Homework #1

Submission: 8/9/2022

1. What is the basis of the rule-making power of the Supreme Court?

 The basis of the rule-making power of the Supreme Court is the 1987 Constitution,
particularly in Article VIII Section 5(5), which states that the Supreme Court shall
have the power to promulgate rules concerning the [1] protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, [2] pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, [3] the
admission to the practice of law, [4] the Integrated Bar, and [5] legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
the speedy disposition of cases shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and
shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by
the Supreme Court.
 The Court’s power is not merely to compile, revise or codify the rules of procedure
existing at the time of the Constitution’s approval. This power is to “promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts”, which is a power to adopt
a general, complete and comprehensive system of procedure, adding new and
different rules without regard to their source and discarding old ones (34 Phil. L.J.
315 [1959]).

2. What are the limitations of the rule-making power of the Supreme Court?
1) The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases.
2) They shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade.
3) They shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights (Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII,
Constitution).
4) The power to admit attorneys to the Bar is not an arbitrary and despotic one, to be
exercised at the pleasure of the court, or from passion, prejudice or personal hostility, but
is the duty of the court to exercise and regulate it by a sound and judicial discretion.
(Andres vs. Cabrera, 127 SCRA 802).
3. Distinction between a judge and a court.
 A court is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function
of which is the application of the laws to the controversies brought before it as well as
the public administration of justice (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 356); a judge is
simply an officer of such tribunal.
 It is a governmental body officially assembled under the authority of law at the
appropriate time and place for the administration of justice through which the State
enforces its sovereign rights and powers (21 CJS 16).
 A court is an organ of the government with a personality separate and distinct from
the person or judge who sits on it; [People v. Carlos, G.R. No. L-239 (1947)].
 A court is a being in imagination comparable to a corporation, whereas a judge is a
physical person ;
 A court may be considered an office; a judge is a public officer; and
 The circumstances of the court are not affected by the circumstances that would affect
the judge.

4. What are the different levels of the court?

First level – MTCs/Municipal Trial Court, MeTCs/ Metropolitan Trial Court, MCTCs/Municipal
Circuit Trial Court)

Legal basis of the Metropolitan Trial Court

 BP 129, Sec. 27 – There shall be a Metropolitan Trial Courts of the National Capital
Region, known as the Metropolitan Trial Courts of Metro Manila, which shall be
composed of eighty-two (82) branches. There shall be: City of Manila, Quezon City,
San Juan, Mandaluyong, Makati, Pasig, Caloocan, Taguig, Marikina, Paranaque, Las
Pinas Muntinlupa, Valenzuela
Legal basis of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities

 BP 129, Sec. 29 – In every city which does not form part of a metropolitan area, there
shall be a Municipal Trial Court with one branch, except as hereunder provided:
Laoag City, Baguio. Dagupan, Naga (three branches), Iriga, Legaspi

Legal basis of the Municipal Trial Court

 BP 129, Sec. 30 – In each of the municipalities that are not comprised within a
metropolitan area and a municipal circuit there shall be a Municipal Trial Court
which shall have one branch, except as hereunder provided: Tuguegarao, San
Fernando La Union, Santiago Isabela, San Pedro Laguna

Legal basis of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court

 BP 129, Sec. 25 – There shall be created a Metropolitan Trial Court in each

metropolitan area established by law, a Municipal Trial Court in each of the other
cities or municipalities, and a Municipal Circuit Trial Court in each circuit
comprising such cities and/or municipalities as are grouped together pursuant to law.
 BP 129, Sec. 31 – There shall be a Municipal Circuit Trial Court in each area defined
as a municipal circuit, comprising one or more cities and/or one or more
municipalities.

Legal basis of jurisdictions of MTCs, MCTCs, MeTCs, MTCCs

 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC Rules of procedure for environmental cases, Sec. 2 – These Rules
shall govern the procedure in civil, criminal and special civil actions before the Regional
Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts involving enforcement or violations of
environmental and other related laws, rules and regulations
 The MTC, acting as an Environmental Court, has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
the following, except:
 a. Criminal offenses punishable under Chain Saw Act (RA 9175)
b. Violation of the NIPAS Law (RA 7586)
c. Violation of the mining laws
d. Violation of anti-pollution laws

Delegated jurisdiction

 RA 7691 Sec. 4, amended as Sec. 34 –  Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to
hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no
controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does not exceed
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit
of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one, or
from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their decisions in these cases
shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.
o Since the MTC here is acting as the RTC, you can appeal the case in the CA.

Exclusive jurisdiction

 RA 7691 Sec. 3, amended as Sec. 33 – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

"(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and
intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of
the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate,
or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)
…;

"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer…;
and
 "(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession
of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or
interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions
in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs..."

Exclusive Original – BP 129

For cases under:

1) Civil actions
2) Probate proceedings (testate or intestate)
3) Including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases
 Where the value of personal property, estate, or amount of demand
o Does not exceed P 400, 000 in Metro Manila
o Does not exceed P 300, 000 outside

4) Sec. 33 of BP 129 – The MTCs have also exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of
forcible entry and unlawful detainer, as a summary procedure regardless of amount.
5) Sec. 49 of Omnibus Election Code – The municipal or metropolitan trial court shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over inclusion and exclusion cases of voters.
6) Cases falling under the 1991 revised rules on summary procedure
7) Cases falling under the 2016 revised rules of procedure for small claims cases

Special jurisdiction

 BP 129, Sec. 35 – In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city,
any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may
hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal
cases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
 1) Petition for habeas corpus
2) Application for bail in criminal cases

A judge of an MTC can hear and decide petitions for habeas corpus or applications for bail
where:

1) The SC authorizes the MTC

2) The judge is the executive judge of the MTC
3) The judge of the RTC where the cases is raffled has retired, was dismissed or had died
4) In the absence of all the RTC judges in the province or city

o Pursuant to RA 7691 as amended by Batas Pambansa 129 or the Judiciary

Reorganization Act of 1980 which states that the MTCs, MeTCs, and
MCTCs have jurisdiction over criminal actions involving (i) violations of
city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial
jurisdiction and (ii) offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding
six (6) years, irrespective of the amount of fine and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties. Moreover, it also has jurisdiction
over civil actions including ejectment, and recovery of personal property
with a value of not more than P300,000 outside MM or does not exceed
P400,000 in MM.
o In addition to the previous amendment, RA 11576 was signed into law
which expanded the jurisdiction of the first-level trial courts, namely the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. RA 11576 amends Batas
Pambansa (BP) 129 by adjusting the threshold values for civil cases under
the jurisdiction of the MTC. The SC affirmed that “the jurisdictional
 amounts of the trial courts have now been adjusted to levels which are more
suitable to the current economic conditions and property valuation in the
country.”

 Second Level – RTCs/Regional Trial Court, Family Courts

o Regional Trial Courts are also known as Second Level Courts, which were
established among the thirteen Judicial regions in the Philippines consisting
of Regions I to XII and the National Capital Region (NCR). There are as
many Regional Trial Courts in each region as the law mandates. RTCs were
formerly called as the Court of First Instance since the Spanish era. It was
only in the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 that its name was changed
from being called the Court of First Instance to Regional Trial Court.a
o Civil actions in which the subject of litigation is (1) incapable of pecuniary
estimation, or (2) involving title to or possession of real property where the
assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000 outside MM or exceeds
P50,000 in MM, except actions for ejectment,16 or (3) where the demand,
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney‘s fees, litigation
expenses, and cost, or the value of the personal property or controversy
exceeds P300,000 outside MM or exceeds P400,000 in MM.
 Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan
o CA is an appellate court,18 reviewing cases appealed to it from the RTC, on
questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. Appeals to it decided
by the RTC in the exercise of original jurisdiction are a matter of right;
appeals with respect to cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction are a matter of discretion.
o Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over all criminal and civil cases involving (i)
graft and corrupt practices act, and (ii) such other offenses committed by
public officers and employees, including those in GOCCs in relation to their
office. It also has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions, or orders of RTCs whether in the exercise of their own original
 or appellate jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases committed by public
officers or employees, including those in GOCCs in relation to their office.
 Fourth Level – Supreme Court
o The Supreme Court (SC) has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus
(Section 5[1], Article VIII, Constitution).
o Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleding, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to
the underprivileged (Section 5[5], Article VIII, Constitution).

5. What is the doctrine of hierarchy and doctrine of stability?

The doctrine of hierarchy:

 Brief answer: The doctrine of hierarchy of courts, as a rule, requires that recourse
must be taken first made to the lower-ranked courts exercising concurrent jurisdiction
with a higher court.
 This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction,
beginning from the lowest, on to the next higher, and ultimately to the highest. This
hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of
the proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established policy
necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are
better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the
further clogging of the Court’s docket (Sec. 9[1], BP 129; Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII,
Constitution of the Philippines).
 The Principle of Judicial Hierarchy of Courts most certainly indicates that petitions
for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first-level courts should be filed with
the RTC and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals. This rule,
however, may be relaxed when pure questions of law are raised (Miaque vs. Patag,
GR Nos. 1790609-13, 01/30/2009).
 o This doctrine will only be violated if there is concurrent jurisdiction.
According to the SC, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is violated only
when relief may be had through multiple for a having concurrent jurisdiction
over the case, such as in petitions for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition
which are concurrently cognizable either by the RTC, CA, or SC.
 Concurrent jurisdiction – power conferred upon different courts
(whether of the same or different ranks) to take cognizance at the same
stage of the same case in the same or different judicial territories.

o According to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, in case of concurrence of

jurisdiction, a case must be filed first before the lowest court possible
EXCEPT if one can advance a special reason which would allow a part to
directly resort to a higher court. [1 Riano 43, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

 The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive,
thus, shared with the RTC and CA. This concurrent of jurisdiction is not, however, to
be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained
freedom of choice of the court to which application thereof will be directed, since
there is hierarchy of courts.
o Example: If there is an issue of writ in certiorari against the first level court
(MTC), it should be filed with the RTC, and those against the latter, with the
CA.
 A disregard of the doctrine warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition.

EXCEPTION – Immediate resort to this Court may be allowed if the following grounds
are present:

1. Genuine issues of constitutionality

2. Case involves transcendental importance
3. The case is novel
4. When time is of essence
 The rationale for this rule is two-fold:
1. It would be an imposition upon the time of this Court.
2. It would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the
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 this Court is not a trier of facts.
o This is because the lower courts are allowed to receive evidence.

Doctrine of stability
 Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders.
Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of
possession issued by another RTC. The principle also bars a court from reviewing or
interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate
jurisdiction or power of review.
 (2) This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law
provides for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the SC or CA, it
means that such body is co-equal with the RTC in terms of rank and stature, and
logically beyond the control of the latter (Phil.Spinster Corp. vs. Cagayan Electric
Power).

JURISDICTION

 Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear, try, and decide a case. [Cuenca v.
PCGG, 535 SCRA 102]
 In its expanded concept, it includes the authority of the court to execute its decisions
since such is an essential aspect of jurisdiction and is the most important part of litigation
[Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 132601 (1999)]

I. Original jurisdiction – the power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted
for judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by law.
 Legal basis of original jurisdiction

1. Supreme Court
 Article 8 Sec. 5 (1) of the 1987 Constitution – The Supreme Court shall have the
following power to exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
2. Court of Appeals
 Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 Section 9 – The Court of Appeals shall exercise original
jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and
quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction.

3. Regional Trial Court

 BP 129 Section 21 – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction (1)
In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their
respective regions; and (2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public
ministers and consuls.

II. Appellate jurisdiction – the authority of a court higher in rank to reexamine the final order or
judgment of a lower court in which tried the case now elevated for judicial review.

Legal basis of appellate jurisdiction

1. Supreme Court
 1987 Constitution, Article 8 Sec. 5 (2) – The SC shall have the power to review,
revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules
of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts
2. Court of Appeals
  BP 129, Sec. 9 – Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements,
resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commission.
3. Regional Trial Court
 BP 129, Sec. 22 – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over
all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions.