I.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. Meaning of Procedural Law

“Procedural law refers to the adjective law which prescribes rules and forms of procedure
in order that courts may be able to administer justice. Procedural laws do not come within the
legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against the retroactive operation of
statutes they may be given retroactive effect on actions pending and undetermined at the time of
their passage and this will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adverrsely
affected, insomuch as there are no vested rights in rules of procedure.” (Pricilla Alma Jose vs.
Ramon Javellana, et al., G.R. No. 158239, January 25, 2012)
2. Substantive Law vs. Procedural Law

“Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, or
which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action; that part of the law
which courts are established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law, which
prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtains redress for their invasion.” (Bustos vs
Lucero, 81 Phil. 648,  March 8, 1949)
Substantive Law Procedural Law
It creates, defines and regulates rights It prescribes the rules and forms of
procedure in the administration of justice
It cannot be waived It can be waived or subject to
agreement of the parties
It is enacted by the Congress It is promulgated by the Supreme
Court pursuant to its Rule making power
It may be given retroactive application It shall be given prospective
application

3. Rule making power of the Supreme Court

The Rule making power of the Supreme Court is embodied in Section 5, Paragraph 5,
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which provides that:
“(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to 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. Rules of procedure
of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.”
“While the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts
is, by constitutional design, vested unto Congress, the power to promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all
courts belongs exclusively to this Court.” (Carpio-Morales vs Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos.
217126-27, November 10, 2015)

4. Principle of Judicial Heirarchy

The Principle of Judicial Heirarchy provides that the Court will not entertain direct resort
to it unless the redress desured cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional
and compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise
of primary jurisdiction. (Civil Procedure, Ferdinand Tan, p. 37)

“While the principle of hierarchy of courts does indeed require that recourses should be
made to the lower courts before they are made to the higher courts, this principle is not an
absolute rule and admits of exceptions under well-defined circumstances. In several cases, we
have allowed direct invocation of this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari on
the ground of special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition; when dictated by public
welfare and the advancement of public policy; when demanded by the broader interest of justice;
when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or when analogous exceptional and compelling
circumstances called for and justified our immediate and direct handling of the case.” (Republic
of the Philippines vs Hon. Ramon Caguioa, G.R. No. 174385, February 20, 2013)

5. Doctrine of Non-Interference or Judicial stability

“The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of

a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice: no court can interfere
by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the
power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the
concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment
therein has jurisdiction over Its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its
execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of
ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.

Thus, we have repeatedly held that a case where an execution order has been issued is considered
as still pending, so that all the proceedings on the execution are still proceedings in the suit. A
court which issued a writ of execution has the inherent power, for the advancement of justice, to
correct errors of its ministerial officers and to control its own processes. To hold otherwise
would be to divide the jurisdiction of the appropriate forum in the resolution of incidents arising
in execution proceedings-Splitting of jurisdiction is obnoxious to the orderly administration of
justice.” (Atty. Cabili v. Judge Balindong, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225, September 6, 2011)
In addition, it is a familiar principle that when a court of competent jurisdiction acquires
jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, its authority continues, subject only to the appellate
authority, until the matter is finally and completely disposed of, and that no court of co-ordinate
authority is at liberty to interfere with its action. This doctrine is applicable to civil cases, to
criminal prosecutions, and to courts-martial. The principle is essential to the proper and orderly
administration of the laws; and while its observance might be required on the grounds of judicial
comity and courtesy, it does not rest upon such considerations exclusively, but is enforced to
prevent unseemly, expensive, and dangerous conflicts of jurisdiction and of the process.
(Cojuangco v. Villegas, 263 Phil. 291, 297, 1990)
II. JURISDICTION

1. Classification of Jurisdiction
a. Original vs Appellate
Original jurisdiction refers to the power of the Court to take judicial cognizance of a case
instituted for judicial action for the first time under the conditions provided by law. (Civil
Procedure, Ferdinand Tan, p. 3)
The 1987 Constitution provides for the original jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme
Court, it is provided:
“SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus. xxxxx”

Batas Pambansa bilang 129 further provides for the original jurisdiction exercised by the
Court of Appeals:
“Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:
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 original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgements of Regional
Trial Courts
Xxx”
It also provides for the exclusive original jurisdiction exercised by the Regional Trial Court:

“Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.

Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original
jurisdiction:

(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; and

(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.”
 Appellate jurisdiction, on the other hand,refers to the power and authority conferred upon
a superior court to rehear and determine causes which have been tried in lower courts, and
cognizance which a superior court takes of a case removed to it, by appeal or writ of error, from
the decision of a lower court, or the review by a superior court of the final judgment or order of
some lower courts. (supra.)

Sec 5, Article VIII, par. 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that:

“Xxx

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

(a) 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.

(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.”

Section 9, Batas Pambansa bilang 129, provides that the Court of Appeals have:

“3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commission,
including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the
Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, Except those falling
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the
Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of
this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth
paragraph od Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.”

b. General vs Special
General Jurisdiction refers to the power of the Court to adjudicate all controversies
except those expressly withheld from the plenary powers of the court. It extends to all
controversies which may be brough before a court within the legal bounds of rights and
remedies. (supra.)
Special jurisdiction on the other hand, refers to the power of the Court to hear and decide
certain cases as may be provided by law.
 Section 23 of the Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended provides for the special
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court in the following cases:

”Section 23. Special jurisdiction to try special cases. – The Supreme Court may
designate certain branches of the Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal cases,
juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall
under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or such other special cases as the
Supreme Court may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.”

c. Exclusive vs. Concurrent

Exclusive Jurisdiction refers to the power of the Court to adjudicate a case or proceeding
to the exclusion of all other courts at that stage.
Concurrent Jurisdiction on the other hand refers to the power conferred upon different
courts, whether of the same or different ranks, to take cognizance at the same stage of the same
case in the same or different judicial territories.

2. Doctrines of Heirarchy of Courts and Continuity of Jurisdiction

The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was created by this court to
ensure that every level of the judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective and efficient
manner. Trial courts do not only determine the facts from the evaluation of the evidence
presented before them. They are likewise competent to determine issues of law which may
include the validity of an ordinance, statute, or even an executive issuance in relation to the
Constitution. To effectively perform these functions, they are territorially organized into regions
and then into branches. Their writs generally reach within those territorial boundaries.
Necessarily, they mostly perform the all-important task of inferring the facts from the evidence
as these are physically presented before them. In many instances, the facts occur within their
territorial jurisdiction, which properly present the 'actual case' that makes ripe a determination of
the constitutionality of such action. The consequences, of course, would be national in scope.
There are, however, some cases where resort to courts at their level would not be practical
considering their decisions could still be appealed before the higher courts, such as the Court of
Appeals.

The Supreme Court's role to interpret the Constitution and act in order to protect
constitutional rights when these become exigent should not be emasculated by the doctrine in
respect of the hierarchy of courts. That has never been the purpose of such doctrine.

Thus, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. This court has "full
discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction [over] special civil actions
for certiorari ... filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the
nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition." As correctly pointed out by
petitioners, we have provided exceptions to this doctrine:
First, a direct resort to this court is allowed when there are genuine issues of constitutionality
that must be addressed at the most immediate time. A direct resort to this court includes availing
of the remedies of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of actions of both
legislative and executive branches of the government.
....
A second exception is when the issues involved are of transcendental importance. In these cases,
the imminence and clarity of the threat to fundamental constitutional rights outweigh the
necessity for prudence. The doctrine relating to constitutional issues of transcendental
importance prevents courts from the paralysis of procedural niceties when clearly faced with the
need for substantial protection.
....
Third, cases of first impression warrant a direct resort to this court. In cases of first impression,
no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower courts on this matter. In Government of the
United States v. Purganan, this court took cognizance of the case as a matter of first impression
that may guide the lower courts:

In the interest of justice and to settle once and for all the important issue of bail in extradition
proceedings, we deem it best to take cognizance of the present case. Such proceedings constitute
a matter of first impression over which there is, as yet, no local jurisprudence to guide lower
courts.
....
Fourth, the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this court. In Drilon v. Lim, this
court held that:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
... it will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to the higher
judgment of this Court in the consideration of its validity, which is better determined after a
thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrence of the majority of those who
participated in its discussion.
....
Fifth, ... Exigency in certain situations would qualify as an exception for direct resort to this
court.
Sixth, the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ...
....
Seventh, [there is] no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law[.]
... The lack of other sufficient remedies in the course of law alone is sufficient ground to allow
direct resort to this court.
Eighth, the petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the advancement
of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of
were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate
remedy." In the past, questions similar to these which this court ruled on immediately despite the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts included citizens' right to bear arms, government contracts
involving modernization of voters' registration lists, and the status and existence of a public
office.
It is not, however, necessary that all of these exceptions must occur at the same time to justify a
direct resort to this court. (The Diocese of Bacolod vs Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
205728, January 21, 2015, 747 SCRA)
 Doctrine of Continuity of Jurisdiction

“In view of the principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction
continues until the Court has done all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. This
principle also means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent
happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from
attaching in the first instance. The Court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that
jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.
Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over
the case. What the court loses is the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after
the judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it.”
(Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96, January 19, 1999)

3. Jurisdiction of various Philippine Courts

Jurisdiction of the Municipal trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts
is provided by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, amended by Republic Act No.7691. It states that:

"Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. – Except in cases falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

"(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances
committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and

"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
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 kind, nature, value or amount thereof:
Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof."

" Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

"(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and
intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of
the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate,
or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00),
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages
 of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the
determination of the filing fees: Provided, further, That where there are several claims or
causes of actions 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;

"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the questions of ownership in his
pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of
ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of
possession; and

"(3) 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 Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions
in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
(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."

"Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. – Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the
Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where
there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does not exceed
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the
claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the
corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their decisions in these cases shall be
appealable in the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts."

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, amended by Republic Act No. 7691 provides for the jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Court:

"Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall 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 Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value
exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon
the 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 One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where such
demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);

"(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro
Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);

"(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 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 Court of Agrarian
Relations as now provided 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 exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases
in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Two
Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)."

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, amended by Republic Act 7902 provides for the jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals:

"Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. — The Court of Appeals shall exercise:

"(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 original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of Regional
Trial Courts; and

"(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, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social
Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service
Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the
third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the
Judiciary Act of 1948.
"The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence
and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its
original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further
proceedings. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be
completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice."

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is provided by the The Judiciary Act of 1987 as amended by
the Republic Act No. 5440

"Sec. 17. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction
over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; and original and exclusive
jurisdiction in petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against
the Court of Appeals.

"In the following cases, the Supreme Court shall exercise original and concurrent jurisdiction
with Courts of First Instance:

"1. In petition for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus; and

"2. In actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of law concerning monopolies
and combinations in restraint of trade.

"The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm
on appeal, as the law or rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior
courts as herein provided, in

"(1) All criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty imposed is death or life
imprisonment; and those involving other offenses which, although not so punished, arose
out of the same occurrence or which may have been committed by the accused on the
same occasion, as that giving rise to the more serious offense, regardless of whether the
accused are charged as principals, accomplices or accessories, or whether they have been
tried jointly or separately;

"(2) All cases involving petitions for naturalization or denaturalization; and

"(3) All decisions of the Auditor General, if the appellant is a private person or entity.

"The Supreme Court shall further have exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify
or affirm on certiorari as the law or rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of
inferior courts as herein provided, in

"(1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or
executive order or regulation is in question;
 "(2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment or toil, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto;

"(3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior court is in issue;

"(4) All other cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved: Provided,
however, That if, in addition to constitutional, tax or jurisdictional questions, the cases
mentioned in the three next preceding paragraphs also involve questions of fact or mixed
questions of fact and law, the aggrieved party shall appeal to the Court of Appeals; and
the final judgment or decision of the latter may be reviewed, revised, reversed, modified
or affirmed by the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari; and

"(5) Final awards, judgments, decisions, or orders of the Commission on Elections, Court
of Tax Appeals, Court of Industrial Relations, the Public Service Commission and the
Workmen's Compensation Commission."

4. Aspects of Jurisdiction
a. Jurisdiction over the parties

Jurisdition over the plaintiff or petitioner is acquired by filing of the complaint, petition
or initiatory pleading before the court by the plaintiff or petitioner.
“Jurisdiction over the person, or jurisdiction in personam –the power of the court to
render a personal judgment or to subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment and
other rulings rendered in the action – is an element of due process that is essential in all actions,
civil as well as criminal, except in actions in rem or quasi in rem. Jurisdiction over the defendant
in an action in rem or quasi in rem is not required, and the court acquires jurisdiction over an
action as long as it acquires jurisdiction over the res that is the subject matter of the action. The
purpose of summons in such action is not the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant but
mainly to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process.” (Macasaet vs Co, G.R. No.
156759, June 5, 2013)
“The fundamental rule is that jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired
either through service of summons or through voluntary appearance in court and submission to
its authority. If a defendant has not been properly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction
over its person, and a judgment rendered against it is null and void.
Where the action is in personam and the defendant is in the Philippines, service of
summons may be made through personal service, that is, summons shall be served by handing to
the defendant in person a copy thereof, or if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it
to him. If the defendant cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, it is
then that substituted service may be made. Personal service of summons should and always be
the first option, and it is only when the said summons cannot be served within a reasonable time
can the process server resort to substituted service.” (Planters Development Bank vs.
Chandumal, G.R. No. 195619, September 5, 2012)

b. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

 “Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class
to which the proceedings in question belong. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by
law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of
the court that it exists. Basic is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by
the cause or causes of action as alleged in the complaint.” (Danilo S. Ursua vs. Republic of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 178193, January 24, 2012)
“The rule is settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any
stage of the proceedings. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the
Constitution or the law. It cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of
the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Consequently, questions of jurisdiction
may be cognizable even if raised for the first time on appeal.” (Republic vs Bantigue Point
Development Corp., G.R. No. 162322, March 14, 2012)
“Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is generally conferred by law and, unlike
jurisdiction over the parties, cannot be bestowed upon the court by the voluntary act or
agreement of such parties. But the determination of whether or not a court may assume
jurisdiction over a case for a subject matter that by law is within its ambit is made by simply
looking at the mere allegations of the complaint.” (Deltaventures Resources, Inc. vs. Cabato,
327 SCRA 521)

c. Jurisdiction over the issues

“This jurisdiction means that the court must only pass upon issues raised by the pleadings
of the parties. Hence, if the issue raised by the parties is possession, the court has no jurisdiction
to pass upon the issue of ownership because it is not an issue in the case. Conversely, if the issue
in the case is ownership and no issue of possession is found in the pleadings of the parties, the
court has no authority to adjudicate on the possession of the property. Thus, it is not correct for
the court to order the lessee to vacate the premises where the lessor did not include in his
pleadings a claim for restoration of possession.” (Buce vs Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 151)

Section 5, Rule 10 of 1997 Rules of Court provides however,

“Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. — When issues not

raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties they shall be
treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the
pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues
may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend
does not effect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the
ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings
to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and
the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to
enable the amendment to be made.”
 “The Court held that "when evidence is offered on a matter not alleged in the pleadings,
the court may admit it even against the objection of the adverse party, where the latter fails to
satisfy the court that the admission of the evidence would prejudice him in maintaining his
defense upon the merits, and the court may grant him a continuance to enable him to meet the
new situation created by the evidence. Of course, the court, before allowing the evidence, as a
matter of formality, should allow an amendment of the pleading, . . . And, furthermore, where
the failure to order an amendment does not appear to have caused surprise or prejudice to the
objecting party, it may be allowed as a harmless error. Well-known is the rule that departures
from procedure may be forgiven where they do not appear to have impaired the substantial rights
of the parties." (Co Tiamco vs Diaz, G.R. No. L-7, January 22, 1946)

d. Jurisdiction over the res or the property in litigation

“This is acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by the court of the thing in
question, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment or garnishment or by provision of law
which recognizes in the court the power to deal with the propert or subject matter within its
territorial jurisdiction, as in land registration proceedings or suits involving civil status or real
property in the Philippines of a non-resident defendant.” (Civil Procedure, Ferdinand Tan, p.99)

5. Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction

"Jurisdiction should be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction refers to

the authority to decide a case, not the orders or the decision rendered therein. Accordingly, where
a court has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, as in the instant case, the decision
on all questions arising from the case is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. Any error that the
court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is merely an error of judgment which does
not affect its authority to decide the case, much less divest the court of the jurisdiction over the
case.” (Platinum Tours vs Panlilio, G.R. No. 133365, September 16, 2003)

6. Jurisdiction vs. Venue

“Venue and jurisdiction are entirely distinct matters. Jurisdiction may not be conferred by
consent or waiver upon a court which otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject-
matter of an action; but the venue of an action as fixed by statute may be changed by the consent
of the parties and an objection that the plaintiff brought his suit in the wrong county may be
waived by the failure of the defendant to make a timely objection. In either case, the court may
render a valid judgment. Rules as to jurisdiction can never be left to the consent or agreement of
the parties, whether or not a prohibition exists against their alteration.” (Davao Light and Power
Co. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 363 SCRA 396, G.R. No. 111685. August 20, 2001)

Hon. Florenz D. Regalado, in the case of Nocum vs Tan, differentiated jurisdiction and venue as
follows: (a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case; venue is the place where
the case is to be heard or tried; (b) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue, of
procedural law; (c) Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter;
venue, a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent; and, (d)
Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by
the act or agreement of the parties. (Nocum vs. Tan, G.R. No. 145022, September 23, 2005)

Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the authority of the court to hear
and determine the case
It is a matter of substative law
It establishes a relation between the court and
the subject matter of the action
It is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by
the agreement of the parties
It cannot be waived
There can be motu proprio dismissal of the
action based on lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case (Section 1, Rule 9)
Venue
Venue is the place where the case is to be
heard
It is a matter of procedural law
It establishes the relation between plaintiff and
defendant or petitioner and respondent
It may be conferred by the act or agreement of
the parties, and
It can be waived for failure to object either in a
motion to dismiss or answer
As a rule, there can be no motu proprio
dismissal of the action based on improper
venue, except under the Rules on Summary
Procedure and Rules on Small Claims.

7. Jurisdiction over cases covered by Barangay Conciliation, Small Claims Cases, and
cases covered by Summary Procedure

a. Cases covered by Barangay Conciliation

“Section 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. - The lupon of
each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city
or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except:
(a) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;
(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
(d) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities
unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon;
(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or
municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto
agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;
(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of
Justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the lupon under
this Code are filed may, at any time before trial motu propio refer the case to the lupon
concerned for amicable settlement.” (Section 408, Republic Act 7160)
Section 412. Conciliation. -
(a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. - No complaint, petition, action, or
proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or
instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication, unless there
has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat,
and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary
or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the
settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.
(b) Where Parties May Go Directly to Court. - The parties may go directly to court in the
following instances:
(1) Where the accused is under detention;
(2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for
habeas corpus proceedings;
(3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary
injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support pendente lite;
and
(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.
(c) Conciliation among members of indigenous cultural communities. - The customs and
traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in settling disputes
between members of the cultural communities. (Section 412(b), Republic Act 7160)

b. Small Claims Cases

Section 2. Scope. – These Rules shall govern procedure in actions before the
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs),
Municipal Trial Courts (MTCTs) for payment of money where the value of the claim
does not exceed the jurisdictional amount of these courts under RA 7691 [Four
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000)] for the MeTCs and Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos [p300,000] for the MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs), exclusive of
interests and costs.

Xxxx

Section 8. Joinder of Claims. Plaintiff may join in a single statement of claim one or
more separate small claims against a defendant provided that the total amount
claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed the jurisdictional amount
of the concerned court under RA 7691 (Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
[P400,000] for MeTCs and Three Hundred Thousand Pesos [P300,000] for the
MTCCs, MTCs, and MCTCs) (Amendments in bold)
(A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC or the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases,
February 26, 2019)

c. Cases covered by Summary Procedure

 “Section 1.  Scope. — This rule shall govern the summary procedure in the Metropolitan
Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within their jurisdiction:
A.  Civil Cases:
(1)  All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of
damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered. Where attorney's fees are
awarded, the same shall not exceed twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00).
(2)  All other civil cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the
plaintiff's claim does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00), exclusive of
interest and costs.
B.  Criminal Cases:
(1)  Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations; chanrobles virtual law library
(2)  Violations of the rental law; chanrobles virtual law library
(3)  Violations of municipal or city ordinances; 
(4)  All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense
charged is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding
(P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or
otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in
offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule shall
govern where the imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
This Rule shall not apply to a civil case where the plaintiffs cause of action is pleaded in the
same complaint with another cause of action subject to the ordinary procedure; nor to a criminal
case where the offense charged is necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the
ordinary procedure.” (Section 1, Revised Rules on Summary Procedure)

III.CIVIL PROCEDURE

1. General Provisions (Rule 1)

Construction of the Rules

Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Court provides that:

“Section 6. Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote

their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.”

“The Rules itself expressly states in Section 2 of Rule 1 that the rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. Courts, therefore, not only have the
power but the duty to construe and apply technical rules liberally in favor of substantive law and
substantial justice. Furthermore, this Court, unlike courts below, has the power not only to
liberally construe the rules, but also to suspend them, in favor of substantive law or substantial
rights. Such power inherently belongs to this Court, which is expressly vested with rule-making
power by no less than the Constitution. It is equally settled, however, that this Court’s power to
liberally construe and even to suspend the rules, presupposes the existence of substantial rights in
favor of which, the strict application of technical rules must concede.” (Redena vs Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 146611, February, 6, 2007)

“Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may
have prejudiced a party's substantive rights; like all rules, they are required to be followed.
However, there are recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as:
(1) most persuasive and weighty reasons;
(2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with
the prescribed procedure;
(3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from
the time of the default;
(4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances;
(5) the merits of the case;
(6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules;
(7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory;
(8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby;
(9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant's fault;
(10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case;
(11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play;
(12) importance of the issues involved; and
(13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances.
Thus, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a
reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.”
(Francisco Labao vs Lolito Flores, et al., G.R. No. 187984, November, 15, 2010)

“Although it has been said time and again that litigation is not a game of technicalities, that every
case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure so that issues may be
properly presented and justly resolved, this does not mean that procedural rules may altogether
be disregarded. Rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when, for persuasive
reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to
comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of
procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain
his failure to abide by the rules.” (Vda. De Victoria vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 147550,
January 26,2007)

2. Cause of Action (Rule 2)

Cause of Action, defined.

Section 2. Cause of action, defined. — A cause of action is the act or omission by which
a party violates a right of another. (Section 2, Rule 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
 “A cause of action is defined as an act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another. The test of the sufficiency of the facts found in a petition as constituting a cause of
action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon
the same in accordance with the prayer thereof.” (Spouses Chu vs. Benelda Estate Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 142313, March 1, 2001)

A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the
other which causes the latter injury. The essential elements of a cause of action are the following:
(1) the existence of a legal right of the plaintiff;
(2) a correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect one's right; and
(3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of the plaintiff's right. (Sps. Decena vs
Sps. Piquero, G.R. No. 155736, March 31, 2005)

The cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint.

“In determining the existence of a cause of action, only the statements in the complaint
may properly be considered. It is error for the court to take cognizance of external facts or hold
preliminary hearings to determine their existence. If the allegation in a complaint furnish
sufficient basis by which the complaint may be maintained, the same should not be dismissed
regardless of the defenses that may be assessed by the defendants.

Thus, in determining the existence of a cause of action, only the allegations in the
complaint may properly be considered. For the court to do otherwise would be a procedural error
and a denial of the plaintiff’s right to due process.” (Leticia Aquino vs Cesar Quiazon, G.R. No.
201248, March 11, 2015)

The Rules of Court prohibits the spilitting of cause of action.

“Splitting a single cause of action is the act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of
action into several parts or claims and instituting two or more actions upon them. A single cause
of action or entire claim or demand cannot be split up or divided in order to be made the subject
of two or more different actions.Thus, Section 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court expressly prohibits
splitting of a single cause of action, viz:
Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. — If two or more suits are
instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits
in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.” (Catalina Chu et al. Vs
Spouses Hernando Cunanan vs Trinidad Cunanan, G.R. No. 156185, September 12, 2011)

Joinder of Causes of Action

Section 5 of Rule 2 provides for the rule on joinder of causes of action in a single
pleading against an opposing party. It states that:
“Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party may in one pleading assert, in the
alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party,
subject to the following conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of
parties;
 (b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different
venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided
one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies
therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.”
“The above provision presupposes that the different causes of action which are joined
accrue in favor of the same plaintiff/s and against the same defendant/s and that no misjoinder of
parties is involved. The issue of whether respondents' claims shall be lumped together is
determined by paragraph (d) of the above provision. This paragraph embodies the "totality rule"
as exemplified by Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129 which states, among others, that "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." (Pantranco vs Buncan, G.R. No. 1406, March 16, 2005)

A joinder of causes of action is the uniting of two or more demands or right of action in a
complaint. The question of the joinder of causes of action involves in particular cases a
preliminary inquiry as to whether two or more causes of action are alleged. In declaring whether
more than one cause of action is alleged, the main thrust is
 whether more than one primary right or subject of controversy is present.
 whether recovery on one ground would bar recovery on the other,
 whether the same evidence would support the other different counts and
 whether separate actions could be maintained for separate relief; or
 whether more than one distinct primary right or subject of controversy is alleged
for enforcement or adjudication. ((Sps. Decena vs Sps. Piquero, G.R. No. 155736,
March 31, 2005)

Misjoinder of Causes of Action

Section 6 of Rule 2 provides for the rule on misjoinder of causes of action. It states that:

“Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. — Misjoinder of causes of action is not a

ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on
the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately.”

“The rule on joinder of causes of action under Sec. 5, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure required that the joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special
rules. Section 6, rule 2 explicitly provides that misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for
the dismissal of the action.” (Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Fernando, Pampanga vs.
Fernando Soriano, Jr. et al. G.R. No. 153829, August 17, 2011)

I
 3. Parties in a Civil Action (Rule 3)

The following are the parties in a civil action:

a. Natural persons
b. Juridical persons
c. Entities authorized by law (Section 1, Rule 3)

“An unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of its
own enjoys immunity from suit because it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty.
Accordingly, a claim for damages against the agency cannot prosper; otherwise, the doctrine of
sovereign immunity is violated. However, the need to distinguish between an unincorporated
government agency performing governmental function and one performing proprietary functions
has arisen. The immunity has been upheld in favor of the former because its function is
governmental or incidental to such function; it has not been upheld in favor of the latter whose
function was not in pursuit of a necessary function of government but was essentially a
business.” (Department of Health vs Phil Pharma Wealth, Inc., G.R. No. 182358, February 20,
2013)

Real Party in interest - the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these
Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
(Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure)

“Accordingly, it has been held that the interest of a person assailing the constitutionality of
a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any
government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some
direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some
indefinite way. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied
some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some
burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of.” (Agan Jr. vs. PIATCO, G.R.
Nos. 155001, 155647 and 155661, May 5, 2003)

A transferee pendente lite is a proper party that stands exactly in the shoes of the transferor,
the original party. Transferees are bound by the proceedings and judgment in the case, such that
there is no need for them to be included or impleaded by name. We have even gone further and
said that the transferee is joined or substituted in the pending action by operation of law from the
exact moment when the transfer of interest is perfected between the original party and the
transferee. (Cameron Granville Asset Mgt. vs. Chua, G.R No. 191170, September 2016)

The Court held in the case of Guy v. Gacott, that under Article 1816 of the Civil Code, the
partners' obligation with respect to the partnership liabilities is subsidiary in nature. It is merely
secondary and only arises if the one primarily liable fails to sufficiently satisfy the obligation.
Resort to the properties of a partner may be made only after efforts in exhausting partnership
assets have failed or if such partnership assets are insufficient to cover the entire obligation.
(Guy vs Gacott, G.R. No. 206147, January 13, 2016, 780 SCRA 579.)

When is permissive joinder of parties allowed?

“All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the
same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the
alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as
defendants in one complaint subject to the following requirements:

o where any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such
defendants may arise in the action

o the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or
defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any
proceedings in which he may have no interest. (Sec. 6, Rule 3)

Indispensable parties – refers to those parties in interest without whom no final

determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants (Sec. 7,
Rule 3)

Settled is the rule that joinder of indispensable parties is compulsory being a sine qua non for the
exercise of judicial power, and, it is precisely "when an indispensable party is not before the
court that the action should be dismissed" for such absence renders all subsequent actions of the
court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to
those present. (Guy vs Guy, G.R. No. 189486, September 5, 2012)

Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, as amended, requires indispensable parties to be

joined as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Without the
presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain real
finality. Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court.The absence of
an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void. Lack of authority
to act not only of the absent party but also as to those present. The responsibility of impleading
all the indispensable parties rests on the petitioner/plaintiff.

However, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an
action. Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative
at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just. If the petitioner/plaintiff refuses to
implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter may dismiss the
complaint/petition for the petitioner/plaintiff’s failure to comply therefor. (Domingo vs Scheer,
421 SCRA 468, January 29, 2004)

Necessary Party – one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if
complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or
settlement of the claim subject of the action (Sec. 8, Rule 3)
 Effects in case of non-joinder or misjoinder of necessary party
1. A necessary party may be omitted in a pleading, but the pleader shall set forth his
name, if know, and shall state whu he is omitted;
2. Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritortious, it may order the
inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained;
3. On the contrary, if the court finds the omission justifiable, or even if not justifiable but
jurisdiction over the person of such party cannot be obtained by such court, then such
omission will be allowed, and the proceedings shall continue despite such non-joinder.
(Section 9, Rule 3)

Any person who should be joined as plaintiff but his consent cannot be obtained, he shall be
made a defendant and the reason therefore shall be stated in the complaint. (Section 10, Rule 3)

Effects of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties:

 It is not a ground for dismissal of an action
 Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its
own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just
 Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately.
(Section 11, Rule 3)

Elements of Class Suit

 the subject matter in controversy is of common or general interest to many persons,
 those persons are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the
court 
 only one right or cause of action pertaining or belonging in common to many persons, not
separately or severally to distinct individuals
 the parties be so numerous that it would be impracticable to bring them all before the
court (Liana’s Supermarket vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Nationa
Labor Union, G.R. No.111014, May 31, 1996)

The following are the duties of a counsel in case of death or a party in an action that
survives:
 Inform the Court within 30 days after such death of the fact thereof;
 To give the name and address of his legal representative/s
 Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action
(Section 16, Rule 3)

Effects of death or separation of a party who is a public officer:

 The action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty
(30) days after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, it is
satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a substantial need for
 continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or threatens to
adopt or continue to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor.

 Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly

assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and
accorded an opportunity to be heard. (Section 17, Rule 3)

Effects in case of transfer of interest by the party:

 The action may be continued by or against the original party
 Unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be
substituted in the action or joined with the original party (Section 19, Rule 3)

Effects in case of death of a party in an action based on a contractual money claims and the
defendant dies before entry of final judgment:
 It will not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final
judgment; and
 In case of a favorable judgment obtained by tthe plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the
manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a
deceased person (Section 20, Rule 3)

Indigent party – one who is allowed to litigate an action who has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.

Requirements to be declared as indigent party:

 Upon an ex parte application and hearing
 The Court is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficiant and
available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family (Civil
Procedure, Ferdinand Tan, p. 348)

“To be entitled to the exemption for payment of legal and filing fees, the litigant shall execute an
affidavit that he and his immediate family do not earn a gross income abovementioned, and they
do not own any real property with the fair value aforementioned, supported by an affidavit of a
disinterested person attesting to the truth of the litigant's affidavit. The current tax declaration, if
any, shall be attached to the litigant's affidavit.

The Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., being a corporation invested by the State with a juridical
personality separate and distinct from that of its members, is a juridical person. Among others, it
has the power to acquire and possess property of all kinds as well as incur obligations and bring
civil or criminal actions, in conformity with the laws and regulations of their organization.  As a
juridical person, therefore, it cannot be accorded the exemption from legal and filing fees granted
to indigent litigants.” (Re: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi re exemption from legal and filing
filing fees of the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc. A.M. No. 09-6-9-SC, August 19, 2009)