ARDIENTE SPEM NOTES

1) APPEAL BY CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 vs. CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65

Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45)
A mode of appeal which seeks to review final
judgments and orders;
A continuation of the appellate process over
the original case;
Raises questions of law;
Filed within 15 days from notice of judgment,
final order or resolution appealed from;
Stays the judgment sought to be appealed;
Does not require a prior motion for
reconsideration;
The parties are the original parties with the
appealing party as the petitioner and the
adverse party as the respondent without
impleading the lower court or its judge;
Filed with the SC;
Special Civil Action for Certiorari (Rule 65)
A special civil action that is an original action
directed against an interlocutory order or
matters where no appeal may be taken from;
Not part of the appellate process, it is an
independent action;
Raises questions of jurisdiction;
Filed not later than 60 days from notice of
judgment, order or resolution sought to be
assailed, or from notice of denial of an MR or
MNT;
Does not stay the judgment or order subject
the petition, unless enjoined or restrained;
Requires, as a general rule, a prior motion for
reconsideration;
The tribunal, board, or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions is
impleaded as respondent;
Filed with the RTC, with the CA, or with the SC

GENERAL RULE: The remedy of appeal under Rule 45 and an original action for certiorari under
Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. Thus, a party should not join
both petitions in one pleading (NAMAPRI – SPFL v. CA, G.R. Nos. 148839-49, November 2, 2006).

EXCEPTION: The SC may set aside technicality for justifiable reasons as when the petition
before the Court is clearly meritorious and filed on time both under Rule 45 and 65. In
accordance with the liberal spirit which pervades the Rules of Court and in the interest of
justice, The Court may treat the petition as having been filed under Rule 45 (International
Corporate Bank, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 129910, September 5, 2006).

QUESTION: Jovina filed a Complaint for Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale on the ground that her
signature therein is forged. The complaint was favourably decided by the lower court, however
the same was reversed on appeal. Aggrieved, Jovina filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
before the Supreme Court to assail the CA’s decision. Is Jovina’s action proper?

ANSWER: NO. The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a judgment, final order, or
resolution of the CA is to file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 within 15 days from notice of the judgment, final order, or
resolution appealed from. Obviously, Jovina, in filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court, availed of the wrong
remedy. Unlike a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which is a continuation of the
appellate process over the original case, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an
original or independent action based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. It will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. As such, it cannot be a substitute
for a lost appeal, especially if such loss or lapse was due to one’s own negligence or error
in the choice of remedies (Dabon v. CA, G.R. No. 174937, June 13, 2012, Del
Castillo, J.).

2) CIVIL ACTION, CRIMINAL ACTION, DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

A CIVIL ACTION is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong;
 A civil action may either be ORDINARY OR SPECIAL.

Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules
prescribed for a special civil action.

A CRIMINAL ACTION is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law.

A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE, is actually a motion to dismiss that is filed by the accused after
the prosecution has rested its case.

 May be filed on the ground of insufficiency of evidence;

 It is an objection by one of the parties in an action to the effect that the evidence which
his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law to make out a case or sustain the
issue;
 When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the whole case is submitted
for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution as the accused is deemed to
have waived the right to present evidence. At that juncture, the court is called upon to
decide the case including its civil aspect, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a
separate civil action has been waived or reserved

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IN CRIMINA

CASE

A demurrer to evidence in a civil case is A demurrer to evidence in a criminal case is

anchored upon the failure of the plaintiff to predicated upon insufficiency of evidence
show that upon the facts and the law, he is
entitled to relief

Demurrer to evidence in a civil case under Demurrer to evidence in a criminal case may
Rule 33 requires no prior leave of court. be filed with or without leave of court.

In a civil case when the demurrer is denied,
the defendant does not lose his right to
present his evidence
In a criminal case, the accused may adduce
his evidence in his defense only when the
demurrer that was denied was filed with leave
of court. When filed without leave of court and
the demurrer is denied, the accused waives
his right to present evidence and submits the
case for judgment on the basis of the evidence
for the prosecution

In a civil case, if the demurrer to evidence is No appeal is allowed as a rule, when a

granted, the plaintiff may appeal and if the demurrer to evidence is granted in a criminal
dismissal is reversed, the defendant is deemed case because the dismissal is deemed an
to have waived his right to present his acquittal. To allow the appeal would be to put
evidence the accused in double jeopardy
 3) RULE 70: FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Forcible entry
It is an action to recover possession founded upon illegal possession from the beginning
when one is deprived of physical possession of real property by means of force, intimidation,
threat, strategy, or stealth. It is commenced by a verified complaint (Sec. 1, Rule 70).

REQUISITES OF FORCIBLE ENTRY (PFISTS-1)

1. A person is deprived of possession of any land or building;
2. by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth (FISTS); and
3. Action is brought within 1year from the unlawful deprivation (Sec. 1, Rule 70).

QUESTIONS TO BE RESOLVED IN AN ACTION FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY (AOR)

1. Who has actual possession over the real property;
2. Was the possessor ousted therefrom within 1 year from the filing of the complaint by force,
intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth; and
3. Does the plaintiff ask for the restoration of his possession? (Dizon v. Concina, G.R. No. 23756,
December 27, 1969)

UNLAWFUL DETAINER
It is where one illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his
right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied (Riano, 2012). It is commenced
by a verified complaint (Sec. 1, Rule 70).

NOTE: In a summary action of unlawful detainer, the question to be resolved is which party has
the better or superior right to the physical/material possession (or de facto possession) of the
disputed premises. Whereas in the action for recovery of ownership, the question to be resolved
is which party has the lawful title or dominical right (i.e., owner's right) to the disputed premises
(Bradford United Church of Christ Inc., v. Dante Ando, et al. G.R No. 195669, May 30, 2016, Del
Castillo, J.).

REQUISITES OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER

1. Possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld from a lessor, vendor, vendee, or
other person after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any
contract express or implied;
NOTE: It has been held that prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not an indispensable
requirement in an unlawful detainer case broughtby a vendee or other person against whom the
possession of any land is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of a right to
hold possession (William Go v. Albert Looyuko, G.R. No. 19652, July 1, 2013, citing Sps. Maninang
v. CA, 373 Phil. 304).
2. Action is brought within 1 year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession;
and
3. Demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the
lessee (Sec. 1, Rule 70).

NOTE: If the complaint does not allege facts showing compliance with the prescribed one-year
period to file an action for unlawful detainer, then it cannot properly qualify as such action over
which the MTC can exercise jurisdiction. Such allegations are jurisdictional and crucial. It may
then be an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria (Estate of Manantan v. Somera, G.R. No.
145867, April 7, 2009).

FORMAL CONTRACT NOT A PREREQUISITE IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Even if there is no formal contract between the parties, there can still be an unlawful
detainer because implied contracts are covered by ejectment proceedings. Possession by
tolerance creates an implied promise to vacate the premises upon the demand of the owner
(Peran v. CFI of Sorsogon, G.R. No. 57259, October 13, 1983). Tolerance must be present right
from the start of possession sought to be recovered to categorize a cause of action as one for
unlawful detainer (Muñoz v CA, G.R. No. 102693, Septemeber 22, 1993, citing Sarona v. Villegas
G.R. No. L-22984, March 27, 1968). Otherwise, the proper remedy would be forcible entry.

FORCIBLE ENTRY UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Possession of the land by the defendant is unlawful
from the beginning as he acquires possession by
FISTS.
Demand to vacate is not required before the filing
of the action because occupancy is illegal from the
very beginning (Riano, 2009).
Possession is inceptively lawful but it becomes
illegal by reason of the termination of his right to
the possession of the property under his contract
with the plaintiff.
Demand is jurisdictional if the ground is non-
payment of rentals or failure to comply with the
lease contract.

The plaintiff must prove that he was in prior
physical possession of the premises until he was
deprived thereof by the defendant.
GENERAL RULE: The 1 year period is counted from
the date of actual entry on the land.
EXCEPTION: When entry is by stealth, the period
must be counted from the demand to vacate upon
learning of the stealth (Riano, 2012).
The plaintiff need not have been in prior physical
possession.
Period is counted from the date of the last demand
or last letter of demand in case of non-payment of
rentals or violation of the conditions of the lease
(Riano, 2012).

WHO MAY INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS:

A person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any
contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or
other person.

WHEN TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS:

Any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession;

WHERE TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS:

Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of
possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together
with damages and costs.
REMEDY AFTER 1 YEAR: ACCION PUBLICIANA;
OR ACCION REINVINDICATORIA (action for acquisition of ownership)
***this action may be invoked at the same time;

***SUMMARY PROCEDURE is applicable to FORCIBE ENTRY and UNLAWFUL DETAINER;

***COMPLAINTS ARE THE ONLY PLEADINGS ALLOWED;
***COURT, MAY, from an examination of the allegations, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds
for dismissal of a civil action.

***MOTU PROPIO or MOTION OF THE PLAINTIFF, there could be judgment, if defendant fails to file
his answer;
***PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE – 30 days from the last filing of the answer is filed.
***JUDGMENT is conclusive only on POSSESSION; NOT actions involving TITLE or OWNERSHIP;
-appealable to RTC

4) PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND SUBMISSION IN SMALL CLAIMS AND SUMMARY

PROCEDURE

PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS IN PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS IN

SMALL CLAIMS (SEC. 14, A.M. NO. 08-8-7-
SC)
MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT;
NOTE: The amended rules on small claim removed
the exception on motion to dismiss based on lack of
jurisdiction. The grounds for the dismissal of the
claim, under rule 16 of the rules of court, should be
pleaded. (Sec. 11, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)
MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS;
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, OR FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF A JUDGMENT, OR FOR REOPENING OF TRIAL;
PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
PLEADINGS, AFFIDAVITS, OR ANY OTHER PAPER;
MEMORANDA;
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, OR
PROHIBITION AGAINST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
ISSUED BY THE COURT;
MOTION TO DECLARE THE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT;
DILATORY MOTIONS FOR POSTPONEMENT;
REPLY;
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINTS; AND
INTERVENTIONS
SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SEC. 19)
MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OR TO QUASH
THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION;
XPNS:
a. lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; or
b. failure to refer the case to the Lupong Tagapamayapa
in cases covered by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law;
MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS;
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, OR FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF A JUDGMENT, OR FOR REOPENING OF TRIAL;
PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
PLEADINGS, AFFIDAVITS, OR ANY OTHER PAPER;
MEMORANDA;
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, OR
PROHIBITION AGAINST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
ISSUED BY THE COURT;
MOTION TO DECLARE THE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT;
DILATORY MOTIONS FOR POSTPONEMENT;
REPLY;
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINTS; AND
INTERVENTIONS

5) SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE, TESTACY OVER INTESTACY

1. Extrajudicial settlement if the decedent left no will and no debts, and the heirs are all of
age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for
the purpose (Sec. 1, Rule 74).

2. Judicial settlement-where proceedings in court are necessary, and includes the following:
a. Summary settlement of estate of small value
– Whenever the gross value of the estate of a deceased person, whether he died testate or
intestate, does not exceed P10,000.00, the court may proceed summarily, without the
appointment of an executor or administrator (Sec. 2, Rule 74).
b. Testate proceedings –When the decedent left a last will and testament (Rules 75-79).
c. Intestate proceedings –When the decedent died without a will, or died with a will but
was found invalid and thereafter disallowed (Rule 79).
d. Partition –When there is no will and the parties entitled to the estate would agree on
the project of partition (Rule 69).
 6) WRIT OF KALIKASAN AND WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

WRIT OF KALIKASAN

It is an extraordinary remedy which may be issued depending on the magnitude of

environmental damage. The environmental damage must be of such magnitude
as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces (Sec.
1, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC), or that which transcends political and territorial boundaries.

Court which has jurisdiction

The verified petition should be filed with the SC or with the CA. (Sec. 3, Rule 7, A.M. No.
09-6-8-SC)

Magnitude of environmental damage

It must involve environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health
or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.(Sec. 1, Rule 7, AM No. 09-6-8-SC)

Persons who may file a petition for a writ of kalikasan

1. Natural or juridical person;

2. Entity authorized by law; or
3. People’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited
by or registered with any government agency. (Ibid.)

NOTE: The petition must be on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. (Ibid.)

Persons against whom a petition for a writ of kalikasan is filed

1. The government, as represented by a public official or employee; or
2. A private individual or entity (Ibid.)

Contents of a verified petition

1. Personal circumstances of the petitioner;

2. Name and personal circumstances of the respondent or if the name and personal
circumstances are unknown and uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed
appellation;
3. The environment law, rule or regulation violated or threatened to be violated;
4. The act or omission complained of;
5. The environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces;
6. All relevant and material evidence consisting of affidavit of witnesses, documentary evidence,
scientific or other expert studies, and if possible, object evidence;
7. Should be accompanied by certification against forum shopping; and
8. The reliefs prayed for which may include a prayer for the issuance of a TEPO (Sec. 2, Rule 7,
AM No. 09- 6-8-SC).

NOTE: A verified petition is jurisdictional.

Exemption from payment of docket fees

The petitioner is exempt from payment of docket fees. (Sec. 4, Rule 7, AM No. 09-6-8-SC)
The exemption encourages public participation of availing the remedy.
(Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)

Issuance of the writ of kalikasan

Within 3 days from the date of filing of the petition, if the petition is sufficient in form and
substance, the court shall give an order: (a) issuing the writ; and (b) requiring
the respondent to file a verified return as provided in Sec. 8 of Rule 7. (Sec. 5, Rule 7,AM No. 09-
6-8-SC)

Failure to file a verified return

Failure to file a return shall make the court to proceed to hear the petition ex parte. (Sec.
10, Rule 7, AM No. 09-6-8- SC)

Contempt
After hearing, the court may punish the respondent who refuses or unduly delays the
filing of a return or who makes a false return or any person who disobeys or resists a lawful
process or order of the court for indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. (Sec. 13,
Rule 7, AM No. 09-6-8-SC)

Preliminary conference

After receipt of the return, the court may call for a preliminary conference; the hearing
including the preliminary conference shall not extend beyond 60 days and shall be given the
same priority as petitions for the writs of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data. (Sec. 11, Rule
7, AM No. 09-6-8-SC)

NOTE: After hearing, the court shall issue an order submitting the case for decision and may
require the filing of memoranda. (Sec. 14, Rule 7, AM No. 09-6-8-SC)

Reliefs that may be granted under the writ

1. Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts or neglecting the
performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental destruction
and damage;
2. Directing respondent to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;
3. Directing respondent to monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders of the court;
4. Directing respondent to make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment; and
5. Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology or
to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, except the award
of damages to individual petitioners. (Sec. 15, Rule 7, AM No. 09-6-8-SC)

Appeal

Within 15 days from the date of notice of the adverse judgment or denial of motion for
reconsideration, any party may appeal to the SC under Rule 45. This is an exception to Rule 45
since it may raise question of facts on appeal under Rule 45. (Sec. 16, Rule 7, AM No. 09-6-8- SC)

Institution of separate actions

The filing of the petition for the writ of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil,
criminal or administrative actions. (Sec. 17, Rule 7, AM No. 09-6-8-SC)

WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

It is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing any agency or

instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed by
final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied. [Sec. 4 (c), Rule 1,AM
No. 09-6-8-SC]
***A writ of continuing mandamus is, in essence, a command of continuing compliance with a
final judgment as it “permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to
ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the court’s decision.”

When a writ of continuing mandamus may be availed of

A person may file a verified petition for a writ of continuing mandamus when any of the
following instances are present:
1. When the respondent either:
a. unlawfully omits to perform a duty specifically enjoined by law, arising from an office,
trust or station, in relation to the enforcement or violation of an environmental law, rule
or regulation or a right; or
b. unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right; and
2. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Sec. 1,
Rule 8,AM No. 09-6-8-SC)

NOTE: The verified petition should also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.

Where to file the petition

1. RTC which has territorial jurisdiction over the unlawful act or omission;
2. CA; or
3. SC (Sec. 2, Rule 8,AM No. 09-6-8-SC)

Contents of a verified petition

1. Allegation of facts;
2. Specific allegation that the petition concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation;
3. Prayer that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts
until the judgment is fully satisfied;
4. Prayer for payment of damages sustained by the plaintiff due to malicious neglect to perform
legal duties; and
5. Sworn certification of non-forum shopping (Sec. 1, Rule 8, AM No. 09-6-8-SC)

Payment of docket fees NOT required

The petitioner is exempt from payment of docket fees. (Sec. 3, Rule 8, AM No. 09-6-8-SC)

Issuance of the writ of continuing mandamus

If the court finds the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, it shall issue the writ
and require the respondent to comment on the petition within 10 days from receipt of a copy
thereof. (Sec. 4, Rule 8, AM No. 09- 6-78-SC)

NOTE: The order to comment shall be served on the respondents in such manner as the court
may direct, together with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto. (Sec. 4, Rule 8, AM No.
09-6-8-SC)

Expediting proceedings

The court in which the petition is filed may:

1. Issue such orders to expedite the proceedings; and
2. Grant a TEPO for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such
proceedings. (Sec. 5, Rule 8, AM No. 09-6-8-SC)

Nature of the hearing

 It is summary in nature. The court, after the comment is filed or the time for the filing
thereof has expired, shall require the parties to submit memoranda. (Sec. 6, Rule 8, AM No. 09-6-
8-SC)

Resolution of the petition

The petition shall be resolved without delay within 60 days from the date of the
submission of the petition for resolution. (Sec. 6, Rule 8, AM No. 09-6-8-SC)

Judgment

If granted:
1. The court shall require the respondent to perform an act or series of acts until judgment is
fully satisfied and to grant such other reliefs as may be warranted resulting from the wrongful or
illegal acts of the respondent;
2. The court shall require the respondent to submit periodic reports detailing the progress and
execution of the judgment;
3. The court may by itself or through a commissioner or appropriate government agency,
evaluate and monitor compliance (Sec. 7, Rule 8,AM No. 09-6-8- SC); and
4. Periodic reports submitted by respondent detailing compliance with the judgment shall be
contained in partial returns of the writ. (Sec. 8, Rule 8,AM No. 09- 6-8-SC)

Submission of periodic reports

The court shall require the respondent to submit periodic reports detailing the progress
and execution of the judgment, and the court may, by itself or through a commissioner or the
appropriate government agency, evaluate and monitor compliance. (Sec. 7, Rule 8, AM No. 09-6-8-
SC)

NOTE: The petitioner may submit its comments or observations on the execution of the
judgment. (Ibid.)

Final return of the writ

Upon full satisfaction of judgment a final return of the writ shall be made by the
respondent. (Sec. 8, Rule 8, AM No. 09-6-78-SC)

NOTE: If the court finds that judgment has been fully implemented, the satisfaction of judgment
shall be entered in the court docket. (Ibid.)

WRIT OF KALIKASAN WRIT OF CONTINUING

SUBJECT MATTER An unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or
private individual or, entity, of
such magnitude as to prejudice
the life, health, or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities
or provinces.
MANDAMUS
Unlawful neglect in the
performance of an act which the
law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or
station in connection with the
enforcement or violation of an
environmental law rule or
regulation, or a right therein.

The unlawful exclusion of

another from the use or enjoyment
of such right and both instances,
there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
WHO MAY FILE One who is personally aggrieved One who is personally aggrieved
by the unlawful act or omission
RESPONDENT Public or private entity or Government and its officers
individual
EXEMPTION FROM DOCKET EXEMPTED EXEMPTED
FEES
 VENUE SC and CA SC, CA and RTC that has
jurisdiction over the territory
where the actionable neglect
or omission occurred
DISCOVERY MEASURES Ocular inspection order NONE

Production order

DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL None; the party must institute a Allow damages for malicious
INJURY separate action for the recovery of neglect of the performance of the
damages. legal duty of the respondent.

7) POST CONVICTION REMEDY OF HABEAS CORPUS VIA USE OF DNA EVIDENCE

HABEAS CORPUS AS POST-CONVICTION REMEDY

GENERAL RULE: The writ may not be availed of when the person in custody is under a judicial
process or by virtue of a valid judgment.

EXCEPTION: However, as a post conviction remedy, it may be allowed when, as a consequence

of a judicial proceeding, any of the following exceptional circumstances is
attendant:
1. There has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a
person;
2. The court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or
3. The imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess
(Go v. Dimagiba, G.R. No. 151876, June 21, 2005).

Reynaldo De Villa invokes the writ of habeas corpus to assail a final judgment of
conviction, without, however, providing a legal ground on which to anchor his petition. In fine,
petitioner alleges neither the deprivation of a constitutional right, the absence of jurisdiction of
the court imposing the sentence, or that an excessive penalty has been imposed upon him.
Petitioner invokes the remedy of habeas corpus in order to seek the review of findings of fact long
passed upon with finality. This relief is far outside the scope of habeas corpus proceedings. (IN
RE: The writ of habeas corpus for Reynaldo De Villa vs. The Director, New Bilibid Prisons,
G.R. No. 158802; November 17, 2004)

8) ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF FIRST NAMES/ TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS

RA 9048 as amended by RA 10172 Administrative Correction of Clerical or Typographical

Error in an Entry and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Register

RA 9048 now governs the change of first name. It vests the power and authority to
entertain petitions for change of first name to the city or municipal civil registrar or consul
general concerned. Under the law, therefore, jurisdiction over applications for change of first
name is now primarily lodged with the aforementioned administrative officers.

Nature of proceeding

The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of
Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in
the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for change of
name is first filed and subsequently denied. It likewise lays down the corresponding venue, form
and procedure. In sum, the remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first
name are primarily administrative in nature, not judicial (Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689,
October 22, 2007).

Coverage (FEDS)

1. Change of first name or nickname;

2. Correction of clerical or typographical errors;
3. Change of the day and month in the date of birth; and
4. Change of sex of a person (Sec. 1 of RA 9048 as amended by RA 10172)(2005 Bar)

NOTE: The obvious effect of Republic Act 9048 is merely to make possible the administrative
correction of clerical
or typographical errors or change of first name or nickname in entries in the civil register,
leaving to Rule 108 the correction of substantial changes in the civil registry in appropriate
adversarial proceedings
(Republic v. Benemerito, G.R. No. 146963, March 15, 2004)

RA 10172, which was approved on August 15, 2012 and became effective on September 8 of the
same year, now allows the administrative correction of
(a) day andmonth of the date of birth and
(b) sex of a person provided that it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical
error or mistake in the entry.

Moreover, the grounds enumerated are subject to the qualification that the error or mistake to be
corrected must be patently clear and it must be within the competence of the local civil registrar
or consul general (R.A. 10172, September 8, 2012).

Clerical or typographical error

It refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in writing, copying,

transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as
misspelled name or misspelled place of birth, mistake in the entry of day and month in the date
of birth or the sex of the person or the like, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the
understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or
records.

NOTE: No correction must involve the change of nationality, age (correction on year of birth), or
status of the petitioner [Sec. 2(3), RA 9048 as amended by RA 10172; NSO Administrative Order
No. 1 Series of 2012].

9) JURISDICTION; TOTALITY RULE AND CLAIMS INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION

Totality or Aggregate Rule

Where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties
embodied in one complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all
causes of action irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transaction [Sec. 5(d), Rule 2].

NOTE: Under the present law, the totality rule is applied also to cases where two or more
plaintiffs having separate causes of action against a defendant join in a single complaint, as well
as to cases where a plaintiff has separate causes of action against two or more defendants joined
in a single complaint. However, the
causes of action in favor of the two or more plaintiffs or against the two or more defendants
should arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and there should be a common
question of law or fact, as provided in Sec. 6, Rule 3 (permissive joinder of parties).
 The totality rule is not applicable if the claims are separate and distinct from each other
and did not arise from the same transaction. If there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that
the claims against respondents are separate and distinct, then neither falls within the RTC’s
jurisdiction (Flores v.Judge Mallare- Phillipps, G.R. No. L-66620, September 24, 1986).

Claim for damages

If the main action is for the recovery of sum of money and the damages being claimed are
merely the consequences of the main cause of action, the same are not included in determining
the jurisdictional amount.

However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the
causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of
the court (Albano, 2010).

10) PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT, WRIT OF ATTACHMENT, WRIT OF EXECUTION

PENDING APPEAL, WRIT OF POSSESSION AND DEMOLITION

PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

It is a provisional remedy, by virtue of which, a plaintiff or other party, may have the
property of the adverse party be taken into the custody of the court as security
for the satisfaction of any judgment. It is ancillary and preliminary, resorted before the finality of
judgment to secure the property of the adverse party and prevent its
dissipation.

Attachment is strictly construed against the applicant. Hence, preliminary attachment

should be resorted to only when necessary and as a last remedy because it
exposes the dentor to humiliation and annoyance (Watercraft Venture Corporation v. Wolfe, G.R.
No. 181721, September 9, 2015).

NOTE: There is no separate action called preliminary attachment. It is not a distinct proceeding
and is availed of within a principal action because it is a mere provisional remedy. The grant of
remedy is addressed to the discretion of the court (Riano, 2012).

Purposes of Preliminary Attachment

1. To seize the property of the debtor before final judgment and to hold it in custodial legis while
the action is pending for purposes of satisfying the said judgment;
2. To enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over the res or the property where service over the
person of the defendant cannot be effected.

GROUNDS UPON WHICH ATTACHMENT MAY ISSUE: (SECTION 1, RULE 57)

(1) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of money or damages, other than moral
and exemplary, on a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-
delict against a party who is about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his
creditors;
(2) In an action for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to his
own use by a public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or
clerk, in the course of his employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or
for a willful violation of duty;
(3) In an action to recover the possession of property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or
converted, when the property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of
to prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an authorized person;
(4) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or
incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or in the performance thereof;
(5) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do
so, with intent to defraud his creditors; or
(6) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or on
whom summons may be served by publication.

When to apply for preliminary attachment

1. At the commencement of the action; or

2. At any time before entry of judgment (Sec. 1, Rule 57)

Who may apply for a preliminary attachment

The plaintiff or any proper party can avail of preliminary attachment as long as any of the
grounds therefor exists. He may also be:
1. The defendant on his counterclaim;
2. A co-party on his cross-claim; and
3. A third-party plaintiff on his third-party claim (Sec. 1, Rule 57; Regalado, 2010)

Issuance of order of attachment (2001 Bar)

The writ of preliminary attachment may be issued:

1. Ex parte and even before summons is served upon the defendant.

NOTE: An ex parte issuance of the writ is intended to pre-empt any possible disposition of
property by the adverse property to the detriment of the attaching creditor and thus defeat the
very purpose
of attachment (Mindanao Savings & Loan
Association, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 84481, April 18, 1989).

The application for preliminary attachment ex parte may be denied because the
fundamental requisites under Rule 57, Section 1 did not exist, and not because ex parte
applications are per se illegal (Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 93262
December 29, 1991).

2. Upon motion and notice of hearing, by the court in which the action is pending and may even
be issued by the CA or the SC (Sec. 2, Rule 57);

NOTE: A hearing on a motion or application for preliminary attachment is not generally

necessary unless otherwise directed by the trial court (Toledo v. Burgos, G.R. No. L-75466,
December 19, 1988). This is because an order of attachment may also be issued ex parte.

Contents of the order of attachment

It must require the sheriff of the court to attach so much of the property in the Philippines
of the party against whom it is issued, not exempt from execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy
the applicant’s demand, unless such party makes deposit or gives a bond in an amount equal to
that fixed in the order, which may be the amount
sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand or the value of the property to be attached as stated
by the applicant, exclusive of costs (Sec. 2, Rule 57).

NOTE: Several writs may be issued at the same time to the sheriffs of the courts of different
judicial regions.

WRIT OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL

SECTION 2, RULE 39: DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION

1. EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL;
 a. While trial court has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either the
original record on appeal;
b. When trial court has lost jurisdiction but has not transmitted records of the case to
the appellate court;
c. When trial court has lost jurisdiction and has transmitted records (motion for
execution pending appeal with appellate court)
2. EXECUTION OF SEVERAL, SEPARATE OR PARTIAL JUDGMENTS
SEVERAL JUDGMENTS SEPARATE/PARTIAL JUDGMENTS
Rendered against one or more of Rendered at any stage of the action
several defendants, leading the regarding a particular claim, leaving
action to proceed against others the action to proceed as to the
remaining claims

DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF

May issue before the lapse of period
to appeal
Discretionary upon the court there is
inquiry on whether there is good
reason for execution
RIGHT
Issued when period to appeal has
already lapsed and no appeal has
been perfected
Ministerial duty of the court provided
there are no supervening events

REQUISITES FOR EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL:

1. On motion by the prevailing party, with notice to the adverse party;
2. Good reasons for issuing execution; and
The good reasons must be stated in a special order

EXAMPLES OF GOOD REASONS:

1. Where education of a person to be supported would unduly be delayed;
2. The immediate execution of an order to support is valid;
3. The judgment debtor is insolvent, except when a co-defendant is solvent and his liability
is subsidiary
***Award for actual and compensatory damages may be ordered executed pending appeal but
not moral and exemplary damages;
***Execution pending appeal is NOT APPLICABLE TO LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

SECTION 3: STAY OF DISCRETIONARY JUDGMENT

It is allowed at the discretion of the court by filing a SUPERSEDEAS BOND;

SUPERSEDEAS BOND – it is one filed by a petitioner and approved by the court before
judgement becomes final and executory and conditioned upon the performance of the judgment
appealed from in case it be affirmed wholly or in part.

It guarantees satisfaction of the judgment in case of affirmance on appeal, not other

things like damage to property pending the appeal;

SECTION 4: JUDGMENTS NOT STAYED BY AN APPEAL

The ff judgments are immediately executory, enforceable after their rendition and shall
not be stayed by an appeal, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court: (THIS JUDGMENTS
ARE NOT STAYED BY APPEAL; NATURE IS NOT A FINAL JUDGMENT)
1. INJUNCTION;
2. RECEIVERSHIP;
3. ACCOUNTING;
4. SUPPORT; AND
5. SUCH OTHER JUDGMENTS DECLARED TO BE IMMEDIATELY EXECUTOY UNLESS
OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE TRIAL COURT;

SECTION 5: EFFECT OF REVERSAL OF EXECUTED JUDGEMENT

 Trial Court may, on motion, issue restitution or reparation in an event of a reversal after a
petition for relief under Rule 38, or annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is granted.

WRIT OF POSSESSION

A writ of possession is defined as a "writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to

recover the possession of land. It commands the sheriff to enter the land and give its possession
to the person entitled under the judgment."
 It may be issued under the following instances:
(a) land registration proceedings under Section 17 of Act No. 496, otherwise known as
"The Land Registration Act;"
(b) judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and
no third person, not a party to the foreclosure suit, had intervened;
(c) extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as
amended by Act No. 4118; and
(d) in execution sales. 

Proceeding therefrom, the issuance of a writ of possession is only proper in order to

execute judgments ordering the delivery of specific properties to a litigant, in accordance with
Section 10, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court.

WRIT OF DEMOLITION
It is an ancillary to the process of writ of execution and is logically also issued as a
consequence of the writ of execution issued.

11) DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS, RULE 17, Sections 2 & 3; 2 DISMISSAL RULE

DISMISSAL UPON NOTICE BY THE
PLAINTIFF; TWO-DISMISSAL RULE
A complaint may be dismissed by the
plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal
at any time before service of the
answer or of a motion for summary
judgment. Upon such notice being
filed, the court shall issue an order
confirming the dismissal. Unless
otherwise stated in the notice, the
dismissal is without prejudice, except
that a notice operates as adjudication
upon the merits when filed by a
plaintiff who has once dismissed in a
competent court an action based on or
including the same claim (Sec. 1,
Rule 17).
It is a matter of right.
GR: A dismissal without prejudice i.e.
the complaint can be re-filed
XPNs:
1. The notice of dismissal by the
2. plaintiff provides that the
dismissal is with prejudice; or
3. The plaintiff has once dismissed in
a competent court an action based on
or including the same claim (Two-
Dismissal Rule) (Sec. 1,
Rule 17).
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
DISMISSAL UPON MOTION OF
PLAINTIFF; EFFECT ON EXISTING
COUNTERCLAIM
After service of the answer or a motion
for summary judgment by the
adverse party (Sec. 2, Rule 17)
A matter of discretion upon the
court.
A complaint shall not be dismissed at
the plaintiff's instance save upon
approval of the court and upon such
terms and conditions as the court
deems proper
(Sec. 2, Rule 17)
GR: It is a dismissal without
prejudice.
XPN: If the order of dismissal specifies
that it is with prejudice (Sec. 2, Rule
DISMISSAL DUE TO THE FAULT OF
PLAINTIFF
1. If, for no justifiable cause, the
plaintiff fails to appear on the
date of the presentation of his
evidence in chief on the complaint
2. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute
his action for an unreasonable
length of time (nolle prosequi)
3. If the plaintiff fails to comply with
the Rules or any order of the
court (Sec. 3, Rule 17)
NOTE: The plaintiff’s failure to appear
at the trial after he has presented his
evidence and rested his case does not
warrant the dismissal of the case on
the ground of failure to prosecute. It
is merely a waiver of his right to
cross-examine and to object to the
admissibility of evidence.
Matter of evidence.
GR: Dismissal is with prejudice
because it has an effect of an
adjudication on the merits.
XPN: Unless otherwise declared by the
court (Sec. 3, Rule 17)
4. Even where the notice of dismissal
does not provide that it is with
prejudice but it is
premised on the fact of payment
by the defendant of the claim involved
(Serrano v. Cabrera, G.R.
No. L-5189, September 21, 1953)
NOTE: The dismissal as a matter of
right ceases when an answer or a
motion for summary judgment is
served on the plaintiff and not when
the answer or motion is filed with the
court. Thus, if a notice of dismissal is
filed by the plaintiff even after an
answer has been filed in court but
before the responsive pleading has
been served on the plaintiff, the notice
of dismissal is still a matter of right.
Since there is no answer yet filed by
the adverse party, no counterclaim is
recoverable.
17).
NOTE: A class suit shall not be
dismissed or compromised without the
approval of the court. If a
counterclaim has been pleaded by
a defendant prior to the service upon
him of the plaintiff's motion for
dismissal, the dismissal shall be
limited to the complaint.
GR: It is without prejudice to the right Dismissal upon motion of the
of defendant to prosecute his defendant or upon the court's own
counterclaim in a separate action. motion is without prejudice to the
right of the defendant to prosecute his
XPN: Unless within 15 days from counterclaim on the same or separate
notice of the motion he manifests his action.
preference to have his counterclaim
resolved in the same action.

Types of dismissal of actions

1. Motion to dismiss before answer under Rule 16;
2. Motion to dismiss under Rule 17 (upon notice by
plaintiff; upon motion of plaintiff; due to fault of
plaintiff);
3. Demurrer to evidence after plaintiff has completed
the presentation of his evidence under Rule 33; and
4. Dismissal of an appeal

NOTE: Failure of the plaintiff to appear at the pre-trial when so required shall cause for the
dismissal of the action(Suico Industrial Corp. v. Lagura-Yap, G.R. No. 177711, September5, 2012).

When notice of dismissal is executory

It is executory as of the date the notice is filed by the plaintiff and not the date the court
issues the order confirming the dismissal because such dismissal by the plaintiff, if filed before
an answer or a motion for summary judgment has been served upon him, is a matter of right
(Riano, 2014).

Notice of dismissal as adjudication on the merits

It operates as an adjudication on the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once
dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the same claim
(Two-Dismissal Rule) (Sec. 1, Rule 17).

Procedurally, when the complaint is dismissed for failure to prosecute and the dismissal
is unqualified, the dismissal has the effect of adjudication on the merits (Shimizu Phil.
Contractors, Inc. v. Magsalin, 674 SCRA 65).

TWO DISMISSAL RULE

It applies when the plaintiff has:

1. Twice dismissed the actions;
2. Based on or including the same claim; and
3. In a court of competent jurisdiction (Riano, 2014)
 12) MOTION TO DISMISS, LACK OF CAPACITY, FAILIRE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION,
LITIS PENDENTIA V. RES JUDICATA ( BY PRIOR JUDGMENT, CONCLUSIVENESS OF
JUDGMENT)

MOTION TO DISMISS

GENERAL RULE: A motion must be filed by a party thereto.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Those cases where the court may dismiss a case motu proprio (i.e. lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter; litis pendentia; res judicata; and prescription) (Sec. 1, Rule 9);
2. Failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time (Sec. 3, Rule 17); and
3. Rule on Summary Procedure (Sec. 4, 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure)

GROUNDS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 16

1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;

2. That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;

3. That venue is improperly laid;

4. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;

NOTE: The issue of the plaintiff’s lack of legal capacity to sue cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal where the defendant dealt with the former as a party in the proceeding.

5. That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;

NOTE: REQUISITES OF LITIS PENDENTIA: (PRR)

a. Identity of the PARTIES or at least such parties representing the same interest in
both actions;
b. Identity of RIGHTS ASSERTED and reliefs prayed for, being founded on the same
facts; and
c. Identity with respect to the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment
that may be rendered in the pending case would amount to res judicata in the other case
(Lim v. Vianzon, G.R. No. 137187, August 3, 2006).

6. That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations;

NOTE: REQUISITES OF RES JUDICATA:

a. The former judgment must be final;
b. The court which rendered it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties;
c. Judgment must be on the merits; and
d. There must be identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.

Res judicata as a ground for dismissal is based on two grounds, namely: (1) public policy
and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to
litigation – republicae ut sit litium; and (2) the hardship on the individual of being vexed
twice for the same cause – neme debet bis vexari et eadem causa (Fels, Inc. v. Prov. Of
Batangas, G.R. No. 168557, February 19, 2007).

7. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;

8. That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived,
abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;

9. That the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the
statute of frauds; and

10. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with (Sec. 1, Rule 16).

NOTE: THE ENUMERATION IS EXCLUSIVE.

Averments in the Complaint

GENERAL RULE: Averments in the complaint are deemed hypothetically admitted upon the
filing of a motion to dismiss grounded on failure to state a cause of action.

EXCEPTIONS: A motion to dismiss does not admit the:

1. Truth of mere epithets of fraud;
2. Allegations of legal conclusions;
3. An erroneous statement of law;
4. Mere inferences or conclusions from facts not stated;
5. Mere conclusions of law;
6. Allegations of fact the falsity of which is subject to judicial notice;
7. Matters of evidence;
8. Surplusage and irrelevant matter;
9. Scandalous matter inserted merely to insult the opposing party;
10. Legally impossible facts;
11. Facts which appear unfounded by a record incorporated in the pleading, or by a document
referred to; and
12. General averments contradicted by more specific averments (Tan v. CA, 356 Phil. 555).

When to file Motion to Dismiss

GENERAL RULE: It should be filed within the time for but before filing the answer to the
complaint or pleading asserting a
claim (Sec. 1, Rule 16).

EXCEPTIONS: Even after an answer has been filed, the defendant can still file a motion to
dismiss, with leave of court, on
the following grounds:

1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;

2. Litis pendentia;
3. Res judicata;
4. Prescription of action; or
5. Where evidence that would constitute a ground for dismissal is discovered during the trial.

13) IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENTS AND HIERARCHY OF COURTS

RULE OF IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGEMENT

A final judgement cannot be modified, even if the purpose is to correct perceived
erroneous conclusions of the facts or law.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. To make corrections of clerical errors, not substantial amendments, as by an amendment
NUNC PRO TUNC;
2. To clarify an ambiguity which is borne out by and justifiable in the context of the decision;
3. Where the judgment is VOID; or
4. In judgements for SUPPORT; it can always be amended from time to time;
JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC - A judgement intended to enter into the records acts which had
already been done, but which do not appear in the records;

***Judgement may be attacked DIRECTLY or COLLATERAL

SECTION 2: ENTRY OF JUDGEMENT – The date of finality of the judgment or final order shall
be the date of its entry; if NO APPEAL OR MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION is filed;

PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY

The principle provides that lower courts shall initially decide a case before it is considered
by a higher court. A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired
cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts (Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. Nos. 99289-90, January
27, 1993).

The rule on hierarchy of courts determines the venue of appeals. Such rule is necessary to
prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's precious time and attention which are better
devoted to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent
further overcrowding of the Court's docket (Ang v. Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27, 2007).

NOTE: The rationale is two-fold:

1. It would be an imposition upon the limited time of the Supreme Court; and
2. It would inevitably result in a delay, intended or otherwise, in adjudication of cases, which in
some instances, had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the
rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues because the Supreme Court is not
a trier of facts (Heirs of Hinog v. Melicor, G.R.
No. 140954, April 12, 2005).

The SC is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the
duty assigned to it.

Principle of judicial hierarchy is NOT ABSOLUTE

In several cases, the court has allowed direct

invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction on the following grounds:
1. Special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition;
2. When dictated by public welfare and the
advancement of public policy;
3. When demanded by the broader interest of justice;
4. When the challenged orders were patent
nullities; or
5. When analogous, exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified the
immediate and direct handling of the case (Republic v. Caguioa, et al., G.R. No. 174385, February
20, 2013).

NOTE: The SC may disregard the principle of

hierarchy of courts if warranted by the nature and importance of the issues raised in the interest
of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations (Riano, 2011).

The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron clad dictum. Endowed with a broad
perspective that spans the legal interest of virtually the entire government officialdom, the OSG
may transcend the
parochial concerns of a particular client agency and instead, promote and protect the public
wealth (COMELEC v. JudgeQuijano-Padilla, G. R. No. 151992, September 18, 2002).

14) JURISDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN OVER CASES INVOLVING PUBLIC OFFICERS

WITH SALARY 26 AND UNDER, WHEN?
SECTION 4, PD 1606 AS AMENDED BY RA 7975 AND RA 8249

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the
Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the principal accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government, whether in permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the
time of the commission of the offense:

 Officials of the executive branch specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and

provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads;

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers,
assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;

(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;

(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;

(e) PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank;

(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in
the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled

corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations;

XXX

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the

provisions of the Constitution; and

b. Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office.

c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2,
14 and 14-A.

***The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction on appeals from the final
judgments, resolutions or orders of regular courts where all the accused are occupying positions
lower than salary grade "27", or not otherwise covered by the preceding enumeration.

15) COUNTERCLAIM SURVIVES DESPITE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT

EFFECTS ON EXISTING COUNTERCLAIM

1. If a counterclaim has already been pleaded by the defendant prior to the service upon him of
the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, and the court grants the said motion to dismiss, the dismissal
shall be limited to the complaint since it does not carry with it the dismissal of the counterclaim
(Sec. 2, Rule 17).

NOTE: “The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim.”
2. The defendant if he so desires may prosecute his counterclaim either in a separate action or
in the same action. Should he choose to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action, he
must notify the court of his preference within 15 days
from notice of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Ibid.).