REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

JD, MBA PROGRAM FEU, DLSU, 2013

Q: What is remedial law? A: refers to legislation providing means or methods whereby causes of action may be effectuated, wrongs redressed, and relief obtained. (Schmidt v. Jenkins Truck Lines, Inc., 260 Iowa 556, 149 N.W. 2d 789; as cited by Herrera) Q: What are procedural laws? A: They are adjective laws, which prescribe rules and forms of procedure of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion. Q: What are the mechanics of due process? A: (a) a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (b) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property which is the subject of the proceeding; (c) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and (d) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. (Banco Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil 921, 934 (1918); Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. CA, 193 SCRA 158 (1991), as cited by Herrera.) Q: What is a judge? A: A public officer lawfully appointed to preside over a court for the purpose of administering the law. (Blacks Law) Q: What is a court? A: A body n the government to which the public administration of justice is delegated. (21 C.J.S. 15) Q: Which courts were created by the Constitution? A: The Supreme Court and the Sandiganbayan Q: Which courts did statutes create? A: The Court of Appeals; RTC; METC; and MTC were created by B.P. 129; The CTA was created by R.A. 1125 as amended by RA 9282; Family Courts were created by R.A. 8397 and special laws) Q: Do tribal courts possess judicial power? A: No, they exist merely under the customs and traditions of an indigenous cultural community and are not part of the Philippine judicial system. They are advisory and conciliatory bodies whose principal objective is to bring together the parties to a dispute and persuade them to make peace, settle, and compromise.

However, decisions of a tribunal based on compromise may be enforced or set aside, in and through regular courts. (Spouses Badua v. Cordillera Bodong Administration, GR 92649, 1991) Q: Are military courts, courts of law? A: No, they do not form part of the judicial system and process. (Olaguer v. Military Commission; Tan v. Barrios) Q: What does administration of justice mean? A: It involves (1) the ascertainment or determination of the relevant facts of a controversy; (2) the application of the law to those facts in order to resolve the controversy. Q: What does judicial power mean? A: it is the right to determine controversies arising between adverse litigants duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction. (Mushkrat v. U.S., 219 U.S. 346 (1911)) Q: What is the scope of judicial power? A: It includes the duty of the court 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. (Sec 1, Art VIII) Q: What is judicial review? A: It is the power of the court 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. (Sec 1, Art VIII) Q: What are the requisites for the exercise of judicial review? A: 1) There must be an actual case before the court calling for the exercise of judicial power; 2) The governmental act in question must have had an adverse effect on the person challenging it; 3) The person challenging must have standing or a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement Q: What is the limitation on judicial power? A: It is limited only to determination of Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion (by them) amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the exercise of their authority and in the performance of their assigned tasks. (Sec 1, Art III, 1987 Consti) Q: What is a political question?

A: They relate to those questions, which under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch by the government. (Avelino v. Cuenco, 1957; Taada v. Cuenco 1957; See also Marcos v. Manglapus, 77 SCRA 668, 1989; Francisco v. HRET 415 SCRA 44, 151 (2003) Q: What did the court say in Francisco v. HRET? A: To determine whether a political question may be justiciable, the question of whether there are constitutionally imposed limits on power or functions conferred upon political bodies must be answered. If the answer is yes, then our courts are duty bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the government properly acted within such limits. Q: Which courts may exercise judicial review? A: The Supreme Court and the regional trial court. Q: What is equity jurisdiction? A: It is that which is exercised by the court in resolving a case, when there is an absence of, but never against statutory law (Tupas v. CA, 193 SCRA 597, 1991; Adriano v. Pangilinan, GR 137471, 2002). Q: Can a court adjudicate moot cases? A: Generally, no. The exception is when it is capable of repetition yet evading review. (Alunan III v. Mirasol, GR 108399, 1997; David v. Arroyo, Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary) Q: What is the doctrine of judicial stability? A: It is the rule that no court has authority to interfere with the judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction, whether by injunction, or by opening, modifying or vacating said judgment. (Ngo Bun Tiong v. Judge Sayo; GR 45825; 1998) Q: Is the doctrine of judicial stability absolute? A: No, it does not apply where a third party claimant is involved. (Traders Royal Bank v. IAC, 133 SCRA 259; 1984); Section 16, Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court) Q: What is jurisdiction? A: It is the power and authority of the court to hear, try, and decide a case. Q: When is jurisdiction determined? A: It is determined by the law at the time of the filing of the complaint. Q: How is jurisdiction acquired over the subject matter?

A: It is conferred by law and must be properly invoked by filing a complaint or information. Q: How is jurisdiction acquired over the person of the plaintiff? A: By the filing of the complaint or petition Q: How is jurisdiction acquired over the person of the defendant? A: By the service of summons or other coercive process (arrest) upon him or by his voluntary submission to the authority of the court Q: Can the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident defendant? A: Q: Do laws on jurisdiction have a retroactive effect? A: No. Q: What is the Rule of Adherence of Jurisdiction? A: It is the general rule that once jurisdiction attaches, the happening of subsequent events cannot oust it, although of such a character which should have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. Q: What are the exceptions to the Rule of Adherence of Jurisdiction? A: a) Where a subsequent statute expressly prohibits the continued exercise of jurisdiction; b) Where the law penalizing an act which is punishable is repealed by a subsequent law; c) When the accused is deprived of his constitutional right; d) Where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactment; e) When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned or declared void; f) Once appeal has been perfected; g) Curative statutes Q: Who has the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts? A: Congress; However, Congress may not deprive SC of jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution. Q: What does jurisdiction over the subject matter mean? A: It means the jurisdiction of a court to hear and determine a general class of cases, depending on the nature of the cause of action and the relief sought, as

conferred by the Constitution or law. It cannot be fixed by the will of the parties; it cannot be acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by, any cat or omission of the parties. (Municipality of Sogod v. Rosal, GR L-38204, 1991) Q: Distinguish between jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction A: As to governing law, jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law, while the exercise of jurisdiction, unless otherwise provided by the law itself, is governed by the Rules of Court or by the orders issued from time to time by the Supreme Court. Q: What does excess of jurisdiction mean? A: It signifies that the court, board, or officer has jurisdiction over a case but transcended the same or acted without authority. (Vergara v. Ruque, 78 SCRA 312, 1977) Q: Distinguish between error in the exercise of jurisdiction from want of jurisdiction? A: As to how they are correctible error of j may be corrected only on appeal if shown to be harmful, while want of j is correctible by certiorari and the judgment is an absolute nullity. (Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil 186) Q: What is jurisdiction over the issue? A: This refers to whether the issue being tried and decided is within the issues raised by the pleadings. (Reyes v. Diaz) Q: Distinguish between jurisdiction over the issue and jurisdiction over the subject matter A: As to how it is determined j over subject matter is conferred by law, while j over the issue is conferred by the pleadings and is conferred by the parties and may therefore be waived such as when an issue is not raised in the pleadings is tried by implied consent. (Sec 5, R10) Q: What is jurisdiction over the res? A: It is the power of a court over the thing before it, without regard to the person who may be interested therein, and the presence of the res within the territorial dominion of the sovereign power under authority of which the courts act may confer such jurisdiction. (21 C.J.S. 50-52) Q: What is jurisdiction over the person? A: It means the power obtained by the service of summons or other process or notice in a defendant personally within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction or by voluntary appearance in person or by attorney, to render a personal judgment. (Banco Espaol v. Palanca) Q: What is territorial jurisdiction?

A: It refers to the power of the court over all persons and property within its territory. Q: Distinguish between territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases and TJ in civil cases A: As to whether or not TJ can be waived in criminal cases, TJ or venue cannot be waived and is in fact an element of jurisdiction, while in civil cases TJ or venue may be waived. Q: What is original jurisdiction? A: It is the power of the Court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by law. Q: What is appellate jurisdiction? A: It is the authority of a Court higher in rank to reexamine the final order or judgment of a lower court, which tried the case now elevated for judicial review. Q: Which courts have jurisdiction to issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus? A:
By virtue of Constitution -

1) SC
By virtue of BP 129 -

2) CA 3) RTC
By virtue of RA 6734 -

4) Shariah Appellate Court 5) Shariah Districout Courts

By virtue of BP 697 -

6) COMELEC
By virtue of RA 7975 -

7) Sandiganbayan Q: What is the effect of lack of jurisdiction? A: Generally, the judgment is void and can be challenged at any time. It cannot be waived. (Javelosa v. CA, 1996) Q: What determines jurisdiction? A: Allegations made by the plaintiff in his complaint. Q: When may error in jurisdiction over the subject matter be raised? A: It may be invoked at any time, even during appeal or after final judgment. (Nacpil v. IBC, GR 144767, 2002) Q: What is the principle of estoppel to question jurisdiction? A: A party may be barred by estoppel by laches from invoking this plea for the first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the active participation of said party invoking the plea. (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy).

Q: Should the principle of estoppel to question jurisdiction, as pronounced in Tijam, be strictly applied? A: No. In Calimlim v. Ramirez, and Dy v. NLRC, the Court said the doctrine applies only to exceptional circumstances. Q: When does the principle of estoppel to question jurisdiction operate? A: If the court had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same must exist as a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppel. If the lower court had jurisdiction and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position. (People v. Casiano) Q: What does Section 3, of Rule 47 say? A: To file an action for annulment of judgments, or final orders and resolutions, if based on lack of jurisdiction, it must be filed before it is barred by laches or estoppel.