CIVIL PROCEDURE (a) ordinary civil actions (Rules 1-56);

CONCEPT OF REMEDIAL LAW (b) provisional remedies (Rules 57-61);

and
 Remedial law, , refers to the rules which
provide the system for the protection of (c) special civil actions (Rules 62-71).
rights, the prevention of the violation of such
 The rules embodied in the Rules of
rights and the means of redress for such
Court are not penal laws and are not to be
violations. Such rules also provide the
given retroactive effect (Bermejo v.
methods for the enforcement of obligations
Barrios, 31 SCRA 764, 776).
recognized by law and lay out the procedure
by which suits are filed, tried, and decided 1. The rules shall govern cases brought
upon by the courts of justice. after they take effect, and also to
pending cases, except if, in the opinion
1. Stated in some other way, remedial
of the court, their application would
law provides the “means and methods
not be feasible or would work injustice,
whereby causes of action may be
in which case, the former procedure
effectuated, wrongs redressed and
shall apply (See Rule 144, Rules of
reliefs obtained” (Black’s Law
Court, as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-
Dictionary, 5th Ed., 1126, citing
20-SC).
Schmitt v. Jenkins Truck Lines, Inc.,
260 Iowa 556, 149 N.W.2d 789, 792). When procedural rules do not apply
to pending actions
SUBSTANTIVE LAW
While a procedural rule may be made
 Remedial law is not substantive law.
applicable to actions pending and
Substantive law creates, defines, and
undetermined at the time of their
regulates rights and duties concerning
passage and is retroactive in that sense,
PROCEDURAL LAW the rule does not apply:
 Remedial law does not create rights or (a) where the statute itself or by
obligations. necessary implication provides that
pending actions are excepted from its
 It provides the method by which rights
operation;
and obligations from substantive law
are: (b) if applying the rule to pending
proceedings would impair vested rights;
o Protected
(c) when to do so would not be feasible or
o Enforced would work injustice; or
o Given effect (d) if doing so would involve intricate
 It is the aspect of law that: problems of due process or impair the
independence of the courts (Tan v. Court
o Prescribes practice, method, of Appeals, 373 SCRA 524, 537).
and procedure
Actions or proceedings not governed
o Enables enforcement, by the Rules of Court
prevention of violations, and
redress for wrongs 1. Sec. 4, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court, as
amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC,
 Also referred to as adjective law clearly provides that the Rules shall
not apply to the following cases:
Scope of civil procedure in the Rules of
(a) election cases;
Court
(b) land registration cases;
Civil procedure includes: (c) cadastral cases;
 (d) naturalization cases; and o A Regional Trial Court (RTC)
(e) insolvency proceedings. cannot nullify or enjoin a ruling
by another RTC of equal rank.
JURISDICTION
o This applies even if the second
- Jurisdiction has, traditionally, been referred
RTC disagrees with the first’s
to as the power and authority of the court to
decision.
hear, try and decide a case
o Jurisdiction over a case includes
Aspects of jurisdiction
jurisdiction over its judgment
In discussing jurisdiction, its several aspects and execution.
need to be considered, namely:
2. Non-interference also applies to
(a) jurisdiction over the subject matter;
administrative bodies.
(b) jurisdiction over the parties;
 When a law grants finality to decisions
(c) jurisdiction over the issues of the case; of administrative agencies, courts
and cannot interfere unless allowed by law.

(d) jurisdiction over the res or thing involved  Example: RTC cannot enjoin execution
in the litigation (Boston Equity Resources, of a final decision by the Energy
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173946, Regulatory Commission (ERC).
June 19, 2013).
 LIMITATIONS ON THE RULE
Doctrine of judicial stability MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME
COURT
The doctrine of judicial stability is one which
precludes a court from interfering by Section 2. The Congress shall have the
injunction with the orders of a co-equal court. power to define, prescribe, and apportion
“The rationale for the rule is founded on the the jurisdiction of the various courts but
concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires may not deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over the case and renders jurisdiction over cases enumerated
judgment therein has jurisdiction over its in Section 5 hereof.
judgment, to the exclusion of all other
No law shall be passed reorganizing the
coordinate courts, for its execution and over
Judiciary when it undermines the security
all its incidents, and control, in furtherance of
of tenure of its Members.
justice, the conduct of ministerial officers
acting in connection with that judgment” Section 30. No law shall be passed
increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the
Meaning of venue
Supreme Court as provided in this
Venue is the place, or the geographical area, Constitution without its advice and
in which a court with jurisdiction may hear concurrence.
and determine a case (Black’s Law
Domingo Neypes et al. v. Court of
Dictionary, 5th Ed., 1396), or the place where
Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September
a case is to be tried (20 Am Jur 2d, §89, 1965
14, 2005
Ed.; For additional readings, see City of Lapu-
Lapu v. Philippine Economic Zone Authority, FACTS : Petitioners filed an action for
G.R. No. 184203, November 26, 2014). annulment of judgment and
reconveyance of land titles before the
Doctrine of Non-Interference / Judicial
RTC, Branch 43, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro.
Stability (Bar 2011)
The RTC dismissed the complaint on
1. Courts of equal and coordinate
February 12, 1998 due to prescription.
jurisdiction cannot interfere with
Petitioners received the order on March 3,
each other's orders.
1998.
 On March 18, 1998 (15th day), they filed It also noted that the fresh period rule
a motion for reconsideration, which was applies uniformly to appeals under Rules 40,
denied on July 1, 1998 and received on 41, 42, 43, and 45.
July 22, 1998.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of
Petitioners filed a notice of appeal on July Appeals and reinstated the appeal. It
27, 1998 and paid fees on August 3, established the “Fresh Period Rule,” granting
1998. litigants a new 15-day period to appeal from
receipt of the denial of a motion for
The RTC denied the appeal for being filed
reconsideration, thereby ensuring fairness
“eight days late,” reckoning the appeal
and due process in procedural timelines.
period from March 3, 1998.
POWER OF SUPREME COURT TO AMEND
The Court of Appeals affirmed the
AND SUSPEND PROCEDURAL RULES
dismissal, prompting a Rule 65 petition
before the Supreme Court. Andrew James McBurnie v. Eulalio
Ganzon, et al., G.R. No. 178034, October
Issue:
17, 2013
When does the 15-day reglementary
Source: Lawphil
period to appeal begin—upon receipt of
the order dismissing the complaint, or Facts:
upon receipt of the order denying the
McBurnie, an Australian national, filed a
motion for reconsideration?
complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary
Ruling claims against EGI-Managers, Inc. and E.
Ganzon, Inc.
The 15-day reglementary period to appeal
begins upon receipt of the order denying the The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of McBurnie,
motion for reconsideration. awarding over ₱60 million in salary,
damages, and attorney’s fees.
Section 3, Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure: “Appeal shall be taken within Respondents appealed to the NLRC, posting
fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment only ₱100,000 and filing a motion to reduce
or final order appealed from.” the appeal bond.
Article VIII, Section 5(5), 1987 Constitution: The NLRC denied the motion and required an
Supreme Court’s exclusive rule-making additional ₱54 million bond, which
power respondents failed to post.
The Supreme Court clarified that the denial Consequently, the NLRC dismissed the
of a motion for reconsideration constitutes appeal. Respondents challenged this via a
the “final order” that triggers the appeal Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals,
period. which granted the motion to reduce bond
and reinstated the appeal.
Petitioners were entitled to a fresh 15-day
period from July 22, 1998 to file their notice McBurnie elevated the case to the Supreme
of appeal. Court via Rule 45.
Their July 27 filing was well within this fresh Issue:
period.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in
The Court emphasized that procedural rules granting the motion to reduce appeal bond
must be interpreted to promote substantial and reinstating the NLRC appeal despite non-
justice and avoid technical dismissals. compliance with the full bond requirement
under Article 223 of the Labor Code.
Ruling
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The NLRC Facts:
properly dismissed the appeal for failure to
Manuel Tiong filed a complaint in the RTC of
post the full appeal bond.
Quezon City against Sun Insurance, seeking
Article 223, Labor Code: Requires posting of ₱50 million in damages (stated in the body
a bond equivalent to the monetary award for but not in the prayer).
appeals involving monetary claims.
He paid only ₱210 as docket fee, based on
Jurisprudence: Viron Garments Mfg. v. NLRC, the prayer which did not specify an amount.
McBurnie v. Ganzon (doctrine reiterated)
The Supreme Court had previously issued a
Rule 65, Rules of Court: Certiorari is not a resolution requiring reassessment of docket
substitute for a lost appeal due to procedural fees in Quezon City cases due to widespread
non-compliance. under-assessment.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Judge Asuncion ordered Tiong to file a re-
appeal bond is a jurisdictional requirement, amended complaint specifying the amount
not merely procedural. sought.
Respondents’ failure to post the full bond Tiong complied, stating “not less than ₱10
within the reglementary period rendered the million” in the prayer and ₱44 million in the
NLRC’s dismissal proper. body. He paid the reassessed docket fee of
₱39,786.
The Court of Appeals gravely abused its
discretion in reinstating the appeal despite Sun Insurance argued that the court never
clear non-compliance. acquired jurisdiction due to initial
underpayment, invoking Manchester
The Court reiterated that motions to reduce
Development Corp. v. CA.
bond do not suspend the period to perfect an
appeal unless the NLRC grants such motion Issue:
within the appeal period.
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of despite the initial underpayment of docket
Appeals and upheld the NLRC’s dismissal of fees, and whether such defect could be cured
the appeal. It reaffirmed the mandatory by subsequent compliance.
nature of the full appeal bond under Article
Ruling
223 and clarified that failure to comply within
the prescribed period forfeits the right to Yes, the trial court acquired jurisdiction. The
appeal. defect in docket fee payment was cured by
subsequent compliance.
Rule 141, Rules of Court (Docket Fees)
The Supreme Court distinguished this case
RULE 144 ON 2019 AMENDMENTS
from Manchester, where the plaintiff
 This rule affirms the constitutional deliberately omitted the claim amount to
requirement under Article VIII, Section evade fees.
5(5) of the 1987 Constitution, which
Here, Tiong showed good faith and complied
empowers the Supreme Court to
with the reassessment order, paying the
promulgate rules concerning pleading,
correct fee within a reasonable time.
practice, and procedure in all courts.
The Court held that procedural rules must
Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Hon.
not defeat substantial justice, especially
Maximiano Asuncion, G.R. Nos. 79937-
when the party shows willingness to comply.
38, February 13, 1989
Sources: Lawphil, Uber Digests
The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s face of the pleading, and factual complexity
jurisdiction and ruled that the reassessed must be resolved through trial, not
docket fee cured the initial defect. It clarified preemptively.
that procedural rules on docket fees must be
applied with flexibility when substantial
compliance and good faith are evident. D. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended in 2019 (A.M. 19-10-20-SC
Frank Colmenar v. Apollo Colmenar, et
which took effect on May 1,2020)
al., G.R. No. 252467, June 21, 2021
RULE 1
Source: Lawphil
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Facts:
Section 1. Title of the Rules. - These Rules
Frank Colmenar, son of the late Francisco
shall be known and cited as the Rules of
Colmenar, filed a complaint for nullity of
Court. (1)
extrajudicial settlements, deeds of sale,
cancellation of titles, and damages.
Section 2. In what courts applicable. - These
He alleged that respondents falsely claimed Rules shall apply in all the courts, except as
to be heirs and sold his father's properties otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.
without his knowledge. (2)

Respondents (Apollo, Jeannie, Victoria) sold Section 3. Cases governed. - These Rules
the properties to various corporations: shall govern the procedure to be observed in
ProFriends, Crisanta Realty, PEC, which later actions, civil or criminal, and special
sold to Amaia Land. proceedings.
Respondents filed motions to dismiss and
invoked defenses such as failure to state a (a) A civil action is one by which a party sues
cause of action, lack of cause of action, another for the enforcement or protection of
prescription, and being innocent purchasers a right, or the prevention or redress of a
for value. wrong.

The RTC dismissed the complaint, applying A civil action may either be ordinary or
the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil special. Both are governed by the rules for
Procedure, ruling that the complaint failed to ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific
state a cause of action. rules prescribed for a special civil action.
Issue:
(b) A criminal action is one by which the
Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the State prosecutes a person for an act or
complaint for failure to state a cause of omission punishable by law.
action under the 2019 Amendments to the
Rules of Civil Procedure. (c) A special proceeding is a remedy by
which a party seek s to establish a status, a
Ruling right, or a particular fact. (3)
No, the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint
outright. The complaint sufficiently stated a Section 4. In what cases not applicable. -
cause of action. Section 1, Rule 16, 2019 These Rules shall not apply to election cases,
Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure land registration, cadastral, naturalization
and insolvency proceedings, and other cases
The Supreme Court reversed the RTC’s not herein provided for, except by analogy or
dismissal and reinstated the complaint. It in a suppletory character and whenever
reiterated that dismissal for failure to state a practicable and convenient. (4)
cause of action must be based solely on the
Section 5. Commencement of action. - A civil
action is commenced by the filing of the
original complaint in court. If an additional
defendant is impleaded in a later pleading,
the action is commenced withregard to him
on the date of the filing of such later
pleading, irrespective of whether the motion
for its admission, if necessary, is denied by
the court. (6a)

Section 6. Construction. – These Rules shall

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