REMEDIAL LAW
1. General Principles
1.1. Concept of remedial law
1.2. Substantive law vis-a-vis remedial law
1.3. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court
1.3.1 Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court
1.3.2. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules
1.4. Nature of Philippine courts
1.4.1. Meaning of a court
1.4.2. Court as distinguished from a judge
1.4.3. Classification of Philippine courts
1.4.4. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction
1.4.5. Courts of general and special jurisdiction
1.4.6. Constitutional and statutory courts
1.4.7. Courts of law and equity
1.4.8. Principle of judicial hierarchy
Q (2012): A wants to file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Data against the AFP in
connection with threats to his life allegedly made by AFP intelligence officers. A
needs copies of AFP highly classified intelligence reports collected by Sgt.
Santos who is from AFP. A can file his petition with:
a) RTC where AFP is located;
b) RTC where Sgt. Santos resides;
c) Supreme Court;
d) Court of Appeals.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) In accordance with the principle of judicial hierarchy of the courts, A
should file the petition with the Court of Appeals.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
b) RTC where Sgt. Santos resides
c) Supreme Court
The petition may be filed with the Regional Trial Court where the
petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place
where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the
petitioner. The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files of
government offices. (Sec. 3, A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC, The Rule on the Writ of
Habeas Data, January 22, 2008).
1.4.9. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability
,2. Jurisdiction
2.1 Over the parties
2.1.1. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired
2.1.2. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
2.2 Over the subject matter
2.2 1. Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter
2.2 2. Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction
2.2 3. Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of judgment
Q (2012): Distinguish error of jurisdiction from error of judgment. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of
its jurisdiction. Such an error does not deprive the court of jurisdiction and is
correctible only by appeal; whereas an error of jurisdiction is one which the court
acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Such an error renders an order or
judgment void or voidable and is correctible by the special civil action of
certiorari. (Dela Cruz vs. Moir, 36 Phil, 213; Cochingyan vs. Claribel, 76 SCRA
361; Fortich vs. Corona, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA 624; Artistica Ceramica, Inc.
vs. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner's Association, Inc., G.R. Nos. 167583-84,
June 16, 2010).
2.2 4. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined
2.2 5. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
2.2 6. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction
2.2 7. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter
2.2 8. Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
2.3. Over the issues
2.4 Over the resor property in litigation
2.5. Jurisdiction of courts
2.5.1. Supreme Court
2.5.2. Court of Appeals
2.5.3. Court of Tax Appeals
2.5.4. Sandiganbayan
Q(2012): A criminal case should be instituted and tried in the place where the
offense or any of the essential elements took place, except in:
a) Estafa cases;
b) Complex crimes;
c) Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan;
d) Court martial cases.
,SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
Territorial jurisdiction is immaterial in cases falling under the Sandiganbayan’s
jurisdiction. All public officials who committed an offense which is cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan shall be tried before it regardless of the place of commission
of the offense. In addition, the court martial is not a criminal court.
Q(2012): The Sandiganbayan can entertain a quo warranto petition only in:
a) Cases involving public officers with salary grade 27 or higher.
b) Only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
c) As a provisional remedy.
d) Cases involving "ill gotten wealth".
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions
for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and over 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: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these
petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court. (Sec. 4, R.A. 8249, Act
amending P.D. 1606).
Q (2012): Sandiganbayan exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals over:
a) Petitions for Writ of Certiorari and Prohibition;
b) Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus;
c) Petitions for Quo Warranto;
d) Petitions for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Corpus.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) Petitions for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Corpus.
The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions
for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunction, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction: Provided, that the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be
, exclusive of the Supreme Court. (Sec. 2, R.A. 7975 - An Act to Strengthen the
Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, amending for that
purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended).
The petition for writ of amparo may be filed on any day and at any time
with the Regional trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court
of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The writ shall be
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, The Rule
on the Writ of Amparo, September 25, 2007).
2.5.5. Regional Trial Courts
Q(2014): Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King Kong over
acommercial building where the former conducted his hardware business. The
lease contract stipulated, among others, a monthly rental of P50,000.00 for a four
(4) -year period commencing on January 1, 2010. On January 1, 2013, Prince
Chong died. Kin II Chong was appointed administrator of the estate of Prince
Chong, but the former failed to pay the rentals for the months of January to June
2013 despite King Kong’s written demands. Thus, on July 1, 2013, King Kong
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action for rescission of contract with
damages and payment of accrued rentals as of June 30, 2013. (4%)
(A) Can Kin II Chong move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
the RTC is without jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only P300,000.00?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Kin II Chong cannot move to dismiss the Complaint.
An action for rescission of contract with damages and payment of
accrued rentals is considered incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. (Ceferina De Ungria vs. Honorable Court
Of Appeals, G.R. No. 165777, July 25, 2011, Peralta, J.)
2.5.6. Family Courts
Q(2012): Cesar, age 16, a habitual offender, was caught in possession of .001
grams of marijuana. He was charged for violation of Sec. 16 of R.A. 9165, The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Law. The court which has jurisdiction is:
a) The MTC;
b) The RTC;
c) Special Drugs Court;
1. General Principles
1.1. Concept of remedial law
1.2. Substantive law vis-a-vis remedial law
1.3. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court
1.3.1 Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court
1.3.2. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules
1.4. Nature of Philippine courts
1.4.1. Meaning of a court
1.4.2. Court as distinguished from a judge
1.4.3. Classification of Philippine courts
1.4.4. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction
1.4.5. Courts of general and special jurisdiction
1.4.6. Constitutional and statutory courts
1.4.7. Courts of law and equity
1.4.8. Principle of judicial hierarchy
Q (2012): A wants to file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Data against the AFP in
connection with threats to his life allegedly made by AFP intelligence officers. A
needs copies of AFP highly classified intelligence reports collected by Sgt.
Santos who is from AFP. A can file his petition with:
a) RTC where AFP is located;
b) RTC where Sgt. Santos resides;
c) Supreme Court;
d) Court of Appeals.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) In accordance with the principle of judicial hierarchy of the courts, A
should file the petition with the Court of Appeals.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
b) RTC where Sgt. Santos resides
c) Supreme Court
The petition may be filed with the Regional Trial Court where the
petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place
where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the
petitioner. The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files of
government offices. (Sec. 3, A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC, The Rule on the Writ of
Habeas Data, January 22, 2008).
1.4.9. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability
,2. Jurisdiction
2.1 Over the parties
2.1.1. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired
2.1.2. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
2.2 Over the subject matter
2.2 1. Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter
2.2 2. Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction
2.2 3. Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of judgment
Q (2012): Distinguish error of jurisdiction from error of judgment. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of
its jurisdiction. Such an error does not deprive the court of jurisdiction and is
correctible only by appeal; whereas an error of jurisdiction is one which the court
acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Such an error renders an order or
judgment void or voidable and is correctible by the special civil action of
certiorari. (Dela Cruz vs. Moir, 36 Phil, 213; Cochingyan vs. Claribel, 76 SCRA
361; Fortich vs. Corona, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA 624; Artistica Ceramica, Inc.
vs. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner's Association, Inc., G.R. Nos. 167583-84,
June 16, 2010).
2.2 4. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined
2.2 5. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
2.2 6. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction
2.2 7. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter
2.2 8. Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
2.3. Over the issues
2.4 Over the resor property in litigation
2.5. Jurisdiction of courts
2.5.1. Supreme Court
2.5.2. Court of Appeals
2.5.3. Court of Tax Appeals
2.5.4. Sandiganbayan
Q(2012): A criminal case should be instituted and tried in the place where the
offense or any of the essential elements took place, except in:
a) Estafa cases;
b) Complex crimes;
c) Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan;
d) Court martial cases.
,SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan
Territorial jurisdiction is immaterial in cases falling under the Sandiganbayan’s
jurisdiction. All public officials who committed an offense which is cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan shall be tried before it regardless of the place of commission
of the offense. In addition, the court martial is not a criminal court.
Q(2012): The Sandiganbayan can entertain a quo warranto petition only in:
a) Cases involving public officers with salary grade 27 or higher.
b) Only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
c) As a provisional remedy.
d) Cases involving "ill gotten wealth".
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions
for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and over 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: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these
petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court. (Sec. 4, R.A. 8249, Act
amending P.D. 1606).
Q (2012): Sandiganbayan exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals over:
a) Petitions for Writ of Certiorari and Prohibition;
b) Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus;
c) Petitions for Quo Warranto;
d) Petitions for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Corpus.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) Petitions for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Corpus.
The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions
for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunction, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction: Provided, that the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be
, exclusive of the Supreme Court. (Sec. 2, R.A. 7975 - An Act to Strengthen the
Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, amending for that
purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended).
The petition for writ of amparo may be filed on any day and at any time
with the Regional trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court
of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The writ shall be
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, The Rule
on the Writ of Amparo, September 25, 2007).
2.5.5. Regional Trial Courts
Q(2014): Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King Kong over
acommercial building where the former conducted his hardware business. The
lease contract stipulated, among others, a monthly rental of P50,000.00 for a four
(4) -year period commencing on January 1, 2010. On January 1, 2013, Prince
Chong died. Kin II Chong was appointed administrator of the estate of Prince
Chong, but the former failed to pay the rentals for the months of January to June
2013 despite King Kong’s written demands. Thus, on July 1, 2013, King Kong
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action for rescission of contract with
damages and payment of accrued rentals as of June 30, 2013. (4%)
(A) Can Kin II Chong move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
the RTC is without jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only P300,000.00?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Kin II Chong cannot move to dismiss the Complaint.
An action for rescission of contract with damages and payment of
accrued rentals is considered incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. (Ceferina De Ungria vs. Honorable Court
Of Appeals, G.R. No. 165777, July 25, 2011, Peralta, J.)
2.5.6. Family Courts
Q(2012): Cesar, age 16, a habitual offender, was caught in possession of .001
grams of marijuana. He was charged for violation of Sec. 16 of R.A. 9165, The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Law. The court which has jurisdiction is:
a) The MTC;
b) The RTC;
c) Special Drugs Court;
