PHILIPPINE LEGAL SYSTEM

Written Report

Group I
Members:
1. ALMARIO, Kristalyn N.
2. JOCSON, Iris Robertine P.
3. MANALASTAS, Areeya Katrina R.
4. RECTO, Richard Michael S.
5. REYES, Sherylyn R.
6. TORRES, Jann Patricia M.

Professor: Atty. Alloysius R. Yebra

Subject: Legal Technique and Logic

0
I. Philippine Legal System

The Philippine legal system is aptly described as a blend of customary usage, and
Roman (civil law) and Anglo-American (common law) systems. The civil law
operates in areas such as family relations, property, succession, contract and
criminal law while statutes and principles of common law origin are evident in
such areas as constitutional law, procedure, corporation law, negotiable
instruments, taxation, insurance, labor relations, banking and currency. In some
Southern parts of the islands, Islamic law is observed.

This particular legal system is the result of the immigration of Muslim Malays in
the fourteenth century and the subsequent colonization of the islands by Spain
and the United States.

Sources of Law

The main sources of Philippine law are the Constitution, statutes, treaties and
conventions, and judicial decisions. The Constitution is the fundamental law of
the land and as such, it is authority of the highest order against which no other
authority can prevail. Every official action, to be valid, must conform to it. On the
other hand, statutes are intended to supply the details which the Constitution,
because of its nature, must leave unprovided for. The statutes of the Philippines
are numerous and varied in their contents. They are intended to provide rules and
regulations which will govern the conduct of people in the face of ever changing
conditions.

Having the same force of authority as legislative enactments are the treaties which
the Philippines enters into with other states. A treaty has been defined as a
compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the public
welfare (Adolfo v. Court of First Instance, 34 SCRA 169). As a member of the family
of nations, the Philippines is a signatory to and has concluded numerous treaties
and conventions.

Philippine law is also derived from cases because the Civil Code provides that
‘judicial decisions applying to or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall
form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. Only decisions of its Supreme
Court establish jurisprudence and are binding on all other courts (Miranda v.
Imperial, 77 Phil 106). Thus, these decisions assume the same authority as the
statutes to which they apply or interpret and until authoritatively abandoned,
necessarily become, to the extent that they are applicable, the criteria which must
control the actuations not only of those called upon to abide thereby but also of
those duty-bound to enforce obedience thereto (Caltex (Phil) Inc v. Palomar, 18
SCRA 257).

Page 1 of 17
Philippine Court System

Nature of Philippine Courts

Philippines courts are both courts of law and equity. Hence, both legal and equitable
jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal. (US v. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321,
327)

What is a Court?

It is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function of

which is the application of the laws to the controversies brought before it as well as
the public administration of justice. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 326) It is a
governmental body official assembled under authority of law at the appropriate time
and place for the administration of justice through which the State enforces its
sovereign rights and powers. It is a board tribunal which decides a litigation or
contest.

Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts

Under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, where courts have concurrent jurisdiction
over a subject matter, such concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant the party
seeking relief the absolute freedom to file a petition in any court of his choice.
Pursuant to this doctrine, a case must be filed first before the lower court possible
having the appropriate jurisdiction, except if one can advance a special reason which
would allow a party a direct resort to a higher court. (Riano, 2016. p. 43)

The rationale for the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is two-fold: (a) it would be an
imposition upon the limited time of the Court; and (b) it would inevitably result in a
delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances,
had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under rules of
procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues because the Court is not a trier
of facts. It is only for special and compelling reasons that the Court shall exercise its
primary jurisdiction over the extraordinary remedy writ of prohibition (People vs.
Azarraga, 659 SCRA 34, 38-39).

However, the Supreme Court may disregard the principle of hierarchy of courts if
warranted by the nature and importance of issues raised in the interest of speedy
justice and to avoid future litigations (Declarador v. Bansales, 499 SCRA 341, 348).

In relation to cases filed with the Supreme Court, a direct resort to it was allowed in
certain cases, like:

1. When there are special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition
(Riano, 2016. p. 44)
2. When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy (Riano,
2016. p. 44)
3. When demanded by the broader interest of justice (Riano, 2016. p. 44)
4. When the challenge orders were patent nullities (Riano, 2016. p. 44)
5. When analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and
justified the immediate and direct handling by the Court. (Republic vs.
Caguioa, 691 SCRA 306, 316-317)
6. Where there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at
the most immediate time (The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015)

Doctrine of Non-Interference or Doctrine of Judicial Stability

The doctrine of non-interference holds that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction
cannot interfere with each other’s order (Lapu-Lapu Development and Housing
Corporation vs. Group Management Corporation, 388 SCRA 493, 508)

Page 2 of 17
It applies with equal force to administrative bodies, when the law provides for an
appeal form the decision of an administrative body to the Supreme Court or Court of
Appeals, it means that such body is co-equal with the Regional Trial Court in terms of
rank and stature, and logically beyond the control of the latter. (Philippine Sinter
Corporation vs. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc., 381 SCRA 582, 591)

Court of General and Special Jurisdiction

Courts of general jurisdiction are those with competence to decide on their own
jurisdiction and take cognizance of all cases, civil and criminal, of a particular nature.

Court of special jurisdiction are those which have jurisdiction only for a particular
purpose or are clothed with special powers for the performance of specified duties
beyond which they have no authority of any kind.

Classifications of Philippine Courts:

Regular courts engaged in the administration of justice are organized into four (4)
levels:

First Level (Municipal Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts)

There is a Metropolitan Trial Court in each metropolitan area established by law, a

municipal trial court in each of the other cities or municipalities and a municipal
circuit trial court in each circuit comprising such cities and/or municipalities as are
grouped together pursuant to law.

These courts exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or
municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdictions and
have exclusive original jurisdiction over all offences punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding six years, irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
impossible accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such
offences or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof
provided, however, that in offences involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, they have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. They have exclusive
original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings both testate and
intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value
of the property, estate, or the amount of the demand does not exceed P200,000.00 or
in Metropolitan Manila where such personal property or amount of the demand does
not exceed P400,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses and costs, the amount which must be specifically alleged,
provided that, interest damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses
where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different
parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the
totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of
action arose out of the same or different transactions. These courts also have
‘exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
provided that when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in
his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the
issue of ownership, the issue of ownership is resolved only to determine the issue of
possession’. Finally, they have ‘exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the
assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000.00 or, in
civil actions in Metropolitan Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed
P50,000.00 exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses and costs, provided that in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes,
the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent
lots’. (Asean Law Association, 2004-2015. Retrieved from
http://www.aseanlawassociation.org/legal-phil.html)

Page 3 of 17
The first level can try and decide:

i. Criminal actions involving:

a) violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective

territorial jurisdiction; and
b) offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective
of the amount of fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or other
penalties

ii. Civil actions including ejectment cases and recovery of personal property with a
value of not more than P300,000 outside Metro Manila or does not exceed
P400,000 in Metro Manila.

Second Level (RTCs, Family Court)

Regional Trial Courts

The Philippines is divided into 13 judicial regions with one Regional Trial Court for
each region. Each Regional Trial Court has several branches. Regional Trial Courts
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

1. in all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of

pecuniary estimation
2. in all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds P20,000 or for civil actions in Metropolitan Manila, where such value
exceeds P50,000, except actions for forcible entry into and the unlawful
detaining of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred
upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts
3. in all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or
claim exceeds P200,000 or in Metropolitan Manila where such gross value
exceeds P400,000;
4. in all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of
the estate exceeds P200,000.00 or in Metropolitan Manila where such gross
value exceeds P400,000.00;
5. in all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
6. in all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person
or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
7. in all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of
Agrarian Relations as now provided for by law; and
8. in all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of
the property in controversy, amounts to more than P200,000.00 or, in such
other cases in Metropolitan Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the
abovementioned items exceed P400,000.00.

Pursuant to Section 5 of the Securities Regulation Code, the RTC has jurisdiction over
all cases involving the following controversies formerly under the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Securities and Exchange Commission under Presidential Decree No. 902-A,
namely:

1) devices or schemes employed by, or any acts of, the Board of Directors,
business associations, its officers or partners, amounting to fraud and
misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public
and/or of the stockholders, partners, members of associations or organizations
registered with the Commission;

Page 4 of 17
 2) controversies arising out of intracorporate or partnership relations, between
and among stockholders, members, or associates; between any and/or all of
them and the corporation, partnership, or association of which they are
stockholders, members or associates, respectively; and between such
corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar as it concerns
their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity;
3) controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or
managers of such corporation, partnerships or associations.

In criminal cases, the Regional Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over the
following:

1) all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other courts,
tribunals, or bodies;
2) all criminal cases involving offenses where the imposable penalty is
imprisonment exceeding 6 years, irrespective of the amount of fine, and
regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil
liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of the
kind, nature, value or amount thereof;
3) all criminal cases committed in relation to their office by public officials and
employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled
corporations, and by private individuals charged as co-principals, accomplices
or accessories, where none of the principal accused are occupying positions
corresponding to salary grade 27 or higher, as prescribed in RA 6758, or are
PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or higher, or their equivalent,
or are, otherwise, not any of those enumerated in Sec. 4, PD 1606, as amended,
if the imposable penalty is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of
the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other
penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated
thereon, irrespective of the kind, nature, value or amount thereof.

The Regional Trial Court also exercises original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunctions
which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions and in actions affecting
ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls. It has appellate jurisdiction over
all cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts
(MTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs). However, decisions, final orders
and resolutions of the MTCs in the exercise of delegated jurisdiction should be
appealed directly to the Court of Appeals as in appeals from Regional Trial Courts to
the Court of Appeals. (Asean Law Association, 2004-2015. Retrieved from
http://www.aseanlawassociation.org/legal-phil.html)

Family Courts

Republic Act No. 8369 created the Family Courts in 1997 which mandates that it shall
be established in every province and city in the country. In case where the city is the
capital of the province, the Family Court will be established in the Municipality which
has the highest population. However, pending the establishment of such Family
Courts, the Supreme Court has designated from among the branches of the Regional
Trial Courts at least one Family Court in each city and in such other places as it may
deem necessary.

Family Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following
cases:
1) criminal cases where one of the accused is below eighteen years of age but not
less than nine years of age or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the
time of the commission of the offense;
2) petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the
latter;
3) petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;

Page 5 of 17
 4) complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and
those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or
those living together under different states and agreements, and petitions for
dissolution of ‘conjugal partnership’ of gains;
5) petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
6) summary of judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of the Family
Code;
7) petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or
neglected children; the suspension, termination or restoration of parental
authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603,
Executive order No. 56, series of 1986, and other related laws;
8) petitions for the constitution of the family home;
9) cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;
10) violations of Republic Act No. 7610, as amended; and
11) cases of domestic violence against women and children.

The Supreme Court has promulgated special rules to address the cases before the
Family Courts. Thus far, the Rules promulgated are: Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages; Rule on Legal
Separation; Rule on Adoption; Rule on Guardianship of Minors; Rule on Custody of
Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors; Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness; Rule on Commitment of Children; Rule on Provisional
Orders; and Rule on Violence Against Women and Children. (Asean Law Association,
2004-2015. Retrieved from http://www.aseanlawassociation.org/legal-phil.html)

Third Level (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan)

The Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals consists of a Presiding Justice and 68 Associate Justices. It

exercises its powers, functions and duties through 23 divisions, each division being
composed of three members. The Court may sit en banc only for the purpose of
exercising its administrative, ceremonial or other non-adjudicatory functions.

The Court of Appeals has permanent stations in the City of Manila (17 divisions), Cebu
City (3 divisions), and Cagayan de Oro City (4 divisions). Whenever demanded by
public interest or whenever justified by an increase in case load, the Supreme Court
may authorize any division of the Court to hold sessions periodically, or for such
periods and at such places that the Supreme Court may determine for the purpose of
hearing and deciding cases. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be
continuous and must be completed within three months unless extended by the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court.

A majority of the actual members of the Court constitutes a quorum for its session en
banc. Three members constitute a quorum for the sessions of a division. The
unanimous vote of three members of a division is necessary for the pronouncement of
a decision or final resolution, which shall be reached by consultation, before the
writing of the opinion by any member of the division. In the event that the three
members do not reach a unanimous vote, the President Justice requests the raffle
committee of the Court for the designation of additional justices to sit temporarily with
them, forming a special division of five members. The concurrence of a majority of
such a division is necessary for the pronouncement of a decision or final resolution.

The Court of Appeals exercises;

1. original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,

habeas corpus and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether
or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
2. exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional
Trial Courts; and

Page 6 of 17
 3. exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions,
resolutions, orders, or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial
agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, except those falling
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Whenever demanded by public interest, or whenever justified by an increase in case

load, the Supreme Court, upon its own initiative or upon recommendation of the
Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, may authorize any division of the court to
hold periodically for such periods at such places as the Supreme Court may determine
for the purpose of hearing and deciding cases. The Court of Appeals has the power to
receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues
raised in cases falling within its original jurisdiction, such as actins for the annulment
of a judgment of a regional trial court and cases falling within its appellate jurisdiction
wherein a motion for a new trial is based only on the ground of newly discovered
evidence. (Asean Law Association, 2004-2015. Retrieved from
http://www.aseanlawassociation.org/legal-phil.html)

The Sandiganbayan

The 1973 Constitution provided for the creation of a special court known as the
Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases, involving graft
and corruption practices and other such offences committed by public officers and
employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations in relation
to their office, as may be determined by law. Implementing this mandate, Presidential
Decree No. 1486 created the Sandiganbayan as a special court of the same level as the
Court of Appeals, possessing exclusive jurisdiction over all such criminal cases. The
1987 Constitution provides that this anti-graft court shall continue to function and
exercise its jurisdiction.

Republic Act No 7975 (1995) enlarged the court by creating five divisions compose of
three justices each although five may sit at the same time. Its jurisdiction was
expanded to include:

a. violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal
Code, where one or more of the principal accused are officials occupying the following
positions in government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity at the
time of the commission of the offense;
b. other offences or felonies committed by the public officials mentioned in subsection
(a) committed in relation to their office; and
c. civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order
Nos. 1, 2, 14 & 14-A.

In cases where the principal accused are PNP officers occupying the rank of
superintendent or higher, exclusive jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper Regional
Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, and other courts, as the case may be.

The Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction on appeals from the final
judgments, resolutions or orders of regular courts where all the accused are occupying
positions lower than Grade 27. (Asean Law Association, 2004-2015. Retrieved from
http://www.aseanlawassociation.org/legal-phil.html)

Fourth Level (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices who sit
or at its discretion, in divisions of three, five or seven members. Cases that are heard
and decided by the Supreme Court en banc are those involving the constitutionality of

Page 7 of 17
a treaty, executive agreement or law; and such cases as required under the Rules of
Court, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations. These cases are decided with the concurrence of a majority of the
members who actually take part in the deliberations on the issues of the case and vote
thereon. Cases or matters heard by a division are decided with the concurrence of a
majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues of
the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at least three
of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the cases are decided en
banc. No doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision rendered en
banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the Court sitting en banc.

Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction over cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. The Supreme
Court has the power to review and revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal, as the
law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts
in:

1. all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international

or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;
2. all cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto;
3. all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue;
4. all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher;
5. all cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

Any decision, order or ruling of the Civil Service Commission, Commission on

Elections or the Commission on Audit may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from a receipt of a copy thereof. Under
special laws, the Supreme Court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to review
decisions of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board and the
National Telecommunications Commission, whose functions were formerly exercised
by the Public Service Commission, the National Electrification Administration and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, is the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice President, and may
promulgate its rules for this purpose.

The Supreme Court also has the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings, practice and procedure in all
courts, admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance for
the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure
for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. It may order a change
of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. It may temporarily assign
judges of lower courts to other stations as the public interest may require, but such
temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge
concerned. The Supreme Court exercises administrative supervision over all courts
and its personnel. En banc, it has the power to discipline judges of the lower courts, or
order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in
the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted on them. (Asean Law Association,
2004-2015. Retrieved from http://www.aseanlawassociation.org/legal-phil.html)

Page 8 of 17
Other Special Courts

The Court of Tax Appeals

The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has special appellate jurisdiction over: decisions of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Commissioner of Customs; decisions
involving local tax cases and real property taxes; and criminal offences of tax laws. The
CTA is composed of a Presiding Justice and five Associate Justices and sits en banc or
in two divisions to hear cases. It is on the same level as the Court of Appeals. (Asean
Law Association, 2004-2015. Retrieved from
http://www.aseanlawassociation.org/legal-phil.html)

Shari’a Courts

For the Muslim communities in Mindanao, Shari’a District and Circuit Courts have
been established in five special judicial districts, namely, the Province of Sulu; the
Province of Tawi-Tawi; the Provinces of Basilan, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del
Sur and the cities of Dipolog, Pagadian and Zamboanga; the Provinces of Lanao del
Norte, Lanao del Sur and the cities of Iligan and Marawi; and the Provinces of
Maguindanao, North Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat and the city of Cotabato. The Shari’a
District Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over: all cases involving custody,
guardianship, legitimacy, paternity and filiation arising under the Muslim Code of
Personal Laws; all cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of the estate
of deceased Muslims; petitions for declaration of absence and death and for
cancellation of entries in the Muslim Registries; all actions arising from customary
contracts between Muslim parties; all parties for mandamus, prohibition, injunction,
certiorari, habeas corpus, and all other auxiliary writs and processes in the aid of its
appellate jurisdiction. The courts also have appellate jurisdiction over all cases tried
by the Shari’a Circuit Courts, and are of the same category as the RTCs.

On the other hand, Shari’a Circuit Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over all
cases involving offences defined and punished under the Muslim Code and all cases
involving disputes relating to communal properties. Likewise, all civil actions and
proceedings between Muslim parties or disputes relating to marriage, divorce,
betrothal, customary dower (mahr), disposition and distribution of property upon
divorce, maintenance and support and consolatory gifts (mut’a) and the restitution of
marital rights in accordance with the Muslim Code are within its exclusive original
jurisdiction.

Republic Act No 6734 (1989) created the Shari’a Appellate Court but to date it has not
yet been operational. (Asean Law Association, 2004-2015. Retrieved from
http://www.aseanlawassociation.org/legal-phil.html)

Quasi-Courts or Quasi-Judicial Agencies

Quasi-judicial agencies are administrative agencies, more properly belonging to the

Executive Department, but are empowered by the Constitution or statutes to hear and
decide certain classes or categories of cases.

Quasi-judicial agencies which are empowered by the Constitution are the

Constitutional Commissions: Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections, and
the Commission on Audit.

Quasi-judicial agencies empowered by statutes are: Office of the President,

Department of Agrarian Reform, Securities and Exchange Commission, National Labor
Relations Commission, National Telecommunications Commissions, Employees
Compensation Commission, Insurance Commission, Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Social Security System,
Government Service Insurance System, Bureau of Patents, Trademark and
Technology, National Conciliation Mediation Board, Land Registration Authority, Civil

Page 9 of 17
Aeronautics Board, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, National Electrification
Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, Agricultural Inventions Board and the
Board of Investments. When needed, the Supreme Court issues rules and regulations
for these quasi-judicial agencies in the performance of their judicial functions.

Decisions of these quasi-courts can be appealed to the Court of Appeals except those
of the Constitutional Commissions which can be appealed by certiorari to the Supreme
Court. (Legal Research and Legal Citations for the Philippines by Milagros Santos-Ong)

Ombudsman

The 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that Ombudsman and his deputies are
called the protectors of the people for they are tasked to act promptly on complaints
filed against public officials or employees of the government including government
owned and controlled corporations (Art. XI, Sec. 12). Its powers, duties and functions
are provided for in Sec. 13. It is responsible for prosecuting government official for
their alleged crimes. However, Republic Act No. 6770, Sec. 15 provides that the
Ombudsman shall give priority to complaints filed against high ranking government
officials and those occupying supervisory positions. It is composed of the Ombudsman
and six (6) deputies.

The President, Vice-President, members of the Supreme Court, Constitutional

Commission and the Ombudsman may be removed from office by impeachment for
conviction of violations of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption,
other high crimes and betrayal of public trust. (Art. XI, Sec. 2). The House of
Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate (Art. XI, Sec. 3[1]) while the Senate
has the sole power to try and decide impeachment ases (Art. XI, Sec. 3[6]). All other
public officials and employees may be removed by law. (Art. XI, Sec. 2 the Civil Service
Law)

II. Common Law as applied in the Philippines

1. Notable Principles of Common Law in the Philippines

a. Constitutional Law
Due process
Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that :
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
the law.”
In our jurisdiction, the constitutional guarantee of due process is not
limited to an exact definition (White Light Corporation v. City of Manila,
G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009) Its purpose is to prevent arbitrary
governmental encroachment against the life, liberty and property of
individuals. The due process guaranty serves as a protection against
arbitrary regulation or seizure. Even corporations and partnerships are
protected by the guaranty insofar as their property is aconcerned.
Separation of Powers
Separation of powers is designed to prevent tyranny by preventing the
concentration of the sovereign powers of state in one body. It is in
harmony with the first principle enshrined in Section 1 Article II of the
1987 Constitution which provides that :

Page 10 of 17
 “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty
resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”

One of the manifestations of republicanism is separation of powers

among the three co-equal branches of government, namely the
legislative, executive, and judicial branches. [Carlota, S.T., “The Three
Most Important Features of the Philippine Legal System that others should
understand ” (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.ialsnet.org/meetings/enriching/carlota.pdf]

b. Procedure
Litis Pendentia

It refers to a situation where two actions are pending between the

same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them
becomes unnecessary and vexatious. It is based on the policy against
multiplicity of suits and authorizes a court to dismiss a case motu
proprio. (Subic Telecommunications Company, Inc. vs. Subic Bay
Metropolitan Authority, G.R. No. 185159, October 12, 2009).
Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies means that

when an adequate remedy is available within the Executive
Department, a litigant must first exhaust this remedy before he can
resort to the courts. The purpose of the doctrine is to enable the
administrative agencies to correct themselves if they have committed
an error. (Rosales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47821, September
15, 1988).
c. Corporation Law
Separate Juridical Personality
Section 2 Corporation Defined. – A corporation is an artificial being
created by operation of law, having the right of succession and the
powers, attributes, and properties expressly authorized by law or
incidental to its existence
As an artificial being, a corporation has a personality separate
and distinct from its stockholders. Hence, the general rule is that a
corporation may not be made to answer for acts or liabilities of its
stockholders and vice versa. To illustrate, the corporation, and not its
stockholders, is personally liable for its corporate debts and liabilities.
The stockholders are liable only to the extent of their subscribed capital.
Trust

Trust is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal

title to which is vested in another. It is a fiduciary relationship that
obliges the trustee to deal with the property for the benefit of the
beneficiary (Rizal Surety & Insurance Company v. Court of Appeals , G.R.
No. L-23729 May 16, 1967)

Art. 1440. A person who establishes a trust is called the trustor; one in
whom confidence is reposed as regards property for the benefit of
another person is known as the trustee; and the person for whose
benefit the trust has been created is referred to as the beneficiary.

Page 11 of 17
d. Taxation
Life Blood Theory

Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be

collected without unnecessary hindrance On the other hand, such
collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness
will negate the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary
to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the
taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the promotion of
the common good, may be achieved (CIR vs Algue, G.R. No. L-28896
February 17, 1988).

Benefit-received principle
Taxes are essential to the existence of the government. The
obligation to pay taxes rests not upon the privileges enjoyed by or the
protection afforded to the citizen by the government, but upon the
necessity of money for the support of the State. For this reason, no one
is allowed to object to or resist payment of taxes solely because no
personal benefit to him can be pointed out as arising from the tax.
(Lorenzo v. Posadas, G.R. No. L-43082 June 18, 1937)

e. Insurance
Uberrimae Fidei

The contract of insurance is one of perfect good faith not for the
insured alone, but equally so for the insurer; in fact, it is more so for the
latter, since its dominant bargaining position carries with it stricter
responsibility. By reason of the exclusive control of the insurance
company over the terms and phraseology of the insurance contract, the
ambiguity must be strictly interpreted against the insurer and liberally
in favor of the insured, specially to avoid a forfeiture. ( Qua Chee Gan v.
Law Union and Rock Insurance, G.R. No. L-4611. December 17, 1955)

Risk-Distributing Device

In an insurance contract, both the insured and insurer undertake

risks. On one hand, there is the insured, a member of a group exposed
to a particular peril, who contributes premiums under the risk of
receiving nothing in return in case the contingency does not happen; on
the other, there is the insurer, who undertakes to pay the entire sum
agreed upon in case the contingency happens. This risk-distributing
mechanism operates under a system where, by prompt payment of the
premiums, the insurer is able to meet its legal obligation to maintain a
legal reserve fund needed to meet its contingent obligations to the
public. The premium, therefore, is the elixir vitae or source of life of the
insurance business (Tibay vs CA, G.R. No. 119655 May 24, 1996).

f. Labor Relations
Four Fold Test
To prove the claim of an employer-employee relationship, the
following should be established by competent evidence: (1) the selection
and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power

Page 12 of 17
 of dismissal; and (4) the employer's power to control the employee with
respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be
accomplished (McBurnie v. Ganzon, G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117 G R.
Nos. 186984-85 October 17, 2013 ).

Among the four, the most determinative factor in ascertaining the

existence of employer-employee relationship is the "right of control test"
(Liho v. Genovia, 677 Phil. 134,148, 2011). Under this control test, the
person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control
not only the end to be achieved, but also the means by which such end
is reached.

g. Civil Law
Estoppel
Estoppel arises when one, by his acts, representations, or
admissions, or by his silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally
or through culpable negligence induces another to believe certain facts
to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that
he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of
such facts (Huyatid v. Huyatid 47265-R, Jan. 4, 1978).

Statute of Limitations

A statute of limitations is an enactment that sets the maximum

time after an event that legal proceedings based on that event may be
initiated. It is a defense that is ordinarily asserted by the defendant to
defeat an action brought against him after the appropriate time has
elapsed (Conspecto vs. Fruto, G.R. No. L-8975 July 23, 1915)

Prescription and Laches

Prescription is concerned with the fact of delay,

whereas laches is concerned with the effect of delay.

Prescription is a matter of time; laches is principally a

question of inequity of permitting a claim to be enforced, this
inequity being founded on some change in the condition of the
property or the relation of the parties.

Prescription is statutory; laches is not. Laches applies in

equity, whereas prescription applies at law.

Prescription is based on fixed time laches is not. ( Nielson

& Company, Inc. v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., L-21601,
December 17, 1966, 18 SCRA 1040.)

Statute of Frauds

The intention behind the Statute is to prevent fraud and perjury in

the enforcement of obligations that rely on evidence of the
vague memory of witnesses. These special agreements require specific
enumerated transactions to be evidenced by a writing signed by the
party to be charged.

Page 13 of 17
 (Plazo, J. “The Philippine Statute of Frauds: Perfected Contracts”, October
12, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.plazolaw.com/civil-law/the-
philippine-statute-of-frauds-perfected-contracts)
Unjust Enrichment

According to Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc., “unjust enrichment exist

when a person unjustly retains a benefit at the loss of another, or when
a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental
principles of justice, equity and good conscience.”
Torts
Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, which states that:
“Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault
or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties, is called a quasi-delict x x x “

In cases involving quasi-delict and torts, the plaintiff complains

that the acts of a defendant caused him or her injury. In order to be
actionable, the act should have been committed with the intention of
injuring the plaintiff or was committed recklessly or negligently or one
which, even when done with the proper care, held such high risk for
injury to others that it will be presumed by law to be actionable. (Alano
vs. Magud-Logmao G.R. No. 175540, April 7, 2014)

III. General Duties of a Lawyer

An Oath is an attestation and a pledge to take on the duties and responsibilities

proper of a lawyer. Thus, every lawyer takes an oath and swears:

1. To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;

2. To support its Constitution and obey the laws;
3. To do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court;
4. To not promote or sue any groundless, false, or unlawful suit or consent to the
same;
5. To delay no man for money or malice; and
6. To conduct one’s self as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and
discretion.

Under the Rules of Court, Section 20 of Rule 138 provides for the duties of every
lawyer.

Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to

support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines;

(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
judicial officers;

(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to

him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly
debatable under the law.

(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him,
such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek

Page 14 of 17
 to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law;

(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to

preserve the secrets and to accept compensation in connection with his
client's business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;

(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact

prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an

action or proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive
or interest;

(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of
the defenseless or oppressed;

(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable
means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused,
to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person
may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.

It is expected from every lawyer to perform these duties based on a certain

mode of behavior also known as the Code of Professional Responsibility and under the
such Code, the four-fold duties of a lawyer are established as follows:

1. Lawyer’s duties to the society;

2. Lawyer’s duties to the legal profession;
3. Lawyer’s duties to the Court; and
4. Lawyer’s duties to his client.

Since the legal profession is neither a business nor a money-making trade,

lawyers are dutifully bound to serve the public through aiding the administration of
justice. Therefore, in case of conflict, his private duty as a trusted agent of his client
and his personal duty, being a self-employed businessman, must yield to that of his
public duty pertaining to being a faithful assistant of the Court in search of just
solutions to legal disputes.

It is the lawyer’s duty to society to promote and respect the law and the legal
process. As embodied in the Lawyer’s oath, he shall maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, support and defend its Constitution and obey the laws as
well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein. As opposed to an
ordinary citizen who is likewise bound to obey and respect the Constitution and all
other laws, a lawyer assumes responsibilities well beyond the basic requirements of
good citizenship. Hence, he should make himself an exemplar for righteousness and
justice. Furthermore, as part of a lawyer’s duty to society is to provide efficient and
convenient legal services. (Canon 2, Code of Professional Responsibility) He shall not
reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed (Canon 2
Rule 2.01, CPR), and even when he has a valid reason to do so, he must still offer legal
advice to the extent of safeguarding such person’s rights (Canon 2 Rule 2.02, CPR).

A lawyer’s duty to the legal profession mainly revolves around upholding the
honor, integrity and dignity of the profession (Canon 7, CPR) in relation to how the
public views the legal profession and to the manner of his dealings with other lawyers.
He must at all times maintain a high standard of legal proficiency and fair dealing so
that the respect of the public may be enhanced by his faithful performance of his four-
fold duties. (Agpalo, 2008)

Page 15 of 17
 In this regard, even in the would-be lawyer’s application for admission to the
bar, he shall not make any false statement or suppress any material fact that would
substantially affect such application. (Canon 7 Rule 7.01, CPR) When he finally passes
the bar, the best way a lawyer can uphold the integrity and dignity of the profession is
to not engage in any conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession. (Canon 7 Rule 7.03, CPR) He should therefore,
endeavor to conduct himself in such a way as to give credit to the legal profession and
to inspire the confidence, respect and trust of his clients and the community.

As for the lawyer’s duty to the Courts, he shall respect or defend it against
unjust criticisms and, uphold its authority and dignity, and also obey order and
processes. He owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court. (Canon 10, CPR) As
aforementioned, his duties to the Court are more significant than those which he owes
his client because his primary duty is not to his client, but to the administration of
justice. Thus, he is also required to observe and maintain the respect due to the
Courts and to Judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. (Canon
11 CPR)

Similar with his duty to society, it is also part of a lawyer’s duty to the Court to
exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. (Canon 12, CPR) Being an officer of the Court, he becomes an
instrument to advance its ends. Further, a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his
cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the court. (Canon 13, CPR) He must refrain from engaging in
improper acts unbecoming of a lawyer that tend to lessen the confidence of the public
in the impartial administration of justice. Such improper acts include hospitality and
over familiarity with a judge (Canon 13 Rule 13.01, CPR), statements to arouse public
opinion for or against a party (Canon 13 Rule 13.02, CPR), or any interference by
another branch or agency of the government (Canon 13 Rule 13.03, CPR).

Disrespect towards the court would necessarily undermine the confidence of the
people in the honesty and integrity of the members of the court, and consequently, to
lower or degrade the administration of justice by the court. All lawyers are expected to
recognize the authority of the Supreme Court and obey its lawful processes and
orders. Despite errors which one may impute on the orders of the Court, these must
be respected, especially by the bar or the lawyers who are themselves officers of the
courts. (Yap-Paras v. Atty. Paras, A.C. No. 4947, June 7, 2007)

Every lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm and zeal in
the maintenance of the defense of his rights and exertion of utmost learning ability to
the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with
law. He owes a duty of competent and zealous representation to the client, and should
preserve his client’s secrets, preserve his funds and property and avoid conflicts of
interest under Canons 14 to 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

A lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client. He owes his client full
devotion to his interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights. It
demands of an attorney an undivided allegiance, a conspicuous and high degree of
good faith, disinterestedness, candor, fairness, loyalty, fidelity and absolute integrity
in all his dealings and transactions with his clients and an utter renunciation of every
personal advantage conflicting in any way, directly or indirectly, with the interest of
his client. (Oparel Sr. v. Abaria, A.C. No. 959, July 30, 1971) If they find that their
client’s cause is defenseless, then it is their bounden duty to advise the latter to
acquiesce and submit rather than to traverse the incontrovertible. Every case a lawyer

Page 16 of 17
accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or free. Certainly a member of the Bar
who is worth his title cannot afford to practice the profession in a lackadaisical
fashion. A lawyer’s lethargy is both unprofessional and unethical. (Jardin vs. Villar Jr.,
A.C. No. 5474, August 28, 2003)

The Supreme Court requires strict obedience to the rules and subjects lawyers
to discipline and administrative liability for inexcusable breach thereof to protect the
public, the Court, and the client from dishonesty and incompetence of unfaithful
lawyers. (Agpalo, 2008)

Page 17 of 17