REMEDIAL LAW
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
1. Distinguish Substantive Law and Remedial Law
Substantive Law creates, defines and regulates rights and duties concerning life, liberty, or property the violation of which gives rise to a cause of action.
[Bustos v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-2068 (1948)]
Remedial Law lays down methods by which the rights and obligations arising from substantive law are protected, enforced, and given effect.
[Bustos v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-2068 (1948)]
Procedural rules are not laws, for they are promulgated by the Supreme Court in their rule-making capacity under the Constitution and do not originate from the legislative. [Alvero v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. L-286 (1946)]
However, procedural rules have the force and effect of law, if not in conflict with positive law, since procedural rules are subordinate to statute. [Inchausti & Co v. De Leon, G.R. No. 7887 (1913)]
• Procedural Laws Applicable to Actions Pending at the Time of Promulgation
Statutes and rules regulating the procedure of courts are considered applicable to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage. This retroactive application does not violate any right of a person adversely affected. [Panay Railways, Inc. v. Heva Management and Development Corporation et al., G.R. No. 154061, (2012)]
2. Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court
Section 5 (5), Article VIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution
Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution provides that:
The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning:
(Pro-PAILa)
- The protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
- Pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
- Admission to the practice of law,
- The Integrated Bar, and
- Legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court 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. [Neypes v. CA, G.R. No. 141524 (2005)]
The power to establish procedural rules is no longer shared by the Supreme Court with Congress.
a. Limitations on the Rule Making Power of the Supreme Court
The rules of procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court must:
(SIU-DIM)
- Provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases;
- Be uniform for all courts of the same grade; and
- Not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.
[Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, Constitution]
b. Power of the Supreme Court to Amend and Suspend Procedural Rules
General Rule: COMPLIANCE
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 (2007)]
Exception: AMENDMENT or SUSPENSION
Basis for the Supreme Court’s power to amend or suspend its rules:
- Rule-Making power vested by the Constitution, and
- Sec. 5(g) of Rule 135: Every court shall have power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice.
The power of the Supreme Court to suspend its own rules or to exempt a particular case from its operation whenever the purposes of justice require it, cannot be questioned. Substantial rights must reign supreme over technicalities.
The overarching aim of procedure is to achieve substantial justice, hence, the power to suspend is required in order to achieve the latter. [De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 103276 (1996)]
The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice and procedure necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of Court. [Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago, G.R. No. 170354 (2006)]
Parties praying for a relaxation of procedural rules must show the need for exceptional treatment. [Prieto v. Alpadi Development Corp., G.R. No. 191025 (2013)]
What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the courts. [CIR v. Mirant Pagbilao Corp., G.R. No. 159593 (2006)]
Where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest on the petition, the strict application of the rules of procedure may be relaxed in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction. A rigid application of Rules of Procedure will not be entertained if it will obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of justice in the light of prevailing circumstances in the case under consideration. [CTMC International v. Bhagis International Corp., G.R. No. 170488 (2012)]
Exception to the Exception:
Parties praying for the liberal interpretation of the rules must be able the 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 (2013)]
Reasons which would warrant suspension of the Rules include:
- Presence of special and compelling circumstances,
- The merits of the case,
- A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension,
- A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous or dilatory,
- A showing that the rights of the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced by the suspension, [Sarmiento v. Zaratan, G.R. No. 167471 (2007)]
- Transcendental matters of life, liberty or state security, [Mindanao Savings and Loan Association v. Vda. De Flores, G.R. No. 142022 (2005)]
- To relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with prescribed procedure, or [Cu-Unjieng v. CA, G.R. No. 142022 (2005)]
- Where substantial and important issues await resolution. [CIR v. Mirant Pagbilao Corp., G.R. No. 159593 (2006)]
3. Nature of Philippine Courts
a. Meaning of a Court
A court is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department, the function of which is the application of the laws to controversies brought before it as well as the public administration of justice. It is also the place where justice is administered.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Am. Jur. and C.J.S.
b. Distinguish: Court vs. Judge
| COURT | JUDGE |
|---|---|
| The tribunal officially assembled under authority of law | Officer of such tribunal |
| Being comparable to a corporation | A physical person |
| A court is an office | A judge is a public officer |
A court is an entity possessing a personality separate and distinct from the men who compose or sit on it [People v. Carlos, G.R. No. L-239 (1947)].
Jurisdiction does not attach to the judge but to the court. The continuity of a court and the efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by the death, resignation, or cessation from the service of the judge presiding over it [ABC Davao Auto Supply v. CA, G.R. No. 113296 (1998)]
c. Classification of Philippine Courts
Regular Courts:
- Supreme Court
- Court of Appeals
- Regional Trial Courts
- Metropolitan Trial Courts
- Municipal Trial Courts
- Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Special Courts:
- Sandiganbayan
- Court of Tax Appeals
d. Courts of Original and Appellate Jurisdiction
A court is one with original jurisdiction when actions or proceedings are originally filed with it.
A court is one with appellate jurisdiction when it has the power of review over the decisions or orders of a lower court.
Appellate jurisdiction refers to a process which is but a continuation of the original suit, not a commencement of a new action [Morales v. CA, G.R. No. 126623 (1997)]
e. Courts of General and Special Jurisdiction
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.
Courts of special/limited jurisdiction are those which have jurisdiction only for a particular purpose or a clothed with special powers for the performance of specified duties beyond which they have no authority of any kind.
f. Constitutional and Statutory Courts
A constitutional court is one created by a direct constitutional provision, an example of which is the Supreme Court. Only the Supreme Court is a constitutional court. A statutory court is one created by a law other than the Constitution. All other courts are
statutory courts.
A constitutionally-mandated court refers to a court whose creation by Congress is mandated by a constitutional provision, of which there is only one example: the Sandiganbayan [Sec. 4, Art. XI, Constitution].
While its existence is mandated by the Constitution, its creation was through and by P.D. 1486, issued by President Marcos.
g. Courts of Law and Equity
Philippine courts are courts of both law and equity. Both legal and equitable jurisdictions are dispensed with in the same tribunal. [US v. Tamparong, 31 Phil 321-327 (1915)]
Equity jurisdiction is used to describe the power of the court to resolve issues presented in a case, in accordance with the rules of fairness and justice, and in the absence of a clear, positive law governing such issues.
Equity, which has been aptly described as a “justice outside legality,” is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law. Aequetas nunquam contravenit legis [GF Equity, Inc. v. Valenzona, G.R. No. 156841 (2005)]
h. Principle of Judicial Hierarchy
Also known as “The 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.
Exception: The Supreme Court may disregard hierarchy of courts if warranted by the following reasons:
- Where special and important reasons are present,
- When dictated by public welfare and policy,
- When demanded by interest of justice,
- Where the challenged orders are patent nullities,
- Where compelling circumstances warrant, and
- Where genuine issues of constitutionality must be immediately addressed.
Rationale:
- It would be an imposition upon the limited time of the Court; and
- It would inevitably result in a delay, in the adjudication of cases, which are remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum, or a trier of facts. [People v. Azarraga, G.R. No. 187117 (2011)]
A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition. [De Castro v. Carlos, G.R. No. 194994 (2013)]
i. Doctrine of Non-interference / Doctrine of Judicial Stability
The Doctrine of Non-Interference/ Doctrine of Judicial Stability holds that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders. [Lapu-Lapu Devt Corp v. Group Management Corp 388 SCRA 493, 508]
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. [Villamor v. Salas 203 SCRA 540, 543]
Note: 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
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)]
LAW I.Q. 