguna Lake Authority, G.R. No. 191427,
May 30, 2011).

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

1. When respondent official acted in utter disregard of due process;

2. When the questions involved are purely judicial or legal;
3. When the controverted act is patently illegal or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess
of jurisdiction;
4. When there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned;
5. When its application may cause great and irreparable damage;
6. When the respondent is a Department Secretary, whose acts as an alter ego of the President bears
the implied or assumed approval of the latter unless actually disapproved by him;
7. When to require administrative remedies would be unreasonable;
8. When the insistence in its observance would result in the nullification of the claim being
asserted;
9. When the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings;
10. When it does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
11. Where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention (Paat v. CA, G.R.
No. 111107, January 10, 1997);
12. Exhaustion of administrative remedies may also be considered waived if there is a failure to
assert it for an unreasonable length of time (Rep. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 112708-09,
March 29, 1996);
13. A civil action for damages may, however, proceed notwithstanding the pendency of an
administrative action (Escuerte v. CA, G.R. No. L-53485, February 6, 1991);
14. When the claim involved is small;
15. When strong public interest is involved; and
16. In quo warranto proceedings (Castro v. Gloria, G.R. No. 132174, August 20, 2001)

Effect of failure to exhaust administrative remedies

The ground should not be lack of jurisdiction but lack of cause of action as it renders the action
premature (Carale v. Abarintos, G.R. No. 120704, March 3, 1997; Pestanas v. Dyogi, 81 SCRA 574).

e. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction (Continuity of Jurisdiction)

GR:

Jurisdiction, once attached, cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events although of a character
which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, and the court retains
jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.

XPNs:

1. Where a subsequent statute expressly prohibits the continued exercise of jurisdiction;

2. Where the law penalizing an act which is punishable is repealed by a subsequent law;
3. When accused is deprived of his constitutional right such as where the court fails to provide
counsel for the accused who is unable to obtain one and does not intelligently waive his
constitutional right;
4. Where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as
to actions pending before its enactment;
5. When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned or declared
void;
6. Once appeal has been perfected; and
7. Curative statutes (Herrera, 2007)

NOTE: The rule of adherence of jurisdiction until a cause is finally resolved or adjudicated does not
apply when the change in jurisdiction is curative in character (Abad, et al. v. RTC, G.R. No. L-65505,
October 12, 1987).

Effect of retroactivity of laws on jurisdiction

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 determines jurisdiction (Herrera, 2007).

f. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter

GR:

The prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings and even for the first time on appeal (Riano, 2011).

XPNs:

1. Estoppel by laches – SC barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised only after an adverse
decision was rendered by the court against the party raising the issue of jurisdiction and after seeking
affirmative relief from the court and after participating in all stages of the proceedings (Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968);

NOTE: There is laches when a party is aware, even in the early stages of the proceedings, of a
possible jurisdictional objection, and has every opportunity to raise said objection, but failed to
do so, even on appeal (Lamsis v. Dong-e, G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010, Del Castillo, J.).

2. Public policy – One cannot question the jurisdiction which he invoked, not because the decision is
valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but because it cannot be tolerated by reason of public policy
(Filipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Dumlao, G.R. No. L44888, February 7, 1992); and

3. A party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief against his opponents
cannot repudiate or question the same after failing to obtain such relief (Tajonera v. Lamaroza, G.R.
Nos. L-48907& 49035, January 19, 1982).

NOTE: 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 115).
 Even in the absence of lack of jurisdiction raised in a motion to dismiss, a party may, when he files an
answer, still raise the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because such defense is not barred
under the omnibus motion rule.

g. Effect of estoppel on objection to jurisdiction

Doctrine of Estoppel by laches

It refers to the belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised by a party only when an adverse decision
was rendered by the lower court. [Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 (1968)]

The active participation of a party in a case and seeking of affirmative reliefs is tantamount to
recognition of that court’s jurisdiction and will bar a party from impugning the court’s jurisdiction. This
only applies to exceptional circumstances (Concepcion v. Regalado, G.R. No. 167988, February 6,
2007).

The Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then
accepting the judgment only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse.
[ United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Inc. v. Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc., 674 SCRA
92, 104 (2012)]

The Doctrine in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy on estoppel by laches is NOT the general rule

The ruling in Tijam that a party is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction applies only to exceptional
circumstances. What is still controlling is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action is a
matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties (Calimlim v. Ramirez,
G.R. No. L34362, November 19, 1982).

3. Jurisdiction over the issue

The power of the court to try and decide issues raised in the (1) pleadings of the parties; or (2) by their
agreement in a pre-trial order or those tried by the implied consent of the parties (Sec. 5, Rule 10).

It may also be conferred by (3) waiver or failure to object to the presentation of evidence on a matter not
raised in the pleadings. The issues tried shall be treated in all respect as if they had been raised in the
pleadings (Ibid.).

The issue in a case may be either one of law or of fact

Question of law – when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts
Question of fact – when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts
[Sps. Santos v. Court of Appeals, 337 SCRA 67, 74 (2000)]

4. Jurisdiction over the res or property in litigation

The jurisdiction of the court over the thing or the property which is the subject of the action. It is
necessary when the action is one in rem or quasi in rem.
 How jurisdiction over the res is acquired

It is acquired either by:

1. The seizure of the property under legal process;

2. As a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized
and made effective (Banco Español Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291);
3. The court by placing the property of thing under its custody (custodia legis), e.g. attachment of
property; or
4. The court through statutory authority conferring upon it the power to deal with the property or
thing within the court’s territorial jurisdiction, e.g. suits involving the status of the parties or suits
involving the property in the Philippines of non-resident defendants (Riano, 2011).

5. Jurisdiction over the remedies

The jurisdiction of the court over the remedies prayed for, e.g. jurisdictional amount.

Provisional remedies

Once the court has jurisdiction over the main case, ancillary or provisional remedies are included, e.g.
support, receivership, and replevin.

E. Distinguish: error of jurisdiction and error of judgment

Error of Jurisdiction Error of Judgment

One where the court, officer or quasi-judicial body
acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion.
Renders a judgment void or at least voidable [Sec.
1(a)&(b), Rule 16; Rule 65].
One that the court may commit in the exercise of
jurisdiction; it includes errors of procedure or
mistakes in the court’s findings.
Does not make the court’s decision void. (But makes
the decision subject to appeal)

The only exception is when the party raising the issue

is barred by estoppel.
There is an exercise of jurisdiction in the absence of The court acted with jurisdiction but committed
jurisdiction. procedural errors in the appreciation of the facts or
the law.
An error of jurisdiction is one where the act
complained of was issued by the court without or in An error in judgment is one which the court may
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction (Ibid.).
discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the
extraordinary writ of certiorari (First Corporation v.
Former Sixth Division of The Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 171989, July 4, 2007).

F. Distinguish: jurisdiction and venue

Venue Jurisdiction
 The place, or geographical area where an action is to
be filed and tried (Manila Railroad Company v.
Attorney General, 20 Phil 523).
Can only be objected to before the other party files a
responsive pleading (Answer)
May be waived by:
1. Failure to object through a motion to dismiss or
through an affirmative defense; or
2. Stipulation of the parties.
Matter of procedural law
May be stipulated by the parties
Establishes a relation between the plaintiff and
defendant, or petitioner and respondent.
GR: Not a ground for a motu proprio dismissal
(Riano, 2014)
XPN: In cases subject to summary procedure (Ibid.)
Power of the court to hear and decide a case
Can be brought up at any stage of the proceedings
Cannot be waived
Matter of substantive law
Cannot be the subject of the agreement of the parties
Establishes a relation between the court and the
subject matter
It is a ground for a motu proprio dismissal in case of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (Riano,
2014; Sec. 1, Rule 9)

NOTE: In civil cases, venue is not a matter of jurisdiction (Hrs. of Lopez v. de Castro, 324 SCRA 591).

Venue becomes jurisdictional only in a criminal case. Where the Information is not filed in the place where the
offense was committed, the information may be quashed for lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged (Sec.
3, Rule 117).

Purpose of rules on fixing venue

They are designed to insure a just and orderly administration of justice, or the impartial and evenhanded
determination of every action and proceeding (Esuerte v. CA, G.R. No. 53485, February 6, 1991; Saludo, Jr. v.
American Express International, Inc., G.R. No. 159507, April 19, 2006).

The situs for bringing real and personal actions are fixed by the rules to attain the greatest convenience possible
to the party litigants by taking into consideration the maximum accessibility to them of the courts of justice
(Bartiua v. CA, G.R. No. 100748, February 3, 1997).

G. Jurisdiction over small claims, cases covered by the rules on Summary Procedure and Barangay
Conciliation

Katarungang Pambarangay Rule on Small Claims Cases Rules on Summary

Law Procedure
Purpose/Object To effect an amicable To provide a simpler and To achieve an expeditious
settlement of disputes among more inexpensive and and inexpensive
family and barangay expeditious means of settling determination of the cases
members at the barangay disputes involving purely defined to be governed by
level without judicial money claims than the the Rules on Summary
recourse and consequently regular civil process Procedure
help relieve the courts of
docket congestion (Preamble
of PD 1508) (1999 Bar).
Where to file 1. For disputes between 1. MeTC 1. MeTC
residents of the same 2. MTCC 2. MTCC
 barangay: the dispute must 3. MTC 3. MTC
be brought for settlement in 4. MCTC 4. MCTC
the said barangay;

2. For disputes between

residents of different but
adjoining barangays and the
parties agree to submit their
differences to amicable
settlement: within the same
city or municipality where
any of the respondents
reside at the election of the
complainant;

3. For disputes
involving real property or
any interest when the
parties thereto agree to
submit their differences to
amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon therein
shall be brought in the
barangay where the real
property or larger portion
thereof is situated; and

4. For disputes arising

at the workplace where the
contending parties are
employed or at the
institution where such
parties are enrolled for
study shall be brought in the
barangay where such
workplace or institution is
located.
Cases Covered
Civil Cases All disputes involvingSmall claims cases – civil 1. All cases of forcible entry
parties who actually reside in
claims which are exclusively and unlawful detainer
the same city or municipalityfor the payment or irrespective of the amount of
may be the subject of the reimbursement of a sum of damages or unpaid rentals
proceedings for amicable money not to exceed Two sought to be recovered.
settlement in the barangay. Hundred Thousand Pesos Where attorney’s fees are
(P200,000.00) exclusive of awarded, the same shall not
If the only contending party interest and costs (as exceed Php 20,000; and 2.
is the government or its amended A.M. No. 08-8-7- All other civil cases, except
instrumentality or SC, EFFECTIVE probate proceedings, where
subdivision the case is
exempted from the
requirement of barangay
conciliation proceedings but
when it (government or its
instrumentality or
subdivision) is only one of
the contending parties, a
confrontation should still be
undertaken among the other
parties (Gegare v. CA, G.R.
No. 83907, September 13,
1989).
An action for annulment of a
compromise judgment as a
general rule is immediately
executory and accordingly,
beyond the authority of the
Barangay Court to change or
modify (Sanchez v. Tupas,
G.R. No. 76690, February
29, 1988).
The requirement of
undergoing barangay
conciliation proceedings
applies only to cases
involving natural persons,
and not where any of the
parties is a juridical person
such as a corporation,
partnership, corporation sole,
testate or intestate estate, etc.
(Vda. De Borromeo v.
Pogoy, G.R. No. L-63277,
November 29, 1983).
Conciliation process at the
barangay level is a condition
precedent for the filing of a
complaint in court and
noncompliance therewith is
a ground for dismissal of the
complaint for lack of cause
of action or prematurity
(Peregrina v. Panis, G.R.
No. L56011, October 31,
1984).
FEBRUARY 1, 2016). the total amount of
plaintiff’s claim does not
NOTE: On July 10, 2018, exceed Two Hundred
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC was Thousand Pesos
amended by the SC to (P200,000.00) exclusive of
increase the amount of small interest and costs (as
claims from P200,000.00 to amended A.M. No. 08-8-7-
P300,000.00 (A.M. No. 08- SC, EFFECTIVE
8-7-SC, as amended, FEBRUARY 1, 2016).
effective August 1, 2018).
1. Purely civil in nature
where the claim or relief
prayed for by the plaintiff is
solely for payment or
reimbursement of sum of
money, or
2. 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:
1. For money owed under
any of the following:
a. Contract of Lease;
b. Contract of Loan;
c. Contract of Services;
d. Contract of Sale; or
e. Contract of Mortgage;
2. For damages arising from
any of the following:
a. Fault or negligence;
b. Quasi-contract; or
c. Contract.
3. The enforcement of a
barangay amicable
settlement or an arbitration
 award involving a money
Barangay conciliation claim covered by this Rule
process is not a jurisdictional pursuant to Sec. 417, LGC.
requirement, so that
noncompliance therewith
cannot affect the jurisdiction
which the court has
otherwise acquired over the
subject matter or over the
person of the defendant.
Such defense shall be raised
in the answer, otherwise,
such objection will be
deemed waived (Aquino v.
Aure, G.R. No. 153567,
February 18, 2008).

The enforcement by
execution of the amicable
settlement in the barangay
conciliation proceedings is
only applicable if the
contracting parties have not
repudiated such settlement.
If the amicable settlement is
repudiated by one party,
either expressly or impliedly,
the other party has two
options, namely, to enforce
the compromise or to
consider it rescinded and
insist upon his original
demand (Miguel v.
Montanez, G.R. No. 191336,
January 25, 2012).
Criminal Cases When punishable by None 1. Violations of traffic laws,
imprisonment of not more rules and regulations;
than 1 year or fine of not 2. Violations of the rental
more than Php 5,000 (Sec. law;
408, LGC). 3. Violations of municipal or
city ordinances;
4. Violations of B.P. 22 or
the Bouncing Checks Law
(A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC,
April 15, 2003);
5. All other criminal cases
where the penalty is
imprisonment not
exceeding 6 months
 and/or a fine of Php 1,000
irrespective of other
penalties or civil liabilities
arising therefrom; and
6. Offenses involving
damage to property
through criminal
negligence where the
imposable fine is not
exceeding Php 10,000.

H. How jurisdiction is determined

It is determined by the allegations of the complaint (Baltazar v. Ombudsman, 510 SCRA 74) regardless
of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claims asserted therein (Gocotano v. Gocotano, 469
SCRA 328).

Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, as well as by the character of the relief
sought. [Geronimo v. Calderon, 744 SCRA 564 (2014)]

Jurisdiction does not depend on the complaint's caption. Hence, a complaint merely bearing the caption,
“recovery of possession,” is actually an unlawful detainer case if it contains jurisdictional facts of said
action. [Spouses Erorita v. Spouses Dumlao, 781 SCRA 551 (2016)]

Jurisdiction does not depend on the amount ultimately substantiated and awarded by the trial court
[Dionisio v. Sison Puerto, 60 SCRA 471, 477, (1974)]

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

B. ACTIONS

1. Meaning of ordinary civil actions

It is one in which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or
redress of a wrong [Sec. 3(a), Rule 1].

2. Meaning of special civil actions

It is one in which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention or
redress of a wrong wherein it has special features not found in ordinary civil actions. It is governed by
ordinary rules but subject to specific rules prescribed under Rules 62-71 (Riano, 2011).

3. Meaning of criminal actions

 It is one by which the state prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law [Sec. 3(b), Rule
1].

4. Distinguish: civil actions and special proceedings

A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong [Sec. 3 (a), Rule 1].

A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact
[Sec. 3 (c), Rule 1].

5. Personal actions and real actions

Real Action Personal Action

Scope When it affects title to or possession of real Recovery of personal property, the
property, or an interest therein (Sec. 1, Rule enforcement of a contract or the recovery of
4) damages (Chua v. TOPROS, G.R. No.
152808, September 30, 2005).

6. Local and transitory actions

Local Action Transitory Action

Venue Must be brought in a particular place where
the subject property is located, unless there is
an agreement to the contrary (Sec. 4, Rule 4).
Privity of No privity of contract and the action is
contract founded on privity of estate only (Riano,
2014).
Dependent on the place where the party
resides regardless of where the cause of
action arose. Subject to Sec. 4, Rule 4.
Founded on privity of contract between the
parties whether debt or covenant (Paper
Industries Corporation of the Philippines v.
Samson, supra)

7. Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem

Action In Rem Action In Personam Action Quasi In Rem

Nature A proceeding to determine A proceeding to enforce A proceeding to subject the
title, status or condition of personal rights and
property of the named
property within its borders. obligations brought against
defendant or his interests
the person (Riano, 2014).
therein to the obligation or
lien burdening the property
(Asiavest Limited v. CA,
G.R. No. 128803, September
25, 1998).
Purpose A proceeding to bar To impose through the Deals with the status,
indifferently all who might judgment of a court, some ownership or liability of a
 be minded to make any responsibility or liability particular property but which
objection against the right directly upon the person of are intended to operate on
sought to be enforced, hence the defendant (Domagas v. these questions only as
the judgment therein is Jensen, G.R. No. 158407, between the particular parties
binding theoretically upon January 17, 2005). to the proceedings and not to
the whole world. ascertain or cut-off the rights
or interests of all possible
claimants (Domagas v.
Jensen, supra).
Scope Directed against the thing Directed against particular Directed against particular
itself instead of against the persons. (Domagas v. persons with respect to the
person (Riano, 2014). Jensen, supra). res.
Required Jurisdiction over the person Jurisdiction over the person Jurisdiction over the person
jurisdiction of the defendant is not of the defendant is required of the defendant is not
required. Jurisdiction over (Biaco v. Philippine required as long as
the res isacquired either (1) Countryside Rural Bank, jurisdiction over the res is
by the seizure of the property supra.). acquired (Biaco v. Philippine
under legal process; or (2) as Countryside Rural Bank,
a result of the institution of supra).
legal proceedings (Biaco v.
Philippine Countryside
Rural Bank, G.R. No.
161417, February 8, 2007).
Effect of Judgment is binding upon the Judgment is binding onlyJudgment will be binding
judgment whole world (Muñoz v. upon parties impleaded or
only upon the litigants, their
Yabut, Jr., G.R. No. 142676 their successors-in-interest
privies, and their successors-
& 146718, June 6, 2011). but not upon strangers in-interest, but the judgment
(Muñoz v. Yabut, Jr., supra).
shall be executed against a
particular property. The res
involved will answer for the
judgment
Example 1. Probate proceedings 1. Action for specific 1. Action for partition;
(Alaban v. Court of Appeals, performance (Jose v. Boyon, 2. Action for accounting
G.R. No. 156021, September G.R. No. 147369, October (Riano, 2014, citing
23, 2005); 23, 2003); Valmonte v. CA, G.R. No.
2. Cadastral proceedings (In 2. Action for breach of 108538, January 22, 1996);
re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil contract; or 3. Attachment; or
156); or 3. Action for a sum of 4. Foreclosure of mortgage
3. Land registration moneyor damages (Riano, (Sahagun v. CA, G.R. No.
proceedings (Republic v. 2014) 78328, June 3, 1991)
Herbieto, G.R. No. 156117,
May 26, 2005)

NOTE: The distinction between actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem is important in determining the
following:

1. Whether or not jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required; and
2. The type of summons to be employed (Gomez v. CA, G.R. No. 127692, March 10, 2004)
C. CAUSE OF ACTION

1. Meaning of cause of action

It is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another (Sec. 2, Rule 2).

The question as to whether a plaintiff has a cause of action is determined by the averments in the
pleadings pertaining to the acts of the defendant. Whether such acts give him a right of action is
determined by substantive law (Herrera, 2007).

Elements of a cause of action

a. legal right in favor of the plaintiff

b. correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such right; and
c. act or omission by the defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff with a resulting injury or
damage to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for the recovery of relief from the
defendant. [Metropolitan Bank v. Ley Construction and Development Corporation, 743 SCRA 618
(2014)]

2. Distinguish: right of action and cause of action

Cause of Action Right of Action

Definition It is the act or omission by which a party Right of a plaintiff to bring an action and to
violates the rights of another (Sec. 2, Rule 2). prosecute that action until final judgment
(Marquez v. Varela, 92 Phil. 373).
Requisites 1. The existence of a legal right of the 1. There must be a good cause (existence of a
plaintiff; cause of action);
2. A correlative duty of the defendant to 2. A compliance with all the conditions
respect one’s right; and precedent to the bringing of the action; and
3. An act or omission of the defendant in 3. Right to bring and maintain the action
violation of the plaintiff’s right (Agrarian must be in the person instituting it (Albano,
Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas, Remedial Law Reviewer, 2014, p. 53
G.R. No. 168394, October 6, 2008). hereinafter referred to as Albano, 2014)
Nature It is actually predicated upon substantive law It is procedural in character and is the
on quasi-delicts under the NCC (Riano, consequence of the violation of the right of
2014). the plaintiff (Riano, 2014).
Basis Based on the allegations of the plaintiff in Basis is the plaintiff’s cause of action. There
the complaint. is no right of action where there is no cause
of action (Ibid.).
Effect of Not affected by affirmative defenses (fraud, May be taken away by the running of the
Affirmative prescription, estoppel, etc.) statute of limitation, estoppel or other
Defense circumstances which do not at all affect the
cause of action (Turner v. Lorenzo Shipping
Corporation, G.R. No. 157479, November
 24, 2010).

NOTE: The rule is “there is no right of action where there is no cause of action” (Ibid.).

3. Distinguish: failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action

Failure to state cause of action Lack of cause of action

Definition Insufficiency of allegation in the pleading Where the evidence does not sustain the
(Dabuco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. cause of action (Domondon v. Lopez, A.M.
133775, January 20, 2000). No. RTJ-02-1696, June 20, 2002)
As a ground Raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 Raised in a demurrer to evidence under Rule
for dismissal before a responsive pleading is filed (Ibid.).
33 after the plaintiff has rested his case
(Enojas v. Comelec, G.R. No. 129938,
December 12, 1997).
Determination Determined only from the allegations of the Resolved only on the basis of the evidence
pleading and not from evidentiary matters he presented in support of his claim (Riano,
(Riano, 2014, citing Domondon v. Lopez, 2014 citing Domondon v. Lopez, supra).
supra).
When made Can be made at the earliest stages of an Made after questions of fact have been
action (Dabuco v. CA, G.R. No. 133775, reslved on the basis of stipulations,
January 20, 2000). admissions, or evidence presented (Dabuco
v. CA, G.R. No. 133775, January 20, 2000).

The Court had emphasized, on various occasions, that failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause
of action are distinct grounds to dismiss a particular action. The former [i.e., failure to state cause of
action] refers to the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading, while the latter [i.e., lack of cause of
action] to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action. [Westmont Bank v. Funai Philippines
Corporation, 762 SCRA 82 (2015)]

4. Test of the sufficiency of a cause of action

Whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the
prayer of the complaint (Misamis Occidental II Coop., Inc. v. David, G.R. No. 129928, August 25,
2005).

The sufficiency of the statement of cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint and its
existence is only determined by the allegations of the complaint (Viewmaster Construction Corp. v.
Roxas, G.R. No. 133576, 13 July 2000).

Admitting the truth of the facts alleged, can the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the
prayer? To be taken into account are only the material allegations in the complaint. Extraneous facts and
circumstances or other matters aliunde are not considered. [Zepeda v. China Banking Corporation, 504
SCRA 126, 131- 132, (2006)]

NOTE: The truth or falsity of the allegations is beside the point because the allegations in the complaint
are hypothetically admitted. Thus, a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action
 hypothetically admits the matters alleged in the complaint (Riano 2014, citing PNB v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 121251, June 26, 1998; Sta. Clara Homeowner’s Association v. Gaston,G.R. No. 141961,
January 23, 2002)

5. Splitting a single cause of action and its effects

It is the act of instituting two or more suits on the basis of the same cause of action (Sec. 4, Rule 2). It is
the act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and bringing several
actions thereon (Riano 2014, citing Quadra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147593, July 31, 2006). This
practice, which applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims and cross-claims, is
discouraged.

A cause of action may give rise to several reliefs but only one action can be filed, not one action for each
relief. (Riviera Golf, Inc. v. CCA Holdings B.V., 758 SCRA 691 [2015])

RATIO:
1. Breeds multiplicity of suits;
2. Clogs the court dockets;
3. Leads to vexatious litigation;
4. Operates as an instrument of harassment; and
5. Generates unnecessary expenses to the parties (Riano, 2014) (1999, 2005 Bar)

Effect of splitting a cause of action

If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a
judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others (Sec. 4, Rule
2).

Remedies against splitting cause of action

The defendant may file a motion to dismiss based on either of the following grounds:

1. Litis pendentia; or

2. Res judicata, if the first action has already been terminated.

NOTE: Litis pendentia and forum shopping have similar elements, so it is best for the counsel to move
for the dismissal based on forum shopping under Sec. 5, Rule 7 instead, and show that the party or his
counsel willfully and deliberately resorted to forum shopping. This is because the effect is a dismissal
with prejudice, in addition to the sanction for direct contempt as well as a cause for administrative
sanctions.

6. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action

Joinder of causes of action

It is the assertion of as many causes of action a party may have against another in one pleading alone
(Sec. 5, Rule 2).
 Requisites of joinder of causes of action

1. The party shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties (Sec. 6, Rule 3):

a. Right to relief exists in favor of or against several persons;

b. Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transaction; and
c. There is common question of law of law or fact.

2. The joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules;

3. Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and venue lies therein; and

4. Totality Test - Where claims in all causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test for jurisdiction (Sec. 5, Rule 2) (2002Bar).

NOTE: A joinder of causes of action is only permissive, not compulsory; hence, a party may desire to
file a single suit for each of his claims (Riano, 2014).

Misjoinder of causes of action

There is a misjoinder when two or more causes of action were joined in one complaint when they should
not be so joined.

This is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or
on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately by filing a motion in relation
thereto (Sec. 6, Rule 2). There is no sanction against non-joinder of separate causes of action.

D. PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTION

Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. (Rule 3,
Section 1)

1. Natural persons;

2. Juridical persons:

a. The State and its political subdivisions;

b. Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created by law; and

c. Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to which the law
grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or
member (Art. 44, NCC);

3. Entities authorized by law:

 a. Corporation by estoppel is precluded from denying its existence and the members thereof can
be sued and be held liable as general partners (Sec. 21, Corporation Code);

b. A contract of partnership having a capital of three thousand pesos or more but which fails to
comply with the registration requirements is nevertheless liable as a partnership to third persons
(Art. 1772 in relation to Art. 1768, NCC);

c. Estate of a deceased person (Limjoco v. Intestate Estate of Fragante, G.R. No. L-770, April 27,
1948);

d. A legitimate labor organization may sue and be sued in its registered name (Art. 242[e],
Labor Code of the Philippines);

e. The Roman Catholic Church may be a party and as to its properties, the archbishop or diocese
to which they belong (Versoza v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-25264, November 22, 1926); and

f. A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend suits by or against it provided that the suits:

a. Occur within three years after its dissolution; and

b. The suits are in connection with the settlement and closure of its affairs (Sec. 112,
Corporation Code).

1. Real parties in interest; indispensable parties; representatives as parties; necessary parties;

indigent Parties; alternative defendants

Kinds of parties in a civil action (RIR-NIP)

1. Real parties in interest

He is the party who stands to be: (BIE)

1. Benefited;

2. Injured by the judgment in the suit; or

3. The party entitled to the avails of the suit (Sec. 2, Rule 3)

NOTE: The interest must be ‘real,’ which is a present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere
expectancy or a future, contingent subordinate or consequential interest (Rayo v. Metrobank, G.R. No.
165142, December 10, 2007). It is an interest that is material and direct, as distinguished from a mere
incidental interest in the question (Samaniego v. Aguila, G.R. No. 125567, June 27, 2000).

2. Indispensable parties

Those without whom no final determination can be had of an action (Sec. 7, Rule 3).
NOTE: The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void
for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present (Riano, 2014).

Tests to determine whether a party is an indispensable party

1. Can relief be afforded to the plaintiff without the presence of the other party?

2. Can the case be decided on its merits without prejudicing the rights of the other party? (Rep. v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003)

Effect of failure to join an indispensable party (2015, 2017 Bar)

The presence of indispensable parties is a condition for the exercise of juridical power and when
an indispensable party is not before the court, the action should be dismissed (Riano, 2014,
citing Lucman v. Malawi, G.R. No. 159794, December 19, 2006).

However, an outright dismissal is not the immediate remedy authorized because, under the
Rules, misjoinder/non-joinder of parties is NOT a ground for dismissal. It is when the order of
the court to implead an indispensable party goes unheeded may the case be dismissed. In such
case, the court may dismiss the complaint due to the fault of the plaintiff as when he does not
comply with any order of the court (Sec. 3, Rule 17) ¸ such as an order to join indispensable
parties (Riano, 2014, citing Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519, March 31, 2009).

3. Representatives as parties

Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a

fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case.

A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party

authorized by law or these Rules.

4. Necessary parties

Those who are not indispensable but ought to be joined as parties:

1. If complete relief is to be accorded to those already parties; or

2. For a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action (Sec. 8, Rule 3).

NOTE: Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the
pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted (Sec 9, Rule 3).

5. Indigent parties

He is one:
 1. Whose gross income and that of his immediate family do not exceed an amount double the
monthly minimum wage of an employee; and

2. Who does not own real property with a fair market value as stated in the current tax
declaration of more than Php 300,000.00 (Sec. 19, Rule 141 as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-
SC).

He is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities
for himself and his family (Sec. 21, Rule 3).

NOTE: He shall be exempt from the payment of legal fees

Rule on indigent litigants

If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property requirements under Sec. 19, Rule
141, then the grant of the application is mandatory.

However, if the trial court finds that one or both requirements have not been met, then it would
set a hearing to enable the applicant to prove that the applicant has “no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family”, as
provided in Sec. 21, Rule 3. In that hearing, the adverse party may adduce countervailing
evidence to disprove the evidence presented by the applicant; after which the trial court will rule
on the application depending on the evidence adduced.

In addition, Sec. 21, Rule 3 also provides that the adverse party may later still contest the grant
of such authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court, possibly based on
newly discovered evidence not obtained at the time the application was heard (Algura v. LGU of
Naga, G.R. No. 150135, October 30, 2006).

Exemption from fees

Authority as an indigent party includes an exemption from the payment of:

1. Docket fees and other lawful fees; and

2. Transcript of stenographic notes (Sec. 21, Rule 3)

NOTE: The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted from paying
shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless otherwise provided
(Sec. 21, Rule 3).

6. Pro-forma parties

One who is joined as a plaintiff or defendant, not because such party has any real interest in the subject
matter or because any relief is demanded, but merely because the technical rules of pleadings require the
presence of such party on the record (Samaniego v. Agulia, G.R. No. 125567, June 27, 2000).

2. Compulsory and permissive joinder of parties

 Compulsory joinder of parties (2009 Bar)

The joinder of parties becomes compulsory when the one involved is an indispensable party (Riano,
2014).

The plaintiff is mandated to implead all the indispensable parties, considering that the absence of one
such party renders all subsequent action of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only
as to the absent parties but even as to those present. One who is a party to a case is not bound by any
decision of the court; otherwise, he will be deprived of his right to due process (Sepulveda, Sr. v. Pelaez,
G.R. No. 152195, January 31, 2005).

Permissive joinder of Parties

All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same
transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative,
may join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact
common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action.

Requisites of permissive joinder of parties (2002 Bar)

1. Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions (connected with the
same subject matter of the suit); and

2. There is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants.

NOTE: There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law
is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when doubt arises as to the truth or the falsehood
of alleged facts (Manila Bay Club Corp. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 110015, January 11, 1995).

Rationale of permissive joinder of parties

The purpose and aim of the principle is to have controversies and the matters directly related
thereto settled once and for all once they are brought to the courts for determination. Litigation is
costly both to litigants and to the State, and the objective of procedure is to limit its number or
extent. In consonance with the above principle, we have the rules against multiplicity of suits, the
rule of estoppel by judgment (Sec. 44, Rule 39), and the rule of res judicata (Sec. 45, Rule 39;
Fajardo v. Bayano, G.R. No. L-8314, March 23, 1956).

Q: When may the court order the joinder of a necessary party? (1998 Bar)

A: If the reason given for the non-joinder of the necessary party is found by the court to be
unmeritorious, it may order the pleader to join the omitted party if jurisdiction over his person may be
obtained. The failure to comply with the order of the court to include a necessary party, without
justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party (Sec. 9, Rule 3).

3. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties

The Rules of Court prohibit the dismissal of a suit on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties
and allows the amendment of the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, through motion or on order
 of the court on its own initiative (Sec. 11, Rule 3; Rep. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15,
2003).

However, when the order of the court to implead an indispensable party goes unheeded, the court may
order the dismissal of the case. The court is fully clothed with the authority to dismiss a complaint due to
the fault of the plaintiff as when, among others, he does not comply with the order of the court (Riano,
2014, citing Sec. 3, Rule 17; Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519, March 21, 2009).

Misjoinder of Parties Non-Joinder of Parties

He is made a party to an action although he should He is supposed to be joined but is not impleaded in
not be impleaded (Riano, 2014). the action (Riano, 2014).
If there is a claim against a party misjoined, the same
Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is
may be severed and proceeded with separately (Sec. asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader
11, Rule 3). shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why
he is omitted. Should the court find the reason
unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the
omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person
may be obtained (Sec. 9, Rule 3).
Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an action. Parties may be
dropped or added by the court on motion of any party or motu proprio at any stage of the action and on such
terms as are just (Sec. 11, Rule 3) (2015, 2017 Bar).

However, even if neither is a ground for dismissal of the action, the failure to obey the order of the court to
drop or add a party is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint based on the failure of the plaintiff to
comply with a court order (Sec. 3, Rule 17; Riano, 2014).

4. Class Suit

It is an action where one or some of the parties may sue for the benefit of all if the requisites for said
action are complied with (Riano, 2014)

Requisites of class suit (2005 Bar)

1. Subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons;

2. Parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court;

3. Parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and can
fully protect the interests of all concerned; and 4. Representatives sue or defend for the benefit of
all (Sec. 12, Rule 3; Sulo ng Bayan v. Araneta, G.R. No. L-31061, August 17, 1976).

A civil case instituted for the cancellation of existing timber license agreements in the country by
petitioners in behalf of themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of the
country’s resources is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general
interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines (Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083,
Juy 30, 1993).
 NOTE: Even if the parties are numerous, there must be a community of interest for a class suit because
the subject matter of the controversy must be of common interest among all of them. If the class suit is
not proper, the remedy of the parties is either to bring suit individually, or join them all as parties under
the rule on permissive joinder of parties.

5. Suits against entities without juridical personality

When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction,
they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known. In the answer of
such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed (Sec.
15, Rule 3).

NOTE: Persons associated in an entity without juridical personality, however, cannot sue under such
name, because, as stated in the Rules, its authority to be a party is confined only to being a defendant, as
is evident from the words “they may be sued” (Riano, 2014).

6. Effect of death of party litigant

Effect of the death of a party upon a pending action (1999 Bar)

1. Purely personal action – the death of either of the parties extinguishes the claim and the action
is dismissed.

2. Action that is not purely personal – claim is not extinguished and the party should be
substituted by his heirs, executor or administrator. In case of minor heirs, the court may appoint a
guardian ad litem for them.

3. Action for recovery of money arising from contract and the defendant dies before entry of
final judgment – it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of
judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be enforced in the manner
provided in the rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person (Sec. 20, Rule
3).

NOTE: A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be enforced under Rule 86. Relative
thereto, since the complaint action survives the death of defendant, the case shall not be dismissed and
the Court shall merely order the substitution of the deceased defendant (Atty. Sarsaba v.Vda. De Te,
G.R. No. 175910, July 30, 2009) (2014 Bar).

The substitute defendant need not be summoned. The order of substitution shall be served upon the
parties substituted for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the substitute party (Riano, 2014). If there is
notice of death, the court should await the appointment of legal representative; otherwise, subsequent
proceedings are void (1999Bar).

Claims that survive vs. claims that do not survive

Claims that survive Claims that do NOT survive

1. Recovery of contractual money /claims (oral or 1. Purely Personal (e.g. Legal Separation);
written) (1999 Bar); 2. Performance that cannot be purely delegated; and
2. Recovery/protection of property rights; 3. Claim that cannot be instituted by executor or
3. Recovery of real or personal property or interest; administrator.
4. Enforcement of lien;
5. Recovery of damages for an injury to person or
property and suits by reason of the alleged tortuous
acts of the defendant (Board of Liquidators v.
Kalaw, G.R. No. L-18805, August 14, 1967);
6. Actions and obligations arising from delicts
(Aguas v. Llemos, G.R. No. L18107, August 30,
1962); and
7. Ejectment case (Tanhueco v. Aguilar, G.R. No. L-
30369, May 29, 1970)

NOTE: The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the
damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong complained [of] affects primarily and
principally property and property rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the
causes of action which do not survive, the injury complained of is to the person, the property and rights
of property affected being incidental (Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. 173292, September 1, 2010)

Purpose of non-survival of claims

The reason for the dismissal of the case is that upon the death of the defendant a testate or
intestate proceeding shall be instituted in the proper court wherein all his creditors must appear
and file their claims which shall be paid proportionately out of the property left by the deceased
(1 Moran, 1979).

Purpose and importance of substitution of the deceased

The purpose behind the rule on substitution of parties is the protection of the right of every party
to due process. It is to ensure that the deceased would continue to be properly represented in the
suit through the duly appointed legal representative of the estate (Torres v. CA, G.R. No. 120138,
September 5, 1997; Vda. De Salazar v. CA, G.R. No. 121510 November 23, 1995).

Effect of non-compliance with the rules on substitution

GR: It renders the proceedings of the trial court infirm because the court acquired no jurisdiction
over the person of the legal representative (Brioso v. Rili-Mariano,G.R. No. 132765, January 31,
2003).

Non-compliance therewith results in the undeniable violation of the right to due process of those
who, though not duly notified of the proceedings, are substantially affected by the decision
rendered therein (Vda. De Salazar v. CA, G.R. No. 121510, November 23, 1995).

XPNs: (Where the non-compliance does NOT deprive the court of jurisdiction)
 1. When the heirs themselves voluntarily appeared, participated in the case and presented
evidence in defense of deceased defendant (Vda. De Salazar v. CA, G.R. No. 121510, November
23, 1995); or

2. In ejectment cases where the counsel fails to inform the court of the death of his client and
thereby results to the non-substitution of the deceased by his legal representatives.

NOTE: The decision of the court is binding upon the successors-in-interest of the deceased. A judgment
in an ejectment case may be enforced not only against defendants but also against the members of their
family, their relatives, or privies who derived their right of possession from the deceased defendant
(Vda. De Salazar v. CA, G.R. No. 121510, November 23, 1995 citing Florendo Jr. v. Coloma, G.R. No.
L60544, May 19, 1984).

E. VENUE

1. Venue of real actions

The venue is local; hence the venue is the place where the real property involved or, any portion thereof,
is situated (Sec. 1, Rule 4) (2008 Bar).

Forcible entry and detainer actions – in the MTC of the municipality or city where the real property
involved, or portion thereof, is situated (Sec. 1, Rule 4)

NOTE: An action for annulment of mortgage is a real action if there has already been a foreclosure sale
(Chua v. Total Office Products and Services, G.R. No. 152808, September 30, 2005) (2016 Bar).

2. Venue of personal actions

At the election of the plaintiff:

a. Where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or

b. Where the defendant or any of the defendants resides, or

c. In case of non-resident defendant, where he may be found. (Sec. 2, Rule 4)

3. Venue of actions against non-residents

Defendant 1. Personal actions – the venue is where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides,
does not or where the nonresident defendant may be found, at the election of the plaintiff (Riano,
reside but is 2014, citing Sec. 2, Rule 4, Rules of Court).
found in the
Philippines 2. Real actions – shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction
over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated (Id. citing
Sec. 1, Rule 4, Rules of Court).
Defendant The action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides
does not or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found (Sec. 3, Rule 4).
reside and is
not found in
the NOTE: Unless the Court declares otherwise, it is submitted that a liberal interpretation of
Philippines Sec. 3, Rule 4 – giving the plaintiff a choice of venue in actions affecting any property of a
nonresident defendant who is not found in the Philippines – would well serve the interest of
a resident plaintiff rather than of the possible absconding nonresident defendant (Riano,
2014).

RATIONALE: A more liberal interpretation of the rule would save the plaintiff from going
through the rigors of travelling to a distant place to file and prosecute the action. A contrary
interpretation would lead to an unfortunate situation wherein the defendant who refuses to
pay a just debt would have the capacity to cause so much inconvenience to an aggrieved
plaintiff (Riano, 2014).

4. When the rules on venue do not apply

1. In cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise (e.g. an action for damages arising from
libel); or

2. Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue
(Sec. 4, Rule 4).

5. Effects of stipulations on venue

Venue stipulations are considered merely as an agreement for additional forum, not as limiting venue to
the specified place. They are not exclusive but, rather permissive. If the intention of the parties were to
restrict venue, there must be accompanying language clearly and categorically expressing their purpose
and design that actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them. [Pacific Consultants
v. Schonfeld, 516 SCRA 209,229 (2007)]

Stipulations on venue (WEB)

The parties may stipulate on the venue as long as the agreement is:

1. In writing;

2. Exclusive as to the venue; and

3. Made before the filing of the action (Sec. 4 (b), Rule 4)

The parties may agree on a specific venue which could be in a place where neither of them resides
(Universal Robina Corp. v. Lim, G.R. No. 154338, October 5, 2007).

NOTE: A stipulation on venue is void and unenforceable when it is contrary to public policy (Sweet
Lines v. Teves, G.R. No. 28324, November 19, 1978).

Written stipulations as to venue are either mandatory or permissive

 In interpreting stipulations, an inquiry must be made as to whether or not the agreement is
restrictive in the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed upon, or permissive in
that the parties may file their suits not only in the place agreed upon, but also in the places fixed
by the Rules (Supena v. De la Rosa, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1031, January 28, 1997).

When exclusive

Venue is exclusive when the stipulation clearly indicates, through qualifying and restrictive
words that the parties deliberately exclude causes of actions from the operation of the ordinary
permissive rules on venue and that they intended contractually to designate a specific venue to
the exclusion of any other court also competent and accessible to the parties under the ordinary
rules on venue of actions (Philippine Banking Corp. v. Tensuan, G.R. No. 106920, December 10,
1993).

In the absence of restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on
an additional forum, not as limiting venue. While they are considered valid and enforceable,
venue stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 in
the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. If the language is restrictive, the suit may be filed
only in the place agreed upon by the parties (Spouses Lantin v. Lantion, G.R. No. 160053,
August 28, 2006).

NOTE: Although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another by
agreement of the parties in writing pursuant to Rule 4, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, such an
agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates the action of the claimants (Sweet
Lines, Inc. v. Hon. Bernardo Teves, GR. No. L-37750, May 19, 1978).

F. PLEADINGS

Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the
court for appropriate judgment (Sec.1, Rule 60) (2007 Bar).

1. Kinds of pleadings and when they should be filed

a. Complaint

It is a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action, with a
specification of the relief sought, but it may add a general prayer for such further relief as may be
deemed just or equitable.

NOTE: The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant, if known, must be stated (Sec. 3, Rule
6).

Ultimate facts

It is the essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be
stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action insufficient. A pleading should
state the ultimate facts essential to the rights of action or defense asserted, as distinguished from
mere conclusion of fact, or conclusion of law. An allegation that a contract is valid, or void, as in
 the instant case, is a mere conclusion of law (Remitere v. Yulo, G.R. No. L-19751, February 28,
1966).

b. Answer

It is the pleading where the defendant sets forth his affirmative or negative defenses (Sec. 4, Rule 6).

It may likewise be the response to a counterclaim or a cross-claim. It may be an answer to the complaint,
an answer to a counter-claim, or an answer to a cross-claim (Riano, 2014).

i. Negative defenses

A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of
the claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of action (Sec. 5 (a), Rule 6).

Specific denials that must be made under oath

1. A denial of an actionable document (Sec. 8, Rule 8); and

2. A denial of allegation of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest (Sec. 11, Rule 8).

NOTE: Whenever an action or defense is based or founded upon a written instrument or

document, said instrument or document is deemed an actionable document.

ii. Negative pregnant

It is a negative implying also an affirmative and which, although is stated in negative form, really
admits the allegations to which it relates. It does not qualify as a specific denial. It is conceded to
be actually an admission. Otherwise stated, it refers to a denial which implies its affirmative
opposite by seeming to deny only a qualification or an incidental aspect of the allegation but not
the main allegation itself (Riano, 2014).

A denial in the form of a negative pregnant is an ambiguous pleading, since it cannot be

ascertained whether it is the fact, or only the qualification that is intended to be denied (Galofa v.
Nee Bon Sing, G.R. No. L-22018, January 17, 1968).

Example: An assertion of a defendant which questions the amount of money involved in a bank
account but does not deny its existence, when such is the issue in the case, is said to have
admitted the existence of such bank account. The denial of the amount of money deposited is
pregnant with an admission of the existence of the bank account (Republic of the Philippines v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003).

c. Counterclaims

It is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party. (Sec. 6, Rule 6) It partakes
of a complaint by the defendant against the plaintiff (Pro-Line Sports Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 118192,
October 23, 1997) (1999 Bar).

i. Compulsory counterclaim
 ii. Permissive counterclaim

Compulsory Counterclaim Permissive Counterclaim

One which arises out of or is necessarily connected It does not arise out of nor is it necessarily connected
with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject with the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.
matter of the opposing party’s claim (Sec.7, Rule 6) There is an absence of a logical connection with the
(1999, 2004 Bar). subject matter of the complaint.
It does not require for its adjudication the presence of
It may require for its adjudication the presence of
third parties of whom the court cannot acquire third parties over whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction (Sec. 4, Rule 6). jurisdiction.
Barred if not set up in the action (Sec. 2, Rule 9). Not barred even if not set up in the action
Need not be answered; No default (Gojo v. Goyala, Must be answered; Otherwise, default (Sarmiento v.
G.R. No. L26768, October 30, 1970). Juan, G.R. No. L-56605, January 28, 1983)
Not an initiatory pleading Initiatory pleading.
Need not be accompanied by a certification against Must be accompanied by a certification against forum
forum shopping and certificate to file action by the shopping and whenever required by law, also a
Lupong Tagapamayapa. certificate to file action by the Lupong
Tagapamayapa (Santo Tomas University v. Surla,
G.R. No. 129718, August 17, 1998).
The court has jurisdiction to entertain both as to the Must be within the jurisdiction of the court where the
amount and nature (Sec. 7, Rule 6). case is pending and cognizable by regular courts of
justice otherwise, defendant will have to file it in
separate proceeding which requires payment of
docket fee

NOTE: In an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory
regardless of the amount (Sec. 7, Rule 6).

iii. Effect on the counterclaim when the complaint is dismissed

1. If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal under Rule 16 may be pleaded
as an affirmative defense in the answer, and in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be
had thereon as if a motion to dismiss has been filed (Sec. 6, Rule 16) After hearing, when the complaint
is dismissed, the counterclaim, compulsory or permissive is not dismissed.

2. When the plaintiff himself files a motion to dismiss his complaint after the defendant has pleaded his
answer with a counterclaim. If the court grants the motion, the dismissal shall be limited to the
complaint. It shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a
separate action unless within 15 days from notice of the motion, manifests his preference to have his
counterclaim resolved in the same action (Sec. 2, Rule 17).

3. When the complaint is dismissed through the fault of the plaintiff and at a time when a counterclaim
has already been set up, the dismissal is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or separate action (Sec. 3, Rule 17; Riano, 2014).

d. Cross-claims

A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence
that is the subject matter of either the original action, or a counterclaim therein. It may include a claim
 that the party against whom it is asserted is liable, or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of
a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant (Sec. 8, Rule 6).

Requisites of cross-claim (1999 Bar)

1. A claim by one party against a co-party;

2. It must arise out of the subject matter of the complaint or of the counterclaim; and

3. The cross-claimant is prejudiced by the claim against him by the opposing party (Sec. 8, Rule 6).

Effect if a cross-claim was not set up

GR: Barred if not set up (Sec.2, Rule 9)

XPN: If it is not asserted due to oversight, inadvertence, or excusable negligence, it may still be set up
with leave of court by amendment of the pleadings (Sec.10, Rule 11).

e. Third (fourth, etc.) party complaints

A third (fourth, etc.) party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file
against a person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.) party defendant, for contribution,
indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent's claim (Sec.11, Rule 6).

NOTE: Leave of court is necessary in third (fourth, etc.) –party complaint in order to obviate delay in
the resolution of the complaint, such as when the third-party defendant cannot be located, or when
unnecessary issues may be introduced, or when a new and separate controversy is introduced (Herrera,
2007).

Tests to determine whether the third-party complaint is in respect of plaintiff’s claim

1. Whether it arises out of the same transaction on which the plaintiff’s claim is based, or, although
arising out of another or different transaction, is connected with the plaintiff’s claim;

2. Whether the third-party defendant would be liable to the plaintiff or to the defendant for all or part of
the plaintiff’s claim against the original defendant; and

3. Whether the third-party defendant may assert any defenses which the third-party plaintiff has or may
have to the plaintiff’s claim (Capayas v. CFI of Albay, G.R. No. L-475, August 31, 1946).

NOTE: Where the trial court has jurisdiction over the main case, it also has jurisdiction over the
thirdparty complaint, regardless of the amount involved as a third-party complaint is merely auxiliary to
and is a continuation of the main action (Republic v. Central Surety & Insurance Co., G.R. No. L-27802,
October 26, 1968).

f. Complaint-in-intervention

It is a pleading filed for the purpose of asserting a claim against either or all of the original parties (Sec.
3, Rule 19).
Requisites for an Intervention by a Non-party in an action pending in court (2000 Bar)

The requisites for intervention are:

1. Legal interest in the matter in controversy;

2. Legal interest in the success of either of the parties; or

3. Legal interest against both; or

4. So situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody

of the court or of an officer thereof.

5. Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of original parties; and

6. Intervenor’s rights may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding (Sec. 1, Rule 19).