Page 1 of 3

Suppletory Notes in Remedial Law Review

Concept of Remedial Law

The Rules of Court as a whole constitute the body of rules governing pleadings, practice and procedure. As they do not
originate from the legislature, they cannot be called laws in the strict sense of the word. However, since they are promulgated
by authority of law, they have the force and effect of law if not in conflict with a positive law. The Rules are subordinate to
statute, and in case of conflict, the statute will prevail.

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 the rights for obtaining redress for their invasion.

Remedial laws are implemented in our system of government through the pillars of the judicial system, including the
prosecutory service, our courts of justice and quasi judicial agencies.

We cannot separate remedial law from substantive law. Remedial law does not establish a right. Substantive law establishes
that right, but remedial law protects and enforces such right.

Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court

The SC has the constitutional power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure (Sec 5(5), Art. VIII,
Constitution). But this is not an absolute power, it is subject to some limitations.

Art VIII Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(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 under-privileged. 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.

Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court

The following are imposed by the Constitution on the rule-making power of the SC:

a. The Rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases;
b. The Rules shall be uniform for courts of the same grade; and
c. The Rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights (Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, Constitution). Only the legislature can
do these acts, not the SC.

Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules

The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to except a case from their operation when
compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that
would merit suspension of the rule is discretionary upon the courts.

When a rule promulgated by the SC is not applied by the SC to a particular case, it is not a situation where the SC violates its
own rules. It is a situation where the SC has promulgated a rule on that particular case only pro hac vice. This is the power of
the SC to suspend the rules in the interest of justice. The SC can even not apply a particular rule.

In a case where the action of the MTC was patently null and void, the SC took cognizance of a petition for certiorari without it
having to pass the RTC. The SC in this particular case did not follow a rule. What is the justification of the court? Action has to
be done immediately. Only the SC can do that.

The SC has also sustained appeals filed beyond the reglementary period shown to be meritorious and the failure to file on time
was with a reason that will compel the court to recognize that reason. The rules are not intended to be applied with pedantic
rigor. The rules and technicalities have to give way to the interest of substantial justice. So when there is a conflict between the
interest of justice and technicalities, the latter have to give way in order to give way to justice.

Reasons which would warrant the suspension of the Rules:

1. Existence of special or compelling circumstances;

2. the merits of the case;
3. a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of rules;
4. lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and
5. the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
 Page 2 of 3

Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules

(1) When compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it. What constitutes and
good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon courts. (CIR v.
Migrant Pagbilao Corp., GR 159593, Oct. 12, 2006). Reasons that would warrant the suspension of the
Rules: (a) the existence of special or compelling circumstances (b) merits of the case (c) cause not entirely
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of rules (d) a lack of ay
showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory (e) the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby (Sarmiento v. Zaratan, GR 167471, Feb. 5, 2007)

(2) To relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed
procedure and the mere invocation of substantial justice is not a magical incantation that will automatically
compel the Court to suspend procedural rules. (Cu-Unjieng v. CA, 479 SCRA 594)

(3) Where substantial and important issues await resolution. (Pagbilao, supra)

(4) When transcendental matters of life, liberty or state security are involved. (Mindanao Savings Loan
Asso. V. Vicenta Vda. De Flores, 469 SCRA 416).

(5) The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice and procedure
necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the
amendment of the Rules of Court (Pinga vs. Heirs of Santiago, GR 170354, June 30, 2006).

Compliance with the rules is the general rule, and abandonment thereof should only be done in the most exceptional
circumstances.

Power to amend the rules. The SC has the power to amend, repeal or even establish new rules for a more simplified and
inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases. The constitutional power of the SC to promulgate rules of practice
and procedure and to amend or repeal the same necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on points
of remedial law through the amendment of the ROC.

The ROC are to be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition
of every action or proceeding

Nature of Philippine Courts

Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity. Hence, both legal and equitable jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same
tribunal.

Meaning of a court

Referred to here is the court as a public office, an office under the judiciary. It is tasked with the primary purpose of resolving
controversies among individuals, and also tasked with enforcement of the procedures for defending the State against disorder
like in criminal prosecution.

A court itself does not actually physically exist. The courtroom does. A court exists because of legal fiction.

Court as distinguished from a judge

It is a court which has jurisdiction over cases. A judge has no jurisdiction. While a court is an office, the officer that presides
over a court is called a judge. A judge is a physical actual being while a court is a creation of law. A judge may die but a court
remains.

Independent Civil Actions

When civil action may proceed independently. – In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the
criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover
damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or
in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter
for damages:

(1) Freedom of religion;

(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
 Page 3 of 3

(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from
being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing
becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in
accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal
offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for
other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat
be proved by a preponderance of evidence.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the
Penal Code or other penal statute.

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from
the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.

Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in
case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality
shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal
proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

fffffffffffffff