a CIVIL PROCEDURE, VOLUME 1 "THE BAR LECTURES SERIES, that the mistakes and negligence of counsel bind the client, “Doubtless, the filing of the appeal before the Court of Appeals by the petitioner's former counsel was not simple negligence, It constituted gross negligence.” In particular, the Court declared: “It bears stressing at this point, that the rule which states that the mistakes of counsel bind the client may not be strictly followed where observance of it would result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or where the interests of justice so require. In rendering justice, procedural infirmities take a backseat against substantive rights of litigants. Corollarily, if the strict application of the rules would tend to frustrate iscretion in relaxing the llanweva v. People, 644 SCRA 358, 368). 4. In another case, because of the application of the rule on liberal construction, the Court sustained the Sandi- ganbayan when it gave both the prosecution and the accused the opportunity to submit comments to the Pre-Trial Order or to modify their submissions or in some instances, even to withdraw the stipulations they made during the pre-trial even if the pre-trial has effectively been terminated. It is consistent with the discretion of the court to decide how best to dispense justice in accordance with the circumstances of the proceedings before it (Frisco F. San Juan v. Sandiganbayan, 561 SCRA 316, 325). Equity jurisdiction and the liberal construction rule When the Court disregards procedural lapses, it does so in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction and so that a case may be resolved on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties (Frisco F. San Juan v. Sandiganbayan, 561 SCRA 316, 325, citing Active Realty and Development Corporation v. Fernandez, 587 SCRA 116). cuarren1 cy GENERAL PRINCIPLES IV. NATURE OF THE PHILIPPINE COURTS Courts of faw and equity 1. _ Philippine courts are courts of both law and equity. Hence, both legal and equitable jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal (U.S. v. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321, 827). 2. The rule is settled that when supported by substan- tial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by the Supreme Court. But there are times when the Supreme Court finds the need to re-evaluate and re-examine the fac- tual findings of the Court of Appeals, as when the same con- tradict the findings of a lower tribunal. When the Supreme Court makes such a reevaluation, it does so in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction (Torres v. Rural Bank of San Juan, Inc., 693 SCRA 357, 373, March 12, 2013). Application of equity; equity jurisdiction 1. The various rulings of the Court suggest that, the term, equity jurisdiction, is used to describe the power of the court to resolve issues presented in a case, in accordance with the natural rules of fairness and justice, and in the absence of a clear, positive law governing such issues. Equity administers justice according to the basic tenets of fairness. Equity denotes a concept of fairness, justness, and right dealing among men (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ea., 540). Equity seeks to reach and do complete justice where the courts of law are incompetent to do so because of the inflexibility of the rules and the lack of power to adapt their judgments to the special circumstances of cases. Equity regards the spirit of the law and not its letter, the intent and not the form, the substance rather than the circumstance (Air Manila v. Court of Industrial Relations, 83 SCRA 579, 589). Equity, however, is not to be applied in all cases. Bell Co. v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 530, $42). For all its conceded merits, equity is available only56 CIVIL PROCEDURE, VOLUMEI ‘THE BAR LECTURES SERIES in the absence of law and not as its replacement. It cannot supplant, although it may, as it often happens, supplem the law (Tankiko v, Cezar, 302 SCRA 559, 570, citing Agi v, Court of First Instance of Batangas, 160 SCRA 578) availed of only in the absence of a law and is never a of against statutory law or judicial pronouncements (Velez v, Demetrio, 387 SCRA 232, 238; Bell v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 580, 542; David-Chan v, Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 677, 687). 3. In one case, the petitioner, upon sensing the inade- quacy of her legal arguments, pleaded that “those who shave less in life should have more in law.” She also sought ‘the application of the Filipino values of pakikisama and pakikipagkapwa tao in resolving her case. In reaction to her plea, the Court declared: “Such appeal of petitioner is based on equity which hhas been aptly described as ‘justice outside legality.’ However, equity is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure. As found by respondent court x x x such equitable arguments cannot prevail over the legal findings" (David- Chan v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 677, 687). 4. In an action to annul a contract of sale of a land, the buyer moved for the court to order the seller to deposit in court the amount initially given to the seller as consideration for the land to prevent the dissipation of the amount paid. ‘The seller opposed the motion arguing that a deposit is not among the provisional remedies enumerated in the Rules of Court. The Court, nevertheless, granted the motion. The Court considered the case as one that clearly showed a hiatus in the Rules of Court and in the law because deposit is not so provided under the Rules as a provisional remedy. If the hiatus is left alone, it will result in unjust enrichment in favor of the seller at the expense of the buyer. It may also imperil the obligation of restitution, a precondition to the annulment of a contract. This is a case of insufficiency of the law and Art. 9 of the Civil Code mandates a ruling despite the “silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.” This calls cuarrert o GENERAL PRINCIPLES the application of equity, which fills the open spaces of the in ordering the deposit, the court accordingly exercised ty jurisdiction” (Reyes v. Lim, 408 SCRA 560, 566). Doctrine of hierarchy of courts (Principle of Judicial Hiera- rehy) (Bar 2011) 1. A common refrain in jurisprudence is that, where courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a subject matter, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, should be observed. Under this doctrine, a case must be filed before the lowest court possible having the appropriate jurisdiction, except if one can advance a special reason which would allow a party a direct resort toa higher court. 2, Thus, it was ruled, that the concurrence of juris- diction, does not grant the party seeking relief the absolute freedom to file a petition in any court of his choice (Vivas v. Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 191424, August 7, 2018). For instance, while it is true that the issuance of a writ of prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, a petitioner cannot seek relief from the Supreme Court where the issuance of such writ is also within the competence of the Regional Trial Court or the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court is a court, of last resort, It cannot, and should not, be burdened with the task of deciding cases in the first instance. Its jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and important reasons exist (Purok Bagong Silangan v. Yuipeo, 489 SCRA 382, 397; Lim v, Vianzon, 497 SCRA 482, 492; Mangahas v. Paredes, 515 SCRA 709, 715). was held that “c x x A becoming regard j ‘ial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (inferior) courts should be filed with the [RTC], and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals” (Cruz ». Gingoyon, 658 SCRA 254, 270-271; Holy Trinity Realty58 CIVIL PROCEDURE, VOLUME ‘THE BAR LECTURES SERIES Development Corporation v. Spouses Abacan, G.R. No. 188868, April 17, 2013). 4, Onecase gives a similar reminder that the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction is not exclusive. Its jurisdiction is concurrent with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court in proper cases, This concurrence of jurisdiction, stressed the Court, does not grant upon a party any of the extraordinary writs the absolute freedom to file his petition with the court of his choice like filing the petition with the Supreme Court which is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and what the court referred to as an immemorial tradition. “Unwarranted demands upon the Court’s attention must be prevented to allow time and devotion for pressing matters within its exclusive jurisdiction” (Cruz v. Gingoyon, 658 SCRA 254, 270-271). Purpose of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts ‘The rationale for the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts is two-fold: (a) it would be an imposition upon the limited time of the Court; and (b) it would inevitably result in a 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 the Court is not a trier of facts. It is only for special and compelling reasons that the Court shall exercise its primary jurisdiction over the extraordinary remedy of writ of prohibition (People v. Azarraga, 659 SCRA 34, 38-39; See Rosario, Jr. v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 191247, July 10, 2013). When the doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded (Bar 2011) y " me _ 1 The Supreme Court, however, may disregard the Principle of hierarchy of courts if warranted by the nature and importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy CHAPTER 59 GENERAL PRINCIPLES justice and to avoid future litigations. Under the Principle of example, take cognizance of a petition for certiorari directly filed before it. The Supreme Court has, in not a few cases, suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the interests of justice so require (Declarador v. Bansales, 499 ‘SCRA 341, 348, citing Fortich v. Corona, 289 SCRA 624). But a direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition (Lim v. Vianzon, 497 SCRA 482, 492), such as cases of national interest and of serious implications that justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, probil or mandamus calling for the 1g Mangaliag v. Catubig-Pastoral, 474 SCRA 153). 2, In relation to cases filed in the Supreme Court, a direct resort to it was allowed in certain cases, to-wit: (@) when there are special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition; (b) when dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy; (©) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; (@)_ when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or (© when analogous exceptional and compelling circum- stances called for and justified the immediate and direct handling by the Court (Republic v. Caguioa, 691 SCRA 306, 316-317, February 20, 2013). Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability (Bar 2011) 1, This principle holds that courts of equal and coor- dinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other's orders (Lapu-Lapu Development and Housing Corporation v. Groupa CIVIL PROCEDURE, fanagement Corporation, 888 SCRA 493, 608, Meecloach, 244 SCRA 295). Hence, « Region has no power or authority to nullify or enjoin the enforcement ofa writ of possession issued by another Regional Trial Court (Guieo Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 212, 213). 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 (Villamor v. Salas, 203 SCRA 540, 543). 2. The Doctrine of Non-interference applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law provides for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the ‘Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, it means that such body js co-equal with the Regional Trial Court 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., 381 SCRA 582, 591). Constitutional and statutory courts 1. A constitutional court is one created by a direct constitutional provision. Example of this court is the Supreme Court of the Philippines. It owes its creation from the Constitution itself (Sec. 1, Art. VII, Co of the Philippines). In the Philippines, only the Supreme Court is a constitutional court. 2. A statutory court is one created by a law other than the constitution. All courts in the Philippines, except the Supreme Court, are statutory courts. They have been created by statutory enactments. The Sandiganbayan is not constitutionally-created court, It was not directly created by the Constitution but was created by law pursuant to a constitutional mandate, The 1973 Constitution required the then Batasang Pambansa to create a special court. to be known as the Sandiganbayan (Sec. 5, Art, XIII, 1973 Constitution) where its existence continues to be recognized by the 1987 Const n. While its existence is mandated by the Constitution, its creation was through and by P.D. CHAPTER a GENERAL PRINCIPLES 1486, issued by President Ferdinand E, Marcos pursuant to his legislative powers under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Philippine Constitution. Civil and criminal courts 1. Civil courts are those which determine controversies between private persons. Criminal courts are those which adjudicate offenses alleged to have been committed against the State (21 C.J.8., Courts, §4). 2, Philippine courts exercise both civil and criminal jurisdictions. Courts of record and courts not of record 1. ‘Courts of record’ are those which keep a written account of its proceedings. Those courts which are not bound to keep such records are ‘courts not of record.” 2. One attribute of a court of record is the strong presumption as to the veracity of its records that cannot be ae attacked except for fraud (20 Am Jur 2d, Courts, 3. The test that is entitled to considerable weight in determining whether or not a court is one of record is whether the legislature creating the court has or has not declared it to be a court of record (21 C.J.S., §4). 4. All Philippine courts, including inferior courts, are now courts of record (R.A. 2613). Superior and inferior courts. 1, Inthe general sense, a court is ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’ in relation to another court. Hence, a Municipal Trial Court is inferior to a Regional Trial Court while the latter is inferior to the Court of Appeals. All courts in the Philippines are inferior to the Supreme Court. 2, A superior court is one with controlling authority over other courts, and with an original jurisdiction of its own.e CIVIL PROCEDURE, ‘THE BAR LBCTURBS An inferior court is one which is subordinate to another court, the judgment of which may be reviewed by a higher tribunal (21 CJ.S., Courts, §28). Courts of general and special jurisdiction 1. Courts of general m are those with compe- tence to decide on their own, ion and take cognizance of all cases, civil and criminal, of a particular nature. Courts of special (limited) jurisdiction are those which have a special jurisdiction only 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 (27 CIS, Courts, §3). 2, A court may also be considered ‘general’ if it has the competence to exercise jurisdiction over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person, or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions (Secs. 19(6] and 20, BP. 129, Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980). It is in this context that the Regional Trial Court is considered a court of general jurisdiction. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction 1. Acourtis one with original jurisdiction when actions or proceedings are originally filed with it. A court is one with appellate jurisdiction when it has the power of review over the decisions or orders of a lower court (21 C.J.S., Courts, §3). 2. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts are courts of original jurisdiction, The Regional ‘Trial Court is likewise a court of original jurisdiction with respect to cases originally filed with it but is also a court of appellate jurisdiction with respect to cases decided by the Municipal ‘Trial ‘Courts within its territorial jurisdiction (Sec. 22, B.P, 129), The Regional Trial Court is also a court of original Jurisdiction for instance, with respect to a petition for a writ of ‘amparo (Sec. 3, The Rule on the Writ of Amparo) or a petition CHAPTER 6 GENERAL PRINCIPLES for writ of habeas data (Sec. 8, The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data), 8, ‘The Court of Appeals is primarily a court of appellate jurisdiction with competence to review judgments of the Regional Trial Courts and specified quasi-judi (Sec. 9[3}, B.P. 129). It is also a court of original jurisdiction with respect to cases filed before it involving issuance of writs of certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and prohibition. It is also a court of original jurisdiction (and exclusive) over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional ‘Trial Courts (Sec. 9(1][2], B.P. 129). It is also a court of original jurisdiction with respect to a petition for a writ of amparo (Sec. 3, The Rule on the Writ of Amparo) or a petition for a writ of habeas data (Sec. 3, The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data). These petitions may be filed originally not only with the Regional Trial Court, the Sandiganbayan or the Supreme Court but also with the Court of Appeals. 4. The Supreme Court is also fundamentally a court of appellate jurisdiction but it may also be a court of original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, and in cases involving petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (See. 5{1), Art. VIT, Cons the Philippines). It may also be a court of origin: in a petition for a writ of amparo (Sec. 3, The Rule on the Writ of Amparo) or a petition for a writ of habeas data (Sec. 3, The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data). Note:The Supreme Court en bancis not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of a division of the Supreme Court may be appealed (Bar 1990). Original and exclusive jurisdiction distinguished 1. Original jurisdiction means jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case at its inception, try it and pass judgment upon the law and facts, while exclusive jurisdiction precludes the idea of co-existence and refers to jurisdiction possessed toP o CIVIL PROCEDURE, VOLUME "THE BAR LECTURES SERIES the exclusion of others (Cubero v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperatives, Inc., 509 SCRA 410, 416). 2. Acourt may be conferred both original and exclusive jurisdiction over a particular subject matter. Examples: (a) The ‘Municipal Trial Court has exclusive original juris over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer (See. 33/2], B.P, 129, as amended); (b) The Regional Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject amended); (c) The Court of Appeals has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment, of judgments of the Regional Trial Court (Sec. 9[2J, B.P. 129, as amended). Concurrent jurisdiction 1. This type of jurisdiction, also called ‘coordinate’ jurisdiction, is the power of different courts to take cognizance of the same subject matter. Where there is concurrent juris- diction, the court first taking cognizance of the case assumes jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other courts. Examples: (@) The Supreme Court has concurrent original juris- diction with Regional Trial Courts in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls (See. 5, Art, VII, Constitution of the Philippines; Sec. 21/2), B.P. 129); (©) The Supreme Court has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals in petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 5, Art. VIII, Constitution of the Philippines; Sec. 9[1), B.P. 129); (©) The Supreme Court has concurrent original ‘Trial Courts in petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts and bodies and in petitions for quo warranto and habeas corpus (Sec. cHAPTERt cy GENERAL PRINCIPLES 5, Art. VILL, Constitution of the Philippines; Sec. 9[1), BP. 129; Sec. 211], B.P. 129), 2. As earlier mentioned, the concurrent jurisdiction among courts of different ranks is subject to the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. For example, while it is true that the corpus, and injunction is concurrent with or shared by the ‘Supreme Court with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals, a direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when. there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition (Lim v. Vianzon, 497 SCRA 482, 491). The rule simply means that the petition must, as a rule, be filed first with the court of the lowest rank unless there are special countervailing reasons justifying its filing in the first instance with a higher court. Meaning of ‘court’ A court is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function of which is the application of the laws to controversies brought before it as well as the public administration of justice (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 356). A court is called upon and authorized to administer justice. Sometimes it refers to the place where justice is administered (20 Am Jur 2d, Courts, §1, 1965; 21 C.J.S., Courts, §1). Accourt distinguished from a judge Although the terms have often been erroneously used interchangeably, they have the following marked distinctions: (@) A court is a tribunal officially assembled under authority of law; a judge is simply an officer of such tribunal (Wagenhorst v. Philadelphia Life Insurance Co, 358 Pa. 55, 55 A2d 762, cited by Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.).CIVIL PROCEDURE, VOLUME ‘THE BAR LECTURES SERIES (&) Acourt is an organ of the government (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 318) with a personality separate ‘and distinct from the person or judge who sits on it (People v. Carlos, 78 Phil. 585, 543). (© A court is a being in imagination comparable to a corporation, whereas a judge is a physical person (People ex rel. Herndon v. Opekl, 188 Ill 194, 58 NE 996, cited by Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.). (@ Ajudgeisa public officer (Todd v. United States, 158 US 278, 39 L Ed 982, 15 S ct. 889, cited by Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.) while a court is an office. (© Jurisdiction does not attach to the judge but to the court. The continuity of a court and the efficacy of its proceedings arenotaffected by the death, resignation, or cessation from the service of the judge presiding overt. In other words, the judge may resign, become incapacitated, or be disqualified to hold office, but the court remains (ABC Davao Auto Supply v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 218, 222). pps Chapter It JURISDICTION AND VENUE I. JURISDICTION A. Jurisdiction in General Jurisdiction; meaning 1. Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case (Cuenca v. PCG, 535 SCRA 102, 114; Asia International Auctioneers, Ine. v. Parayno, 540 SCRA 536, 546). It has also been referred to as the power or capacity given by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain, hear, and determine certain controversies (Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 510 SCRA 103, 104). thas reference to the power of the court over the subject matter, the res or property in contest, and the authority of the court to render the judgment or decree it assumes to make (20 Am Jur §88 1965). 2. Jurisprudence considers jurisdiction as not only the authority of the court to hear, try, and determine a case. It is also considered as an authority to execute the decisions rendered by the court. Tt was held that the power to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction and that the ‘most important part of a litigation, whether civil or crimi- nal, is the process of execution of decisions where superven- ing events may change the circumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights of litigants to prevent unfairness (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96, 108). or