Reviewer in Remedial Law

Made by: Romel Jason E. Catbagan

General Principles:

(A) Substantive law vs. Remedial Law

(1) Substantive law – that branch of law that defines, creates, and regulates the rights and duties
concerning life, liberty, and property. The violation of which gives rise to a cause of action.
Embodied in the Civil Code, Revised Penal Code.
Example: Article 1160 of the Civil Code, provides, “those who are, in the performance of
their obligations are guilty of fraud, among others, are liable for damages in favor of the
person aggrieved. This provision gives a right to damages on the part of the victim, it does
not outline the method by which to enforce it.
Under the Revised Penal Code, murder is defined, however, the RPC does not provide a
guideline as to how the perpetrator will be punished. 1

(2) Remedial law – does not create rights and obligations, but lays down the methods by which
the rights and obligations arising from the substantive law are protected, enforced, and given
effect (Bustos v. Lucero). Remedial Law, in other words, is that aspect of law which
provides for a method for enforcing rights, preventing the violations of such rights, and
obtaining redress for their violations. It is also known as the adjective law.

(2.1) Substantive and procedural law flows from the due process clause: Article 3,
Section 1, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process
of law.” Substantive law creates rights, remedial law protects rights:

Substantive and Procedural due process

Due process of law has two aspect: substantive and procedural.
Substantive due process: intrinsic validity; essence of the law
Procedural due process: compliance with the procedures or steps; fair play; without
arbitrariness
Due process, a law which hears before it condemns, judgment only after trial, and the
opportunity to be heard

1
Riano, Willard (2019). Civil Procedure
 Substantive law Adjective Law
Establishment of Vested Rights
It creates substantive rights (Bustos v. There are no vested rights in rules of
Lucero) procedure. (Sumiran v. Spouses Damaso)
Application
Operates prospectively and may not be Procedural rules may be given retroactive
construed retroactively without affective past effect to actions pending and undetermined
or previous rights (Spouses Triona v. Alejo). at the time of their passage (Go v. Sunbanun).

Exceptions:
(1) When the statute itself provides
expressly or by means of necessary
implication, that pending actions are
exempted from its operation (Tan, Jr.
v. Court of Appeals).

(2) Where the retroactive application is not

feasible, would work injustice, and
would disturb vested or substantive
rights (Gregorio v. CA)
Origin
Enacted by the Congress (Sec.1, Article VI, Promulgated by the Supreme Court (Sec. 5 (5),
1987 Constitution) Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)
The legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist
of a Senate and a House of Representatives,
except to the extent reserved to the people by
the provision on initiative and referendum.

B. Rule Making Power of the Supreme Court

The 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger judiciary when it enhanced the rule making power of
the Supreme Court when it has taken away to the Congress the power to repeal, amend, and revise
rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice).

The Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning:

(1) The enforcement and protection of constitutional rights;
(2) Rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts
 (3) Admission to the practice of law;
(4) The Integrated Bar;
(5) Legal Assistance to the underprivileged

Limitations on the Rule Making Power of the Supreme Court

(1) The rules shall be inexpensive and simplified for the speedy disposition of cases;
(2) The rules shall be uniform in all courts of the same grade;
(3) The rules shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights
(4) Rules and procedures of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court

Power to promulgate Rules of Pleading, Practice and Procedure

While the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts is, by
constitutional design, vested unto Congress, the power to promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts
belongs exclusively to this Court. (Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals).

Power to Amend Procedural Rules

The constitutional faculty of the Court to promulgate rules of practice carries the power to overturn
judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the amendments of the Rules of Court (Pinga
v. Heirs of German).

Power to Suspend Procedural Rules

The Supreme Court has the power to relax, suspend, or exempt a case from the rigid operation when
warranted by compelling reasons and the requirements of justice.
Sanchez v. CA, the following reasons has been restated
(a) Matters of life, liberty, honor, or property
(b) The existence of compelling and special circumstances
(c) The merits of the case
(d) A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules
(e) A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous, or dilatory; and
(f) The fact that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby (Pimentel v. Adioa)
C. Doctrine of Judicial Hierarchy
As a general rule, a case must be filed first to the lowest court having the appropriate jurisdiction.
Exception:
(a) Genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed in the most immediate time;
(b) Transcendental importance; the imminence and clarity of threat to the fundamental
constitutional rights outweigh the necessity for prudence. The doctrine relating to the
constitutional issues of transcendental importance prevents the courts from the paralysis of
procedural niceties when clearly faced with the need for substantial protection (Pemberton v.
Secretary of Justice).
(c) Cases of first impression;
(d) Constitutional issues which are better decided by the Supreme Court
(e) Time element or exigency in certain situations
(f) A review of an act of a constitutional organ
(g) Situations wherein there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law; and
(h) Questions that are dictated by public welfare and advancement of public policy, or demanded
by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities,
or the appeal was considered as clearly inappropriate nullity.

The hierarchy principle commands that cases must first be brought before the lowest court with
jurisdiction, and not before the higher courts. These cases may ultimately reach the Supreme Court
through the medium of an appeal or certiorari. Considering that jurisdiction and the leveling of the
courts are defined by law, the hierarchy should leave very little opening for flexibility (and potential
legal questions), except for the fact that laws have conferred concurrent jurisdictions for certain cases
or remedies to courts at different and defined levels.

Importance of the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts

The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was created by this court to ensure that
every level of the judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner. (Diocese
of Bacolod v Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015) A disregard of the
doctrine may result in the denial of a petition.

D. Doctrine of Non-interference or Judicial Stability

GENERAL RULE: Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other's
orders. It bars a court from interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court (Mañalac vs. Gellada,
A.M. RTJ-18 2535, October 8, 2018).
EXCEPTION: Where a third-party claimant is involved (Santos vs. Bayhon, G.R. No. 88643, July
23, 1991)
Illustration: A Regional Trial Court has no power or authority to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of
a writ of possession issued by another Regional Trial Court (Suico Industrial Corporation vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 123050, January 20, 1999).
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.
The jurisdiction referred to refers to that for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control the
conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment (Tan vs. Cinco, G.R. No.
213054, June 15, 2016).
The doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies (Philippine Sinter Corporation vs.
Cagayan Electric Power & Light Co., Inc., G.R. No. 127371, April 25, 2002).