General Principles

 

I.                  GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A.   Concept of Remedial or Procedural Law

The concept of Remedial Law lies at the very core of procedural due process, which means a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial, and contemplates an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion (Bustos vs.Lucero, GR No. L2068, 08/20/1948; First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. CA, GR No. 110571, 03/10/1994; Albert vs. University Publishing, GR No. L-19118, 01/30/1965)

B.   Nature of remedial law

Rules of Court, promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect of law; and Rules of Court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. (Gonzales v. Torres, A.M. No. MT]-06·1653,July 30, 2007)

 

Strict compliance with the rules has been held mandatory and imperative, so that failure to pay the docket fee in the Supreme Court, within the period fixed for that purpose, will cause the dismissal of the appeal (Alvero v. De La Rosa et. al. G.R. No. L-286, March 29, 1946).

C.   Substantive law vis-à-vis remedial law

SUBSTANTIVE LAW	REMEDIAL LAW
Substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights and duties regarding life, liberty or property which when violated gives rise to a cause of action	Remedial law prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and obligations created by substantive law by providing a procedural system for obtaining redress for the invasion of rights and violations of duties and by prescribing rules as to how suits are filed, tried and decided by the courts
Creates vested rights	Does not create vested rights
Enacted by Congress	The SC is expressly empowered to Promulgate procedural rules
Generally prospective in application	May be applied retroactively

 

D.  Procedural laws applicable to actions pending at the time of the promulgation

Statutes and rules regulating the procedure of courts are considered applicable to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage.

E.   Liberal construction of procedural rules

The Rules shall be liberally construed in • order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding (Sec. 6, Rule 1).

F.    Rule-making power of the Supreme Court

Section 5 (5), Art. VIII of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have the power to 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.

G.   Nature of Philippine Courts

1.      Classification of Philippine Courts

Philippine courts are classified as either Constitutional Court or Statutory Court:

(a)  Constitutional courts are those that owe their creation and existence to the Constitution. Their existence as well as the deprivation of their jurisdictions and power cannot be made the subject of legislation. The Supreme Court is the only court created by the Constitution (Article VIII, Sec. 1[1], 1987 Constitution)

(b) ) Statutory Courts are those created by law whose jurisdiction is determined by legislation. These may be abolished likewise by legislation. BP 129 created the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Courts. RA 1125 created the Court of Tax Appeals, while PD 1083 created the Family Courts, and the Shari‘ah District and Circuit Courts.

2.     Principle of judicial Hierarchy

·        It must be stressed that the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have original concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari. 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. (Audi AG v. Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27, 2007)

·        Anent the alleged breach of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, suffice it to say that it is not an iron-clad dictum. On several instances where this Court was confronted with cases of national interest and of serious implications, it never hesitated to set aside the rule and proceed with the judicial determination of the case. (COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 151992, September 18, 2002)

·        That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is [an] established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court’s docket. (United Claimants Association of NEA v. National Electrification Administration, G.R. NO. 187107, January 31, 2012)

·        However, as an exception to this general rule, the principle of hierarchy of courts may be set aside for special and important reasons. (United Claimants Association of NEA v. National Electrification Administration, G.R. NO. 187107, January 31, 2012)

·        Although Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of this Court is not exclusive but is concurrent with that of the Court of Appeals and regional trial court and does not give petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. The hierarchy of courts must be strictly observed. Settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. A disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition. A direct invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special and important reasons that are clearly and specifically set forth in a petition. The rationale behind this policy arises from the necessity of preventing (1) inordinate demands upon the time and attention of the Court, which is better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction; and (2) further overcrowding of the Court’s docket. (Emmanuel De Castro v. Emerson Carlos, G.R. No. 194994, April 16, 2013)

3.     Transcendental importance

In several cases, the court has allowed direct invocation of the SC's original jurisdiction on the following grounds:

(1)  When there are 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. Caquioa, et al., G.R. No. 174385, February 20, 2013)

(6)  When there are genuine reasons of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time. (The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015).  

4.     Doctrine of non-interference or judicial stability

Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other‘s orders. Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another RTC. The principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review.

 

This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law provides for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the SC or CA, it means that such body is co-equal with the RTC in terms of rank and stature, and logically beyond the control of the latter. (Sinter Corporation and Phividec Industrial Authority v. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc., G.R. No. 127371, April 25, 2002)

5.     Doctrine of Primary jurisdiction

Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.

The objective is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court. (Omictin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148004, January 22, 2007)

6.     Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction/continuing 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. (Abad, et al. v. RTC of Manila, et al., G.R. No. L-65505, October 12, 1987 )