REMEDIAL LAW AND

ETHICS
2024 Bar Examination
Office of Associate Justice
Mario V. Lopez
Notes on Page (1) of the Syllabus on Remedial Law

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A. Substantive Law vs. Adjective Law
Substantive Law Adjective Law (Procedural
Law)
Creates, defines, and regulates Lays down methods by which
rights and duties concerning life the rights and obligations arising
liberty, or property the violation of from substantive law are
which gives rise to a cause of protected, enforced, and given
action effect.

B. Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court

I. The SC shall have the power to rules concerning:

a. The protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
b. Pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
c. Admission to the practice of law,
d. The Integrated Bar, and
e. Legal assistance to the underprivileged
II. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.
III. The SC 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.

C. Hierarchy of Courts; Doctrine of Non-Interference and Judicial

Stability
HEIRARCHY 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. [1 Riano 42, 2016 Bantam Ed]

EXEMPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE

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,
1
 4. Where the challenged orders are patent nullities,
5. Where compelling circumstances warrant, and
6. Where genuine issues of constitutionality must be immediately
addressed. [1 Riano 44-45, 2016 Bantam Ed]

Non-Interference and Judicial Stability-

1. holds that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot
interfere with each other’s orders.
2. It 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
3. Such doctrine applies also to administrative bodies. When the law
provides for an appeal to the CA or SC from the decision of an
administrative body, it means that such body is co-equal with the
RTC and is then beyond the control of the latter. [Philippine Sinter
Corp v. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co. Inc., G.R. No. 127371
(2002)
When not applicable (EXEMPTION TO THE DOCTRINE OF NON
INTERFERENCE
The doctrine of judicial stability 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
(2012), citing Sec. 16, Rule 39, and quoting
Naguit v. CA, G.R. No. 137675 (2000)]

D. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court in Administrative Bodies

I. This rule is in keeping with the general principle that administrative

bodies are not strictly bound by technical rules of procedure:

[A]dministrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law

and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law. Administrative
tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers are unfettered by the
rigidity of certain procedural requirements, subject to the observance
of fundamental and essential requirements of due process in
justiciable cases presented before them. In administrative
proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not
strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully
equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. Source: G.R. No.
186967 Palao vs Florentino International Inc.
II. Section 4. Rule I of the Rules of Civil Procedure
In what cases not applicable. - These Rules shall not apply to election
cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency
proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by
analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient. (4)

2
 A. Construction of the Rules of Court (Rule 1, Section 6)

SEC. 6. Construction.— These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to

promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding. (2a

II. JURISDICTION
A. Aspects of Jurisdiction
1. Over the Subject Matter

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power of a particular court to hear
the type of case that is then before it.
How Jurisdiction is Conferred and Determined
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and
determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise
statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action.
[Medical Plaza Makati Condominium v. Cullen, G.R. No. 181416 (2013)]
Note: The allegations in the body of the complaint define the cause of action.
The caption or title of the cause of action is not controlling. [Dela Cruz v. CA,
G.R. No. 139442 (2006)]
Note:
Consequences of rule that jurisdiction is conferred by law; it cannot be:
1. Conferred by voluntary act or agreement of the parties,
2. Acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act or omission of the
parties, or
3. Conferred by the acquiescence of the courts,
[De la Rosa v. Roldan, G.R. No. 133882 (2006)]
4. Conferred by administrative policy of any court, or [Arranza v. B.F. Homes,
Inc., G.R. No. 131683 (2000)]
5. Conferred by a court’s unilateral assumption of jurisdiction. [Tolentino v.
Social Security Commission, G.R. No. L- 28870 (1985)] [1 Riano 75-76, 2014
Bantam Ed.]

2. Jurisdiction Over the Parties

Jurisdiction over the parties refers to the power of the court to make
decisions that are binding on persons. [De Pedro v. Romansan Development
Corp, G.R. No. 194751 (2014)]
a. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired?
1. Courts acquire jurisdiction over a party plaintiff upon the filing of the
complaint [De Pedro v. Romansan Development Corp, G.R. No. 194751
(2014)]

2. By the mere filing of the complaint, the plaintiff, in a civil action, voluntarily
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. [Guy v. Gacott, G.R. No.
206147 (2016)]
b. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
1. By his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority, or
2. By service of summons. [Sec. 23, Rule 14; Macasaet v. Co, G.R. No.
3
156759 (2013)]
Note: Voluntary Appearance of the defendant gives the court jurisdiction over
his person despite lack of service of summons or a defective service of
summons. Since his voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to
service of summons.

3. Over the Issues

Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court to try and decide the
issues raised in the pleadings of the parties [Reyes vs Diaz G.R. No. 48754
(1941)]
Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined by:
1. The pleadings of the parties, which present the issues to be tried and
determine whether or not the issues are of fact or law [Reyes v. Diaz, G.R. No.
L- 48754 (1941)]

2. Stipulation of the parties as when, in the pre-trial, the parties enter into
stipulations of facts or enter into agreement simplifying the issues of the case
[Sec. 2(c), Rule 18]

3. Waiver or failure to object to evidence on a matter not raised in the

pleadings. Here the parties try with their express or implied consent on issues
not raised by the pleadings. [Sec. 5, Rule 10]

B. Classification of Jurisdiction
1. Original vs. Appellate

Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case. It is the power of the court.

Exercise of Jurisdiction is the exercise of such power or authority. Where
there is
jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other
questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. [Republic v. G
Holdings, Inc, G.R.
No. 141241 (2005)]
Original Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction
A court is one with original A court is one with appellate
jurisdiction when actions or jurisdiction when it has the power to
proceedings may be originally filed review on appeal the decisions or
with it. orders of a lower court.

2. General vs. Special

General Jurisdiction Special Jurisdiction

Courts of general jurisdiction are Courts of special jurisdiction are those
those with competence to decide on which have jurisdiction only for a
their own jurisdiction and take particular purpose or clothed with
cognizance of all cases of a particular special powers for the performance of
nature. specified duties beyond which they
4
 have no authority of any kind.

3. Exclusive vs. Concurrent

Exclusive Jurisdiction Concurrent Jurisdiction
Exclusive jurisdiction precludes the Concurrent jurisdiction is also called
idea of co-existence and refers to coordinate jurisdiction. It is the power
jurisdiction possessed to the of different courts to take cognizance
exclusion of others. [Cubero v. of the same subject matter. Where
Laguna West Multi-Purpose such jurisdiction exists, the court first
Cooperatives, Inc., G.R. No. 166833 taking cognizance of the case
(2006)] assumes jurisdiction to the exclusion
of the other courts

C. Jurisdiction of the Philippine Courts (BP 129, as

amended)
1. Supreme Court (Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5)
General Rule: The SC is not a trier of facts.
Exception: The SC can look into the facts of a
case:
a. When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises and conjectures;
b. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
c. Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
d. When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
e. When the findings of fact are conflicting;
f. When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the
issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee;
g. When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;
h. When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based;
i. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main
and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and
j. When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record. [Aklan v. Enero, G.R. No. 178309, January 27, 2009]
a. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against appellate courts,
namely:
1. Court of Appeals, [Sec. 17, R.A. 296]
2. Commission on Elections, [Sec 7, Art. IX, Constitution]
3. Commission on Audit, [Sec. 7, Art. IX, Constitution]
4. Sandiganbayan, and [P.D. 1606 as amended] [1 Riano 106, 2014
Bantam Ed.]
5. Court of Tax Appeals (not en banc). [1 Riano 92, 2016 Bantam Ed.] (if
en banc, SC in appellate jurisdiction)
b. Concurrent Original Jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals
a. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against first-level
5
 courts and bodies, namely:
i. RTCs [Sec. 21(1), B.P. 129]
ii. Civil Service Commission [R.A. 7902]
iii. Central Board of Assessment Appeals [P.D. 464; B.P. 129; R.A. 7902]
iv. NLRC and [St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866
(1998); R.A. 7902]
v. Other Quasi-Judicial Agencies. (B.P. 129; R.A. 7902; Heirs of Hinog v.
Melicor, G.R. No. 140954 (2005) [1 Riano 106-107, 2014 Bantam Ed.]
Note: Although there is concurrent jurisdiction as the Constitution grants
this to the SC, SC A.M. No. 07-7-12 issued on 4 December 2007 provides
that if the petition involves an act/omission of a Quasi-Judicial Agency, the
petition shall only be cognizable by the CA and must be filed there
b. Quo Warranto petitions,
c. Writ of Habeas Corpus,
d. Writ of Amparo,
e. Writ of Habeas Data, and [1 Riano 93- 94, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
f. Writ of KaIikasan. [Sec. 3, Rule 7, Part 3, Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases
c. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
a. Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls [Sec. 21(2),
B.P. 129]
b. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts
[1 Riano 93, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
c. Quo Warranto petitions,
d. Writ of Habeas Corpus,
e. Writ of Amparo, and
f. Writ of Habeas Data
D. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE SANDIGANBAYAN
a. Writ of Amparo, and
b. Writ of Habeas Data.

2. Collegiate Courts
a. Court of Appeals (BP 129, as amended by RA 7902)
a. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction- Actions for annulment of judgments of
the RTC
[see: Sec. 9(2), B.P. 129; Sec. 1, Rule 47]
I. Concurrent Original Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court
a. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against first-level
courts and bodies, namely:
i. RTCs [Sec. 21(1), B.P. 129]
ii. Civil Service Commission [R.A. 7902]
iii. Central Board of Assessment Appeals [P.D. 464; B.P. 129; R.A. 7902]
iv. NLRC and [St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866 (1998);
R.A. 7902]
v. Other Quasi-Judicial Agencies. [B.P. 129; R.A. 7902; Heirs of Hinog v.
Melicor, G.R. No. 140954 (2005) [1 Riano 106-107, 2014 Bantam
Ed.]
b. Quo Warranto petitions,
c. Writ of Habeas Corpus,
6
d. Writ of Amparo,
e. Writ of Habeas Data, and [1 Riano 93-94, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
f. Writ of KaIikasan. [Sec. 3, Rule 7, Part 3, Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases]
II. Concurrent Jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Court
a. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and
bodies
b. Quo warranto petitions, and
c. Writ of Habeas Corpus [1 Riano 96, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
d. Writ of Amparo, and [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Amparo]
e. Writ of Habeas Data [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data]
III. Concurrent Jurisdiction with the Sandiganbayan
a. Writ of Amparo, and
b. Writ of Habeas Data

b. Sandiganbayan (PD 1606, as amended by RA 7975,

RA 8249, RA 10660)
a. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
1. Violations of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
2. Violations of R.A. 1379 or An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the
State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any
Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor
3. Bribery (Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II, RPC), where one or more
of the principal accused are occupying the following positions in
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the
time of the commission of the offense

a. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of

regionadirector and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (R.A. 6758),
specifically including:

i. Provincial governors, vicegovernors, members of the sangguniang

panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other
provincial department heads
ii. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the Sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads
iii. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and
higher
iv. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of
higher rank;
v. Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent and
higher
vi. City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor
vii. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations

7
b. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and up
under R.A. 6758
c. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution
d. Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions without
prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution
e. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and highe
under R.A. 6758

4. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other

crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection a. of section 4 (as amended) in relation to their office
5. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with
E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14-A
6. Petitions for mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction, and petitions of similar nature, including quo
warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed
under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986 [Sec. 4,
P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 10660]
Note: Exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper RTC or
MTC, as the case may be, where none of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, or military and PNP
officers mentioned above [Sec. 4, P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 10660
b. Concurrent Original Jurisdiction with RTC, SC and CA for petitions for
writs of amparo [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Amparo] and habeas data [Sec.
3, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data]

c. Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125, as amended by RA 9282 and RA 9503)

Exclusive Original Jurisdiction

Over tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for
taxes, fees, charges, and penalties; Provided, however, that collection
cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees. exclusive of charges
and penalties claimed, is less than P1,000,000 shall be tried by the proper
Municipal Trial Court Metropolitan Trial Court, and Regional Trial Court.

3. Second-Level Courts (BP 129 as amended by RA 7691, RA

11576, R.A. 8369, A.M. No. 22-04-06-SC, A.M. No. 03-03-
03-SC, November 9, 2021)
SECOND LEVEL COURTS OR THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
1. All civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation [Sec. 19(1), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]

NOTE:
Test if incapable of pecuniary estimation: If it is primarily for the recovery
of a sum of
8
 money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation. On the
other hand, where the basic issue is something other than the right to
recover a sum of money, and the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, such actions are cases where
the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation [Heirs of
Padilla v. Magdua, G.R. No. 176858
2. Civil actions involving title to, or possession of real property, or any
interest therein, where assessed value exceeds P400,000 [Sec. 19(2)
B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 11576]
3. If the amount involved exceeds P2,000,000 in the following cases:
A. Damages (apply totality rule).
B. Collection of sum of money, exclusive of damages claimed and
interests.
C. Admiralty and maritime cases
D. Matters of Probate
E. Other actions involving property [B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 11576]
4. Cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. This jurisdiction is often
described as the “general jurisdiction” of the RTC making it a court of
general jurisdiction. [1 Riano 146, 2014 Bantam Ed
5. All actions involving the contract of marriage and family relations [Sec.
19(5), B.P. 129, asamended by R.A. 7691], and all civil actions and special
proceedings falling within exclusive original jurisdiction of Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court [Sec. 19(7), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]
Note: This jurisdiction is deemed modified by Sec. 5, R.A. 8369, the law
establishing the Family
Courts. However, in areas where there are no Family Courts, the cases
within their jurisdiction shall be adjudicated by the RTC [Sec. 17, R.A. 8369;
1 Riano 147, 2014 Bantam Ed.]
6. All civil actions and special proceedings falling within exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Court
of Agrarian Reform [Sec. 19(7), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]
7. Intra-corporate controversies
1. Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any acts, of board of
directors,
business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and
misrepresentation
which may be detrimental to interest of public and/or of stockholders,
partners, members of
associations or organizations registered with SEC
2. Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations,
between and among
stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of them and
corporation,
partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members or
associates,
respectively; and between such corporation, partnership or association and
the state insofar
9
as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity
3. Controversies in election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or
managers of such
corporations, partnerships or associations
4. Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in
state of suspension
of payments in cases where corporation, partnership of association
possesses sufficient
property to cover all its debts but foresees impossibility of meeting them
when they
respectively fall due or in cases where corporation, partnership or association
has no
sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under management of a
Rehabilitation Receiver
or Management Committee [Sec. 52, Securities and Regulations Code]
8. Petitions for declaratory relief [Sec. 1, Rule 63]
9. b. Cases originally falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan where the information:
1. Does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or
2. Alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or
closely related
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding P1 million. [Sec. 4, P.D.
1606, as amended
by R.A. 10660]

RTC: CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WITH THE SUPREME

COURT
a. Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls [Sec.
21(2), B.P.129]
b. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts
[1 Riano 93, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
c. Quo Warranto petitions,
d. Writ of Habeas Corpus,
e. Writ of Amparo, and
f. Writ of Habeas Data
RTC: CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDIICTION WITH THE SUPREME
COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
g. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts
andbodies
h. Quo warranto petitions, and
i. Writ of Habeas Corpus [1 Riano 96, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
j. Writ of Amparo, and [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Amparo]
k. Writ of Habeas Data [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data] l. Writ of
continuing mandamus on environmental cases
RTC: CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WITH SC, CA AND
SANDIGANBAYAN
m. Writ of Amparo, and
n. Writ of Habeas Data
RTC: CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WITH THE
10
INSURANCE COMMISSION
Claims not exceeding P100,000

4. First-Level Courts (BP 129 as amended by RA 7691, RA

11576)

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MUNICIPAL

CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I. If the amount involved does not exceed P2,000,000 in the following cases:

A. Actions involving personal property

B. Probate Proceeding based on gross value of the estate
C. Admiralty and maritime cases
D. Demand for collection of money, exclusive of damages claimed and
interests.
E. damages[Sec. 33(1), B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 11576]
II. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases
III. All civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein where assessed value of property or interest therein does not
exceed P400,000 exclusive on interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, that in cases of land not
declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined
by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. [Sec 33(3), B.P. 129, as amended
by R.A. 11576
IV. Those governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure.
V. Inclusion and exclusion of voters [Sec. 49, Omnibus Election Code]
NOTE: If several claims or causes of action are embodied in the same
complaint, the amount of all the demands shall be the basis in computation of
the amount involved, if
a. Claims are in the same complaint
b. Claims are against the same defendant
c. No misjoinder of parties [1 Riano 104, 2016 Bantam Ed.]

5. Inherent Powers and Means to Carry Jurisdiction (Sections 5

and 6, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court)
RULES OF COURT: RULE 135
Section 5. Inherent powers of court. — Every court shall have power
a) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
(b) To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a person or persons
empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority;
(c) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes, and to the
lawful orders of a judge out of court, in a case pending therein;
(d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers,
and of all other persons in any manner connected with a case before it, in
every manner appertaining thereto;
11
(e) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case pending therein;
(f) To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case pending
therein, and in all other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise of
its powers;
(g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them
conformable to law and justice;
(h) To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other paper to be
filed and used instead of the original, and to restore, and supply deficiencies
in its records and proceedings.
Section 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect. — When by law
jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs,
processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be
employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed in the
exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law or by these
rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which
appears comfortable to the spirit of the said law or rules.

D. Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law (RA 7160)

SECTION 399. Lupong Tagapamayapa. – (a) There is hereby created in each
barangay a lupong tagapamayapa, hereinafter referred to as the lupon,
composed of the punong barangay, as chairman and ten (10) to twenty (20)
members. The lupon shall be constituted every three (3) years in the manner
provided herein.
SECTION 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. –
The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties
actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all
disputes except:
(a) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality
thereof;
(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to
the performance of his official functions;
(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine
exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
(d) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
(e) 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;
(f) 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;
(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the

12
interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the
lupon under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial, motu proprio
refer the case to the lupon concerned for amicable settlement.
SECTION 409. Venue. – (a) Disputes between persons actually residing in
the same barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the lupon
of said barangay.
(b) Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same
city or municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent or
any of the respondents actually resides, at the election of the complainant.
(c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be brought
in the barangay where the real property or the larger portion thereof is
situated.
(d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are
employed or at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study, shall
be brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is located.
Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the
punong barangay; otherwise, the same shall be deemed waived. Any legal
question which may confront the punong barangay in resolving objections to
venue herein referred to may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice or his
duly designated representative, whose ruling thereon shall be binding.
SECTION 410. Procedure for Amicable Settlement. – (a) Who may initiate
proceeding – Upon payment of the appropriate filing fee, any individual who
has a cause of action against another individual involving any matter within
the authority of the lupon may complain, orally or in writing, to the lupon
chairman of the barangay.
(b) Mediation by lupon chairman – Upon receipt of the complaint, the lupon
chairman shall, within the next working day, summon the respondent(s), with
notice to the complainant(s) for them and their witnesses to appear before
him for a mediation of their conflicting interests. If he fails in his mediation
effort within fifteen (15) days from the first meeting of the parties before him,
he shall forthwith set a date for the constitution of the pangkat in accordance
with the provisions of this Chapter.
SECTION 412. Conciliation. – (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in
Court. – No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter
within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or
any other government office for adjudication, unless there has been a
confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat,
and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the
lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat
chairman or unless the settlement has been
(b) Where Parties May Go Directly to Court. – The parties may go directly to
court in the following instances:

13
(1) Where the accused is under detention;
(2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling
for habeas corpus proceedings;
(3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary
injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support pendente
lite; and
(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.
repudiated by the parties thereto.

E. Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (A.M. No.

08-8-7-SC, as amended, March 1, 2022)
THE REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS
CASES
Section 2. Scope. - These Rules shall govern the procedure in
actions before the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) for payment of money where
the value of the claim does not exceed Two Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.
Section 5. Applicability. - The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions that are purely civil in
nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for
payment or reimbursement of sum of money.
The claim or demand may be:
(a) For money owed under any of the following:
1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan;
3. Contract of Services;
4. Contract of Sale; or
5. Contract of Mortgage;
(b) For liquidated damages arising from contracts;
(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an
arbitration award involving a money claim covered by this Rule
pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as
The Local Government Code of 1991.

ection 6. Commencement of Small Claims Action. - A small claims

action is commenced by filing with the court an accomplished and
14
 verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) in duplicate, accompanied
by a Certification Against Forum Shopping, Splitting a Single Cause of
Action, and Multiplicity of Suits (Form 1-A SCC), and two (2) duly
certified photocopies of the actionable document/s subject of the
claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses and other evidence to
support the claim. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing
which was not attached to or submitted together with the Statement of
Claim, unless good cause is shown for the admission of additional
evidence.
The plaintiff must state in the Statement of Claims if he/she/it is
engaged in the business of lending, banking and similar activities, and
the number of small claims cases filed within the calendar year
regardless of judicial station.
No formal pleading, other than the Statement of Claim/s described in
this Rule, is necessary to initiate a small claims action.

F. Doctrine of Adherence to Jurisdiction

Doctrine of Continuity of Jurisdiction or the Doctrine of Adherence to
Jurisdiction
Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation.
[De la Rosa v. Roldan, G.R. No. 133882 (2006)]

G. Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction

JURISDICTION EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
is the authority to decide a case. It is is the exercise of such power or
the power of the court authority. Where there is jurisdiction
over the person and the subject
matter, the decision on all other
questions arising in the case is an
exercise of that jurisdiction. [Republic
v. G Holdings, Inc, G.R. No. 141241
(2005)]

H. Venue in Criminal and Civil Actions

Venue
1. Place where the case is to be hear or tried
2. Establishes a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and
respondent
3. May be changed by the written agreement of the parties or waived
expressly or impliedly
4. The court may not dismiss an action motu proprio for improper venue
[Rudolf Lietz Holdings, Inc. v. Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City, G.R. No.
G.R. No. 133240 (2000)]
5. The objection to an improper venue must be raised in the answer as an
affirmative defense. [Sec 12, Rule 8] It is no longer a valid ground for a motion
15
to dismiss
VENUE FOR CIVIL CASES VENUE FOR CRIMINAL CASES
it is a procedural matter and not venue is jurisdictional.
jurisdictional
GOVERNED BY RULE 4 OF THE RULE 110 of the RULES OF
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Section 1. Venue of real actions. - Section 15. Place where action is to
Actions affecting title to or be instituted. —
possession of real property, or
interest therein, shall be commenced (a) Subject to existing laws, the
and tried in the proper court which criminal action shall be
has jurisdiction over the area wherein instituted and tried in the court
the real property involved, or a of the municipality or territory
portion thereof, is situated. where the offense was
committed or where any of its
Forcible entry and detainer actions essential ingredients occurred.
shall be commenced and tried in the
municipal trial court of the (b) Where an offense is
municipality or city wherein the real committed in a train, aircraft, or
property involved, or a portion other public or private vehicle
thereof, is situated. (1) while in the course of its trip,
the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court
of any municipality or territory
where such train, aircraft or
other vehicle passed during
such its trip, including the place
of its departure and arrival.
(c) Where an offense is
committed on board a vessel in
the course of its voyage, the
criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court
of the first port of entry or of
any municipality or territory
where the vessel passed during
such voyage, subject to the
generally accepted principles of
international law.
(d) Crimes committed outside
the Philippines but punishable
under Article 2 of the Revised
Penal Code shall be cognizable
by the court where the criminal
action is first filed. (15a)

Section 2. Venue of personal Cannot be agreed upon by parties as

actions. - All other actions may be venue is jurisdictional in criminal
16
commenced and tried where the cases and criminal actions can only
plaintiff or any of the principal tried in courts having the proper
plaintiffs resides, or where the jurisdiction
defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides, or in the case of
a nonresident defendant where he
may be found, at the election of the
plaintiff. (2)
Section 3. Venue of actions against
nonresidents. - If any of the
defendants does not reside and is not
found in the Philippines, and the
action affects the personal status of
the plaintiff, or any property of said
defendant located in the Philippines,
the action may be commenced and
tried in the court of the place where
the plaintiff resides, or where the
property or any portion thereof is
situated or found. (3)
Section 4. When Rule not
applicable. - This Rule shall not apply

(a) In those cases where a

specific rule or law provides
otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have
validly agreed in writing before
the filing of the action on the
exclusive venue thereof. (3a,
5a)
Maybe agreed upon by parties in
relation to section 4 of Rule 4 of the
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.s

17
18