Civil Procedure

• Substantive law


  The law which provides for the rights and obligations of persons
• Adjective law or procedural law

  The law that provides for the manner of enforcing such rights and obligations in courts or tribunals
• Rule-making power of the Supreme Court

  The power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and procedure in courts
• The sole authority to promulgate such rules is with the Supreme Court (GSIS v. Caballero, 4 October 2010)
• Section 39 of Republic Act No. 8291, which exempts the GSIS from "all taxes, assessments, fees, charges or duties of all kinds," cannot operate to exempt it from the payment of docket and filing fees since it infringes upon the Supreme Court's rule-making power
• Under S22 R141, while the Republic of the Philippines and its agencies and instrumentalities are exempt from paying legal fees, local governments and GOCCs with or without independent charters are not so exempt (GSIS v. Caballero, 4 October 2010)
• Hierarchy of courts


  The concurrence of jurisdiction of various courts, such as those over petitions for certiorari and prohibition, should not be taken to mean that the parties have an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which they will file their application or petition
• Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability


  A trial court has no authority to interfere with the proceedings of a court of equal jurisdiction, such as to annul its judgment, order, or processes
• An RTC cannot annul a judgment of another RTC (PICOP v. IAC, 2 March 2007)
• Suppletory application of the Rules of Court in administrative bodies

  The Rules of Court may be applied in a suppletory character to rules of procedure of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, that is, applied where the administrative rules do not provide for a specific matter or there is a gap in such rules
• Construction of the Rules of Court (Rule 1, sec. 6)

  The Rules of Court shall be liberally construed to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding
• Subject-matter jurisdiction


  The authority and power of the court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceeding in question belongs
• Personal jurisdiction


  The power of the court to bind a party or person
• Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner is acquired by the filing of the complaint or petition. Jurisdiction over the defendant is obtained by service of summons or his voluntary appearance
• A corporation not impleaded cannot be subject to court's process of piercing the veil of corporate fiction (Amoroso v. Vantage Drilling International, 8 August 2022, Leonen, J.)
• Jurisdiction over the issues

  The power of a court to try issues which have been raised in the parties' pleadings or tried with their express or implied consent under S5 R10
• Original jurisdiction


  That exercised by a court or body in the first instance
• Appellate jurisdiction


  That exercised by a court or body over a case elevated to it by way of review
• General jurisdiction


  The jurisdiction of a court to try a wide variety of matters or cases
• Special jurisdiction


  The jurisdiction of a court which is limited to specific matters or cases
• Exclusive jurisdiction


  That jurisdiction exercised by a court or body to the exclusion of all other courts
• Concurrent jurisdiction


  That jurisdiction exercised over a case or subject matter by two or more courts or bodies
• Outline of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in civil cases

  • Original Exclusive: Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against certain bodies
  • Original Concurrent: With the Court of Appeals, with the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Courts, with Regional Trial Courts, with the Sandiganbayan
  • Appellate: Petitions for review on certiorari against certain bodies
• Outline of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in civil cases

  • Original Exclusive: Actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts, Special civil action for certiorari against a Regional Trial Court's order approving or disapproving the rehabilitation plan
  • Original Concurrent: With the Supreme Court, with the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial Courts
  • Appellate: Ordinary appeals from Regional Trial Courts and Family Courts, Appeal by petition for review from certain bodies, Petitions for review from the Regional Trial Courts
• Outline of the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in civil cases


  • Exclusive Original: Civil cases filed pursuant to Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A issued in 1986, Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Orders No. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986
  • Exclusive Appellate: Over civil forfeiture cases falling within the RTC's jurisdiction, as where the respondent official has a salary grade below 27
• cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Orders No. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986; provided that the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court
• Sandiganbayan


  Has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over civil forfeiture cases falling within the RTC's jurisdiction, as where the respondent official has a salary grade below 27
• The exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 is not confined to appeals from criminal cases (Republic v. Racho, 16 January 2023, Leonen, J.)
• If the petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, or habeas corpus relates to an act or omission of a respondent in a case which is appealable to the Sandiganbayan, then the SB has jurisdiction over the petition "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction"
• The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to issue the writ of certiorari against an RTC order in an ordinary collection case because the Sandiganbayan does not have appellate jurisdiction over a collection case
• The Sandiganbayan would have jurisdiction to issue the writ against an RTC order in a civil forfeiture case involving a public officer whose salary grade is below 27
• Cases falling under the CTA's exclusive appellate jurisdiction and original jurisdiction over criminal and civil actions

  • Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue
  • Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial
  • Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction
  • Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs
  • Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals
  • Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code
  • Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under Section 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties
• Cases falling under the CTA's jurisdiction over tax collection cases

  • Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provided, however, That collection cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court
  • Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases: Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction; Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the Exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their respective jurisdiction
• Cases falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court


  • Actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation
  • Actions involving title to or possession of real property or an interest therein, where the assessed value of such property exceeds ₱400,000, except forcible entry and unlawful detainer
  • Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds ₱2,000,000
  • Matters of probate, testate or intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds ₱2,000,000
  • Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
  • Other cases where the demand, exclusive of interest, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs, or the value of the property exceeds ₱2,000,000
  • Actions for annulment of MTC judgments
  • Actions for recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreement, vacation or modification of arbitration award, application for arbitration award and supervision
  • Citizen suit under Section 41 of the Clean Air Act
  • Petition for assistance in the liquidation of a bank or quasi-bank filed by a receiver pursuant to S30 of the New Central Bank Act
• Cases falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts

  • Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, and habeas corpus in relation to the latter
  • Petitions for adoption of children and revocation thereof
  • Complaints for annulment or nullification of marriage, those relating to marital status and property relations of spouses or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains
  • Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment
  • Summary judicial proceedings brought under the Family Code
• Cases falling under the jurisdiction of Special Commercial Courts


  • Cases involving violations of Intellectual Property Rights
  • Cases enumerated under Section 5 of PD 902-A
  • Rehabilitation, insolvency and liquidation (RIL) cases brought under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of 2010 and those emanating from administrative proceedings
• Special Commercial Courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction. They were created by the Supreme Court to try designated commercial cases pursuant to the Securities Regulation Code, but this is a matter of procedure and not jurisdiction (Gonzalez v. GJH Land, Inc., 10 November 2015, e.b., Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has exclusive original jurisdiction over a civil action in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation pursuant to Sec. 19(1) of B.P. Blg. 129
• An action for quasi-delict is capable of pecuniary estimation based on the amount of the damages being claimed (Iniego v. Purganan, G.R. 166876, 24 March 2006)
• An action for "breach of contract" is capable of pecuniary estimation where an analysis of the complaint shows that the principal relief sought by the plaintiff is the enforcement of the penal clause for liquidated damages. Hence, jurisdiction is with MTC where the claim for damages did not exceed ₱2,000,000 (Pajares v. Remarkable Laundry, 20 February 2017, Del Castillo, J.)