Remedial Law Transcription- Brondial
Short Description
Part 1 of lecture of atty. brondial...
Description
CIVIL PROCEDURE
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Do you know why, those who are Catholics here, why did they change the answer, “The Lord be with you.” “And with your Spirit.” “And with You” also. Because a priest when he went to mass, he tested the microphone. He said, “Something is wrong with this mic.” And the community answered, “And also with you.” So, there are lot of changes. I heard you are about 300 here. 300 more lawyers? My
1
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
gosh. That is also ridiculous but that would be a solid state of the nation, 300 lawyers. But as much as possible. Ewan ko kung bakit ang daming gustong maging abugado na napakahirap naman diba? Some would also want to marry a lawyer. Some would like to experience law school. Some of it has experienced it for 4 years, others 5 years. Some of you 10 years. No problem about that. You know, lawyers are like wine, the older they get, the sweeter. So that if you graduate at 25 or 26, chances are you will only have very few clients. Matatakot sa inyo mga kliente. Bata bata nyan, anong masasabi nyan? But if you just graduated from law school and you are already past 35, when you start practicing, marami kayo agad na kliente. So that is the first deceit that you commit. As a lawyer, you
2
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
fool people. You have experience already. So experience ha. Kaya, wag kayo magalala. The older you get, the better you become a lawyer. I, for one, became a lawyer at a late age already. I became a lawyer at the age of 37, and I never intended to become a lawyer. I wanted to become a priest. Can you imagine that? So when they see my wife, “O ikaw pala yung nagkapagpalabas sa kanya ha! Kaya ganun.” I retort back, “No. Kung nakita ko sya noong nasa seminaryo ako, sana pari ako ngayon.” And my wife hates that, ok. So, ayun, I purposely asked Arellano na the first review should be on Remedial Law. Bakit ganon? Because I want, kako, the review is to have a second look on Remedial Law after finishing in the first month your Remedial Law para mabalikan nyo. Kasi yung iba
3
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
kahit hindi nyo na balikan, Ethics, hindi niyo na siguro babalikan yan. In fact, pinagaaralan yan 2 days before the bar exams diba? Mali naman. Taxation? Hindi mo na rin babalikan. Kasi, balikan mo man, hindi mo naman naiintindihan. So papano mo naman babalikan? You see. Pwede mo talagang balikan, Remedial tsaka Commercial. Commercial, pipiliin mo lang. Negotiable instruments, wag niyo ng pagaralan yan. Kasi di nyo naman maintindihan. So before the exam, basahin nyo mga possible questions, yun. Pero ang Remedial Law, aside from being understandable, most practical, yun pa ang highest percentage sa bar. Kaya nga dapat balikan. So dati kasi pag summer, ganito, nagrerest ako. I go somewhere else. So parati akong last dito, always August or
4
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
September ng review. Ngayon na hindi ako aalis, sabi ko sa Arellano, gawin nating una ang Remedial Law para pagkatapos, pwede pa nilang balikan. And itugma niyo, ngayon umpisahan nyo ang Remedial Law, itugma niyo. Yun kasing iba, ang pinagbabasa Political Law ang actual review is Civil Law. Edi macoconfuse ka nyan. So, itugma nyo lang. Unless you are enrolled in other review schools. Hayaan mo na yung Chan Robles kasi internet yun. Piliin nyo. Kung gusto nyo, I’m not advertising ha. Pero kung gusto nyo, pagkareview ko dito, magenroll kayo sa Chan Robles, hanapin nyo ako doon diba? Para sabihin nyo, “Bakit mali? Mali yung sinabi nya doon sa amin?” Kasi doon sa internet, wala doon na jokes. Derederecho dun, nakakapagod. Dito hindi. Can you imagine we will be meeting 48
5
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
hours? 48 hours for Remedial Law. Wala pa doon yung Criminal Procedure. So, I will cover Civil Procedure, Special Civil Actions, Provisional Remedies and Evidence in lieu of Willard, my friend. Willard Riano. So practically, kumpleto and to help you out with your review, how you will divide your time, how you will devote your time, remember that, as you all know, Remedial Law is 20% in the bar so just to size it up ganto yun, If you get 70 in all your 7 bar subjects, di bagsak kayo lahat? Pero hindi kayo dq. Wala naman ng dq ngayon. You have to get 95 in Remedial Law and you pass the bar at 75.0. Ganun ang isipin nyo kung gano kaimportante. Kaya kapag naghirap ang Remedial Law sa bar, gaya ngayon, sabi ng karamihan, mahirap, pero ewan ko lang. Yung Arellanista, sabi nila, madali daw
6
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
yung Remedial Law. That is a very, I might say, deceiving thing pag sinabi niyong madali. Because when you read the questions you might think it’s easy, but in fact it is loaded. It is a loaded question. Kapag mahaba ang question sa bar, madali sagutin. Pero kung ang questions 2 or 3 liners, be careful. That is a difficult question. And it calls for analysis, and it calls for more time for you. Yung mahahaba, 1 page question, madali sagutin yan, kasi nandun na lahat e. And there will be no questions that you will not be able to answer. All answers to the questions you can do that. Your only problem is that you do not know what is being asked. Yan ang napakahirap sa bar. Hindi mo malalaman kung ano ang tinatanong. That is why it becomes difficult in all subjects. And I think you have with Atty.
7
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Bong Lopez, before me, how to answer questions. You miss review on your subjects because you can do that on your own, but never miss Bong Lopez. Kasi this is mechanics. This is about how to answer the questions in the bar. Kasi after 6 months of review and 1 year of 4th year, there can be no questions that you cannot answer. Alam nyo lahat yun. You will be the most knowledgeable people in law when you are about to take the bar. Bigyan mo ng jurisprudence yan, they are at their fingertips. Alam na alam yan. Kaya dapat may proper timing kayo. First quarter pa lang tayo kung sa basketball diba? Talo ba yung Indiana Pacers? 3-2 na kasi kanina nung umalis akom magrereview na kako e, hayaan mo na. So 1st quarter pa lang muna tayo. Wag muna kayo mag pick up. Mag pick
8
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
up kayo mga August. Kaya dito kwentuhan lang tayo, relax lang muna. wag muna kayo magpick up muna kasi kung magpick up na kayo ngayon, this is ano ngayon? May? Chances are, August-September, down thread kayo. So dahan dahan lang. Yung mga nagbibeer dyan, tuloy niyo pa. Kung dati 5, 4 na lang. Kung dati 4, 3 na lang. Dahan dahan. Yung mga may 2 asawa dyan, bawasan niyo. 1 na muna. Kasi kapag kayo abugado na, madali yun. So, wag muna kayo magpick up. Dahan dahan lang muna. Wag niyo muna pilitin ang sarili niyo. Kasi ang adrenalin diba, pag malapit na yan. Negotiable Instruments Law, di ko rin naman naiintindihan, si Dean Sundiang lang nakakaintindi nun. So anyway, binasa ko yan, the day before the bar. Alam mo, in 3 to 4 hours, natapos ko
9
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
yung libro yung reviewer ng Nego. So fresh na fresh. Kasi pag matagal pa… Holder in due course, wala dba? So dapat may style kayo. And, be very religious with your schedule. Sinasabi ko yung mga kabarkada kong magrereview ngayon, ngayon pa man, schedule nyo na. make sure that you comply with your schedule religiously. Halimbawa, 2 weeks kayo sa Remedial Law kasi gusto nyo mag second reading, comply with it. The first day will be jurisdiction. The second day will be up to summons. I-schedule nyo yan and follow it. Walang madali dito sa mundo ha. Kung ayaw niyo maghirap, bakit pa kayo nag-law? Gusto niyo maghirap e, kaya kayo kumuha ng law? Today, we are supposed to end at 9 o’clock. Kaya niyo ba yun? Sa akin, 8 hours, 4 hours na kwento, 4 hours na lecture, kaya
10
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
natin yun. Pero kaya niyo bang idigest yun? Ngayon, even before I start, I want you to be participative in our review. Pag mayroon kayong hindi naiintindihan, don’t be shy to ask questions and clarifications. And how will you do that? We have a break time always, every 2 hours. Because under educational pedagogy, after 2 hours, hindi na pumapasok. Magrerest ka muna ng about 10 to 15 minutes. So we’ll be doing that. we’ll have break time. As much as possible, wag na kayong palabas labas kasi magkakaroon tayo ng break. And during that break time, yung lecture, you just put it on my table. Tell me to explain it further or discuss it a little clearer so that, ganun. Be specific, and any questions. Sometimes, we are discussing on jurisdiction, but you are already reading
11
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
execution on Rule 39. Pag mayroon kayong questions, ibigay niyo na rin dito. Dun sa reading niyo para hindi kayo masira. Masiraan ng ulo diba? Di nyo naiintindihan, tuloy tuloy kayo. So any question in Remedial Law, even that which is not a subject matter today. Even if it not a subject matter of my review. Specpro ang wala sa akin and Criminal Procedure. But if I have time, if we finish before the 17 th, then I will discuss basically, specpro and crimpro. In fact, what I would like in my discussion of civil procedure, if it is possible, I will try to correlate it with crimpro para complete. Because in the bar examination, in many instances, you will not be asked specifically on civil. Let’s say, demurrer to evidence, Rule 33. Pag tinanong kayo, civil demurrer, the 2 nd question might
12
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
be, suppose this is a case of violation of BP 22. Will your answer be the same? So it’s not limited to civil but it is related to crimpro. Ganun yun. Amendments, tinanong kayo sa Criminal Procedure, amendment as a matter of right. It is a matter of right before arraignment. Suppose it is specific performance, ano pa? So you will see that they are related to each other ok? Enough with these stories. Hindi naman stories yun, but actually it is introductory. One thing more, I told you how important it is, bar wise. Because even if you get 70 in all your 7 subjects, you have to get 95. Dito I cannot promise you 95, mga 94.5, kung naiintindihan nyo. But if you get 65 in all your 7 subjects, di na talaga kayo papasa because you have to get 105 in Remedial Law. So, hindi na, ok?
13
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Kaya make sure. Ang baba ng percentage ng passing in the last bar examination. Give a little bit importance for purposes of the bar because of the percentage. Ang baba ng percentage ng passing in the last bar examination. It was less than 15% sa Remedial Law. I mean, nationwide. No, even less. There was a time that there were only about 8% ang pumasa sa Remdial Law. So, of the Remedial Law subjects—Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Special Proceedings and Evidence, 50% of that will be taken from Civil Procedure as a general rule. So that will be from Rule 1 to 71, plus jurisdiction, ok? 50%. That will constitute 50% of the bar. Justice Peralta has not given us a concrete outline. Binigay niya lang yung coverage pero wala pa nga. Baka pag lumabas na yung wala ng
14
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
MCQ. We don’t know ha. But if the last bar will be followed, 20% pa rin. Even for us reviewers, we are pushing for the elimination of the MCQ because even in court, those who are lawyers, the MCQ lawyers, pag nagobject sa court, “Objection, your honor.” The judge said, “On what ground?” Then he will reply, “a, b, c or d?” Kaya dapat alisin na yung MCQ. Kaya analysis lang talaga sa batas. O kaya, gaya nung 2009 or 2008 bar diba? Mayrong 5 questions on true or false, 5 questions on multiple choice. Yung ganun, pangbawi ika nga. Pero to give 60% of MCQ Justice Abad style? Abad doctrine? Don’t you know that under statistics, maraming mga magagaling na estudyante ang baba doon sa MCQ. Kasi sa sobra nyang kagaling, kakaanalyze nya, lahat tama to e. All correct ang
15
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
binibigay, give the best answer. Masyadong magaling kasi. Mahirap din naman ang masyadong magaling diba? Kita mo si Miriam. Kaya, tandaan nyo yun. 50% Civil Procedure then the remaining 50% will be divided among other subjects. 20 or 30% of that is a guessing game between Evidence and Criminal Procedure. The least is Special Proceedings. If you try to examine past bar examination questions, there are even bar examination questions were there was no questions on Special Proceedings at all. Not even 1. Pero dapat yan magbigay 1 or 2. Kaya for purposes of emphasis, ang ieemphasize talaga would be Civil Procedure. Then next, Criminal Procedure after that, Evidence and then finally, Special Proceedings. So that’s how you give emphasis.
16
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Ngayon, of the 50% in Civil Procedure, 50% of that will be about jurisdiction. That is how important the issue on jurisdiction is in Remedial Law. The questions are so presented that as if it has nothing to do with jurisdiction. In fact, I often tell the bar reviewees that the principles on jurisdiction must be taken by heart. So that ito ang catch all answer niyo. Pag wala na kayong panagot, panangga kasi. You read the question and then the question calls for, “what rule is applicable in this particular question?” Hindi mo alam o nakalimutan nyo. Your next question would be, “What jurisprudence applies to this particular case?” Nakalimutan mo rin. Then apply the principle on jurisdiction. Because you can never get wrong. Because the basic principle in jurisdiction is that “Any
17
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
judgment, decision, final order or resolution rendered by a court without jurisdiction is null and void.” So kung ganun ang analysis mo ng problem, and you conclude, “Therefore, for lack of jurisdiction…” How can you be wrong? You are citing a very, very basic principle, see? So, tatandaan nyo ang pinakaimportante in Civil Procedure because it permits the entire rules is the issue on jurisdiction. That’s why I call that as the sun of Remedial Law. In the solar system, you know, the focal point of the solar system is the sun. Around which, all the planets revolve. Remove the sun, all the planets will die. And around the planets, there are satellites. Planet Earth has the moon, has a satellite. So tingnan nyo, you imagine jurisdiction to be such, ok? So this is the sun. What are the
18
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
different planets around that sun of jurisdiction in Remedial Law and you will never get lost because the planets derive the very source of life from the sun. That is the source of life in the planetary system, jurisdiction is the source of life in Remedial Law. Siguro ngayong araw na to, tatapusin lang natin jurisdiction. Pag natapos natin ito ngayong araw na to, edi meron na kayong 50% doon sa 50% diba? So that is how important the first day is. Kasi doon. Although babalikan pa rin natin yan. Every now and then, akala niyo sa problem, it has something to do with other issues. But in truth and in fact, it is an issue of jurisdiction. A leases an apartment unit from B. So A is the lessee and B is the lessor. The lessee A did not pay rents and therefore, B had an action for unlawful detainer against A,
19
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
the lessee before the Regional Trial Court. Very simple. Was the complaint proper? Ah, Rule 72 ito, unlawful detainer in relation to Civil Law in payment of rentals. So, sabi mo, of course, it is. See, nahuli na kaagad kayo. Because if you try to analyze it, it is not a question of unlawful detainer but it is a clearquestion of jurisdiction. The court before which that the action was filed was the court of improper or wrong jurisdiction. It should be filed with the MTC which has the original and exclusive jurisdiction over unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases. So judgment was rendered by the MTC, ok. The judgment obligor was dissatisfied by the judgment because accordingly it was rendered with grave abouse of discretion so he filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of
20
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Appeals. Pupunta na naman kayo sa Rule 65. Ano ba ang Certiorari? Ano ba ang grounds ng Certiorari? O, di misled na naman kayo. Because the question calls for the issue on jurisdiction. Very simple. No case emanating from the MTC can go up to the CA. All cases from the MTC must be resolved by the RTC. Halimbawa, tinanong, what is the exception? Jurisdiction na naman kayo. Delegated jurisdiction. You see, so all these amount to the issue on jurisdiction. So without much further ado, let’s start. Hindi pa pala tayo nagiistart maglecture. Isang oras na pala. Sleeping is allowed here. What is prohibited is snoring. Because you might disturb your seatmate.
21
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Ok, jurisdiction. Define jurisdiction. It is the authority to hear and determine a case. What kind of case? Only a justiciable case. Because non justiciable case are beyond the ambit of the court. Only justiciable. And what is a justiciable question? We go now to the issue on cause of action. Only when there is cause of action will there be a justiciable action. Remedial law wise speaking, and so, what are the requirements of a cause of action? That there is a right and such right has been violated and it amounts to injury or damage. So 3 lang ang requirements. Pag wala yan, it will not be a justiciable question. It cannot be resolved by the court. It may be resolved by any other agencies of the government like for example, ang pinagaaralan niyo dito is justiciable and political question. Political
22
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
questions are beyond the resolution of the court. It must be resolved by the people, diba? But not justiciable questions. So it is the authority to hear and determine a case. Therefore, jurisdiction lies with the court. Now when we speak of the courts, tingnan muna natin, all the different kinds of courts. Baka sabihin nyo, lahat naman yan, courts. No. We are talking here about Section1 of Art. VIII of the Constitution provides that, “that authority only lies with the Supreme Court and all other courts as may be provided for by the law.” So, courts. When we speak of courts here, jurisdiction lies. The authority is within the court and that court from the highest begins with the Supreme Court, followed by the Court of Appeals, followed by the Regional Trial Court, then followed by the lower
23
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
courts. Don’t call them inferior courts, but lower courts. Yan ang nababasa niyo. Pero they are somehow amended diba? So under the regular courts, the CTA did not appear to be a part of the regular courts. Not after 9282 where it has been elevated to the level of the Court of Appeals. So you have to include already the Court of Tax Appeals as a regular court, ok? Now, another amendment. RTC must always be distinguished now from the Family Courts. Because the Regional Trial Court is totally separate and distinct from the Family Court. So that when you are reading the Judiciary Act of 1980 or BP 129, makita nyo yung jurisdiction. Nandun yung marriages and all cases about that within the jurisdiction of the RTC. So, remember that that is no longer the case because of Republic
24
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Act 8369 creating the Family Court. So, if you are provided with a problem, you are presented with a problem regarding marriage and family relations, be very careful. That is no longer the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts but is now the jurisdiction of the Family Courts. Baka magkagulo because when RA 8369 was passed, walang pera. As usual, magpapasa ng batas, wala namang pera. Kaya ang ginawa ng Supreme Court, to implement the Family Court Law, the RA 8369, was to designate certain RTC in some regions as Family Court. Kaya noon, even in reviews, even in the bar, walang distinction. Because these Family Courts are only Regional Trial Courts designate. But nung magkaron ng pera 2 years ago, the 8369 was fully implemented and the Family Courts is now totally
25
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
separate and distinct because it is now a creation of law. It is not a creation of any circular by the Supreme Court like the Special Criminal Courts. Special Criminal Courts are creation only of circulars by the Supreme Court. In like manner, Commercial Courts which are not creation of law, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Courts. They are now creation of circular by the Supreme Court. So, at any time, the Supreme Court can remove them. Wala na ngayong Special Criminal Courts. Because the judges assigned therein were always subjects of assassination. Wala na ngayong Special Criminal Courts, pinasok na lang sa regular RTC. But not with the Family Court. Because the Family Court is a creation of law RA8369, ok. So yun ang amendatory dun including the Court of Tax
26
Appeals. Tandaan niyo itong mabuti, alam mo kung bakit, because when we go to appeals, dederederechuhin ko na lang. I will not explain to you kung pano yun diba? On the ground na alam niyo na. because jurisdiction is very basic. Babalik balikan yan. Babalik balikan yan. Kahit inayawan mo na, nangako ka na, babalik balikan mo yan. Para yan si Nicole na binabalik balikan. Nangako na kay Monica noon, babalik balik pa rin. Ganoon angjurisdiction. Ah, ganun pala yun ang jurisdiction.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Anyway, Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Court of Tax of Appeals, Reginal Trial Courts, Family Courts and now the lower courts. Consisting of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
27
Trial Courts in Cities, then the third kind, Municipal Trial Court then the fourth kind, Circuit Trial Court. What is a Circuit Trial Court? A circuit trial court is not distinguished from Municipal Trial Court. Walang difference yan. Kaya tinatawag na circuit trial court kasi yung judge assigned there, sya ang umiikot. Judge of the Circuit is circuitous. So mga poor municipalities, walang court proper, instead Circuit. Halimbawa sa Batangas na kung saan, walang permanent, so yung judge doon, umiikot.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Alright, so these are the regular courts. I would add another regular court there would be the Shari’a Courts of Muslim Mindanao. Pwedeng lumabas yan gawa ng Bangsamoro.
28
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Before you take the bar, pumasa na yung Bangsamoro Law this become. Because that would in effect not only, d ko masaasabi ah, If not repealed, at least amend RA 1038, or the Creation of Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. Kaya this would be a possible question. So tatandaan nyo that the Shari’a Courts are regular courts. Although the basic characteristic of the Shari’a Courts is that they do not operate outside the ARMM. 3 klase yun. Appellate Shari’a Court, District Shari’s Court, then the Circuit Shari’a Court. The appellate is equivalent to CA. The district is equivalent to RTC, then the circuit is equivalent to the MTC, to the lower courts. From the circuit, appeal is to the district court and appeal to the shari’a appellate court. So if you are given a problem, relative to an
29
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
appeal emanating from the appellate Shari’a Court, don’t go to the Court of Appeals. Supreme Court na yan, ok? Kaya babalik balikan natin yan pagdating sa appeals. Yung district shari’a court, 5 lang yan. One in Tawi-Tawi. There are 5 districs under the ARMM. At least alam niyo, kung taga saan kayo, dapat alam niyo kung saang judicial region kayo diba? There are 13 judicial regions. But there is no 13 th judicial region. Not that it is superstitious but because of the National Capital Region kaya 13 lahat. Kaya at least dapat alam mo lahat. Ano raw ang English ng Bicolandia? Wala namang English ang Bicolandia. Meron daw. Region 5. Tama nga naman. Kayo, if you are from Laguna, Region 4. If you’re from Pasig, National Capital Region. If you’re from Abra, 1 st Judicial District. We
30
are talking about it now for the purposes of the Shari’a courts. And these Shari’a Courts only operate in the ARMM. These are in Zamboanga, cotabato, dagupan, sulu, tawi tawi. Basta 5. You just look at it. But the possibility is remote naman. Basta you read na lang.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
How about military courts? Are they regular courts? No, they are not regular courts. In fact, they are not courts at all. They may be considered judicial tribunals under the supervision and control of the office of the President as Commander in Chief of the Philippines. Yan ang military courts. There are only certain offenses which are cognizable by the MC. Violations of articles of war. Even if military courts are not regular courts, for
31
purposes of practicing law, military courts are considered as regular courts. Ano ibig sabihin nun? Members of congress are prohibited to practice law before ANY court. And when you speak of ANY court, that includes military courts. Only for that purpose would military courts be considered as regular courts. But it is not under the Judiciary, it is under the Executive branch of the government.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
How about the Sandiganbayan? The Sandiganbayan is NOT a Constitutional court. But rather, it is a constitutionally mandated court. It is still a creation of law by a Presidential Decree 1606. There must be a law to create the sandiganbayan.
32
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
So these are the different kinds of courts. How about quasi-judicial bodies? Are they regular courts? NO. So if you look at Section 1 of Rule 43, the enumeration there is NOT exclusive because every now and then, gagawa ng gagawa ng quasi judicial bodies. But they are not regular courts. Most of them, if not all, are under the Executive branch of the government. Like, the SEC, ERC. Tingnan nyo, wala dyan yung National Housing Regulatory Board, yung National Housing Authority, repealed na yung ng HLURB. So, these are not regular courts. In fact again, for purposes of these quasi-judicial bodies in relation to appeals, let me emphasize that you don’t have to memorize all the quasijudicial bodies as to where you will appeal it. Only remember it by way of exclusion,
33
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
tandaan nyo lang, 5 lang tribunals which appeal go up to the Supreme Court. All the rest, to the Court of Appeals. Ano yun? CA, CTA, Sandiganbayan, COMELEC and the COA. Although the last 2 that I mentioned are not really regular courts. But for purposes of appeal, tandaan nyo lang tong 5 to as to when to appeal any decision, judgment or final order emanating from the 5 tribunals and you go nowhere else but to the Supreme Court. All the rest, CA. So madaling tandaan. Now, let me give a note. Yung CTA dun, pursuant to 9282, the appeal to the Supreme Court must be distinguished. The appeal to the Supreme Court from the CTA only when the decision, judgment or final order is rendered by the CTA EN BANC. If it is rendered BY DIVISION, then, the appeal should be to the Court
34
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
en banc. Then it is only from the CTA deciding EN BANC that you proceed to the Supreme Court, ok? Ngayon, pagdating sa composition, I leave it to you. Let me just mention in passing the composition. Syempre, alam nyo the composition of te Supreme Court. May magreretire dyan ngayon. So, magpapalit na naman. Baka itanong sa bar, who was the latest appointee to the Supreme Court? Kasi may mga nakakalokong bar examiner. Ang lalayo ng tanong diba. So tandaan nyo, magreretire na si Justice Abad, sino kaya ang papalit dun? There are about 12 candidates. Dean Diokno of La Salle is a candidate there. He’s a dark horse to the Supreme Court. Alam niyo naman si PNoy, kung sino sino lang inaappoint, tingnan mo Chief Justice natin, si Sereno. All the Justices there, except the last
35
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
2 will never become Supreme Court Justices, including Justice Peralta. I think I have to mention this to you for your review. When you read jurisprudence, because the cut off now is March 2014. Ordinarily, ang cut off ng jurisprudence is June 30 of the prior year. But the cut off now is March 30, 2014. Kaya ano palang ngayon ang nasa SCA\RA? October of 2013 pa lang. Baka magbigay ngayon ng bago. Bahala na dyan ang internet kasi nandun na rin naman yan. Yung March ngayon, nasa March 12 pa lang ng 2014. So you read that. Now why did I mention this to you? I know Justice Peralta. UST graduate din and ito gut feel ko lang ito. Pag nagbabasa kayo ng jurisprudence, tingnan nyo kung sino ang ponente. If it is Justice Peralta who is the ponente, i-underscore nyo yan. So, yan,
36
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
that is a very valid and reasonable tip. From what I know of Justice Peralta being as a teacher and being as a friend. Mas lalo na yung mga decision na controversial. Let’s say, kasi you know, the Supreme Court is divided into 3 divisions, and the decision there is always majority decision. Kaya yung mga 3, lalo na yung mga decision by him where it was a majority decision. Do you get me? Mayroong 2 dissenting. Yun, yung mga ganyan. I’m not talking about Remedial Law, but all the subjects. Remember the forte of Justice Peralta is Criminal Law. So, that is a valid tip. Watch out.
37
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
So, the Supreme Court, 3 divisions, 5 Justices each. Yung CA, ilang divisions na ba yan? I lost count already. Dagdag sila ng dagdag, 60 or 70 divisions? Because of Cebu, Cagayan. Suppose, there is a question regarding improper venue because it was filed before the Court of Appeals of Cayan de Oro, halimbawa? When it should have been filed in the Court of Appeals in Manila? So there was a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue. Should the case be dismissed on the ground of improper venue? NO. How about jurisdiction? NO. Because it is not a matter of jurisdiction in the first place. It is a matter of venue. Even if it is a matter of venue, the answer should be no. Dismissal should not be granted because there is ONLY 1 COURT OF APPEALS. These are only stations of the
38
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Court of Appeals. But with regard to decisions by the Court of Appeals, the decision must be unanimous. Each division is composed of 3 Justices. If there is 1 dissenting opinion, there is NO VALID decision. Dapat 1 lang na decision, must be UNANIMOUS. So what happens if there is only 1 dissenting opinion? Then the Presiding Justice of the CA must create a SPECIAL DIVISION. Kaya kung minsan, nababasa niyo sa jurisprudence, decided by a 2 SPECIAL DIVISION of the CA. Meaning to say, the Presiding Justice of the CA would appoint 2 more Justices creating a Special DIVISION where the majority will render a valid judgment, that holds true with Court of Tax Appeals kasi En Banc din yun. And also with
39
the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan consists of 5 divisions with 3 justices each. Unanimous din yun. They also create a Special Division in the Sandiganbayan.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Regarding the different kinds of Jurisdiction. Of course, you know this already. This is a review. Rinirefresh ko lang ang memory niyo. The basic kind of jurisdiction is original as against appellate. Dun sa rule of Evidence, dun sa Best Evidence Rule, ang opposite ng Original is Secondary. But when we speak of jurisdiction, we start with original opposite, appellate. The exercise of the orginal jurisdiction takes cognizance of the case for the first time. If the court takes cognizance for the 2 nd, 3rd, 4th time, it is already appellate. Pag first
40
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
timer, kaya nga may another word ako dyan, para di nyo malimutan, ang original jurisdiction is VIRGINAL jurisdiction. Pag 2nd time or 3rd time, hindi na, appellate na yan. Sino ba dito ang may appellate jurisdiction, hindi na original? But with regard to appellate jurisdiction, it is subdivided to either: original exclusive jurisdiction. Kung iisa lang ang inyong asawa, original exclusive yan. Siya lang mag-isa. Pero pag mayroon kang Nicole, that is concurrent jurisdiction. See? Meron ka pang Nicole, meron ka pang Ada, meron ka pang Myrna, concurrent yun.
41
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Let us go to the first fundamental principle regarding jurisdiction. And this first fundamental principle refers to the concurrent jurisdiction. If an action is cognizable by more than 1 court, it is in the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction. Example, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus. These kinds of petitions are cognizable by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court in their concurrent jurisdiction. But simply because they are in their concurrent jurisdiction, it does not mean that the petitioner has the right or the option where to file it. You are still governed by the Rules. And, we go to the first principle of jurisdiction. It has something to do with concurrent jurisdiction. The first principle applicable is the principle
42
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
of hierarchy of courts. And when we speak of the principle of hierarchy of courts, it means that just like the stairs where there is 1 step after the another, you do not begin your first step at the top. Pag aakyat ka sa isang building to the stairs, you never start there pababa. You start down pataas. That is the principle of hierarchy of courts. Agam vs. PIATCO, Liga ng mga Barangay vs. Atienza, these are cases on concurrent jurisdiction and many others. There is a latest case decided in June 2013, Pat-og vs. Civil Service Commission. Yan ang latest sa concurrent jurisdiction. May isang teacher ditto, highschool teacher. Mayroong mga studyante na may PE class. Yung isang class na may PE rin, together with the other class, may teacher. Yung mga studyante, sumama doon. Sabi ng
43
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
teacher, di naman kayo dito. May 1 studyanteng pasaway. Ang ginawa ng teacher, sinikmuraan nya yung bata. Nagreklamo yung bata. Saan nagreklamo? Civil Service Commission Cordillera Chapter. In short, natalo yung teacher. Dismissal yung penalty according to the rule. Only that it was reduced later on. But the issue here regarding concurrent jurisdiction, is the fact that the issue on jurisdiction was contested on appeal saying that it should have been filed with the Department of Education. The Supreme Court held that the Civil Service Commission AND the Department of Education HAVE concurrent jurisdiction over cases involving PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS. Yan ang latest sa concurrent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court further stated that the principle of concurrent
44
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
jurisdiction, that court that takes cognizance of the case takes it to the exclusion of all other courts. You studied that exclusionary rule on jurisdiction only in settlement of estate. In settlement of estate, in Rule 75, it states there that no will shall pass either real property unless a will has been probated. Where should the probate of the will be? It should be in the RTC or MTC depending on the gross value of the estate. But, under concurrent jurisdiction in settlement of estate, if it is RTC, it is not in fact concurrent jurisdiction. Suppose in the settlement of estate, you file it with the RTC Baguio when you should have filed it in the RTC Quezon City, is that an issue on jurisdiction? No. that is an issue on venue. But you can question the venue of the court where it was improperly filed
45
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
on the ground of improper venue in the court of proper jurisdiction. Nagkakaintindihan ba tayo doon? Halimbawa, under the Rule, if the decedent died with a will, the court of proper venue is the place where he died diba? So pag namatay ka sa Quezon City, dapat i-file yan sa RTC or MTC of Quezon City. Who is the custodian of the will? Supposing that the custodian of the will is a resident of Baguio? The Rule provides that upon death, within a period of 20 days from knowledge the custodian must surrender the will. Supposing the will was surrendered in the RTC of Baguio, the jurisdiction is RTC. But it was filed in the court of proper jurisdiction but improper venue. And then thereafter, you file now a case of probate of the will in Quezon City. Which court has jurisdiction? The court of
46
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
proper venue is in Quezon City but the court of proper jurisdiction is Baguio because you apply the exclusionary rule. Because you file the case for the first time the court takes to the exclusion among the other courts. So even if the court of proper venue is Quezon City, considering it was filed in proper jurisdiction but improper venue in Baguio, the Baguio court took cognizance of it to the exclusion among other courts including RTC Quezon City. That is how you apply exclusionary rule. Ngayon, hindi po inaapply yan sa concurrent jurisdiction. So what is new in Pat-og vs. Civil Service Commission is that the SC held exclusionary rule applies in concurrent jurisdiction. Clear? I hope so. So, concurrent jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and the Dep Ed, san finile? Civil
47
Service Commission Cordillera. The CSC Cordillera took cognizance of the case to the exclusion of all other tribunals. That is the application now of the concurrent jurisdiction in relation to the first principle of hierarchy of courts.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
The second principle is the principle of transcendental importance. Ang problem dito sa transcendental importance is that it is very subjective. In other words, it is the judge or the Justice that decides that this is of transcendental importance. If the court decides this is not of transcendental importance, so be it. And we have a lot of cases regarding that. The old cases that I have mentioned to you, the Liga of the barangay vs. Mayor Atienza,
48
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
for example. Yung barangay, nagfile ng kaso derecho sa Supreme Court kini-question si Mayor Atienza. The Supreme Court said, why bring it here? This under the principle of concurrent jurisdiction. You go o the lower court. So it should have been filed to the RTC and not with the SC. Neither to the CA. Applying the principle of transcendental importance and the hierarchy of courts. This is not of transcendental importance according to the SC. You compare that with the case of Agam vs. PIATCO. Ito alam na alam nyo to because this is the case of NAIA Terminal 3.That was followed by the case of Republic vs. Lingoyo (?) dba? And the latest of that is Aces Emerging Dragon vs. DOTC. Lahat nitong kasong ito, series yan. Its all about the NAIA Terminal 3. The first case
49
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
regarding NAIA Terminal 3, it was directly filed to the Supreme Court. And the respondent said, that’s wrong. You are not following the principle of hierarchy of courts. Ano sabi ng SC? We take cognizance of this case on the ground of transcendental importance. So pag importante sa Supreme Court, importante talaga yan. Kahit hindi importante sa atin. Look, injunction under Rule 58. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals do not have jurisdiction over injunction as a principal action. That should be filed with the RTC. O, si Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. She filed it with the Supreme Court. The SC took cognizance of it. The DOJ did not even bother to question that. But the DOJ should have questioned that on the ground of hierarchy of court. She may be very small, but she is very important.
50
Itong PDAF, tingnan mo ngayon. It should have been filed with the RTC on the ground of concurrent jurisdiction, hierarchy of court. San dinadala nila? Sa Supreme Court. Pero pag sinabi ng Supreme Court, this is not important. DISMISSED. Like the case of Liga ng mga barangay vs. Atienza, the SC said, this is not of transcendental importance. You are only Mayor Atienza, ganun. Di naman sinabi yun dun.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
So 2 principles so far. And of course, the last one is very fundamental. The Supreme Court is not a trier of fact. So this is the 3 rd principle of concurrent jurisdiction. 1) hierarchy of courts 2) principle of transcendental importance 3) The Supreme Court is not a trier of
51
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
facts. Under this principle, you tie that up with Rule 45. Rule 45 is appeal on certiorari, ok? Remember that it says there, that you can only go up to the Supreme Court on a pure question of law. If you mix it up with questions of facts, that is dismissible. Sec. 2 of Rule 50 will tell you already that an improper appeal results to dismissal under the 1997 Rules of Court. Prior to that, the Court where it was filed has either the obligation to remand it to the lower court or transmit it to the higher court under Sec. 2 of Rule 50 on dismissal that no longer holds. IMPROPER APPEAL, DISMISSAL. So when you file a notice of appeal when it should have been a petition for review, because the RTC, for example, is exercising appellate jurisdiction, the appeal there is not a notice of appeal but petition for
52
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
review. But if you file a notice of appeal, you cannot remand that or transmit it. The Rule provides, it should be DISMISSED, ok? So you have already 3 principles all about concurrent jurisdiction. We refer only to concurrent and exclusive as distinguish in original jurisdiction. Pagdating sa appeal, walang concurrent yan ha. Pag appeal, isa lang parati yun. Pag original jurisdiction, it can either be exclusive or concurrent. Meron bang exclusive original jurisdiction ang Supreme Court? Has the SC exclusive original jurisdiction? Look at Sec. 5, Art. VIII of the Constitution because nakalagay ba dyan na, “original exclusive”? NO. So it can either be exclusive or concurrent. So the Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction. Doon sa 5 na nasabi ko by way of exclusion in
53
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
relation to Rule 43. I told you, CA, CTA en banc, Sandiganbayan, COA and COMELEC. If you file a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against these 5, you have nowhere else to go except to the Supreme Court. So this is in the exercise of the Supreme Court’s original exclusive jurisdiction. All the rest, concurrent. And you apply, hierarchy of courts, transcendental importance and that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Take note of certain exceptions ha. Are there exceptions in the SC is not a trier of facts? YES. Sometimes, you go up to the SC by question of fact and the SC takes cognizance of it. Why? Because kung ano ano na lang sagot nila. “In the interest of substantial justice”, so you ask, justice who?
54
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Let’s go now to other kinds of jurisdictions. Residual jurisdiction. What is residual jurisdiction? It is the jurisdiction of the trial court that remains with it even if such court already lost jurisdiction over the case. So nandun pa rin yung jurisdiction. In the interest of substantial justice of course. The next question is, when does the trial court lose jurisdiction over the case? The trial court loses jurisdiction over the case upon perfection of the appeal and the expiration of the period to appeal. What is the basis? Sec. 9 of Rule 41. There are 2 issues in Sec. 9 of Rule 41, the first issue there is with regard to the perfection of appeal. The second issue there is not the perfection of appeal, but the expiration of the perfection of the appeal. So when is an appeal perfected? Appeal is
55
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
perfected upon filing of the notice of appeal as to the appellant only. But even if the appeal is perfected, the court does not lose jurisdiction over the case yet. It is only upon the expiration of the period to appeal that the court loses jurisdiction over the case. Is that clear already to you? Of course not. Kasi, in every case, there may be multiple parties. ABC can file a case against XYZ. Or A can file against a case against XYZ or ABC can file a case against X. there is singular plaintiff, multiple defendants. Multiple plaintiffs, singular defendant. Or multiple plaintiffs, multiple defendants. I’m explaining Sec. 9 of Rule 41. If A files a case against XYZ so there is a single plaintiff, there are 3 defendants. Judgment was rendered in favor of A. So talo si XYZ. A copy of the judgment was received
56
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
by XYZ on January 5, 10 and 15. So iba ibang petsa pagkatanggap ng defendant ng desisyon laban sa kanila. So in the case of X, he has 15 days, so he has until January 20. In the case of Y, he has 15 days, he has only until January 25. And in the case of X who received the copy of the judgment on January 15, he has until the 30 th of January. If on January 8, X filed a notice of appeal. Question, when is appeal perfected? Provision—Sec. 9 Rule 41, Appeal is perfected on January 8 as to X. Suppose, when is appeal perfected as to Y and Z? Anong sagot nyo? The question is wrong. They never file a notice of appeal. So it can never be perfected diba? Appeal is only perfected as to X, not as to Y and Z. the next question is, when does the court lose jurisdiction over the case? As to X, after
57
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
January 8, the court loses jurisdiction over the case. NO. Remember, not jurisdiction over the person, but OVER THE CASE. So, when does the court lose jurisdiction over the case? Only after January 30. Because the last day to appeal is supposedly by Z who has until January 30 within which to appeal and therefore, the court loses jurisdiction upon the expiration to appeal which is January 30. So by Januray 31, the Court already has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. But even when the court has no more jurisdiction over the subject matter, A can still file a motion for execution of judgment pending appeal. Kasi may notice of appeal na. When? In February 5? Yes. In February 10? Yes. April 30? It depends. Bakit it depends? Because when you go to appeal under Rule 41, it says
58
that the clerk of court has 30 days within which to transmit the records to the Court of Appeals. So before transmission you file your motion for execution pending appeal with the trial court, even if the trial court has already lost jurisdiction over the case because it can still exercise residual jurisdiction. Manlinaw na yun ha. That is the concept of residual jurisdiction. Tatandaan niyo, Sec. 9 of Rule 41: perfection of an appeal and loss of or expiration of the period to appeal.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Residual jurisdiction must not be confused with residual prerogatives. Residual prerogatives is different from residual jurisdiction. Residual prerogative is the authority of
59
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
the appellate court to dismiss a case motu propio. So the appellate court can dismiss a case motu propio and that is emphasizing residual prerogatives. Basis? Caton vs. Palanca, that is the case. But you can also use Tecson vs. COMELEC. Can a court dismiss a case motu propio? Not all the time. Where do you find dismissal of a case motu propio allowed? That is only allowed under Sec. 3 of Rule 17, dismissal of actions. 3 lang ang grounds nyan—1) failure to present evidence for unreasonable period of time, 2) failure to appear at the presentation of evidence in chief and 3) failure to comply either any order of the court. In those instances, the court can dismiss the case motu propio. To that, you add Sec. 1 of Rule 9. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 9, there are other 4 grounds—lack of
60
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
jurisdiction, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription. So there are 7 grounds already for dismissal of the court motu propio. And, under that, you add the 8 grounds, in all cases governed by the rule on Summary Procedure. So, the appellate court can dismiss the case motu propio in the exercise of residual prerogatives pursuant to the Sections that I mentioned. Sec. 1 of Rule 9, Sec. 3 of Rule 17. How about Summary Procedure? Pwede ba yun? Syempre hindi pwede. Summary Procedure is only applicable only in the lower courts. Appellate court ito so hindi pwede ang Summary Procedure. That is settled already. Even if it is an unlawful detainer covered by the rules on Summary Procedure. In case of appeal to the RTC, it no longer governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure.
61
Hindi na. So, a motion for reconsideration is no longer a prohibited pleading, see. So this is residual jurisdiction in relation to residual prerogatives.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
I mentioned in passing what is delegated jurisdiction. Delegated jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of the MTC of the lower court in taking cognizance of land registration and cadastral cases. There are 2 conditions—1) the assessed value of the property involved is not more than P100,000 and there are no opposition. So itong 3 characteristics na ito must be considered. This has been asked in the bar, siguro mga 4 or 5 years ago. So, hindi na ito tinanong. Chances are, kung tinanong man, hindi na ganyan. Ang tanong dito,
62
suppose and MTC acting as a cadastral court rendered a judgment in favor of a party and the party was dissatisfied of the judgment. What is his remedy? His remedy is appeal definitely. But appeal from the (MTC) cadastral courts NOT to the RTC but to the CA. This is the only instance where the judgment by the MTC has not pass through the RTC, because the appeal here is to the CA.Yun ang posibleng question. Not anymore the exercise of original jurisdiction.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Primary jurisdiction. This is a possible question now because of the Memorandum of Agreement between the DOJ and the Office of the Ombudsman. Ito criminal procedure ito.
63
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
But I promised you we will try to correlate it. This primary jurisdiction as early as Omictin vs. CA, refers to the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies in taking cognizance of administrative cases. Regular courts cannot take cognizance of certain case unless, it has been taken cognizance of these administrative cases. Halimbawa, under PD 1957, ito yung mga subdivisions. You are a subdivision lot buyer and buimili ka sa developer. Nagkaron kayo ng problema. You cannot file that to the regular court. You have to file that with the HLURB in the exercise of the primary jurisdiction. In other words, you cannot go directly to the regular courts without having exhausted administrative remedies. That is the usual and ordinary regular concept of primary jurisdiction. Primary jurisdiction
64
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
therefore is the authority of administrative bodies to take cognizance of certain cases before it can be brought to the regular courts. Don’t confuse this with the barangay conciliation proceedings. Because the barangay is NOT a court. It is not even a quasijudicial body. Only under the Local Government Code makikita niyo that a compromise agreement before the barangay conciliation proceeding is cognizable by the MTC for execution within a period of not more than 6 months. That is the only instance where apparently the barangay participates in a quasi-judicial functions kasi yung decision ng barangay, or a compromise agreement of the parties if not complied with may be brought to execution before the MTC. But you have a time frame. You find that in the Local
65
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Government Code. So this primary jurisdiction has meaning. Exhaustion of administrative remedies. But lately because of this MOA, which I was talking about, before the Ombudsman and the DOJ, the primary jurisdiction was mentioned. What was the substance of this MOA? They have agreed that all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of their original jurisdiction must be investigated by means of preliminary investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his primary jurisdiction. So that even if a case is already being investigated by the DOJ for Preliminary Investigation, at any time, in the course of proceeding, the Ombudsman can take it out from the DOJ and conduct the investigation. Bago yan ha. Because doctrinally, the DOJ
66
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
and the Ombudsman have concurrent jurisdiction to conduct Preliminary Investigation in cases cognizable by the SB. Kaya this will lead us also to what are the cases cognizable by the SB. And at any time ha. Remember that settled was the rule, USED TO BE, now amended by this MOA, where the DOJ and the Ombudsman have concurrent jurisdiction applying as well the exclusionary rule. That once the DOJ conducts investigation, never mind, wag na yung Ombudsman. Tatandaan niyo ha, this MOA does not speak of all cases but cases cognizable by the SB in the exercise of their original jurisdiction. Remember that the SB has BOTH the original and appellate jurisdiction. So cases cognizable by the SB in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction is NOT WITHIN this MOA. Halimbawa, the
67
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
case of Garchitorena vs. Escobal. Remember 3 possible questions—1) WHAT offense was committed? 2) WHO committed the offense? 3) HOW was it committed. Itong 3 ito tatandaan niyo. If it has something to do with the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan always ask these 3 questions. Let’s go the first question, what offense was committed? Because not all offenses or crime are cognizable under the Sandiganbayan diba? Only the following offenses are cognizable by the SB: 1) violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act (1309) 2) EO 1214 & 14-A, or the Marcos wealth 3) ill-gotten wealth 4) bribery under the Revised Penal Code and by jurisprudence, 2 ang dinagdag dyan. 5) estafa and 5) falsification of documents. Look at the case of Lacson vs. Executive
68
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Secretary. Ito yung Kuratong Baleleng case. Now this particular case, it was murder. Murder is not cognizable by the SB. It must be brought before the regular courts, not he SB. Estafa used to be within the regular jurisdiction of the regular court. But lately it is now in the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. the 2 other questions are properly answerable. So tatandaan niyo lang itong 4 na ito, plus 2 by jurisprudence. Yung Estafa, this did not only amend the first requirement, but the 2 other requirements. And this is a must-read case for all of you. The case of Hannah Serana vs. Sandiganbayan. this amended the jurisdiction of the SB regarding Estafa. Hannah Serana was appointed as a regent of the University of the Philippines. She was a student in the Visayas, or Mindanao
69
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
yata. And yang Board of Regents, nationwide yan. And being a member, as a representative of the student body, she solicited money from then President Joseph Estrada for the renovation of the Malcolm Hall of UP to be renamed as President Joseph Estrada Hall. Buti na lang hindi natuloy. Biro lang. so, hindi narenovate. So nag-file ang UP sa kanya ng estafa and she questioned it because it was filed in the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman filed it in the Sandiganbaya. She said estafa is not one of those cognizable under the Sandiganbayan. that’s the first issue. Second issue, assuming that it is one of the offenses cognizable by the SB, I am not a public officer. I am a part of the Board of Regents and I am a student. Assuming again that I am a public officer, I don’t have a
70
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
salary grade of 27 which is a requirement. Assuming again that I am within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, did I commit the offense IN RELATION to my office? So yung 3 questions were all answered and amended ultimately by the case of Hannah Serana vs. Sandiganbayan. Alam mo, kung hindi nyo pa ito nabasa nung 4 th year kayo sa Criminal Procedure, kulang yung crimpro nyo kaya basahin niyo na ngayon. Para itong Remedial Law student na hindi mo alam ang Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, yun, ganun din yun. Parang nag-aral ka rin ng Criminal Law na hindi mo alam yung Ah Chong case. Dapat alam mo itong case na to. And this was reiterated in other cases, pero ito yung fundamental. Ambil Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, yung Governor ng Leyte, reiteration na lang
71
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
yun. So we have answered the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan ha. What offenses commited? Estafa and the other 4. Anti-graft and corrupt practices act, EO 1214 &14-A or the Marcos wealth, ill-gotten wealth, bribery. and falsification lately because of Gen. Carlos P. Garcia case. Don’t confuse the case of Gen. Carlos P. Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan with that of his wife, Clarita Depakakibo Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan. Yung pangalan pala ni Clarita, asawa ni Maj. Garcia, Depakakibo. Ewan ko kung bakit madaldal. Dapat magpachange of name under Rule 103.
72
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
So who committed the offense? Any public officer with a salary grade of 27. So tatandaan nyo yung 27. Baka may birthday sa inyo na February 27. Natatandaan niyo ba yung number 27 kung saan niyo icoconnect yun? Sa adoption. The adopter who must be a FOREIGNER must be at least 27 years old. Remedial law din yun, adoption, special proceedings. Anyway, Escobal vs. Garchitorena. Escobal was a sergeant only and so he has salary grade 23. Sabi ni Hannah Serana, I am not a public officer. And even if I am a public officer, I do not have a salary grade 27. Sabi ng Supreme Court, look at 1606, that which created the Sandiganbayan and the Salary Compensation Act of 1986 or 1989 yata, which is quoted in the case of Hannah Serana vs. Sandiganbayan. Makikita niyo dun
73
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
that there are certain public officers without any salary grade like directors, presidents of government owned and controlled corporations, deans of colleges and state colleges universities. Wala yang salary grade. So ikaw, being a member of the Board of Regents, you are a public officer and you are not supposed to be salary graded. Kaya pasok ka sa Sandiganbayan. But Hannah Serana contended, did I commit it IN RELATION to my office? Because what was the definition of “IN RELATION TO OFFICE”? Executive Secretary vs. Lacson, yung kuratong baleleng case. This kuratong baleleng case defined when is a crime committed “in relation to one’s office”? The doctrine there is that THE OFFICE MUST BE AN INGREDIENT OF THE CRIME. In other words, you must be an ACCOUNTABLE
74
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
OFFICER. Kaya pag hindi ingredient ang crime, you did not commit the offense in relation to one’s office. Sabi ng Supreme Court in Hannah Serana, that is not enough. So inamend. Sabi ng Supreme Court in Hannah Serana, as long as you commit the offense of the crime in relation to one’s office means that the office FACILITATED the commission of the offense, it is committed in relation to one’s office. So, makakautan ba sya ng pera kay Joseph Estrada? Of course, she could not. Kaya nga yung definition nay un has been enhanced, that it does not have to be an ingredient of the crim but as long as your office facilitated the commission of the crime, you have committed it in relation to your office. So yun nga ngayon ang jurisdiction ng Sandiganbayan.
75
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
I discuss this parenthetically because of primary jurisdiction. So relating it now to primary jurisdiction which is a possible question regarding which office has primary jurisdiction over cases cogniable by the Sandiganbayan? when the SB exercises ORIGINAL JURISDICTION , Preliminary Investigation must be conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman in the exercise of primary jurisdiction. Which therefore amends if not repeals, the doctrine laid down in that case, Sanchez vs. Demetrio. This is the rape case of Mayor Sanchez of Calauang, Laguna filed against him. There are 7 issues there, but this is criminal procedure. Sabi nya, why should I be investigated by the DOJ when I am a public officer my case should be investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman? Another
76
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
issue, sabi nya, why is the DOJ being selective? Yung 2 kasama ko hindi finile-an, ako lang. there were several issues here. And there was no preliminary investigation. He even raised lack of counsel of his own choice. But all these were dismissed by the Supreme Court. You know that Mayor Sanchez’s favorite number is 7? Yung sasakyan nya 777, yung bahay nya 7 stairs. And so, Mayor Sanchez was meted out 7 life terms. Sabi ng Supreme Court, ok lang yan Mayor, favorite number mo naman yan e. but this was somehow amended. Kasi sabi ditto ng SC, concurrent ang jurisdiction ng DOJ and Omb in conducting PI. Kaya even if you are nvestigated by the DOJ and the Ombudsman, ok lang yun, concurrent yun. And the DOJ took cognizance of it to the exclusion. So if that
77
happens today, titingnan niyo whether the offense committed is cognizable by the SB in the exercise of its ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Halimbawa, a public officer committed the Anti-Corrupt and Practices Act. So it is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. But is it cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction? Kung halimbawa, the one who committed anti-graft is only a captain in the army. Pag Captain ka sa army, you are not a salary grade 27 because in the Army, you start as Major. Bakit alam ko yan? Basahin mo yung Hannah Serana. But if you are a Captain of the Navy, you are salary grade 27. So, in the case of
78
Escobal vs. Garchitorena, sarhento lang ito. The Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction, but the RTC. But when the RTC decides the case against Escobal, halimbawa, you do not appeal that to the CA. The appeal is to the Sandiganbayan, exercising now appellate jurisdiction.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
So let’s go now practically to the last part of jurisdiction, jurisdiction by nature. 5 yan, ok? 1) Jurisdiction over the subject matter, 2) jurisdiction over the persons of the parties, 3) jurisdiction over the issues, 4) jurisdiction over the res, and 5) jurisdiction over the territory. So these are the 5. Pagdating sa nature of jurisdiction, tatandaan niyo ito.
79
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
I have given you the 3 principles of jurisdiction so far. So let me discuss now from the least important for purposes of Civil Procedure. The jurisdiction over the territory, yan ang last diba? This does not apply in civil cases. Because territory in civil cases is a matter of venue, it is not a matter if jurisdiction. And basic is the rule in Civil Procedure that jurisdiction is absolutely separate and distinct from venue. Venue is the place where the offense or the act was committed, while jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case. So ibang-iba. So I’m going now to give the 4 th principle of jurisdiction on the basis of the 5th kind of jurisdiction, and that is… Malimit itong ibigay sa bar, last year binigay ito. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases, so that is the 4 th principle that
80
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
you should hold into. So in civil cases, jurisdiction over territory is inapplicable because it is a matter of venue. If a crime was committed in Los Banos, Laguna, you can only file that case only in Los Banos, Laguna, nowhere else. Ano exception? The only exception is if you ask from the Supreme Court for a change of venue. This is not a right of the trial court because under Sec. 5 of Art. VIII of the Constitution, it is the authority of the Supreme Court alone. In one of my final exams, yung mangyari yung Maguindanao massacre, isa sa mga questions ko sa final exam was, after the case has been filed for murder with the regular RTC Maguindanao against certain individuals, the prosecution moved for the change of venue on the ground that the accused on the case are very
81
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
influential and the RTC granted the motion and ordered that it should be transferred to Quezon City. Was the order valid? Very simple diba? Sabi na sa Constitution, the RTC has no right to change the venue. It’s only the Supreme Court. When the question is simple, it is only jurisdiction. Remember that. In 2009 bar, in the true or false question, linagay yun. Venue is jurisdictional, true or false? You have to qualify. Whether your answer is true, it’s correct. Whether you answer false, it’s also correct. Pero yung note dun, give the correct reason if the answer is false. You know when we were examining that, if you follow the instructions there, all true answers must be correct diba? Because it is true also! But if your answer is false, give your reason. Be careful with dishonest questions in the bar.
82
When one of my students passed the bar, nag Facebook sya sa akin. May Facebook din ako ha. Sabi ko, when God created the law profession, he already had you in his mind. Pero may dagdag yun, don’t fail Him. You should not only be a good lawyer, but a good, honest and Christian lawyer possibly. Kasi maraming lawyers ngayon pero mapili mo lang mga matitino. Mas lalo pag lawyers kayo tapos politicians pa kayo, double whammy yan.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Who is governing our country? Lawyers. Tingnan mo sa Congress, bumilang ka. Ang dami kong studyante Mayor, Congressman. Madaling maging abugado pero mahirap magpakaabugado. It’s not the end of the world. If you don’t make it, God did not have
83
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
you in His mind. So, don’t you worry, ok? After all, there are only 2 possibilities in life— you will either make it, or you don’t make it. There was a young boy who was so preoccupied about his death. Sabi nya, what will happen if I die? Will I go to heaven or go to hell? Hindi sya makatulog so pumunta sya sa pari. Sabi nya, Father, if I die, what will become of me? The priest said, don’t you worry, my son. Because if you die, there are 2 possibilities. You will either get buried or not. If you get buried, very good, very good. But if you don’t get buried, there are 2 possibilities-- you will either be a tree or not. If you don’t become a tree, very good, very good. But if you become a tree, there are 2 possibilities—you will either be changed into a lumber or a paper. If you are changed into
84
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
a lumber, very good, very good. But if you are changed into a paper, there are 2 possibilities—you will either be changed into a toilet paper or a writing paper. If you are changed into a writing paper, very good. But if you are changed into a toilet paper, there are 2 possibilities—you will either be used by a man or a woman. If you are used by a man, very good, very good. But if you are used by a woman, there are 2 possibilities—you will either be used at the back or in front. If you are used at the back, very good, very good. But if you are used in front, oh my son, you have not died in vain! Why worry? There are only 2 possibilities. You either make it or you don’t make it. Walang problema yan.
85
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
So, venue is only jurisdictional in criminal cases. Let’s go higher. Jurisdiction over the res. Technically, the res is the object of the action. So, how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the res? The court does not have to acquire jurisdiction over the res. Provided, it has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. But if the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, for one reason or the other, then it has reason to acquire jurisdiction over the res in only to continue with the proceeding. Example, an action for sum of money. It is a personal action. When you file an action for a collection of sum of money, the court must acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. But if the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
86
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
because the defendant has already left for abroad, halimbawa, and the defendant has to have properties located in the Philippines, the court must acquire jurisdiction over the properties of the defendant. And once the court acquires jurisdiction over the property of the defendant, then, the case can continue even if the court was not able to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Provided, it has acquired jurisdiction over the properties of the defendant found in the Philippines. And how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the properties of the defendant? Through Rule 57—Attachment. And once the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, even if it has not acquired jurisdiction over the person, it can continue with the case. What is the limitation here considering
87
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the peron but only to the res? Only the res is liable for the judgment. If the obligation, for example, is P5M and he acquired over a property in Makati and it was worth only P3M. Can the judgment oblige go beyond the res? In other words, can it execute the judgment up to the maximum of P5M? NO. It is only up to P3M because it is only the property over which the court has acquired jurisdiction. Yan ang limitation nyan. But what you have to remember is jurisdiction over the res is only an exception. As a general rule, the court does not have to acquire jurisdiction over the res. There are certain cases incidentally that the res in not an object per se. the subject matter or the object of the action or status of the person. Halimbawa,
88
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
annulment of marriage. The subject matter there is the marriage and the object is the status of the person.and it happens that the defendant lives abroad. So, do you have to acquire jurisdiction over the status? YES. And how? You go now to the other mode of service of summons, particularly Sec. 15 and 16 of Rule 14. But still, the principle there, while the court does not have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant acquires jurisdiction over the res. And the res there is the status of the persons. Status dyan ay married. So, res, ok?
89
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Let’s go up. Jurisdiction over the issues. The next principle is relative to issues. Issues in an action. Jurisdiction oer the issues is acquired or determined by the allegations in the pleadings. So that which is not alleged in the pleadings, the court does not have jurisdiction over that. Only those which are alleged in the pleading. A very good example would be Rule 70. Unlawful detainer and forcible entry. You very well know that the only issue in unlawful detainer and forcible entry is possession de facto. Ownership is not an issue in forcible entry and unlawful detainer. It is only possession and not ownership and now these are 2 different matters. Possession is not ownership and vice versa. So when one files a case of unlawful detainer the court automatically acquires jurisdiction over the
90
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
parties of the action. But if you try to look at Sec. 16 of Rule 70, it says there that when the issue of ownership is raised in the pleading the court is not divested by its jurisdiction and must resolve on the issue of ownership. Only to resolve the issue of possession. In other words, if the issue of possession is never raised in the pleadings, the court has no jurisdiction over the issue of ownership. It is only when it is raised in the pleading that the courts acquire jurisdiction and in fact even goes further that the court is bound to render a decision on the issue of ownership but not to resolve it with finality but only in connection with the issue of possession. Remember that the decision of the court as to the issue of ownership in an unlawful detainer case is not a subject of res judicata. In
91
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
other words, can you still file a case of accion reinvindicatoria? YES, because the issue there on ownership in unlawful detainer is only to resolve the issue on possession. Another example. In an action for sum of money, A files a case against B for a sum of P100,000. The issue in the complaint, the plaintiff never mentioned about demand letters. But nonetheless, the case proceeded. During the presentation of evidence by the plaintiff, he asked the following questions to the plaintiff. The counsel was asked on the witness stand, “after he realized you were not paid, what did you do?” “Well, I demanded that he pays.” “Then, how did you make the demand?” “I wrote him 3 demand letters.” “And where are those demand letters?” “I have here 3 demand letters.” Kung yung
92
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
kalaban hindi natutulog, that kind of question is objectionable on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the issues. So maguumpisa pa lang yun, sabihin mo na “Objection, your honor. The court has no jurisdiction over demands.” You know, there was no mention whatsoever of demands and demand letters in the complaint. Remember, evidence is only proof in allegation. Not the other way around, that should be evidence and establish the obligation. But the allegation must be established by the evidence. So, if the counsel for the defendant objects with that line of reasoning, the court must resolve it in favor of the objected. The court must allow the objections. So what is now the remedy? So hindi na makapasok yung demand kasi inobjectionan e, the court has no jurisdiction over that
93
issue. Sustained sabi ng court. So ang remedy mo ngayon is Sec. 5 of Rule 10, which is amendment to conform to the evidence. It says there that the court must grant it with LIBERALITY. So the court said, “the hearing is suspended. You amend the pleading for purposes of having it conformed to the evidence.” So that is your remedy. Kung hindi moa lam, magresign ka na lang. so this is jurisdiction over the issues. Principle? Determine the allegations in the pleadings.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Jurisdiction over the parties. To facilitate your understanding of the parties in a case, you just leave it, the parties to a civil case to file. And let me call them for facility of
94
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
instruction—A, B, C, D and E. So, from now on, when we talk of A, he is always the plaintiff. B, he is always the defendant. C, he is always the co-defendant. D, stand for the 3rd or 4th or 5th party defendant. And E, is the intervenor under Rule 19. So, A, B, C, D and E. For purposes of review, tatandaan nyo parati yun. Because these are only the possible parties in a civil case. Wala ng iba. There are only 5 parties to the maximum in civil cases. In criminal cases, there are only 2 parties—the plaintiff, which is the Republic of the Philippines and the accused. Dalawa lang yan. Walang 3 rd party complaint sa criminal case. Walang counterclaim tsaka cross claim. Pagdating sa special proceeding, 1 lang ang party, and that is the petitioner. Walang respondent, walang defendant. If ever, there are
95
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
oppositors and these oppositors are akin to defendants. But when you file a complaint in specpro, there is no defendant. You file a petition for probate of a will, walang defendant yan. You file for a petition for guardianship, no defendant. You file for a petition for objection, but when one objects, he is included and he becomes a sort of a defendant. Byt when you file a case, 1 lang, hindi kailangan ng defendant. Exception—habeas corpus and lately, because of new realities, petition of amparo, petition of habeas data and writ of kalikasan. These are what you call PREROGATIVE WRITS.
96
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Let’s start with A. how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff, A? the court acquires jurisdiction upon filing of complaint AND timely payment of correct docket fees. Nakita mo yung enunciation natin? TIMELY PAYMENT OF THE CORRECT DOCKET FEES. Pag inalis mo yung timely and correct, kulang ang sagot niyo. The latest of which is the Cobarrubias case. The payment of docket fees is not only required in initiatory pleadings. It is also required in a counterclaim. If the counterclaim is permissive. But if the counterclaim is compulsory, the filing of the answer, confers already jurisdiction without the payment of docket fees. Aside from the counterclaim, it is also required in appeals. So that if you do not pay in the correct appellate docket fees and at the right
97
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
time, then the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff. You must be reading certain cases regarding these docket fees. Ang dami dami kasing kaso dyan. But the landmark case regarding docket fees is of course up to now, Alday vs. FGU. This Alday vs. FGU was amended by the case of Korea Technologies Inc. which was January 2008. What was the doctrine in Alday? This Alday was an insurance agent and FGU filed a case against that old insurance agent for non-remittance of certain premiums and in answering the complaint by the insurance company, Alday interposed a counterclaim, moral, exemplary damages and for non-payment of bonuses. Ngayon, the insurance company said, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the counterclaim because Alday
98
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
did not pay the docket fees for the counterclaim. This reached the Supreme Court. And in the Supreme Court, the SC qualified: In this particular case, there are 2 kinds of counterclaim—you have the compulsory counterclaim and the permissive counterclaim. You are only required to pay for docket fees in a permissive counterclaim and as to compulsory counterclaim, there is no need to pay for docket fees. So ganun ang nangyari dun. The claim for moral and exemplary damages is a compulsory counterclaim, but as to bonuses, it did not arise from the complaint and therefore, that is permissive. Docket fees should be paid for that. So that was the doctrine in Alday vs. FGU. Then precisely came this Korean Technologies Inc. vs. Lerma which was in January 2008. It says, as of August
99
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
16 2004, docket fes must be paid for counterclaims IRRESPECTIVE of what kind, whether it is permissive or compulsory. They have to be paid for. And when this came out, there was a howl from practiticoners including the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. But the Supreme Court, as their habit, fell deaf to this pleadings. Walang ginawa. Yun pala, nagiisip lang sila ng pagkakataon to go back and to correct their error. So that by October of the same, or 10 months after, they came out with Mercado vs. Court of Appeals going back to the doctrine of Alday vs. FGU. So anong doctrine ngayon? ALDAY VS. FGU. Pabayaan niyo na yang Korean Technologies Inc. BE very careful in citing cases. Even in the bar, DON’T CITE CASES! Sasabihin nyo na lang, “In the recent case decided by the
100
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Supreme Court.” Kahit tama, wag ka magccite, baka sabihin masyado kang mayabang. Kahit siguradong sigurado kayo, wag. In the St. Louis University of Baguio vs. Cobarrubias, appeal na ito. Nagpayat nan g docket fees sa appeal but it was filed out of time. The Supreme Court said that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the appellant because there was no timely payment of the correct docket fees. So sabi ni Cobaruubias, “I am going to pay now.” The correct period to appeal has lapsed. So, wala. Natalo si Cobaruubias. IN the Proton case, yung amount of docket fees. There is a twist here. The claim here was millions of dollars that the docket fees alone were computed to 74 or 75 Million Pesos. Per computation olf the clerk of court. Kulang yung
101
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
computation. Sabin g kabila, there was no correct payment of docket fees. Sabi ng Supreme Court, we should not be very strict about this because after all the appellant did not compute. It was computed by the clerk of court. Kasalanan ng clerk of court so we cannot prejudice the party. Compare that with the old case of Barangay 24 of Legazpi City vs. Imperial. The appeal was through registered mail, kasi kung appeal dun, it was not through notice of appeal, it is already a petition for review. So ang ginawa dun, inattach yung payment for docket fees by postal money order according sa Rules of Court. Dun sinunod ng lawyer kung magkano. May dumating na notice from the Court of Appeals, sabi ng CA, your docket fees is insufficient. Kulang ng P2.30. sabi ng appellant, no, the
102
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
court of clerk is wrong kasi sabi sa Rules of Court ganito yung amount. So pinabayaan nya lang. Then after several days or months, his appeal was dismissed. Nagulo sya, umakyat sya ng Supreme Court. The SC said his appeal was wrong, sustaining the CA. That case was an eye opener. Binigyan na sya ng pagkakataon e. May mga ganung abugado e, na mas marunong pa. When you become a lawyer and when you get to practice, kahit tama kayo, submit to the judge kasi wala kang panalo dyan. Kung alam mo na yung judge is very strict, incorruptible… Does he exist? Meron ba nun? Meron, in the mind.
103
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Jurisdiction over the person of the dendant. How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant? 2 lang yan—by valid service of summons or by voluntary appearance. We are ging to discuss that under Rule 14. So when we go to Rule 14, remember, valid service of summons. Wag nyong sabihing service of summons ha, always write it down—VALID service of summons. Wag nyo ng sabihin appeanrace, it must be VOLUNTARY appearance. And in the case of Clarita Depakakibo vs. SB, the lawyer appeared, special appearance, to question the jurisdiction of the SB. The government said, there was already an appearance. The SC said, this is settled already.
104
When you enter special appeanrce for the purpose of questioning jurisdiction, there is NO voluntary appeanrace. How does the court acquire jurisdiction over C, the person of the co-defendant? Pareho din.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the 3 rd/4th/5th party defendant? Pareho rin. Valid service of summons or voluntary appearance, ok?
105
Finally, the person of E, the intervenor. Ito mayroon qualification to. Remember, that you cannot file intervention directly. You have to file a motion for leave to intervene. No motion for intervention directly. Sec. 1 of Rule 19, it must be motion for leave to intervene. And when does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the intervenor? Upon approval of the motion for leave to intervene. So that is how the court acquires jurisdiction over the persons of the parties—A, B, C, D and E.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Passing the bar does not only require a push from the law but also a lift from above. Kaya nga the more religious people are bar reviewees. But wait till they pass the bar. :p
106
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
We are dealing now with jurisdiction over subject matter. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is CONFERRED by law. Maraming ramifications yan, maraming consequences. The subject matter of the action. There are certain books that say that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law but determined by the allegations in the pleading, which is correct. Although you don’t say in the pleading that the court has jurisdiction, but on your allegation of the subject matter, the court will determine whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. If you are, for example, filing an action for annulment of judgment by the RTC under Rule 47. The Rule provides that the CA has exclusive and original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of the RTC. But
107
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
annulment of judgment under RTC is solely recognizable by the RTC. Isa lang yung exception—only delegated jurisdiction does not have to pass through the RTC, all the rest have to pass through the RTC. Ngayon, an action for REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT, halimbawa. What is the subject matter of an action for revival of judgment? The JUDGMENT, right? And the revival of that judgment is an action cognizable by the RTC because it is an action not capable of pecuniary estimation. Even if it is a judgment rendered by the MTC, if you seek to revive it, you don’t file it with the SAME MTC that rendered it or with another MTC, but you have to file it with the RTC because it is now an action NOT capable of pecuniary estimation. So we are dealing now with jurisdiction over the subject matter
108
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
and the principle is that , it is conferred by law. You have to know the law. What is the exception? The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Because the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the subject matter is NOT conferred by law, but conferred by the CONSTITUTION. It is basic and fundamental in Civil Procedure that the first thing I ask the students to memorize is of course Sec. 5 of Art. VIII of the Constitution. Because that is the provision that confers jurisdiction over the subject matter in the Supreme Court. So yung wala dyan, wala. But what is strictly jurisdictional is only paragraph 1 & 2. Paragraph 1 speaks of original jurisdiction which can either be exclusive or concurrent which we have discussed a while ago and yung pangalawa, appellate jurisdiction. All the
109
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
rest, will constitute the judicial power of the Supreme Court—the power of judicial review. Change of venue which I discussed last time, like promulgation of rules concerning pleadings, the practice of law, the IBP. So when the issue is purely of law, connect that also with Rule 45, that the SC is not a trier of facts, so you raise only questions of law. So please memorize that, paragraph 1 which is about original jurisdiction. It said, “all cases involving ambassadors, public ministers and consuls and all petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus.” These fall under the original jurisdiction. Is it exclusive? NO, it is concurrent. What is only exclusive are those petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the 5 tribunals I have been
110
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
emphasizing—CA, CTA en banc, SB, COA and COMELEC pursuant to Rule 64, ok? So yung pangalawa, which is appellate jurisdiction, this is strictly the power of judicial review. It says there— review, revise, reverse, modify or amend all cases involving the following, A,B,C,D,E ok? So lahat yun. Constitutional wordings ito, so every word is important. So that is how the Supreme Court exercises the power of judicial review in 2 ways, either 1) by appeal OR 2) by certiorari. The certiorari referred to there is not petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, but rather, certiorari as a special civil action under Rule 65. You have been taught regarding the basic distinction between 65 and 45. 45 is a mode of appeal, while 65 is a special civil action. Anong basis nun? Paragraph 2 of Sec. 5 of Art.
111
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
VIII of the Constitution. That is the basis for the distinction of 65 and 45. 65 is applicable where there is an error of jurisdiction as against 45, when there is an error of judgment. And that is also very basic in remedial law—error of judgment and error of jurisdiction. When the court renders judgment without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction is an ERROR OF JURISDICTION, and your remedy is RULE 65. But if, there is an ERROR OF JUDGMENT… IN other words, the court is authorized to render a judgment, but the judgment is wrong. So, is that a valid judgment? Definitely. It is an erroneous, but valid judgment. That’s why again we distinguish between jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction. While jurisdiction is the
112
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
authority, the effect in the exercise of that which is, the judgment, decision or final order, resolution is the exercise of jurisdiction. And when the court exercises its authority, the result is that the decision, if it’s erroneous, it is still a valid judgment if you don’t question it. So the best way to correct it is not certiorari. Because in certiorari, you are attacking jurisdiction. But in appeal, you are attacking the error in the judgment in the exercise of jurisdiction. So when you attack the exercise of the court of its jurisdiction, you avail of 45. When you attack the very power of the court to render judgment, then, you avail of 65. So this is jurisdiction over the subject matter ha. The most fundamental of all principles in jurisdiction is that, “any judgment, decision, final order or resolution
113
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
rendered by the court or any tribunal for that matter is NULL and VOID.” So yun ang pinaka mother of all principles ng jurisdiction na tatandaan nyo. And you can use that as a catch all. Pag wala na kayong masagot, dun nyo na sagutin! You try to argue that the resolution was null and void because the court has no authority to render such judgment because you cannot be wrong. Pang catch all lang yan, pag wala ka ng sagot. Pag mali naman, di na yan babasahin. Do you still believe in miracles? Oh yes. Most especially in the college of law.
114
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
So subject matter is conferred by law. You have to know the law. Unang una Sec. 5 of Art. VIII of the Constitution. Now all the rest is already the law, no longer the Constitution. So you have to be very, very, very familiar with BP 129 as amended by RA 7691. But when you are reading 7691 in your right hand, in your left hand, you must have RA 8369, that is the jurisdiction of the Family Courts. Kasi dito sa 7691, you might get confused because others there are amended by 8369. And also, regarding the SB, you start with PD 1606, but the recent rule on the SB provided for by law on the subject matter is RA 7975 as amended by RA 8249. So ito ang mga babasahin nyo on the different courts regarding on the subject matter. Pagdating ng Sandiganbayan, RA8249 amending RA 7975. All the rest,
115
is governed by RA 7691 which amended BP 129, the Judiciary Act of 1980. Now in RA 7691, you read that because this is the law now confers with the jurisdiction over the subject matter before the CA, RTC and the lower courts.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Pasadahan natin ng konti yung mga possible bar questions. Pagdating sa CA, what is the original exclusive jurisdiction of the CA? Isa lang yun—All cases of annulment of judgments rendered by the RTC are exclusively and originally cognizable by the CA. Yung iba, concurrent with the RTC and the SC—certiorari, prohibition, madamus, quo warranto, amparo, habeas corpus and habeas data. Ngayon, baba tayo dito sa RTC. What are the
116
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
subject matters exclusively cognizable by the RTC? Ang dami nun. There are about 11 or 12 provisions. But what are the salient points and possible bar questions? 1) all cases, subject matter of which, are not capable of pecuniary estimation. Ito palaging bugbog na bugbog na yan. Ano ba ang mga yan? Sa actual na buhay, isa lang naman talaga ang hindi capable ng pecuniary estimation. Kung minsan nga, ganun pa rin, capable pa rin. Ano ba yun? Pagmamahal—hindi nababayaran. Pero lahat, isa lang ang tanong, “magkano ka?” So that is now the concept of capable and not capable of pecuniary estimation. The Rule provides that those which are not capable of pecuniary estimation are not determined in terms of money, they are exclusively cognizable by the RTC.
117
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Ngayon, if it is capable of pecuniary estimation, the next question is, how much? And remember now the jurisdictional amount ha—P300,000 and above or above P300,000 outside Metro Manila (RTC), above P400,000 within Metro Manila (RTC). So below that, it is the MTC of course. So yan ang determining amount pag capable of pecuniary estimation. but when is an action capable of pecuniary estimation? When the pleadings and the prayer in the complaint asks for money. If it does not ask for money or if it does not measured by money, then it is not capable of pecuniary estimation. Madaling isipin yan, madaling isulat. Kaya may mga hairline cases dito. Regarding hairline cases, take note of the conjunction. If the conjunction is “OR” then it is capable of pecuniary estimation. But
118
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
if the conjunction is “AND” in the prayer then it is only incidental to the principal action which is not measurable in terms of money and therefore, not capable of pecuniary estimation. Example, if A files an action against B, because B had a hard time constructing his house was unable to finish the house. And so he filed a case against B. the prayer in the complaint is, “To finish the constructuction of my house or pay me P250,000.” Look at the conjunction. The defendant B has the option whether to continue with the construction or pay P250,000. Capable or incapable? Capable. Kasi may option nayung defendant, either to finish the construction of the house or to pay P250,000. So where will you file it? MTC. But suppose the prayer is, “Finish the construction of my
119
house AND pay me P250,000.” It is incapable because the money claimed is only incidental to the rincipal action which is specific performance, ok? So that is how to determine whether it is capable or not capable of pecuniary estimation. Titingnan nyo parati doon sa prayer. The prayer must just be a conclusion of what is stated in the body, diba?
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Another point there is actions for sum of money. Ano ang determinant? The amount. But take note the exclusionary clause. Exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind and attorney’s fees. So if the claim, for example, is P250,000 as principal obligation, P50,000
120
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
moral damages, P50,000 exemplary damages, P50,000 attorney’s fees. So P450,000 na yun. Which court now has jurisdiction? It is still the MTC because of the exclusionary clause. A files a case aginst B for P250,000 but before he filed the case, he wrote a demand letter to B saying, “O, meron din akong moral damages dyan. I’m also asking from you exemplary damages. And if ever you will not pay, I will be forced to hire a counsel and I will be charging you P50,000.” And he is in the province, outside of Metro Manila. So the total claim is P400,000. And so he made that demand letter. And B said, “Ok, Im going to pay that.” However, he did not pay his obligation based on that and his conformity. So he filed now an action. The principal action is P250,00 moral damages is
121
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
P50,000, exemplary damages is P50,000, attorney’s fees is P50,000 or a total of P400,000 outside of Metro Manila. He filed that with the RTC. And then the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter because the principal claim is only P250,000. What is your decision? Will the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction? NO. Because in that particular case, what was actually filed was NOT for sum of money but for breach of contract. Therefore, it is already INCAPABLE of pecuniary estimation. What I’m trying to tell you is don’t be misled by the basic principle without going to the presentation of the problem.
122
Settlement of estate. The jurisdiction now depends on the GROSS VALUE of the estate. Jurisdictional amount pa rin. P300,000 or P400,000 above or below, as the case may be. So if the gross of the estate is P300,000 then MTC. If it is above P400,000 then RTC.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
It is clear from RA 7691 that as a matter of exception, all cases of unlawful detainer and forcible entry are exclusively and originally cognizable by the MTC. You know the requirements to file an unlawful detainer? There must be a demand to pay AND vacate. And that is jurisdictional. So you demand for the defendant to pay and vacate the premises. But the plaintiff filed the case more than one year from the demand, so it is
123
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
no longer and accion interdictal but already accion publiciana. For a long, long time, it has been settled that every accion publiciana is cognizable by the RTC. That no longer holds. Hindi na po yan. As early as about 5 years ago. Vda. De Barreira doctrine. And that has been reiterated in recent cases that accion publiciana is not automatically cognizable by the RTC. It all depends now on the ASSESSED VALUE. So that is another provision there— any action involving title to or possession pf property, the jurisdiction is determined by the ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. Ngayon, ang problema natin, how will you determine whether the action involves title to or possession of property? Suppose, it is an action for annulment of title over the property? It is an action involving title to or
124
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
possession of property. Babasahin nyo mabuti. Because if it prays for RECOVERY OF THE SAME PROPERTY and not simply annulment of the title, then it will involve title to or possession of proprety. Therefore, it is not automatically cognizable by the RTC. What is the determinant? The ASSESSED VALUE of the property. And ano yung assessed value dito? Hindi yung P300,000 and P400,000. P20,000 and P50,000. Less than P20,000 outside Metro Manila, less than P50,000 within Metro Manila (MTC), above that RTC. So once you’re given this problem, medyo complicated and mahirap talaga. An action for unlawful detainer was filed, but the MTC dismissed the action because it was filed more than the year from the last demand. Which is jurisdictional. Tama yung dismissal. The
125
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
resolution to dismiss the case is a FINAL ORDER. Therefore, appealable. You appeal that to the RTC. Your ground is, “the dismissal is wrong.” And you are now invoking Sec. 8 of Rule 40. Ano ba yun? Sinabi dun that when the MTC dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction and the dismissal is appealed to the RTC, and the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction has, in fact, jurisdiction over the case, shall not dismiss it but shall assume the case as if it has been originally filed with it. So the RTC assumed jurisdiction pursuant to Sec. 8 of Rule 40 because apparently it has jurisdiction. Kasi the case was filed more than 1 year from the demand, so it has become accion publiciana rather than accion interdictal. Tama, diba? Assume it. But the other party questions the assumption of
126
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
jurisdiction on the ground that the assessed value fo the property is only P30,000 and it was filed in Manila. What should the court do? The court cannot assume jurisdiction because it is an action involving TITLE TO OR POSSESSION OF PROPERTY. Unlawful detainer diba? And considering the assessed value which is within the jurisdiction of the MTC, so what should the RTC do? The RTC must dismiss it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Complicated yan a. There are several provisions involved. So pag binigay yan, malaki laking points yan. Take note of that provision.
127
Let me point out to you involving marriage and marital relations are now cognizable by the Family Courts. So, RA 8369 na yan, di na yan RTC.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Going now to guardianship and custody of children, that is within the Family Courts. But take note, habeas corpus if it is IN RELATION to guardianship and custody of children— FAMILY COURT. But if it is PLAIN habeas corpus, it is not the family court, it is the RTC. Adoption, Family Court yan. Another point. All criminal cases where a MINOR is involved, Family Court yan. Whether the minor is the offender or the offended party, it is always the FAMILY COURT. There was one problem 2 or 3 years ago in the bar where the minor was
128
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
the witness and the other party contested the jurisdiction of the court because the minor cannot testify before the court which has no jurisdiction accordingly because he is a mior. The Supreme Court said, we are referring only to the offender and the offended party. As to the witness, the rule does not apply. That is again a misleading case. The minor here is a witness. It must always be the private complainant or the offended party or the victim. All cases involving violence against women and children, family court yun. And take note with regard to family court, there are also similar to interim reliefs that are found in writ of amparo. Applicable also in the family court. If it is an annulment of marriage before the Family Court and in the process, parati pa ring nagbabangayan yung magasawa. One
129
party can ask the court for temporary relief, or Temporary Protection Order. And this TPO is only incidental to the principal matter. It cannot be brought separately. The same court has jurisdiction over the issue on TPO.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
These are the more important things regarding jurisdiction over the subject matter of the RTC. Now pagdating ditto sa lower court, you simply try to shift yung discussion that we just had. Halimbawa, jurisdiction na naman. Pag ginawa mong P300,000 MTC na yan. Hindi na problema masyado. But let me point out to you that unlike in RTC which has only 1 procedure, there is only 1 procedure, in the MTC, there are 2 procedures—which is the
130
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
REGULAR PROCEDURE and the SUMMARY PROCEDURE. Dun nyo titingnan yun distinction. Because you might be misled again by a very simple question. Halimbawa, A filed a case against B for a collection of sum of money in the amount of P100,000 which was filed before the MTC. Then the defendant files a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, or kung anumang ground under Rule 16. Then the court dismissed it. Was the dismissal proper? The analysis here is that the court has no jurisdiction therefore, themotion should be denied. That’s why you have to consider the different rules on Summary Procedure and what are the subject matter governed by the regular procedure before the MTC. RA 7691 specifically provides that the following are withn the jurisdiction
131
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
of the MTC, but it does not provide whether it it summary or not. Kaya you look for other provisions. Like unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases, irrespective of amount of rentals, they are always governed by the rules on Summary Procedure. All cses of traffic violation, rental law. pero tatandaan nyo ang sum of money. When is it considered under summary procedure and when is it covered under the regular procedure? The key amount is P200,000 within Metro Manila, P100,000 outside Metro Manila—SUMMARY PROCEDURE yan. Meron na naming panlito ngayon sa Summary Procedure, ang Small Claim Suit. Remember that the amount involved here is P100,000. So if you are presented with the problem, if the subject matter is P100,000, you are now on a crossroads. If you read the
132
provisions on Small Claims Suit, there are some provisions there that are not on Summary Procedure, gaya nun, wala doon na answer to the complaint. But a very characteristic in a Small Claim Suit is the prohibition of lawyers. Kaya nga pag linagay lang dun sa problem, A assisted by counsel… hindi nay an papasok sa Small Claim Suit. So 1 premise lang. in the same manner, lawyers are not allowed in a barangay conciliation proceedings. In the same manner, lawyers are not allowed in nightclubs. :P
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Docket fees are still mandatory and jurisdictional. So these are the jurisdiction of the MTC. Any case for violation of BP 22, IRRESPECTIVE OF AMOUNT, is summary, governed by the
133
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Rules on Summary Procedure. Let me just give you the salient characteristics of Summary Procedure: 1) it applies only in the lower court. Walang summary procedure sa RTC. Kung may naririnig kayo sa RTC na, “summary lang yan”, that is just by analogy. Ginagamit lang ito sa RTC pag ex parte of evidence, that is by analogy. 2) In summary procedure, the requisite periods are much shorter than in regular procedure. The defendant is required to file his answer within a period of 10 DAYS only. In regular procedure, 15 days. The court must cause the submission of the case within a period of 30 DAYS in Summary Procedure but not in regular procedure. Once the case is submitted for judgment, the court must render the judgment within 30 DAYS in Summary Procedure, in regular
134
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
procedure, 90 DAYS. I am talking about the rules, not actual practice. I’m teaching you this for purposes of the bar. 3) there is no trial in summary procedure. Just submission of position papers, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in support of your position. 4) there are prohibited pleadings. You don’t have prohibited pleadings in regular procedure. But take note, if you try to read what are prohibited pleadings, be very careful of the 12 prohibited pleadings. Nakalagay, halibawa, sa number 1. Motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with the conciliation proceeding before the barangay. So yun lang. but all the rest, pwede. Kaya it would become an exception to the exception. Don’t just engage yourself in the exception because there are cases where
135
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
there are exceptions to the exception, ok? Now this leads me to barangay conciliation proceeding. This used to be PD 1508, pero repealed na yan. Pero yang mga provisions na yan, this been reintegrated in the Local Government Code. So sa Local Government Code, what does it say? “ALL CASES must pass through the barangay, so that if it does not pass through the barangay it is questionable, it is dismissible. Not anymore on the ground of jurisdiction but on the ground of PREMATURITY.” As early as Peregrina vs. Panis, the lack of barangay conciliation proceedings is no longer jurisdictional but you can still cause the dismissal of the case not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, but on the ground of prematurity. But there are exceptions. What are the more important exceptions? Look at
136
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
the parties of the case. If the party is a government official, whether provincial or national, no need for barangay conciliation proceeding. If a party is a juridical person, a corporation, there is no need for barangay conciliation proceeding. If the party avails of the provisional remedies under Rules 57-61, there is no need for barangay conciliation proceeding. And if the party is a resident of a separate or a different municipality or city, hindi barangay ha, there is no need for a barangay conciliation proceeding. Exception to the exception—Unless, the barangays in which these 2 residentcities or municiplaities are adjacent to each other. Like here in Metro Manila, magkakatabi lang yan. Going to Cubao, on your left is QC, on your right is Manila. So if the barangay belonging to QC, the
137
resident there fights with someone, kaharap lang, nagaway sila sa E. Rod, and the barangays where they live are adjacent to each other, barangay conciliation proceedings. So summary procedure, small claim suit, barangay conciliation proceeding, tapos na natin. So we don’t have anymore to discuss in jurisdiction. We can go now to the Rules. RULE 1
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
So, Rule 1. What is Rule 1? Ano ang possible question dito? Remember that the Rules of Court apply only in the following cases, yung mga excluded—cadastral and land
138
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
registration cases, insolvency proceedings, naturalization, election cases. So these Rules of Court are only applied by analogy or in suppletory character. In Ong Chia vs. Republic, yan ang first case sa evidence diba? Inaapply yung Rules of Court. Sinabi, hindi naman masyado inaapply yan dito sa naturalization case. The Rules of Evidence are not strictly applicable. But it all applies to all kinds of actions. You must know that there are 3 specific kinds of actions—1) civil actions, 2) criminal actions, 3) special proceedings. When a party sues someone for a enforecemnt of a right, that is a civil case. When one distinctly prosecutes another for the redress of a wrong, then that is a criminal case. Kaya nga ang sinabi natin, in criminal cases, there are 2 parties. While in civil cases, there are 5 parties
139
to the maximum. But in special proceeding, it is a remedy to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. In civil actions, 2 yan—a) special civil actions and b) ordinary actions.
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Section 5, commencement. When is an action commenced? Upon filing of the complaint and the timely payment of the correct docket fees. Sec. 6 now. In Labor, in case of doubt in favor of labor diba? But in the Rules of Court, in case of doubt, in whose favor? The respondent, the defendant or the plaintiff? Sec. 6 is the answer. Neither of the 2. It is in favor of the expeditious administration of justice. So, Rule 1 yun. Tapos na. 5 minutes lang pala ang Rule 1.
140
RULE 2
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
Define a cause of action. It is the act or omission of a party in violation of the right of the other. Question therefore, in whose party lies the cause of action? In the plaintiff or in the defendant? Under that Rule 2, it lies with the defendant. Act or omission in violation of the right of the other. So who is the violator? The defendant is the violator. So the cause of action is with the defendant. But why is it in Sec. 3 of Rule 6, the definition of the complaint, it says there, “a complaint is plaintiff’s cause of action.” O edi, mali na agad. There is already a contradiction. How will you now determine that? There is an
141
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
interchange of play of words. The interchange RIGHT of action with CAUSE of action. Pareho lang yun, it all depends on how you look at it. Parang tumitingin ka lang sa isang babae diba? Kung alin ang magandang view nya, doon mo lang tingnan. Kung maganda lang sa kanya buhok, sabihin mo sa kanya, “talikod ka na lang palagi.” Kung maganda yung pang side view nya, anong maganda, left or right? Sabihin mo, “yung right view na lang.” Ganun din yan, cause of action and right of action. If it is the plaintiff, it should not be cause of action, it should be right of action. Plaintiff’s right of action, dapat yun ang definition ng complaint. Play of words lang yan.
142
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
One suit for a single cause of action. Section 3 and Section 4. If one suit for a single cause of action is the ac or omission in violation of the right of the other, if there are 2 acts or 2 omissions, they call for 2 complaints diba? 1 is to 1 ang ratio ditto. Kung isa lang, hinati mo, there is what you call, a splitting of a cause of action. And that is a ground for dismissal or at least, amendment if not dismissal. A files a case against B for a recovery of property on the ground of expiration of the lease contract. So A entered into a contract of lease over a parcel of land for 1 year. After 1 year, nagexpire na yan. A files a case for recovery. But after filing that, he filed another case for the recovery of the fruits of the land. That is totally splitting a single cause of action. Isa lang yung violation, but you try
143
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
to split it into 2 cases and that is not allowed. There should only be 1 suit for a single cause of action. When you split it, there is a violation. But this refers even if it consists of several acts. But the acts or series of transactions. Now each act or series of transaction is a singular act from which you can file 1 case for each. Kasi, alam mo ang prolema dito. You confuse spilitting a cause of action with joinder of cause of action. Yung next Rule. In the joinder of the causes of action, the several omissions, you put them in 1 complaint, ok? In splitting a cause of action, 1 lang ang dapat ifile mo but you split it. The best explanation is to go to the the next section which is the joinder of causes of action. So there are 3 actions or 3 omissions. Dapat, as a general rule, there should be 3 complaints
144
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
diba? B borrowed money from A in the amount of P100,000 in January 2010. Then B again borrowed money from A in the amount of P200,000 in July of the same year. Then by December of the same year, he again borrowed money from A in the amount of P1M. Ilan bang obligations ni B to pay? There are actually 3 obligations because they are different and distinct. One was incurred in January, second was incurred in July and the third was incurred in December of the same year. Now, if by February, A files a case against B. ano ng iffile nya? Yung 1st obligation incurred on January. Now this is just one act of borrowing. If a files a case against B for the principal amount and then by March he filed a case against A or the interest, you are splitting one act of violation into 2 complaints. So there
145
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
is a clear case of splitting a single cause of action. When was this incurred? By January, July and December of 2010. By 2011, hindi pa rin nagbayad. Then A files a case against B for collection of P1,300,000.00, 3 separate causes of action, but he files only 1 complaint —1st cause of action, 2nd cause of action and 3rd cause of action. So that apparently the misunderstanding of splitting a cause of action is opposite of joinder of causes of action— WRONG! It’s very different. The joinder causes of action refers to the several or more than 1 cause of action. But splitting a cause of action refers to 1 singular act or omission from which you split or derive 2 complaints, ok? So while a splitting a cause of action is PROHIBITED because it leads to multiplicity of suits, on the other hand, joinder of causes
146
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
of action is in fact, encouraged because it lessens the time as against multiplicity of suits. No, question: Can A file 3 cases against B? Definitely, YES. HE can file 1 case for the collection of P300,000. He can file a second case for the collection of P200,000. He can file a third case for the collection of P1M. Pwede ba yun? Pwede. It is not prohibited, but it is encouraged na pagsamahin nyo na lang. it is allowed under the principle of joinder of causes of action. Under this Section, you will find out that there are 4 requirements, and these requirements must be complied with. Matagal tagal ng d tinatanong itong joinder of causes of action. 1st requirement—It must comply with the rules on joinder of parties. San mo makikita ang joinder of parties? Sa Rule 3 na. When there are series of transactions
147
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
involving the same parties. In our example, in fact, there were series of transactions. 1 incurred in January, the other in July. So series of transaction ito. Ilang parties? 2 lang. So it complies with the 1 st requirement. 2nd requirement—It must not include a regular or ordinary action with a special civil action. Why? What is the rationale behind that? Because the special civil actions are governed by special rules that may not be allowed in regular procedure. Like for example in some special civil actions, in certiorari, regarding how the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant? Not regularly but through summons because that’s a special civil action. That is why in joinder of causes of action, you do not allow a case governed by regular procedure together with a special
148
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
civil action. Illustration, tuloy na natin example natin—Umutang ng P100,000 ng January, then umutang ng P200,00. Total? P300,00. By December, sabi ni B, kulang pa. utang pa ko ng P1M. sabi ni A, di ka pang bayad sa P300,000, pano pa kita pauutangin ng P1M? kung gusto mong pautangin kita, secure it with a real estate mortgage. O sige, meron akong lupa, you give me P1M and this is the security. Hindi nakabayad si B. So ang gusto ni A, to file a collection suit and to file foreclosure of mortgage under Rule 68. Can he join these causes of action? NO. Why? Because foreclosure of real estate mortgage under Rule 68 is governed by a separate, different Rules. While collection for P100,00 and P200,000 are governed by regular Rules. So, hindi niya pwedeng ijoin yan. It violates the second
149
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
requirement under Sec. 5 (b) of Rule 2. 3 rd requirement—if the causes of action are under different venues and jurisdiction but 1 of them falls under the RTC then you file it with the RTC, ok? Logical naman yan. The rationale is that kapag meron kang P100, edi meron kang P10 diba? Pero kang meron kang P10, wala kang P100. So, that’s included. 4 th requirement—if the action is for sum of money, the determinant of jurisdiction is the aggregate amount, ok? So collection for P100,000, P200,000 and P1M equals P1.3M, so jurisdiction is RTC. But suppose, he joined the collection of P100,000 and P200,000= P300,000 lang yan. Let’s say in Metro Manila. You file that in the MTC. And you file a separate case for foreclosure of mortgagewith the RTC. If you file the 3 cases, the first
150
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
case in the MTC, the second case in the MTC and the 3 rd case in the RTC, ok? So hindi ba kalokohan yan? Magffile ka ng marami? Edi join mo na lang kasi meron namang joinder of causes of action. But don’t confuse this with joinder of parties that you will find under Sec. 6 of Rule 3 because in the joinder of parties, it refers to either singular plaintiff versus multiple defendants or multiple plaintiffs against singular defendant or multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants. What is the requirement? 2 lang—1) series of acts and series of actions and 2) common fact or law. If A files a case against B using joinder causes of action where his 1 st cause of action is P100,000, 2nd cause of action is P200,000, 3rd cause of action is Foreclosure of mortgage and you filed It with the RTC and the
151
RPVP| Aty. Brondial notes
defendant files a Motion to Dismiss. Should the court dismiss it? NO. Section 6 of Rule 2— misjoinder and non-joinder of causes of action is NOT a ground for dismissal. So what is your remedy? AMEND it. You cannot even file there lack of jurisdiction because there IS a joinder of causes of action.
152
View more...
Comments
