Civil Procedure: First Half Reviewer by Atty. Anselmo

100%

CIVIL PROCEDURE

One. General Principles a. Distinguish: Substantive law versus Remedial/Adjective law b. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court i. The Supreme Court has the sole prerogative to amend, repeal, or establish new rules.

ii. The NLRC has its own Rules of Procedure. Should its Rules be approved by the SC before they take effect? No. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

iii. Only the Supreme Court has the power to suspend or relax technical or procedural rules.

iv. The CA, RTC, and other courts cannot suspend or relax procedural rules.

c. Basics of Jurisdiction

i. Classification of Jurisdiction

One. Original versus Appellate - The case was originally filed versus Power to review the decision of a lower court

Two. General versus Special - The RTC versus Every other court

Three. Exclusive versus Concurrent - Only one court has jurisdiction versus Multiple courts a. NOTE: You just have to be familiar with these terms, so you can determine, based on the problem, which court has jurisdiction over the case.

Four. Example:

ii. Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts/Judicial Hierarchy

One. General Rule:

a. The action must be filed with the lowest court possible having concurrent jurisdiction.

Two. Exceptions:

a. When there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed in the most immediate time;

b. When the issues involved are of transcendental importance;

c. Cases of first impression;

d. When the constitutional issues raised are best decided by this Court;

e. When the time element presented in this case cannot be ignored;

f. When the petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ;

g. When there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;

h. When public welfare and the advancement of public policy so dictates, or when demanded by the broader interest of justice;

i. When the orders complained of are patent nullities;

j. When appeal is considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.

Three. EX: The MTC gravely abused its discretion. What's your remedy? Where can you file? Where should you file, following the doctrine mentioned?

a. You can file a petition for certiorari to annul the order of the MTC. This petition can be filed with the RTC, the CA, or the SC, as all of these courts have concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari. However, following the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the petition must be filed with the RTC, because the petition must be filed with the lowest court possible with jurisdiction over the same.

iii. Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction; Continuity of Jurisdiction

One. Under this doctrine, once jurisdiction is vested or has attached to a court, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation.

a. Hence, it cannot be ousted by subsequent events, although these events would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance.

Two. EX: The RTC Manila has jurisdiction, if the complaint alleged that the claim is forty-four million five thousand pesos. Further, it retains jurisdiction even if, based on evidence, the plaintiff was only entitled to fifty thousand pesos.

a. NOTE: For continuity of jurisdiction, we do not check the evidence. we only check the allegations.

Three. EX: The MTC Manila has jurisdiction if the complaint alleged that the claim is two million pesos. Does it retain jurisdiction if, based on evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to two million five hundred thousand pesos?

a. Yes, but the MTC only has jurisdiction up to two million pesos. The MTC cannot award an amount in excess of two million pesos, because it would exceed its jurisdiction.

iv. Doctrine of Non-Interference/Judicial Stability - A court of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other's orders.

One. EX: RTC Manila issued a TRO. Can RTC Pasay annul that TRO?

a. No, because they are co-equal courts.

Two. This applies to administrative bodies.

a. How? If the decisions of the administrative body are reviewable by the CA, that body is co-equal to the RTC.

b. EX: The Civil Service Commission issued a ruling against Mr. A. Can Mr. A appeal the case to the RTC?

i. No, because the CSC is co-equal to the RTC. Under Rule forty-three, the ruling of the CSC is appealable to the CA.

Three. What is the remedy in case the second court annulled the TRO in violation of this doctrine?

a. He can file a motion to quash with the court that annulled the TRO.

i. He should not file the motion to quash with the first court.

Four. What if the second court denies the motion to quash?

a. The remedy is to file a petition for certiorari with the higher court, that has the power to nullify the order of the issuing court.

Five. However, this doctrine does not apply where a third party claimant is involved.

a. EX: Mr. A filed an action for judicial foreclosure against Mr. B with RTC Manila. Later on, the Court ordered the mortgaged property to be sold in a foreclosure sale, wherein Mr. A was the highest bidder. The redemption period expired, so the property is now registered in his name. Years later, it turned out that Mr. C is the true owner of the property, because Mr. B merely forged his signature to transfer it to him. What is the remedy of Mr. C?

i. He must file an action to annul the foreclosure sale, among others. Where will the case be filed? With the RTC once again.

b. Does this violate the doctrine of non-interference?

i. No, because Mr. C is a third party claimant.

Six. Distinguish doctrine of non-interference and doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction.

a. Non-interference - under this doctrine, courts cannot interfere with other courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction.

b. Adherence - once jurisdiction attaches, it continues until the end of the litigation.

v. Doctrine Of Residual Jurisdiction -

vi. PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION AND DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Two. Aspects of Jurisdiction

JURISDICTION

One. SUPREME COURT

Two. COURT OF APPEALS

Three. SECOND-LEVEL COURTS (Regional Trial Court)

Four. FIRST-LEVEL COURTS (MTC, MTCC, MeTC, MCTC)

Five. CRIMINAL CASES

Six. Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (A.M. No. zero eight dash eight dash seven dash SC, as amended, March one, two thousand twenty-two)

Seven. IMPORTANT NOTES:

V. Action involving a demand or claim; Exclusive of interest, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs

vii. Now that we've finished jurisdiction under B P one hundred twenty-nine, we will correlate this with venue, and summons.

One. PERSONAL ACTIONS AND REAL ACTIONS

Two. VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS

Three. VENUE OF PERSONAL ACTIONS

Four. VENUE OF ACTIONS AGAINST NON-RESIDENTS WHO CAN BE FOUND IN THE PHILIPPINES (REAL AND PERSONAL ACTIONS)

Five. VENUE OF ACTIONS AGAINST NON-RESIDENTS WHO CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE PHILIPPINES (REAL AND PERSONAL ACTIONS)

Six. WHEN THE RULES ON VENUE DO NOT APPLY

ii. Exclusive venue; "Words of exclusivity"

iv. Dismissal based on improper venue

ii. Exceptions:

Inherent Powers of the Court And The Means to Carry Out Jurisdiction Into Effect

Two. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect

BARANGAY CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS

Four. BARANGAY CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS

c. Effect of Amicable Settlement

d. Execution

RULE ONE - GENERAL PROVISIONS

One. What is a CAUSE OF ACTION?

b. EXAMPLES:

Two. One cause of action may give rise to SEVERAL RELIEFS.

Three. One cause of action may give rise to ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES.

Two. What are the possible remedies of Mr. B against Mr. A?

Three. Are these remedies alternative or concurrent in nature?

Four. When is a remedy deemed chosen?

Four. Contracts with numerous stipulations

One. EXAMPLES:

Two. Examples:

Two. Example:

Two. Doctrine of anticipatory breach

Three. Examples:

Five. When must the cause of action exist?

Six. How to determine the existence of a cause of action

Two. Exception:

Seven. Failure to State Cause of Action versus Lack of Cause of Action

Four. Examples:

Eight. SPLITTING OF A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION

Three. LITIS PENDENTIA

Two. EXAMPLE:

Three. EXAMPLES:

Four. RES JUDICATA

Two. Examples:

One. EXAMPLES:

Nine. JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION

Ten. MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION

RULE THREE - PARTIES TO A CIVIL ACTION

Two. Effect when a party impleaded is not authorized to be a party

Three. Real parties in interest

Four. Representatives as parties

Five. Minor or incompetent person as party

Six. Indispensable parties

Two. Nature of interest

Three. Examples:

Two. What then is a joint debtor?

Four. What then is a solidary debtor?

Six. Why is Mr. C an indispensable party?

Eight. Why is Mr. B not an indispensable party?

Seven. Necessary parties

Eight. EFFECT OF NON-JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTIES

After Judgment:

Nine. EFFECT OF NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES

Ten. Non-joinder of an indispensable party versus non-joinder of a necessary party

Eleven. Examples:

Twelve. CLASS SUIT

Five. Examples of existence of "common or general interest"

Six. Examples of non-existence of "common or general interest"

Seven. Is a derivative suit a class suit?

Eight. Differentiate class suit and representative suit

Nine. Differentiate class suit and joinder of parties

Thirteen. Suits against entities without juridical personality

Fourteen. Transfer of Interest

Four. Court discretion

Five. Who files the "motion"?

Fifteen. Effect of death of party litigant

Sixteen. INDIGENT PARTIES

Two. No condition for exemption to apply.

Four. Consequence if party not actually indigent:

Sixteen. INDIGENT LITIGANTS

b. There is a condition for exemption.

c. Exemptions from legal fees.

Seventeen. Summary of rules for indigent litigants

Nineteen. Actions for recover of money arising from contractual obligations

c. How can we correlate Section sixteen on death of party litigant and Section twenty?

Twenty. Distinguish Section twenty, Rule three, Section one, Rule eighty-six, and Section seven, Rule thirty-nine

b. EXAMPLES:

RULE SIX - KINDS OF PLEADINGS

One. Kinds of pleadings and when they should be filed

Two. Payment of docket fees and acquisition of jurisdiction

Four. EXAMPLES:

Overview

A detailed overview of fundamental concepts in civil procedure, intended for law students or legal practitioners as a study aid. The document discusses jurisdiction classifications, rule-making authority, and several doctrines crucial to understanding procedural law.

Key Points

1The Supreme Court has exclusive rule-making power in civil procedure
2Jurisdiction can be classified into original, appellate, general, and special types
3The doctrine of hierarchy of courts dictates the filing process according to court levels
4The doctrine of adherence to jurisdiction ensures a court retains jurisdiction throughout litigation
5Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be waived and is a non-waivable defense.

Details

Authors: Atty. Anselmo
Category: Law and Legal Studies

PDF
Joevanie Arellano Tabasa vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, and Wilson Soluren
This document is a decision regarding the petition of Joevanie Arellano Tabasa, challenging his summary deportation by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation after losing his U.S. citizenship and claiming his right to repatriation to the Philippines.
PDF
PCC Guidelines on Merger Remedies
These guidelines outline the Philippine Competition Commission's approach to assessing remedies for mergers and acquisitions that may substantially prevent, restrict, or lessen competition, explaining key principles, types of remedies, considerations for design, and the remedies process.
PDF
In the Matter of the Proposed Acquisition by Universal Robina Corporation of Assets of Central Azucarera Don Pedro, Inc. and Roxas Holdings, Inc.
This document is a decision issued by the Philippine Competition Commission regarding the proposed acquisition by Universal Robina Corporation of the assets of Central Azucarera Don Pedro, Inc. and Roxas Holdings, Inc., assessing the transaction's potential impact on competition in the relevant market.
PDF
In the Matter of the Proposed Acquisition by International Container Terminal Services, Inc. of Shares in the Manila North Harbour Port, Inc.
This document presents the Philippine Competition Commission's decision regarding the acquisition of shares in Manila North Harbour Port, Inc. by International Container Terminal Services, Inc., analyzing the competitive effects and market implications of the proposed transaction.
PDF
Manfredi and Others Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) 13 July 2006
This document presents the judgment of the Court regarding preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of Article 81 EC in relation to insurance companies involved in unlawful agreements affecting civil liability auto insurance premiums.