REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1

I. General Principles
A. Substantive Law vs. Remedial Law
 Substantive Law – creates, defines, and regulates rights and duties concerning life, liberty and
property.
 Remedial Law – does not create rights or obligations arising from substantive law are
protected, enforced and given effect.
o Aspect of law which provides methods for enforcing rights, preventing the violation of
such rights and obtaining redress for their violations.
B. Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court1
 The constitutional power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure.
 It has the sole prerogative to amend, repeal, or even establish new rules for a more simplified
and inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases.
 Limitations of the rule-making power of the Supreme Court:
o The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases;
o The rules shall be uniform for courts of the same grade; and
o The rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. 2
 Power to amend and suspend the rules. – The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to
promulgate rules of practice and procedure and to amend or repeal the same necessarily carries
with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the
amendment of the Rules of Court.
 Important factors that would warrant suspension:
o The existence of special or compelling circumstances;
o The merits of the case;
o A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of rules;
o A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and
o The rights of other party will be unjustly prejudiced thereby. 3
 Litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits of and not on technicalities.
Example:
o The Court allowed the perfection of the appeal of the Republic, despite the delay of six
days, since the Republic stands to lose hundreds of hectares of land already titled in its
name. This was done in order to prevent gross miscarriage of justice.
o The Court suspended the rule that a motion for extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration in the CA does not toll the 15-day period. SC held that the procedural
infirmity was not entirely attributable to the fault of the petitioner and there was lack of
any showing that the review sought is mere frivolous and dilatory.
 Pro hac vice rule.
o “For this one only.”
o When the Court, in certain exceptional circumstances, suspends a procedural rule in a
particular case, the decision therein cannot be relied on as a precedent since the ruling is
for that particular case only or pro hac vice.
C. Principle of Judicial Hierarchy (???)

1
Section 5(5), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.
2
Ibid.
3
Sarmiento v. Zaratan, 514 SCRA 246, 260, citing Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, 404 SCRA 540.

MMJD
1
 D. Doctrine of Non-Interference/Judicial Stability
 The courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders. 4
 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. 5
 Judicial Stability. – Is one which precludes the court form interfering by injunction with the
regular orders of a co-equal court.

II. Jurisdiction – The power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case. It has been expanded to
include the authority of the court to execute its decisions. Jurisdiction is conferred by law, not by agreement
of the parties. Jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of commencement of an action.
Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint or other initiatory pleading.
A. Classification of Jurisdiction
 Original vs. Appellate
o Original – when actions are originally filed with it; jurisdiction to take cognizance of a
case (for the first time) at its inception, try it and pass judgment upon the law and facts.
o Appellate – power of review over the decisions or orders of a lower court.
 General vs. Special
o General – those with competence to decide on their own jurisdiction and take cognizance
of all cases, civil and criminal, of a particular nature.
o Special – those which are confined to particular causes or which can be exercised only
under limitations and circumstances prescribed by statute.
 Exclusive vs. Concurrent
o Exclusive – precludes the idea of co-existence and refers to jurisdiction possessed to the
exclusion of others.
o Concurrent – jurisdiction that is exercised by different courts over the same subject
matter. When there is concurrent jurisdiction, the court first taking cognizance of the case
assumes jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other courts.
B. Doctrines of Hierarchy of Courts and Adherence of Jurisdiction
 Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. – Where courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a subject
matter, such concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant the party seeking relief the absolute
freedom to file a petition in any court of his choice. Pursuant to this doctrine, a case must be
filed first 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 to a higher court.
 Purpose: To ensure that every level of the judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective
and efficient manner. A disregard of the doctrine may result in the denial of the petition. 6
 Exception to the rule (allows a direct resort to a higher court):
o When there are special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition;
o When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy;
o When demanded by the broader interest of justice;
o When the challenged orders were patent nullities;
o When analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for a justified the
immediate and direct handling by the court;7

4
Lapu-Lapu Development and Housing Corporation vs. Group Management Corporation, 388 SCRA 493, citing People vs. Woolcock, 244 SCRA
235.
5
Villamor vs. Salas, 203 SCRA 540.
6
De Lima vs. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017.
7
Republic vs. Caguia, 691 SCRA 306, 316-317, February 20, 2013.

MMJD
2
 o When there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most
immediate time;8
o When the issues raised are of transcendental importance. 9
 Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction. – Once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by
subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court, once its jurisdiction has been
acquired, retains jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.
o Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over
the case. What the court loses is the power to amend, modify, or alter the judgment. Even
after the judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute
it.10

III. Civil Procedure

8
The Diocese of Bacolod vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015.
9
Rama vs. Moises, G.R. No. 197146, August 8, 2017.
10
Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96.

MMJD
3