CHAPTER 5

Basic Remedial Law Principles

Outline:
1. Jurisdiction and Venue
2. Payment of Docket fee is
jurisdictional
3. Respect to the hierarchy of
courts
4. Actions

5. Causes of actions
6. Parties to civil actions
7. Venue of actions
8. Criminal action and criminal law
9. Civil actions
10.Criminal action distinguished
from civil action

11.
1. Jurisdiction and Venue
12.
Jurisdiction is the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a
case. It is the power and authority to hear and determine a cause or the right
to act in a case (Gubat, 2000).
Jurisdiction is a power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or
magistrate, to take cognizance of and decide causes according to law and to
carry his sentence into execution (Lectlaw.com, 2007).
Venue is the place where the case is to be heard or tried. In criminal cases,
the venue of the crime goes into the territorial jurisdiction of the court (Lopez
v. Paras)
13.
14.
Jurisdiction is different from venue.
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and decide a case; venue is the place
where the case is to be heard or tried.
Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue is a matter of procedural
law.
Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject
matter; venue establishes the relation between plaintiff and defendant, or
petitioner and respondent.
Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by parties; venue may
be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties (Manila Railroad v.
Attorney General)
15.

16.
JURISDICTION
authority to hear and determine a
case
a matter or substantive law
establishes a relation between the
court and subject matter

17.
VENUE
place or the court where the case is to be
tried and heard
a matter of procedural law
establishes a relation between the
plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and
respondent
maybe conferred by the act or agreement
of the parties

fixed by law and cannot be

conferred by the parties

18.
19.
How Jurisdiction is acquired.
Jurisdiction of the court over the plaintiff or petitioner is acquired by the filing
of the complaint, petition, or initiatory pleading before the court by the plaintiff
or petitioner (Personal jurisdiction)
Jurisdiction of the court over the defendant or respondent is acquired by the
voluntary appearance by the defendant or respondent to the court or by the
service of summons.
Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is conferred by law.
Jurisdiction of the court over the res (thing) is acquired by actual or
constructive seizure (Regalado, 1997)
20.

2. Payment of docket fee is jurisdictional

The SC reiterated that payment of the prescribed docket fee is jurisdictional.
In a civil case filed before the court, proper docket fees have to be paid before
the court will attain jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is the authority or power of the court to hear and decide cases.
The SC reiterates the importance of docket fess and the need of such fees for
court to acquire jurisdiction.
21.
22.The SC enunciates the following doctrines:
23.
24.Pilipinas Shell Petroleum v. CA. The SC had occasion to rule that: Filing fees
are intended to take care of court to take care of court expenses in the handling of
cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe benefits of
personnel, etc. computed as to man hours used in handling each case. The
payment of said fees therefore cant be made dependent on the result of the action
taken without entailing tremendous losses to the government and to the judiciary in
particular.
25.
26.Lee v. Republic, Nalimit v. Degamo and Mogaspi v. Ramolete. The SC
ruled that a case is deemed filed upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the
actual date of filing of the case in court.
27.
28.Manchester Development Corporation v. CA. The SC further refined the
principle, as the SC ruled, that a court acquires jurisdiction over any case only
upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee and in order to curb the unethical
practice of misleading the docket clerk in the assessment of the correct filling fee,
the SC laid down the rule that henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers and
other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not
only in the body of the pleading, but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be
considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any cause.
29.
30.The Court in Manchester made its ruling in view of its finding that there existed
the unethical practice of lawyers and parties of filing an original complaint without
specifying in the prayer the amount of damages which, however, is stated in the
body of the complaint. This stratagem is clearly intended for no other purpose than
to evade payment of the correct filing fees by misleading the docket clerk in the
assessment thereof. Thus the court therein held that jurisdiction shall be acquired
only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee.
31.
32.
Sun Insurance Office ltd. V. Hon Maximiano Asuncion. Affirmed the
basic principle laid down in Manchester but reduced its stringency somewhat by
providing that only those claims as to which the amounts were not specified would
be refused acceptance or expunged and that, in any case, the defect was not
necessarily fatal or irremediable as the plaintiff could on motion, be granted a
reasonable time within which to amend his complaint and pay the requisite filing
fees, unless in the meantime, the period of limitation of the right of action was
completed (General v. Claravall). In other words, that ruling in Manchester was
later relaxed in the case of Sun Insurance which allowed the subsequent payment

of the correct docket fees provided it is made within the reglementary (*regulative)
period or before prescription has set in. The reason given was that there was no
intent on the part of the petitioners therein to defraud the government, unlike the
plaintiff in the case of Manchester.
33.
34.Tacay et. Al. v. Tagum et. Al. This Court inspired by the doctrine laid down in
Manchester, issued Circular No. 7 on March 4, 1988, which was aimed at the
practice of certain parties who omit from the prayer of their complaints any
specification of the amount of damages, the omission being clearly intended for no
other purpose than to evade the payment of the correct filing fees by deluding the
docket clerk in his assessment of the same. In all these cases, the rule was applied
for failure of the plaintiff to include in the prayer of the complaint the total amount
of damages sought against the defendant. The reason for this, according to the
Tacay case, is because the amount of damages will help determine two
things: 1. the jurisdiction of the court. 2. The amount of docket fees to be paid.
35.
36.In Manchester, there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the plaintiffs
therein to evade payment of the correct docket fees. In the case of the petitioner,
he already explained, and this we find acceptable and justified, that since the
schedule of the new rates of court fees was not then available and the filing of the
petition for the election contests was done thru the mail, the old rates readily came
to mind, and this was the reason why only 200 pesos was remitted at the same
time with the petition.
37.
38.As a summary, in election cases, the evil sought to be avoided in Manchester
and similar cases can never obtain since
1. The filing fee in an election cases is fixed and not dependent on the amount of
damages sought to be recovered, if any;
2. A claim for damages in an election case is merely ancillary (*providing
something additional to a main part or function) to the main cause of action and
is not even determinative of the courts jurisdiction which governed by the
nature of the action filed (Pahilan v. Tabalba)
39.
40.Dorego v. Perez; Bello v. Fernandez. The payment of the full amount of the
docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal.
41.Acda v. Minister of Labor. In both original and appellate cases, the court
acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket
fees.
42.The requirement of an appeal fee is by no means a mere technicality of law or
procedure. It is an essential requirement without which the decision appealed from
would become final and executory as if no appeal was files at all. The right to
appeal is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner
prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provision of the law.
43.
44.

3. Respect to the hierarchy of courts

45.
Santiago v. Vasquez. The SC said that We discern in the proceedings
in this case a propensity on the part of petitioner, and for that matter the same
may be said of a number of litigants who initiate recourses before us, to
disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial system by seeking relief directly
from this Court despite the fact that the same is available in the lower courts in
the exercise of their original or concurrent jurisdiction. This practice must be
stopped, not only because of the imposition upon the precious time of delay,
intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of the case which often has to be
remanded referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of
procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues since this Court is not a
trier of facts. We, therefore, reiterate the judicial policy that this court will not
entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cant be obtained in the
appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify
availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of our primary
jurisdiction. PhilNaBank Employess Association (PEMA) v. Estaneslao
46.The SC said in another case that:
47.Supreme Court not a Trier of facts. In any event we wish to point out that
the principle of the hierarchy of the courts generally applies to cases involving
factual questions. The oft-repeated justification for invoking it is that such cases
do not only impose upon the precious time of the Court but, more important,
inevitably result in their delayed adjudication. Often, such cases have to be
remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum or as better
equipped to resolve the issues, since the SC is not a trier of facts. Inasmuch as
the petition at bar involves only constitutional and legal questions concerning
public interest, the Court resolved to exercise primary jurisdiction on the matter.
48.