C2

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW (1734)

REMEDIAL LAW

2023 GOLDEN NOTES

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
MANILA
C2

The UST GOLDEN NOTES is the annual student-edited bar review material of
the University of Santo Tomas, Faculty of Civil Law. Communications
regarding the Notes should be addressed to the Academics Committee of the
Team: Bar-Ops.

Address: Academics Committee

UST Bar Operations
Faculty of Civil Law
University of Santo Tomas
España, Manila 1008

Tel. No: (02) 8731-4027

(02) 8406-1611 loc. 8578

Academics Committee
Faculty of Civil Law
University of Santo Tomas
España, Manila 1008

All rights reserved by the Academics Committee of the Faculty of Civil Law of the Pontifical and Royal
University of Santo Tomas, the Catholic University of the Philippines.

2023 Edition.

No portion of this material may be copied or reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines or notes,
whether printed, mimeographed, typewritten, copied in different electronic devises or in any other
form, for distribution or sale, without a written permission.

A copy of this material without the corresponding code either proceeds from an illegal source or is in
possession of one who has no authority to dispose the same.

Released in the Philippines, 2023.

C2

Faculty of Civil Law (1734)

ACADEMIC YEAR 2022-2023

CIVIL LAW STUDENT COUNCIL
NICOLO B. BONGOLAN PRESIDENT
IVAN ARNIE C. QUIAMCO VICE PRESIDENT INTERNAL
JANNODIN D. DIPATUAN VICE PRESIDENT EXTERNAL
BRIAN CHOOYE S. LIM SECRETARY
ROMBERT JOSEPH EMIEL D. CRUZ TREASURER
HARLEY JANSEN L. CALDERON AUDITOR
BIENVENIDO L. ORTIZ III PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER
KAREN DARYL L. BRITO CHIEF-OF-STAFF

UST BAR-OPS

JUSTINE RENEE GERVACIO CHAIRPERSON

PAULINNE STEPHANY G. SANTIAGO VICE-CHAIRPERSON
KAREN DARYL L. BRITO HEAD, SECRETARIAT
JAN YSABEL U. DE LEON HEAD, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER
GABRIEL C. LAPID HEAD, FINANCE COMMITTEE
BIANCA PATRICIA ALLEN C. FLORES HEAD, HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS COMMITTEE
FRITZ N. CANTERO HEAD, LOGISTICS COMMITTEE
JOSEPHINE GRACE W. ANG SENIOR MEMBER
MA. ANDREA D. CABATU SENIOR MEMBER
SABINA MARIA H. MABUTAS SENIOR MEMBER
JEDIDIAH R. PADUA SENIOR MEMBER
VANESSA A. SIENA SENIOR MEMBER

ATTY. AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON

ADVISER
C2

Faculty of Civil Law (1734)

ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2023

ANGELA BEATRICE S. PEÑA KATHERINE S. POLICARPIO

SECRETARIES-GENERAL

RON-SOPHIA NICOLE C. ANTONIO CRIMINAL LAW

HERLENE MAE D. CALILUNG LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

POLITICAL LAW AND

PATRISHA LOUISE E. DUMANIL
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

ALEXANDRA MAUREEN B. GARCIA LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

HANNAH JOY C. IBARRA COMMERCIAL LAW

JEDIDIAH R. PADUA CIVIL LAW

PAULINNE STEPHANY G. SANTIAGO TAXATION LAW

DIANNE MICAH ANGELA D. YUMANG REMEDIAL LAW

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

PAULA ANDREA F. PEÑAFLOR COVER DESIGN ARTIST

C2

Faculty of Civil Law (1734)

REMEDIAL LAW COMMITTEE 2023

MIKKAH F. FACTOR

REMEDIAL LAW SUBJECT HEAD

SANTIAGO U. VITUG ASST. HEAD, CIVIL PROCEDURE

MIGUEL JOSHUA G. AGUIRRE ASST. HEAD, SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
CAMILLE RAZEN D. SUMERA ASST. HEAD, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
SHARMAINE ELIZA T. MACASERO ASST. HEAD, EVIDENCE

REMEDIAL LAW ASSISTANT SUBJECT HEADS

MEMBERS
LEARSI RAY G. AFABLE
PATRICIA CLARISSE H. BERNABE
JEANINE ANDREA V. BUENAVENTURA
LINN JERARD A. DANTES
DANIELLE LOUISE CLEO C. ESQUILLO
DIANNE TRICIA M. INIEGO
CYRA LYN S. LIM
JULIENNE F. MADRILEJOS
SARAH MAY D. MEDALLE
DANICA ELLA C. NAGORITE
MICHAEL JOHN D. NATABLA
JECA A. PACIS
ANGELO T. SOLANO
RAINIEL C. SORIANO

ADVISERS
JUDGE MYRA B. QUIAMBAO
JUDGE KATLYN ANNE C. AGUILAR-BILGERA
ATTY. IAN JERNY E. DE LEON
C2

Faculty of Civil Law (1734)

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

ACADEMIC OFFICIALS
ATTY. NILO T. DIVINA REV. FR. ISIDRO C. ABAÑO, O.P.
DEAN REGENT

ATTY. ARTHUR B. CAPILI

FACULTY SECRETARY

ATTY. ELGIN MICHAEL C. PEREZ

LEGAL COUNSEL
UST CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTO CONCEPCION LEGAL AID CLINIC

JUDGE PHILIP A. AGUINALDO

SWDB COORDINATOR

LENY G. GADIANA, R.G.C.

GUIDANCE COUNSELOR
C2

Faculty of Civil Law (1734)

OUR DEEPEST APPRECIATION TO OUR

MENTORS AND INSPIRATION
Justice Roberto A. Abad Judge Gidget Rose V. Duque

Justice Maria Cristina J. Cornejo† Judge Leilani Marie D. Grimares

Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh Judge Gener M. Gito

Justice Magdangal M. De Leon Dean Jose I. Dela Rama

Justice Myra V. Fernandez Dean Lope E. Feble

Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr. Dean Ma. Soledad D. Mawis

Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier Dean Salvador N. Moya II

Justice Zenaida G. Laguilles Dean Carlos M. Ortega

Justice Carlito B. Calpatura Dean Willard B. Riano†

Justice Jose Lorenzo R. De La Rosa Dean Ferdinand A. Tan

Justice Georgina D. Hidalgo Atty. Irene D.T. Alogoc

Justice Ronald B. Moreno Atty. Ian Jerny E. De Leon

Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. Atty. Gregorio Gerry F. Fernandez

Justice Selma Palacio-Alaras Atty. Elmar B. Galacio

Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol Atty. Benigno G. Par, Jr.

Judge Myra B. Quiambao Atty. Christian G. Villasis

For being our guideposts in understanding the intricate sphere of Remedial Law.
– Academics Committee 2023
C2

DISCLAIMER

THE RISK OF USE OF THIS BAR

REVIEW MATERIAL SHALL BE
BORNE BY THE USER
C2

Table of Contents

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................................................................. 1

A. SUBSTANTIVE LAW vs. REMEDIAL LAW .................................................................................................. 1

B. RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT .............................................................................. 3
C. PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY ........................................................................................................ 5
D. DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE/ JUDICIAL STABILITY ............................................................. 7

II. JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

A. CLASSIFICATION OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................................... 9
1. ORIGINAL vs. APPELLATE.................................................................................................................................... 9
2. GENERAL vs. SPECIAL............................................................................................................................................. 9
3. EXCLUSIVE vs. CONCURRENT ............................................................................................................................ 9
B. DOCTRINES OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS AND ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION ........................ 9
C. JURISDICTION OF VARIOUS PHILIPPINE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS .......................................... 10
1. SUPREME COURT ................................................................................................................................................... 12
2. COURT OF APPEALS ............................................................................................................................................. 14
3. COURT OF TAX APPEALS ................................................................................................................................... 16
4. SANDIGANBAYAN .................................................................................................................................................. 18
5. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS................................................................................................................................ 19
6. FAMILY COURTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
7. METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS IN CITIES, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS ......................................................... 23
D. ASPECTS OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................................... 25
1. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER ....................................................................................... 25
2. JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES ............................................................................................................. 25
3. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES ................................................................................................................. 26
4. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES OR THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION ........................................ 27
E. JURISDICTION vs. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................. 28
F. JURISDICTION vs. VENUE ............................................................................................................................ 28
G. JURISDICTION OVER CASES COVERED BY BARANGAY CONCILIATION, AND CASES
COVERED BY THE RULES ON EXPEDITED PROCEDURES IN THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS ........ 30

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC) ................................................................................................ 34

A. GENERAL PROVISIONS (RULE 1) ............................................................................................................ 34

B. KINDS OF ACTION ......................................................................................................................................... 37
1. In Rem... .. .................................................................................................................................................................... 37
2. In Personam .............................................................................................................................................................. 37
3.Quasi in Rem .............................................................................................................................................................. 37
C. CAUSE OF ACTION (RULE 2) ..................................................................................................................... 40
D. PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS (RULE 3) .................................................................................................. 46
E. VENUE (RULE 4) ............................................................................................................................................ 60
F. PLEADINGS ...................................................................................................................................................... 64
1. KINDS (RULE 6) ..................................................................................................................................................... 64
2. PARTS OF A PLEADING (RULE 7) ................................................................................................................ 74
3. MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS (RULE 8) .................................................................................... 83
a) IN GENERAL .............................................................................................................................................................. 83
b) ACTION OR DEFENSE BASED ON DOCUMENT ...................................................................................... 83
c) SPECIFIC DENIAL ................................................................................................................................................... 84
d) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ................................................................................................................................. 85
4. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD (RULE 9) ............................................................................................... 86
5. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS (RULE 10)............................................................... 87
6. WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS (RULE 11) ........................................................................ 90
G. FILING AND SERVICE (RULE 13) .............................................................................................................. 91
C2

1. RULES ON PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES; EFFECT OF NON-PAYMENT .......................................98

2. EFFICIENT USE OF PAPER RULE; E-FILING ..............................................................................................99
H. SUMMONS (RULE 14) ................................................................................................................................ 102
1. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF SUMMONS IN RELATION TO ACTIONS IN PERSONAM, IN
REM, AND QUASI IN REM ....................................................................................................................................... 102
2. WHO MAY SERVE SUMMONS ........................................................................................................................ 102
3. VALIDITY OF SUMMONS AND ISSUANCE OF ALIAS SUMMONS ................................................ 103
4. PERSONAL SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................... 104
5. SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ................................................................................................................................... 105
6. CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE ................................................................................................................................ 106
7. EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE .................................................................................................................... 107
8. PROOF OF SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................ 109
I. MOTIONS (RULE 15) ................................................................................................................................... 109
1. IN GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................................ 109
2. NON-LITIGIOUS MOTIONS.............................................................................................................................. 111
3. LITIGIOUS MOTIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 111
4. PROHIBITED MOTIONS ................................................................................................................................... 111
5. MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS (RULE 12) ................................................................................ 112
J. DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS (RULE 17) ....................................................................................................... 115
1. WITH PREJUDICE vs. WITHOUT PREJUDICE........................................................................................ 115
2. DISMISSALS WHICH HAVE AN EFFECT OF AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS ............ 115
K. PRE-TRIAL (RULE 18) ............................................................................................................................... 118
1. NATURE AND PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................... 118
2. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES; EFFECTS OF FAILURE TO APPEAR............................................... 118
3. PRE-TRIAL BRIEF; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE .............................................................................. 119
L INTERVENTION (RULE 19) ....................................................................................................................... 120
M. SUBPOENA (RULE 21) .............................................................................................................................. 123
N. COMPUTATION OF TIME (RULE 22) .................................................................................................... 125
O. MODES OF DISCOVERY ............................................................................................................................. 127
1. DEPOSITIONS (RULES 23 AND 24) ............................................................................................................ 128
PEOPLE v. SERGIO ..................................................................................................................................................... 128
2. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES (RULE 25) ....................................................................................... 136
3. ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY (RULE 26) ....................................................................................... 139
4. PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS (RULE 27) ............................ 140
5. PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS (RULE 28) ......................................... 141
6. REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY (RULE 29) ............................................. 142
P. TRIAL (RULE 30) ......................................................................................................................................... 143
1. SCHEDULE OF TRIAL ......................................................................................................................................... 144
2. ADJOURNMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS ............................................................................................. 144
3. REQUISITES OF MOTION TO POSTPONE TRIAL FOR ILLNESS OF PARTY OR COUNSEL
145
Q. CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE (RULE 31) ................................................................................... 145
R. DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE (RULE 33) ................................................................................................. 147
1. GROUNDS ................................................................................................................................................................. 147
2. EFFECT OF ORDER DENYING DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE ............................................................ 148
S. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS .......................................................................................................... 149
1. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (RULE 34) ........................................................................................... 150
a) GROUNDS ................................................................................................................................................................ 150
b) ACTION ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ...................................................... 150
2. SUMMARY JUDGMENTS (RULE 35) ........................................................................................................... 151
a) EFFECT OF ORDER DENYING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ................................. 155
3. RENDITION AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS (RULE 36) ....................... 156
T. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES .................................................................................................................. 160
1. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION (RULE 37) .................................................. 161
a) REMEDY AGAINST DENIAL ............................................................................................................................ 164
b) FRESH-PERIOD RULE ....................................................................................................................................... 165
2. APPEALS ................................................................................................................................................................... 166
a) NATURE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL .................................................................................................................. 166
C2

b) JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDERS SUBJECT TO APPEAL .................................................................167

c) MATTERS NOT APPEALABLE; ......................................................................................................................167
d) DOCTRINE OF FINALITY/IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT .........................................................167
e) MODES OF APPEAL (PERIOD, PERFECTION, ISSUES TO BE RAISED) .................................... 168
(1) APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS TO REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS (RULE 40) ................................................................................................ 168
(2) APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS (RULE 41) ............. 169
(3) PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS (RULE 42) ................................................................ 171
(4) APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES (RULE 43) ................... 173
(5) APPEALS BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT (RULE 45) .. 177
(6) REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION ON
AUDIT AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (RULE 64)................................. 180
(7) DISMISSAL, REINSTATEMENT, AND WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL ... 181
3. PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (RULE 38) .....................................................................183
4. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT (RULE 47) ................................................................................................186
5. COLLATERAL ATTACK ON JUDGMENTS .................................................................................................188
U. EXECUTION, SATISFACTION, AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS (RULE 39) ................................... 189

IV. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES ............................................................................................................................... 216

A. NATURE, PURPOSE, AND JURISDICTION OVER PROVISIONAL REMEDIES ............................ 216

B. PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT (RULE 57) .......................................................................................... 219
C. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (RULE 58) .............................................................................................. 231
D. RECEIVERSHIP (RULE 59)....................................................................................................................... 245
E. REPLEVIN (RULE 60)................................................................................................................................. 248

V. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS.................................................................................................................................... 251

A. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ...................................................................................................................... 253

B. INTERPLEADER (RULE 62) ..................................................................................................................... 255
C. DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES (RULE 63) .................................................... 256
D. CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS (RULE 65) ......................................................... 261
1. DEFINITION AND DISTINCTIONS................................................................................................................261
2. REQUISITES, WHEN, AND WHERE TO FILE ..........................................................................................267
3. EXCEPTIONS TO FILING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE FILING PETITION
283
E. QUO WARRANTO (RULE 66) .................................................................................................................. 284
F. EXPROPRIATION (RULE 67) .................................................................................................................... 287
1. TWO STAGES IN EVERY ACTION FOR EXPROPRIATION ..............................................................289
2. ORDER OF EXPROPRIATION .........................................................................................................................291
3. ASCERTAINMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION........................................................................................292
4. RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF UPON JUDGMENT AND PAYMENT ..........................................................298
GUIDELINES FOR EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS OF NATIONAL GOV’T INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 300
G. FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE ................................................................................. 302
(RULE 68) ........................................................................................................................................................... 302
1. JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE ................................................................................................................................304
2. EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE.................................................................................................................304
3. THE GENERAL BANKING LAW OF 2000 ..................................................................................................312
H. PARTITION (RULE 69) ............................................................................................................................. 314
I. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER (RULE 70)........................................................... 318
1. DIFFERENTIATED FROM ACCION PUBLICIANA AND ACCION REIVINDICATORIA............... 321
J. CONTEMPT (RULE 71) ............................................................................................................................... 330

VI. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL WRITS......................................................................................... 339

C2

A. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS ....................................................................... 350

1. VENUE AND PROCESS (RULE 73) .............................................................................................................. 350
2. SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES (RULE 74) ........................................................................... 355
3. ALLOWANCE AND DISALLOWANCE OF WILLS (RULE 76) ........................................................... 362
4. CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE (RULE 86) ........................................................................................... 367
5. PAYMENT OF DEBTS OF THE ESTATE (RULE 88) ............................................................................. 374
6. SALES, MORTGAGES, AND OTHER ENCUMBRANCES OF PROPERTY OF DECEDENT
(RULE 89)…………. ..................................................................................................................................................... 376
7. DISTRIBUTION AND PARTITION (RULE 90) ...................................................................................... 378
B. GUARDIANSHIP ........................................................................................................................................... 382
1. VENUE (RULE 92) ................................................................................................................................................ 382
2. APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS (RULE 93) .......................................................................................... 383
3. GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF GUARDIANS (RULE 96) .................................................... 385
4. TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP (RULE 97)................................................................................... 387
C. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (RULE 102) .............................................................................................. 390
1. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN RELATION TO CUSTODY OF MINORS .................................... 407
D. CHANGE OF NAME (RULE 103) .............................................................................................................. 410
E. CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY (RULE 108) ....... 419
F. CLERICAL ERROR LAW ............................................................................................................................ 424
G. WRIT OF AMPARO ..................................................................................................................................... 427
H. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA ........................................................................................................................... 437
I. RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES ................................................................ 441
1. TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ORDER (TEPO) ............................................... 443
2. WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS .......................................................................................................... 444
3. WRIT OF KALIKASAN ......................................................................................................................................... 450

VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................................. 454

A. GENERAL CONCEPTS.................................................................................................................................. 454

1. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION; CONCEPT AND REQUISITES FOR EXERCISE .............................. 454
2. WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE FILED ........................................................................................................... 461
B. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES (RULE 110) .......................................................................................... 461
C. PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION RULE 111....................................................................................... 477
D. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION (RULE 112) .................................................................................... 484
1. EXECUTIVE vs. JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE ....................................... 484
E. ARREST (RULE 113) ................................................................................................................................... 500
1. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT, WHEN LAWFUL .............................................................................. 501
2. REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT OF ARREST ............................................................................. 507
3. DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST.. 508
F. BAIL (RULE 114).......................................................................................................................................... 509
1. NATURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 509
2. WHEN A MATTER OF RIGHT; EXCEPTIONS .......................................................................................... 514
3. WHEN A MATTER OF DISCRETION............................................................................................................ 515
G. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA (RULE 116)............................................................................................... 525
1. SEARCHING INQUIRY ........................................................................................................................................ 531
PEOPLE v. PAGAL .................................................................................................................................... 531
2. IMPROVIDENT PLEA ......................................................................................................................................... 532
H. MOTION TO QUASH (RULE 117) ........................................................................................................... 533
1. GROUNDS ................................................................................................................................................................. 533
2. DOUBLE JEOPARDY ............................................................................................................................................ 537
3. PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL............................................................................................................................... 542
I. PRE-TRIAL (RULE 118) ............................................................................................................................... 544
1. PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................................. 547
2. NON-APPEARANCE DURING PRE-TRIAL ................................................................................................ 547
3. PRE-TRIAL ORDER ............................................................................................................................................. 547
J. TRIAL (RULE 119) ........................................................................................................................................ 549
1.TRIAL IN ABSENTIA ............................................................................................................................................. 555
2. EXAMINATION OF WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION ................................................................. 556
C2

PEOPLE v. SERGIO ...................................................................................................................................556

3. REQUISITES FOR DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED TO BECOME A STATE WITNESS .................. 557
4. EFFECTS OF DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED AS STATE WITNESS .......................................................558
5. DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE ..............................................................................................................................560
6. REVISED GUIDELINES ON CONTINUOUS TRIAL ................................................................................562
K. JUDGMENT (RULE 120) ............................................................................................................................ 571
1. PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT .................................................................................................................574
L. NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION (RULE 121) ............................................................................. 575
M. APPEAL (RULE 122) ................................................................................................................................. 578
N. SEARCH AND SEIZURE (RULE 126)....................................................................................................... 584
O. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL CASES (RULE 127) ........................................................ 597
P. THE RULE ON CYBERCRIME WARRANTS ........................................................................................... 598

VIII. EVIDENCE (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)............................................................................................................ 608

A. GENERAL CONCEPTS .................................................................................................................................. 608

1. PROOF vs. EVIDENCE .........................................................................................................................................609
2. BURDEN OF PROOF vs. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE ..................................................................................609
3. EQUIPOISE RULE ..................................................................................................................................................610
B. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE (RULE 128) ........................................................................................ 611
1. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE ..............................................................................611
2. RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE AND COLLATERAL MATTERS ...........................................................611
3. MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY ............................................................................................................................611
4. CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY ....................................................................................................................612
5. CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY .............................................................................................................................612
6. DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE..........................................................................................612
7. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE .......................................................................................................613
8. COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE ................................................................................................614
C. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS (RULE 129) ......................................................... 615
D. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE (RULE 130, A) ......................................................................................... 622
1. REQUISITES.............................................................................................................................................................623
2. EXCLUSIONARY RULES .....................................................................................................................................624
E. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (RULE 130, B) ........................................................................................ 634
1. DEFINITION ............................................................................................................................................................634
2. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE.........................................................................................................................635
3. SECONDARY EVIDENCE ....................................................................................................................................638
4. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE ...................................................................................................................................644
F. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE (RULE 130, C) ............................................................................................. 648
1. QUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES .......................................................................................................... 648
2. DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES ................................................................................................................650
a) DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE .................................................. 651
b) DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS; RULE
ON THIRD PARTIES ............................................................................................................. 653
c) PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE RULE .............................................................. 663
d) PRIVILEGE RELATING TO TRADE SECRETS .......................................................... 665
3. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE...............................................................................................................................666
4. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS ................................................................................................................666
5. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE ..........................................................................................................674
6. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE .........................................................................................................................677
7. HEARSAY AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE ..................................................................677
8. OPINION RULE .......................................................................................................................................................696
9. CHARACTER EVIDENCE ....................................................................................................................................699
G. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS (RULE 131) ................................................................. 700
H. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (RULE 132) ....................................................................................... 708
1. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES ....................................................................................................................708
a) RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS .......................................................... 710
b) LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS ............................................................... 715
c) IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES ................................................................................. 715
C2

2. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS .......................................................................... 719

a) MEANING OF AUTHENTICATION .............................................................................. 719
b) CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................ 719
c) AUTHENTICATION OF A PRIVATE WRITING ........................................................ 720
d) PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE; PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD ........... 722
3. OFFER AND OBJECTION ................................................................................................................................... 726
a) WHEN TO MAKE AN OFFER......................................................................................... 728
b) WHEN TO MAKE AN OBJECTION ............................................................................... 729
c) TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE ........................................................................... 732
I. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE ....................................................................................................................... 733
J. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE (RULE 133) .................................................................. 739
K. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ...................................................................................................... 751
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Implementation of Remedial Laws in our System
of Government (2006 BAR)
They are implemented through the judicial system,
including the prosecutorial service of courts and
quasi-judicial agencies.
Interpretation of the Provisions of the Rules of
Court (1998 BAR)
GR: The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to
promote their objective of securing a just, speedy
and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding. (Sec. 6, Rule 1, ROC, as amended)
XPNs: The following shall be strictly construed:
1. Reglementary periods;
2. Rule on forum shopping; and
3. Service of summons.
The liberal construction of the rules may only be
invoked in situations where there is an excusable
formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided
that the same does not subvert the essence of the
proceeding and it at least connotes a reasonable
attempt at compliance with the rules. (Martos, et al.
v. New San Jose Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 192650, 24 Oct.
2012)
Rule on Uniform Interpretation
The principle expressed in the maxim interpretare
et concordare legibus est optimus interpretendi, or
that every statute must be so construed and
harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform
system of jurisprudence applies in interpreting both
sets of Rules such as the 1997 Rules on Civil
Procedure and the Rule on Summary Procedure
regarding the finality of judgments. (Banares II v.
Balising, G.R. No. 132624, 13 Mar. 2000; Herrera,
2007)
3 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
B. RULE-MAKING POWER
OF THE SUPREME COURT
Extent of the Rule-Making Power of the Supreme
Court
It has the power to promulgate rules concerning:
(Pro-P-A-I-La)
1. The Protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights;
2. Pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts;
NOTE: The constitutional faculty of the Court to
promulgate rules of practice and procedure
necessarily carries the power to overturn
judicial precedents on points of remedial law
through the amendment of the Rules of Court.
(Pinga v. The Heirs of German Santiago, G.R. No.
170354, 30 June 2006)
3. The Admission to the practice of law;
4. The Integrated bar; and
5. Legal assistance to the underprivileged. (Sec.
5(5), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
NOTE: The power to repeal, alter, or supplement
rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure
in all courts belongs exclusively to the Supreme
Court.
Q: Congress enacted a law that contains a
provision prohibiting plea-bargaining in drug-
related cases. Is the provision valid?
A: NO. Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure. As
such, the provision prohibiting it that is contained in
a statute is unconstitutional for being contrary to
the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court.
Only the Supreme Court can promulgate rules on
pleadings, practice and procedure, not Congress
through passage of a law. (Estipona v. Lobrigo, G.R.
No. 226679, 15 Aug. 2017)
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Limitations on the Rule-Making Power of the
Supreme Court (SI-U-DIM)
1. The rules 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. (Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII,
1987 Constitution)
Power of the Supreme Court to Amend and
Suspend Procedural Rules
GR: Compliance with procedural rules is the general
rule, and abandonment thereof should only be done
in the most exceptional circumstances. (Pilapil v.
Heirs of Briones, G.R. No. 150175, 10 Mar. 2006)
NOTE: 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, 12 Oct. 2006)
XPN: The power of the Supreme Court to suspend
its own rules or to except a particular case from its
operations whenever the purposes of justice
require cannot be questioned. The rules of
procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed
to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict
and rigid application, which would result in
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice, must always be
avoided. (De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
103276, 11 Apr. 1996)
The power to suspend or even disregard rules can
be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that
which the Supreme Court itself had already
declared to be final. (Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land
Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 154195, 12 Oct.
2010)
Where strong considerations of substantive justice
are manifest on the petition, the strict application of
the rules of procedure may be relaxed, in the
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
exercise of its equity jurisdiction. (CTMC Int’l v.
Bhagis Int’l Corp., G.R. No. 170488, 10 Dec. 2012)
XPN to the XPN: To relieve a litigant of an injustice
commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure. The mere invocation of
substantial justice is not a magical incantation that
will automatically compel the Court to suspend
procedural rules. (Co-Unjieng v. C.A., G.R. No. 139596,
24 Jan. 2006)
Parties praying for the liberal interpretation of the
rules must be able to hurdle that heavy burden of
proving that they deserve an exceptional treatment.
It was never the Court’s intent “to forge a bastion for
erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity.”
(Prieto v. Alpadi Development Corp., G.R. No. 191025,
31 Jul. 2013)
Reasons that would warrant the Suspension of
the Rules of Procedure (E-Me-C-L-O-T)
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;
5. The Other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby (Sarmiento v. Zaratan, G.R. No. 167471,
05 Feb. 2007; and
6. Transcendental matters of life, liberty or state
security. (Mindanao Savings and Loan
Association v. Vda. de Flores, G.R. No. 142022, 07
Sept. 2005)
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
4
C2
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
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, G.R. No.
155099, 31 Aug. 2005)
C. 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, 27 Jan. 1993)
Pursuant to this principle, 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. (Riano, 2019)
Constitutional Imperative
This doctrine is not mere policy, rather, it is a
constitutional filtering mechanism designed to
enable the Court to focus on the more fundamental
and essential tasks assigned to it by the highest law
of the land. (Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of
Transportation and Communications and Civil
Aviation Authority of the Philippines, G.R. No. 217158,
12 Mar. 2019)
Strict observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts should not be a matter of mere policy. It is a
constitutional imperative given:
1. The structure of our judicial system
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts recognizes the
various levels of courts in the country as they are
established under the Constitution and by law, their
ranking and effect of their rulings in relation with
one another, and how these different levels of court
interact with one another. It determines the venues
5 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
of appeals and the appropriate forum for the
issuance of extraordinary writs.
Accordingly, when litigants seek relief directly from
the Court, they bypass the judicial structure and
open themselves to the risk of presenting
incomplete or disputed facts. This consequently
hampers the resolution of controversies before the
Court. Without the necessary facts, the Court cannot
authoritatively determine the rights and obligations
of the parties. The case would then become another
addition to the Court's already congested dockets;
and
2. The requirements of due process
By directly filing a case before the Court, litigants
necessarily deprive themselves of the opportunity
to completely pursue or defend their causes of
actions. Their right to due process is effectively
undermined by their own doing. (Ibid.)
NOTE: The doctrine of hierarchy of courts ensure
that every level of the judiciary performs its
designated roles in an effective and efficient
manner. (Maza v. Turla, G.R. No. 187094, 15 Feb.
2017, citing The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 206728, 21 Jan. 2015)
Trial courts do not only determine the facts from the
evaluation of the evidence presented before them.
They are likewise competent to determine issues of
law which may include the validity of an ordinance,
statute, or even an executive issuance in relation to
the Constitution.
To effectively perform these functions, they are
territorially organized into regions and then into
branches. Their writs generally reach within those
territorial boundaries. Necessarily, they mostly
perform the all-important task of inferring the facts
from the evidence as these are physically presented
before them. In many instances, the facts occur
within their territorial jurisdiction, which properly
present the 'actual case' that makes ripe a
determination of the constitutionality of such
action. The consequences, of course, would be
national in scope. (Ha Datu Tawahig, et al v. Hon.
Cebu City Prosecutor I Lineth Lapinid, et al., G.R. No.
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
221139, 20 Mar. 2019, citing The Diocese of Bacolod
v. COMELEC)
Filtering Mechanism (In-O-De)
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts operates to:
1. Prevent Inordinate demands upon the Court's
time and attention which are better devoted to
those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction;
2. Prevent further Overcrowding of the Court's
docket; and
3. Prevent the inevitable and resultant Delay,
intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of
cases which often have to be remanded or
referred to the lower court as the proper forum
under the rules of procedure, or as the court
better equipped to resolve factual questions.
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Hierarchy of
Courts (2017 BAR)
In several cases, the court has allowed direct
invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction on the
following grounds:
1. When there are genuine issues of
constitutionality that must be addressed at
the most immediate time; (The Diocese of
Bacolod v. COMELEC, supra)
NOTE: A direct resort to the Supreme Court
includes availing of the remedies
of certiorari and prohibition to assail the
constitutionality of actions of both legislative
and executive branches of the government.
2. When the issues involved are of
transcendental importance;
NOTE: In these cases, the imminence and
clarity of the threat to fundamental
constitutional rights outweigh the necessity
for prudence. The doctrine relating to
constitutional issues of transcendental
importance prevents courts from the
paralysis of procedural niceties when clearly
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
faced with the need for substantial
protection;
3. Cases of first impression (Ha Datu Tawahig, et
al v. Hon. Cebu City Prosecutor I Lineth Lapinid,
et al., supra.);
4. The constitutional issues raised are better
decided by the Supreme Court;
5. Exigency in certain situations or when time is
of the essence;
6. The filed petition reviews the act of a
constitutional organ;
7. No other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law;
8. The petition includes questions that are
dictated by public welfare and the
advancement of public policy, or demanded
by the broader interest of justice;
9. The orders complained of were found to be
patent nullities;
10. The appeal was considered as clearly an
inappropriate remedy; or
11. 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, 20
Feb. 2013)
Common Denominator
A careful examination of the jurisprudential bases of
the exceptions would reveal a common
denominator — the issues for resolution of the
Court are purely legal. (Gios-Samar, Inc. v.
Department of Transportation and Communications
and Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, supra.)
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
6
C2
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
speedy justice and to avoid future litigations. (Riano,
2019)
Failure to Comply with the Doctrine
Failure to comply with the Principle of Hierarchy of
Courts is sufficient cause for the dismissal of the
petition. (Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of
Transportation and Communications and Civil
Aviation Authority of the Philippines, supra.)
Q: Senator Angara filed a Complaint for Damages
against Palafox Jr. alleging that Palafox Jr.
authorized an unsigned letter containing
defamatory statements against him. Palafox Jr.
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
improper venue alleging that the Complaint was
filed in the RTC of Pasay City, instead of Makati
City where both parties reside. The Regional
Trial Court denied his motion and held that
venue was proper since the filing of a separate
civil action for damages where the public officer
holds office is allowed under Article 360.
Aggrieved, Palafox Jr., filed a Petition for
Certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing
the order of the RTC. Is the petition meritorious?
A: NO. The petition violates the hierarchy of courts.
The Court may only act when absolutely necessary
or when serious and important reasons exist to
justify an exception. Further, the Court held that
such serious and important reasons must be clearly
stated in the petition.
Here, Palafox, Jr. filed his Petition directly to the
Supreme Court despite the concurrent jurisdiction
of the appellate court. Significantly, he did not
bother to provide any reason or explanation to
justify his non-compliance to the rule on hierarchy
of courts. This constitutes a clear disregard of the
hierarchy of courts and merits the dismissal of the
Petition. (Felino A. Palafox, Jr. v. Francisco Mendiola,
G.R No. 209551, 15 Feb. 2021)
7 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
D. DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE/
JUDICIAL STABILITY
GR: Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction
cannot interfere with each other’s orders. (Riano,
2019, citing Lapu-Lapu Development and Housing
Corporation v. Group Management Corporation, G.R.
Nos. 167000 and 169971, 08 Jun. 2011)
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. (Riano,
2019)
No court can interfere by injunction with the
judgments or orders of another court of concurrent
jurisdiction. (Metro Rail Transit Development
Corporation v. Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising,
Vending and Promotions, Inc., G.R. No. 204452, 28
June 2021, J. Hernando, citing Barroso v. Omelio, G.R.
No. 184767, 14 Oct. 2015)
Even in case of concurrent jurisdiction, the court
first acquiring jurisdiction excludes the other
courts. (Pacific Ace Finance Ltd. [PAFIN] v. Eiji
Yanagisawa, G.R. No. 175303, 11 Apr. 2012)
XPN: The doctrine does not apply where a third-
party claimant is involved. This is in consonance
with the well-established principle that no man
shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a
stranger. (Sps. Crisologo v. Omelio, A.M. No. RTJ-12-
2321, 03 Oct. 2012, citing Sec. 16, Rule 39, ROC, as
amended, and quoting Naguit v. CA, G.R. No. 137675,
05 Dec. 2000)
Rationale
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 the conduct of ministerial officers
acting in connection with this judgment. (Metro Rail
Transit Development Corporation v. Trackworks Rail
Transit Advertising, Vending and Promotions, Inc.,
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2

REMEDIAL LAW
G.R. No. 204452, 28 June 2021, J. Hernando, citing
Barroso v. Omelio, G.R. No. 184767, 14 Oct. 2015)

NOTE: The doctrine of non-interference likewise

applies with equal force to administrative bodies.
(Philippine Sinter Corporation v. Cagayan Electric
Power and Light Co., Inc., G.R. No. 127371, 25 Apr.
2002)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 8

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
II. JURISDICTION
II. JURISDICTION
The power and authority of a court to try, hear,
decide a case and the power to enforce its
determination. (21 C.J.S., 9; Echagaray v. Secretary of
Justice, G.R. No. 132601, 19 Jan. 1999)
Jurisdiction is the power and authority conferred by
the Constitution and by the statute to hear and
decide a case. (Esico v. Alphaland Corp., G.R. No.
216716, 17 Nov. 2021, J. Hernando)
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, 2019)
A. CLASSIFICATION OF JURISDICTION
1. ORIGINAL vs. APPELLATE
Original jurisdiction is 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. Appellate jurisdiction is the
authority of a Court higher in rank to re-examine the
final order or judgment of a lower Court which tried
the case now elevated for judicial review. (Garcia v.
De Jesus, G.R. Nos. 88158 & 97108-09, 04 Mar. 1992)
2. GENERAL vs. SPECIAL
Courts of general jurisdiction are those with
competence to decide on their own jurisdiction and
take cognizance of all cases, civil and criminal, of a
particular nature, while courts of special
jurisdiction are those which have jurisdiction only
for a particular purpose or are clothed with special
powers for the performance of special duties
beyond which they have no authority of any kind.
(Riano, 2019)
9 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
3. EXCLUSIVE vs. CONCURRENT
Exclusive jurisdiction is that possessed by a court to
the exclusion of others, while concurrent
jurisdiction is the power of different courts to take
cognizance of the same subject matter. (Riano,
2019)
B. DOCTRINES OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS
AND ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION
Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts
General Rule: A case must be filed with the lowest
court possible having the appropriate jurisdiction.
For example, although the SC, CA, and the RTC have
concurrent jurisdiction over certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus, a direct invocation of the SC is
improper. A petition must be first made to the
lowest court – the RTC. (Riano, 2019)
Exception: The Supreme Court may disregard
hierarchy of courts if warranted by the following
reasons:
1. Where special and important reasons are
present;
2. When dictated by public welfare and policy,
3. When demanded by interest of justice;
4. Where the challenged orders are patent
nullities;
5. Where compelling circumstances warrant;
and
6. Where genuine issues of constitutionality
must be immediately addressed. (Riano,
2019)
Adherence 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
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2

II. JURISDICTION
5. Other special cases as the SC may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration
of justice. (Sec. 23, B.P. No. 129)

Test to determine whether an Action is capable 4. Derivative suits; and

of Pecuniary Estimation
5. Inspection of corporate books. (Rule 1, IRR of
The criterion is the nature of the principal action or R.A. No. 8799).
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, 07 Sept. 2005)

Intra-corporate Controversies that are within

the Jurisdiction of the Special Commercial
Courts

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;

21 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Voluntary Appearance
Voluntary appearance is any appearance of the
defendant in court, provided he or she does not
raise the question of lack of jurisdiction of the court.
(Flores v. Zurbito, G.R. No. L-12890. 08 Mar. 1918;
Carballo v. Encarnacion, G.R. No. L-5675, 27 Apr.
1953)
It is equivalent to service of summons. (Sec. 23, Rule
14, ROC, as amended)
The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other
grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant shall be deemed a voluntary
appearance. (Sec. 23, Rule 14, ROC, as amended)
An appearance in whatever form, without explicitly
objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the
person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the
court over the person. It may be made by simply
filing a formal motion, or plea or answer. If his
motion is for any other purpose than to object to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person, he thereby
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
(Busuego v. CA, No. L-48955, June 30, 1987; La Naval
Drug Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 103200, 31 Aug. 1994)
XPN: Special Appearance
When the defendant’s appearance is made precisely
to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person, it cannot be considered as appearance in
court. (French Oil Mill Machinery, Inc v. CA, G.R. No.
126477, 11 Sept. 1998)
An example is a special appearance in court
challenging the jurisdiction of the court on the
ground of invalid service of summons. (Go v.
Cordero, G.R. No. 164703, 04 May 2010)
NOTE: Special appearance operated as an exception
to the general rule on voluntary appearance.
Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the
court over the person of the defendant must be
explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an equivocal
manner. Failure to do so constitutes voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court. (Rapid
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
City Realty and Development Corp. v. Villa et. al., G.R.
No. 184197, 11 Feb. 2010)
Filing of Pleadings seeking Affirmative Reliefs
constitutes Voluntary Appearance
GR: Seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary
appearance, and the consequent submission of
one’s person to the jurisdiction of the court.
XPNs: In the case of pleadings whose prayer is
precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the
court, which only leads to a special appearance.
These pleadings are:
1. In civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant;
NOTE: The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of
other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant shall be
deemed a voluntary appearance (Sec. 23, Rule
14, ROC, as amended);
2. In criminal cases, motions to quash an
Information on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and
3. Motion to quash a warrant of arrest.
NOTE: The first two are consequences of the fact
that failure to file them would constitute a waiver of
the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person.
The third is a consequence of the fact that it is the
very legality of the court process forcing the
submission of the person of the accused that is the
very issue in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest.
(Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, 31 Mar. 2006)
3. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES
Jurisdiction over the issues refers to the power of
the court to try and decide the issues raised in the
pleadings of the parties. (Reyes v. Diaz, G.R. No. L-
48754, 26 Nov. 1941)
26
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2

II. JURISDICTION
a. All cases of forcible entry
All disputes involving parties who
and unlawful detainer
actually reside in the same city or
irrespective of the amount
municipality may be the subject of the
of damages or unpaid
proceedings for amicable settlement in
Purely civil in nature where the rentals sought to be
the barangay.
claim or relief prayed for by the recovered. Where
plaintiff is for payment or attorney’s fees are
The requirement of undergoing
reimbursement of a sum of awarded, the same shall
barangay conciliation proceedings
money where the value of the not exceed P100,000;
applies only to cases involving natural
claim does not exceed
persons, and not where any of the parties
P1,000,000, exclusive of b. All civil actions, except
is a juridical person such as a
interest and costs. (A.M. No. 08- probate proceedings,
corporation, partnership, corporation
8-7-SC) admiralty and maritime
sole, testate or intestate estate, etc. (Vda.
actions, and small claims
De Borromeo v. Pogoy, G.R. No. L-63277,
a. For money owed under any where the total amount of
29 Nov. 1983)
of the following: the plaintiff’s claim does
not exceed P2,000,000.00
If the only contending party is the
i. Contract of Lease; exclusive of interest
government or its instrumentality or
damages of whatever kind,
subdivision the case is exempted from
ii. Contract of Loan and attorney’s fees, litigation
the requirement of barangay conciliation
other credit expenses and costs. (A.M.
proceedings but when it (government or
accommodations; No. 08-8-7-SC)
its instrumentality or subdivision) is only
one of the contending parties, a
iii. Contract of Services; c. Complaints for damages
confrontation should still be undertaken
where the claims do not
among the other parties. (Gegare v. CA,
iv. Contract of Sale of exceed P2,000,000.00;
G.R. No. 83907, 13 Sept. 1989)
personal property,
excluding the recovery of d. Cases for the enforcement
NOTE: Barangay conciliation process is
the personal property, of barangay amicable
not a jurisdictional requirement, so that
unless it is made the settlement agreements
non-compliance therewith cannot affect
subject of a compromise and arbitration award
the jurisdiction which the court has
agreement between the where money claim
otherwise acquired over the subject
parties; or exceeds P1,000,000.00,
matter or over the person of the
provided that no execution
defendant. Such defense shall be raised
v. Contract of Mortgage has been enforced within 6
in the answer, otherwise, such objection
months from the
will be deemed waived. (Aquino v. Aure,
b. For liquidated damages settlement date or receipt
G.R. No. 153567, 18 Feb. 2008)
arising from contracts; and of award or the date when
the obligation becos due
Cases not covered by Barangay
c. The enforcement of a and demandable;
Conciliation
barangay amicable
settlement or an arbitration e. Cases solely for the revival
1. Where one party is the government
award involving a money of judgment of any first
or any subdivision or
claim which does not level court;
instrumentality thereof;
exceed P1,000,000.
2. Where one party is a public officer or
f. The civil aspect of
employee, and the dispute relates to
violations of BP 22 if no
the performance of his official
criminal action has been
functions;
instituted.

31 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2

REMEDIAL LAW
3. Offenses punishable by
imprisonment exceeding one (1)
year or a fine exceeding P5,000.00;

4. Offenses when there is no private

offended party;

5. Where the dispute involves real

properties located in different cities
or municipalities unless the parties
thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement
by an appropriate lupon;

6. Disputes involving parties who

actually reside in barangays of
different cities or municipalities,
except where such barangay units
adjoin each other and the parties
thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement
by an appropriate lupon;

7. Such other classes of disputes which

the President may determine in the
interest of justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of
Justice (Sec. 408, Local Government
Code);

8. Any complaint by or against

corporations, partnerships, or
juridical entities, since only
individuals shall be parties to
barangay conciliation proceedings
either as complainants or
respondents;

9. Disputes where urgent legal action is

necessary to prevent injustice from
being committed or further
continued, specifically:

a. A criminal case where the

accused is under police custody
or detention

b. A petition for habeas corpus by a

person illegally detained or

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 32

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
C2

REMEDIAL LAW
It can be instituted by filing the complaint by
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE personal service, by registered mail, by accredited
(A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC) courier, by electronic mail or other electronic means
as may be authorized by the Court. (Sec. 3, in relation
to Section 14(a), Rule 13, ROC, as amended)

NOTE: It is not simply the filing of the complaint or

A. GENERAL PROVISIONS appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of
(RULE 1)
the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature
of the action. (Heirs of Hinog v. Melicor, G.R. No.
Applicability 140954, 12 Apr. 2005)

The Rules of Court shall apply in all the courts, Construction

except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.
(Sec. 2, Rule 1, ROC, as amended)
Actions or Proceedings governed by the Rules of
Court
The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to
promote their objective of securing a just, speedy
and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding. (Sec. 6, Rule 1, ROC, as amended)

1. Civil actions; Ordinary Civil Actions

2. Criminal actions; and
3. Special Proceedings. (Sec. 3, Rule 1, ROC, as It is one in which a party sues another for the
amended) enforcement or protection of a right or the
prevention or redress of a wrong. (Sec. 3(a), Rule 1,
Actions or Proceedings NOT governed by the ROC, as amended)
Rules of Court
It is governed by ordinary rules. (Bouvier’s Law
1. Election cases; Dictionary, 8th ed.; Words and Phrases, Vol. 2)
2. Land registration cases;
3. Cadastral cases; Subject Matter of an Action
4. Naturalization cases; and
5. Insolvency proceedings. It is the physical facts, the thing, real or personal, the
money, lands, chattels, and the like, in relation to
NOTE: The Rules may still apply to the cases above which the suit is prosecuted. (Iniego v. Purganan,
by analogy or in suppletory character and whenever G.R. No. 166876, 24 Mar. 2006)
practicable and convenient. (Sec. 5, Rule 1, ROC, as
amended) Special Civil Actions

Commencement of Civil Action
A civil action is commenced by the filing of the
original complaint in court. If an additional
defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the
action is commenced with regard to him on the date
of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of
whether the motion for its admission, if necessary,
is denied by the court. (Sec. 5, Rule 1, ROC, as
amended)
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,
2019)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 34

2023 GOLDEN NOTES