Remedial Law

Remedial Law
• That branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or
obtaining redress for their invasion.

• As opposed to substantive law which is that branch of law that

creates, defines, and regulates rights.
Jurisdiction
• It is the power to try, hear, and decide a case.

• It is established by law. Thus, to know who has jurisdiction over a

case, one must look at the law.

• If the case has been brought in a court or tribunal who has no

jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If the
courts has no jurisdiction, it cannot do anything except dismiss the
case. In case it will render a decision, that decision is void for lack of
jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction in Civil Cases
• There are two aspects.
• The court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter. (this is established
by law and determined in the complaint filed.)
• The courts must have jurisdiction over the person of the parties. (this is
acquired through a valid service of summons and the filing of the complaint
which includes payment of docket fees.)
B.P. 129
• This law defines the jurisdiction of the courts. More importantly the
jurisdiction of the MTC and the RTC.
• Section 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 the value exceeds Fifty thousand
pesos (50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or
buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
• (3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he 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 (200,000.00);
• (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 (200,000.00);
• (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 or any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
• (7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the
Courts of Agrarian Relations as now provided 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
(100,000.00) or, in such other abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred
thousand pesos (200,000.00). (as amended by R.A. No. 7691*)
RA 7691
• Section 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the
jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec.
33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be
adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5)
years thereafter, such jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further
to Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00): Provided, however,
That in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional
amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of
this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
• But note: Small Claims = 400,000.
• Exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC.
• no lawyers allowed.

• Note:
• below jurisdictional amounts = MTC
• Ejectment cases = exclusive jurisdiction of MTC
Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts
• Concept of Hierarchy of Courts:
• SC
• CA
• RTC
• MTC

• One cannot just go directly to the Supreme Court. The parties must
observe the hierarchy of courts.
• Under the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts, when different level courts
have concurrent jurisdiction, the party must file first in the lowest
level courts.

• Unless justice demands that the SC take cognizance of the case.

• Ex: if the case involves national security; if the case involves strong public
policy. Etc.
• Note that if the lower court has exclusive jurisdiction, then the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts does not apply. In this case,
jurisdiction is vested to a single court, and thus, the case must be filed
to it. If it is filed with a higher court, the case will be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction and not because of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
• It is a doctrine in administrative law which states that the courts
cannot and will not determine 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 special knowledge, experience and
services of the tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters
of fact.
• This simply means that if jurisdiction over a controversy is lodged to
an admin body and to the court, the court will not take action over
the case unless the admin body has already acted on the matter.
Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases
• In criminal cases, the court must have jurisdiction over the offense
and over the person of the accused.

• Note that in Criminal Cases, jurisdiction over the offense involves

territorial elements. The offense must be committed within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Court for it to have jurisdiction over the
offense.
• Section 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. (as amended by R.A, No. 7691)
• 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.
• BP 22 cases = MTC regardless of the amount of the check because the
penalty is 1 year imprisonment or fine.

• NOTE: the following cases are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
RTC even if punishable by less than 6 years:
• Drugs Cases
• Cases involving Minors
• Election Offenses
• Intellectual Property Law Cases
• Libel
Expanded Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
• ART. VIII, SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law.
• Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
ART. X, 1973 Constitution
• SECTION 1. The Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court
and in such inferior courts as may be established by law. The Batasang
Pambansa shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion
the jurisdiction of the various courts, but may not deprive the
Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section
five hereof.

• The 1973 Constitution does not contain any provision allowing the SC
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Rule 45 v. Rule 65
• Rule 45 is a mode of appeal elevating the case to the Supreme Court.

• Rule 65 is the Special Civil action of Certiorari, Mandamus, and

Prohibition.

• This is confusing because Rule 45 speaks of Petition for Review on

Certiorari, while Rule 65 speaks of a Petition for Certiorari or Petition
for the issuance of the writ of Certiorari.
• Note that Rule 45 and 65 are not the same.

• Under Rule 45, the SC is exercising appellate jurisdiction. Under a

Rule 65 Petition to the SC, the SC is exercising original jurisdiction.

• Under Rule 45 it involves pure questions of law. Under Rule 65

(Certiorari) it involves determination whether there is grave abuse of
discretion.
• Use this as a guide in reading cases.
Evidence
• Evidence is the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact.

• Note that under the Rules of Court, for evidence to be admissible, it

must be both relevant and competent.
• It is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce a
belief as to its existence or non-existence or its probability or improbability.
• It is competent if it is not excluded by the Rules.
Kinds of Evidence
• Object or Real Evidence
• Documentary Evidence
• Testimonial Evidence
Object Evidence
• It is that evidence which is addressed to the senses of the Court. It is
not limited to the view of an object. It extends to the visual, auditory,
tactile, gustatory, and olfactory.

• Ex: the gun used in the crime. The drugs sold by the accused to the
poseur buyer.
Documentary Evidence
• Documents as evidence consist of writings or any material containing
letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols, or other modes of written
expressions, offered as proof of their contents.

• Ex: a written contract of sale. Certificate of live birth.

Best Evidence Rule
• When the Subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.

• Note that this rule is applicable if the subject of the inquiry is the
contents of the document.
Original Document
• The one signed by the parties.

• When it is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time,

all copies signed by the parties are considered original.

• When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one

being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction,
including entries in journals and ledgers, all the entries are likewise
equally regarded as originals.
Parol Evidence Rule
• Parol evidence is any extrinsic evidence which is intended to vary or
contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a
document.
• It may refer to testimonial, object, or documentary evidence.
Rule
• When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of
such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
• However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to
the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
• (a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;
• (b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
• (c) The validity of the written agreement; or
• (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors
in interest after the execution of the written agreement.

• The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)

Testimonial Evidence
• Testimony given in court by a witness based on his personal
knowledge.

• A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his

personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own
perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
Hearsay Rule
• Hearsay evidence = all evidence which is not founded upon the
personal knowledge if the witness from whom it is elicited.

• It is a statement made out of court and repeated in court to prove the

allegations contained therein.

• Hearsay Rule = hearsay evidence is not allowed. Subject to certain

exceptions.
• But note that Hearsay Rule only prohibits hearsay evidence.

• Not all statements made out of court and repeated in court are
considered hearsay evidence. It is only considered hearsay evidence if
it is used to prove the allegations contained in the statement.