Remedial Law

2016 Bar Examination
Coverage
Remedial
Law
COVERAGE
REMEDIAL LAW
2016 BAR EXAMINATIONS
1. General Principles
1.1. Concept of remedial law
Procedure in general
The means whereby the court reaches out to restore rights and remedy wrongs, and
includes every step which may be taken from beginning to the end of a case
(Maritime Company of the Philippines vs. Paredes, 19 SCRA 569 [1967]).
Kinds of procedure
1. As to purpose
a. civil procedure refers to the enforcement of a private right
b. criminal procedure refers to the prosecution of an offense
2. As to formality
a. formal procedure requires a set and definite process to be observed in order
that the remedy can issue
b. summary procedure where remedy sought is granted without delay, and
without the necessity of observing the procedure fixed for ordinary cases
What is civil procedure?
The method of conducting a judicial proceeding to resolve disputes involving private
parties for the purpose of enforcing private rights or obtaining redress for the
invasion of rights.
Action and suit
In the Philippines, the terms action and suit are synonymous (Lopez vs. Compania
de Seguros (16 SCRA 855 [1966])
1.2. Substantive law vis--vis remedial law

1. Substantive law the law that creates, defines regulates and extinguishes rights
and obligations
2. Remedial law the law that provides the procedure or remedy for enforcement
of rights and obligations through the courts of justice.
1.3. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court

Coverage
Remedial
Law
The Supreme Court has the constitutional power to promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5], Constitution).
The power of Congress under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions to repeal, alter or
supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure was taken away in the
1987 Constitution (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19,
1999).
1.3.1 Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme
Court
(a) The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedydisposition of cases,
(b) The rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and
(c) The rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. (Art. VIII,
Sec. 5[5], Constitution).
In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and
procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right,
the test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process for
enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering
remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule takes away a
vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to
appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of
implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure. (Fabian vs.
Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 40.)
Procedural and substantive rules
Test whether rule really regulates procedure, the judicial process for enforcing
rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy
and redress for a disregard or infraction thereof.
If it takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as
the right to appeal substantive.
If it operates as a means of implementing an existing right procedural,
Exs. where to prosecute an appeal or transferring venue of appeal (a) appeals from
decisions of Ombudsman in administrative cases be made to CA, or (b) requiring that
review of NLRC decisions be filed with CA (St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC, 295
SCRA 494 [1998])
1.3.2. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend

procedural rules
Inherent power of SC to SUSPEND its own rules or to EXEMPT a particular case from
the operation of said rules (pro hac vice) whenever demanded by justice (Rep. vs.
CA, 107 SCRA 504 [1981]; De la Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 510 SCRA 103).

4
Remedial
Coverage
Law
The right to create rules necessarily carries with it the power to suspend
the
effectivity of its creation.
The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as
to alter even that which the Court itself had already declared to be final (Apo Fruits
Corp. vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164195, October 12, 2010).
1.4. Nature of Philippine courts

1.4.1. Meaning of a court
A court is a tribunal with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes
between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and
administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law.
The system of courts that interpret and apply the law are collectively known as
the judiciary
1.4.2. Court as distinguished from a judge
A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as part of a
panel of judges. The judge conducts the trial impartially and in an open court. The
judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the parties of the
case, assesses the credibility of the parties, and then issues a ruling on the matter at
hand based on his or her interpretation of the law and his or her own personal
judgment.
1.4.3. Classification of Philippine courts
1. Regular Courts- Courts authorized to engage in the general administration of
justice.
2. These courts derive their powers from the Constitution. At the apex is the Supreme
Court. Below the Supreme Court are three tiers of lower-level courts that initially
decide controversies brought about by litigants in the first instance.
a. Supreme Court
b. Court of Appeals
c. Regional Trial Court
d. Municipal Trial Court
2. Special Courts - Tribunals that have limited jurisdiction over certain types of cases
or controversies that special courts can hear are limited only to those that are
specifically provided in the special law creating such special courts. Outside of the
specific cases expressly mentioned in the provisions of the statute creating the
special court, these courts have no authority to exercise any powers of adjudication.
a. Sandiganbayan
b, Court of Tax Appeals
c. Sharia Court

5
Remedial
Coverage
Law
3. Quasi-Judicial Agencies - Technically, judicial powers pertain to and are
exercised
only by courts. However, the Philippine system of government allows administrative
agencies to exercise adjudicatory powers in certain types of controversies,
particularly if same would facilitate the attainment of the objectives for which the
administrative agency had been created. Unlike regular and special courts, quasicourts do not possess judicial powers. Instead they possess and in fact, exercise what
are termed as quasi-judicial powers.
1.4.4. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction
a. Court of original jurisdiction one where a case is originally commenced
1) Municipal Trial Court
2) Regional Trial Court
3) Court of Appeals
4) Supreme Court
b. Court of appellate jurisdiction one which has power or review over the decisions
or orders of a lower court
2) Court of Appeals
3) Supreme Court
1.4.5. Courts of general and special jurisdiction
a. General jurisdiction courts which take cognizance of all kinds of cases, civil or
criminal, except those assigned to special courts and courts of limited jurisdiction
b. Special jurisdiction courts which have the power to hear only certain types of
cases, or are clothed with special powers for the performance of specified duties
beyond which they have no authority of any kind.
1) Sandiganbayan
2) Court of Tax Appeals
3) Sharia Court
1.4.6. Constitutional and statutory courts
a. Constitutional those created by the Constitution
1) Supreme Court
b. Statutory those created by the legislature
1) Court of Appeals

Coverage
Remedial
Law
3) Municipal Trial Court

4) Sandiganbayan
5) Court of Tax Appeals
6) Sharia Court
1.4.7. Courts of law and equity
Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity. Hence, both legal and equitable
jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal. (. U.S. vs. Tamparong, 31 Phil.
321)
However, equity does not apply when there is a law applicable to a given case (Smith
Bell Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 530). It is availed of only in the absence of a
law and is never availed of against statutory law or judicial pronouncements (Velez
vs Demetrio, G.R. No. 128576, August 13, 2002).
1.4.8. Principle of judicial hierarchy
Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort from the lower courts to the Supreme Court
will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower
tribunals.
Rationale: (a) to prevent inordinate demands upon the SCs time and attention which
are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and (b) to
prevent further overcrowding of the SCs docket.
Thus, although the SC, CA and the RTC have CONCURRRENT jurisdiction to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of
choice of court forum.
The SC will NOT ENTERTAIN DIRECT RESORT to it unless the redress desired cannot
be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances,
such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the extraordinary
remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction (Heirs of
Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor, 455 SCRA 460 [2005]).
1.4.9. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial
stability
This principle holds that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere
with each others orders (Lapu-lapu Dev and Housing Corp vs. Group Management
Corp, 338 SCRA 493). Hence, a RTC has no power or authority to nullify or enjoin the
enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another Regional Trial Court (Suico
Industrial Corp vs; CA, 301 SCRA 212). The principle also bars a court from
reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no
appellate jurisdiction or power of review (Villamor vs. Salas, 203 SCRA 540).

7
Remedial
Coverage
Law
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or
judgments of a co-equal court, as an accepted axiom in adjective law, serves as an
insurmountable barrier to the competencia of the Makati court to entertain
the habeas corpus case on account of the previous assumption of jurisdiction by the
Cavite court, and the designation of petitioners as guardians ad litem of the ward.
This is based on the policy of peaceful co-existence among courts of the same judicial
plane. (Panlilio vs. Salonga, G.R. No. 113087, June 27, 1994).
2. Jurisdiction
JURISDICTION: GENERAL NOTES
Jurisdiction is the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case, and execute its judgment.
Premise: Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law.
This is not necessarily true.
Substantive law deals with jurisdiction over the subject matter and/or jurisdiction over the nature of the action. This is the aspect
of jurisdiction governed by BP 129 and the other substantive laws on jurisdiction. (Dean Riano: Since jurisdiction over the subject
matter is a matter of substantive law, it cannot be granted by agreement of the parties; acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished
by any act or omission of the parties; or conferred by the acquiescence of the courts [p. 69])
Jurisdiction over the person of the litigants, jurisdiction over the property involved, and jurisdiction over the issues of the case, on
one hand, are governed by the Rules of Court.
Dean Riano: The test of jurisdiction is whether the court has the power to enter into the inquiry and not whether the decision is
right or wrong. The fact that the decision is erroneous does not divest the court that rendered it of the jurisdiction conferred by law
to try the case.
When it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint filed before it, the court has the duty to
dismiss the claim and can do so motu proprio (citing Rule 9, Section 1, p. 6263).
Q: Is it the duty of the court that dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to forward it to the proper
court? Dean Riano: No. No such duty is dictated by the Rules of Court.
2.1
Over the parties

2.1.1. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired
Over person of plaintiff acquired upon filing of complaint or initiatory pleading and
paying docket or filing fees;
2.1.2. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
Over person of defendant service on him of coercive process in the manner
provided by law (summons) or his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court or tribunal (voluntary appearance).
What is the effect of voluntary appearance?

8
Remedial
Coverage
The defendants voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent Law
to SERVICE
OF SUMMONS.
However, inclusion in a motion to dismiss on other grounds aside from lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary
appearance (Rule 14, Sec. 20).
NOTE:
a. Filing of a motion for reconsideration and appeal is tantamount to voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
b. Any mode of appearance in court by a defendant or his lawyer is equivalent to
service of summons, absent any indication that the appearance of counsel was
precisely to protest the jurisdiction of the court over the person of defendant
(Delos Santos vs. Montesa, 221 SCRA 15 [1993]).
As a general rule, the defendants voluntary appearance shall be equivalent to service of summons and the consequent
submission of ones person to the jurisdiction of the court. If there are defects in the summons, voluntary appearance cures such
defects.
As an exception, if there is a special appearance in court to challenge its jurisdiction over his person, it shall not be deemed as a
voluntary appearance. This is true even if the defendant includes in his Motion to Dismiss several other grounds aside from lack
of jurisdiction over his own person.
Q: Aside from summons and voluntary appearance, is there any way a court may obtain jurisdiction over a person?
Yes, but only in limited circumstances. For example, under Rule 65, in certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, the court does not
issue a summons. It simply issues an order addressed to the defending party to file a comment. That is a process which will
confer upon the court, by compulsion, jurisdiction over the person of the respondents. As a consequence, the court cannot declare
the respondents in default if they failed to respond.
2.2
Over the subject matter

2.2 1. Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter
1. The power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceeding in question belongs.
2. Determined by the LAW IN FORCE at the time of its institution. Once the court
acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted by any subsequent law placing
jurisdiction in another tribunal, except (a) when the law itself so provides or (b)
the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment.
3. Matter of legislative enactment which none but the legislature can change.
4. Once jurisdiction is acquired, court RETAINS it until the final determination of
the case
5. Never acquired by consent or acquiescence of the parties or by laches, nor by
unilateral assumption thereof by a tribunal.
6. Determined by the ALLEGATIONS in the complaint and the CHARACTER of
relief sought.
the
7. Does not depend on pleas or defenses of defendant in an answer or motion to

dismiss.

9
Remedial
Coverage
2.2 2. Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction Law
Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein.
Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision in all
other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of suchjurisdiction. The errors
which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of
judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. The errors raised by petitioners
in their petition for annulment of judgment assail the content of the decision of the
trial court and not the courts authority to decide the suit. In other words, they relate
to the courts exercise of its jurisdiction, but petitioners failed to show that the trial
court did not have the authority to decide the case. (Tolentino vs. Leviste, 443 SCRA
274 [2004]).
2.2 3. Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of
judgment
An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction, and which error is reversible only by an appeal. Error of jurisdiction is
one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of
jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by the trial court in its appreciation of the
evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its
conclusions of law. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors
committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere
errors of judgment. (Julies Franchise Corporation vs. Ruiz, G.R. No. 180988, August
28, 2009, 597 SCRA 463.)
2.2 4. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined
Conferred by the LAW IN FORCE at the time of its institution. Determined by the
ALLEGATIONS in the complaint and the CHARACTER of the relief sought
2.2 5. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy
over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special
competence. (Fajardo vs. Flores, G.R. No. 167891, January 15, 2010)
In primary jurisdiction, this involves quasi-judicial bodies. What happens in primary jurisdiction is that Congress enacts a law
which vests jurisdiction unto a quasi-judicial body to try and decide cases which are cognizable by regular courts under BP
129. The reason why Congress enacts these laws is that Congress feels that the quasi- judicial body is better equipped to decide
disputes of litigants in certain cases than the regular courts.
For example, the HLURB has exclusive original jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between subdivision buyer/s and the
subdivision developers. In cases of breach of contract under the NCC on matters pertaining to the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial
bodies, the trial court cannot take cognizance of these matters, although BP 129 gives jurisdiction to regular courts over such
matters, given the fact that there is a substantive law vesting jurisdiction to the HLURB to decide on such disputes. This is
because it is presumed that the HLURB is better equipped than a regular court to decide on such cases due to its expertise.
Q: What if the subdivision developer filed in the MTC a complaint for ejectment of a subdivision buyer who
allegedly violated the terms of the contract? The subdivision developer sought to recover the property from the
buyer, among other prayers. The subdivision buyer challenged that MTC has no jurisdiction over the case, and that
it is HLURB which is the proper body to take cognizance of the complaint. Does HLURB have jurisdiction over the
ejectment case?
SC held that the primary jurisdiction of the HLURB does not extend to complaints of ejectment filed by one party against the
other. In the case of primary jurisdiction vested by substantive law to quasi- judicial bodies, the authority of the quasi-judicial
Remedial
body
is interpreted strictly. Ejectment could really be a dispute between
developer and buyer, but since the complaint
Coverage
0
Law was for
recovery of physical possession of the property (or even accion publiciana), SC held that regular courts should take cognizance.
2.2 6. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction

Once jurisdiction attaches it cannot be ousted by the happening of subsequent events
although of such a character which should have prevented jurisdiction from attaching
in the first instance [the rule of adherence of jurisdiction] (Ramos vs. Central Bank
of the Philippines, 41 SCRA 565;. Lee vs. Presiding Judge, MTC of Legaspi City, Br I,
145 SCRA 408).
Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted by any subsequent law
placing jurisdiction in another tribunal, except (a) when the law itself so provides or
(b) the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment.
Once jurisdiction is acquired, court RETAINS it until the final determination of the
case
2.2 7. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter
When can the issue of jurisdiction be raised?
General rule jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action may be
challenged AT ANY STAGE of the proceedings.
Exception when there is ESTOPPEL.
Party assailing jurisdiction of court must raise it at the first opportunity. While an
order or decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be assailed
at any stage, a partys ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in the proceedings. without
questioning the jurisdiction until an adverse resolution is issued will BAR or ESTOP
such party from attacking the courts jurisdiction, especially when an adverse
judgment has been rendered (Soliven vs. Fastforms Phils. , Inc. , 440 SCRA 389
[2004]).
A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief against
his opponent and after failing to obtain such relief, repudiate such jurisdiction (Salva
vs. CA, 304 SCRA 632 (1999) .This includes the filing of a counterclaim. Such
practice cannot be tolerated for reasons of public policy (Oca vs. CA, 278 SCRA 642
[2002]).
The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to
dismiss filed before the filing or service of an answer. Lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter is a ground for a motion to dismiss (Sec. 1[b], , Rule 16). If no motion
to dismiss is filed, the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised as an affirmative
defense in the answer (Sec. 6, Rule 16).
Under the omnibus motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading like a motion to
dismiss shall include all grounds then available, and all objections not so included
shall not be deemed waived, except lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (Sec.
8, Rule 15).
Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings,
even for the first time on appeal (Francel Realty Corporation vs. Sycip, 469 SCRA 424
[2005])
Courts may take cognizance of the issue even if not raised by the parties themselves.
No reason to preclude the CA, for example, from ruling on this issue even if the same

1
Remedial
Coverage
1
Lawvs.
had not been resolved by the trial court (Asia International Auctioneers, Inc.
,G.R. No. 163445, December 18, 2007).
2.2 8. Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor, G.R. No. 140954, April 12, 2005
After recognizing the jurisdiction of the trial court by seeking affirmative relief in their
motion to serve supplemental pleading upon private respondents, petitioners are
effectively barred by estoppel from challenging the trial courts jurisdiction. If a party
invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot thereafter challenge the courts
jurisdiction in the same case. To rule otherwise would amount to speculating on the
fortune of litigation, which is against the policy of the Court.
Salva vs. CA, 304 SCRA 632 (1999)
Facts:Squatters around San Jose Airport in Occidental Mindoro were relocated in NFA
lot. Actual occupants of lot filed forcible entry complaint against relocated families
and Mindoro Governor Josephine Sato.
Plaintiffs won in MTC. RTC affirmed. Sato filed notice of appeal. CA dismissed appeal
for being wrong remedy and ordered entry of judgment. MTC issued writ of
execution. Sato filed certiorari and prohibition with CA which was dismissed. Sato
filed MR on the ground that MTC had no jurisdiction because the squatters were
relocated on a different lot. CA granted MR and dismissed plaintiffs complaint for
forcible entry.
Ruling: SC reversed CA decision issue of jurisdiction never raised before MTC, RTC
and CA. Raised for the first time in MR. Party assailing jurisdiction of court must raise
it at the first opportunity. While an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction is
a total nullity and may be assailed at any stage, a partys ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in
the proceedings. Without questioning the jurisdiction until an adverse resolution is
issued will bar or estop such party from attacking the courts jurisdiction. Settled
rule: a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief
against his opponent and after failing to obtain such relief, repudiate such
jurisdiction.
2.3.
Over the issues
1. Authority to try and decide the issues raised by the pleadings of the parties.
2. Conferred by the PLEADINGS or EXPRESS CONSENT of the parties.
3. An issue not duly pleaded may be tried and decided if no timely objection is
made by the parties.
4. In certain cases, as in probate proceedings, jurisdiction over the issues is
conferred by law.
2.4
Over the res or property in litigation
Acquired by the court over the property or thing in contest, and is obtained by
seizure under legal process of the court.
May result either from the SEIZURE of thing under legal process whereby it is
brought into actual custody of law, or INSTITUTION of legal proceedings whereby the
power of the court over the thing is recognized and made effective.

Coverage
2.5.
1
2
Remedial
Law
Jurisdiction of court
2.5.1. Supreme Court
A. Original Jurisdiction
1. Exclusive
Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against
the following:
a. Court of Appeals
b. Commission on Elections En Banc
c. Commission on Audit (Sec. 7, Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitution)
d. Sandiganbayan
e. Court of Tax Appeals En Banc
f. Ombudsman in criminal and non-administrative disciplinary cases
2. Concurrent
a. with Court of Appeals
1) Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the
Civil Service Commission
2) Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the
National Labor Relations Commission under the Labor Code (Sec. 9, Batas
129 [1983], as amended by Rep. Act No. 7902 [1995], St. Martins Funeral
Homes vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 130866,
September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494)
b. with Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Courts
1) Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto
2) Actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of laws concerning
monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Sec. 17, Rep. Act No. 296
[1948], as amended by Rep. Act No. 5440 [1968])
c. with Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts
1) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus relating to an act or
omission of a municipal trial court, or of a corporation, a board, an officer or
person
2) Petitions for issuance of writ of amparo (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, effective October 24, 2007)
3) Petitions for issuance of writ of habeas data (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC
effective February 2, 2008)
d. with Regional Trial Courts

1
Remedial
Coverage
3
Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls Law
(Sec. 5[1],
Article VIII, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 21[2], Batas Blg. 129 [1983])
B. Appellate Jurisdiction
1. Ordinary Appeal
From the Court of Appeals, in all criminal cases involving offenses for which
the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; or a lesser
penalty is imposed for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose
out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more severe offense for which
the penalty of death is imposed (Sec. 13[c], Rule 124, as amended by A.M. No.
00-5-03-SC, effective October 15, 2004, Sec. 13[b], Rule 124)
2. Petition for Review on Certiorari
a. Appeals from Court of Appeals (Sec. 17, Rep. Act No. 296 [1948], as
amended by Rep. Act No. 5440 [1969]; Sec. 5[2], Article VIII, 1987
Constitution; Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
b. Appeals from the Sandiganbayan on pure questions of law, except cases
where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death
(Sec. 7, Pres. Decree No. 1606 [1979], as amended by Rep. Act No. 8249
[1997]; Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan, Nos. L-50581-50617, January 20, 1982,
111 SCRA 433; Rule 45, ibid. )
c. Appeals from judgments or final orders of Regional Trial Courts exercising
original jurisdiction in the following:
1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;
2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll,
or any penalty imposed in relation thereto;
3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue;
4) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. (Sec.
5[2-a, b, c, and e], Article VIII, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 17, Rep. Act No.
296 [1948], as amended; Sec. 9[3], Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983];
Rule 45, ibid. ; Sec. 2[c], Rule 41; Sec. 3[e], Rule 122)
d. Appeals from decisions or final resolutions of the Court of Tax Appeals en
banc (Rule 16, Sec. 1, A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA or The Revised Rules of the
Court of Tax Appeals; Sec. 1, Rule 45, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC
dated December 12, 2007; See also Rep. Act No. 9282 [2004])
3. Petition for certiorari filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the
judgment/final order/resolution sought to be reviewed against the following:
(Rule 64, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
a. Commission on Elections (Sec. 7, Article IX-A, 1987 Constitution; Aratuc
vs. COMELEC, No. L-49705-09, February 8, 1979, 88 SCRA 251)
b. Commission on Audit (Ibid. , 1987 Constitution)

Coverage
1
4
Remedial
Law
BP 129 does not mention anything about the SC. It begins with the CA downwards, up to
the MTC and the Sharia Courts. Supreme Court exercises its authority from the
Constitution. In the Constitution, the SC exercises original jurisdiction and appellate
jurisdiction. But the Constitution does not say that original jurisdiction of the
SC is exclusive, nor about the appellate jurisdiction being exclusive. The basis for this is
in the old Judiciary Act of 1948 where SC jurisdiction is delineated in a very thorough
manner, providing exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction of the SC. Note that
BP 129 did not repeal the old Judiciary Act and hence it is still in force. What BP 129
repealed are provisions of Judiciary Act of 1948 that are inconsistent with BP 129. The
best argument to support this statement is Sec. 9 in BP 129.
Sec. 9 BP 129, paragraph 3, last sentence:

3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, resolutions, orders or awards
of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commission, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security
Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service
Commission, Except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the
third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section
17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
The Constitution provides for a limited number of cases over which the SC can exercise
original jurisdiction and limited number of cases over which it can exercise appellate
jurisdiction. Unlike the old Judiciary Act, the Constitution did not state that the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is exclusive.
SC: EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the CA, COMELEC, CoA, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals.
SC: CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
1.
With the RTC:

Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
2.
3.
With the CA:

a.
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against the RTC, Civil Service Commission, CBAA,
NLRC, and other quasi-judicial agencies
b.
Petitions for Writ of Kalikasan
With the RTC and CA:

Coverage a. Petition for habeas corpus b.
c.
4.
Petition for5
quo warranto
Remedial
Law
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against MTC and other bodies
With the RTC, CA and Sandiganbayan:

a.
Petition for Writ of Amparo
b.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Data
SC: APPELLATE JURISDICTION

1.
By way of certiorari under Rule 45 against the CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC (pure questions of law only), CTA en
banc, and
2.
Cases on the constitutionality and validity of a law or treaty, international agreement or executive agreement,
presidential decree, proclamation order, instruction, ordinance or regulation, legality of a tax, impost,
assessment, toll or penalty, jurisdiction of a lower court.
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus have been greatly limited by certain procedural rules. The limitation is known as the
hierarchy of courts. Thus, while theoretically a petition can be filed directly to the SC, one should follow the procedure under the
principle of hierarchy of courts. In Rule 65, it is expressly provided that petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (and
even Quo Warranto and Habeas Corpus - Dean Jara) should be filed directly only with two courts, the RTC or the CA.
See: Rule 65, Section 4
It should be further noted that although the Supreme Court, the CA, and the RTC have concurrent jurisdiction on petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, the RTC may only enforce these writs in any part of their
respective regions. The CA, on one hand, was once limited to issue these writs only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, but BP
129 repealed this rule, stating now the phrase, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
As contrast, the Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction to hear petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, but
may only issue these writs only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Q: Jurisdiction of courts must be expressly conferred by law. Has the CTA certiorari
powers even though there is no express grant of such power?
Dean Albano: Yes. In order for any appellate court to effectively exercise its appellate
jurisdiction, it must have the authority to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari.
In transferring exclusive jurisdiction over appealed tax cases to the CTA, it can be
reasonably be assumed that the law intended to transfer also such power as is deemed
necessary, if not indispensable, in aid of such appellate jurisdiction.
Furthermore, under Section 6, Rule 135, when by law, jurisdiction is conferred on a

court or a judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes, and other means necessary to
carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer (citing City of Manila v.
Grecia- Cuerdo).
Q: There is an apparent conflict between the Family Court Law, BP 129, and the
Constitution. Under the Family Courts Act of

1
Coverage
6
1997, the Family Court shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction,
Remedial
Law
among others, over petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in
relation to the latter. The Constitution dictates that the Supreme Court has
jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases, and BP 129, though enacted on an earlier date than
the Family Court Act, states that the RTC and CA shall also have jurisdiction over habeas
corpus cases. How do you resolve this apparent conflict?
Under Thornton vs. Thornton, G.R. No. 154598, decided August 16,
2004, the Supreme Court held that RA 8369 (the Family Court Act) did not divest the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases
involving the custody of minors because:
1.
It could not have been the intention of the lawmakers to limit the writ to Family
Courts which are limited only to respective territories,
2.
3.
the primordial consideration is the welfare and best interests of the child,
that a literal interpretation of the word exclusive will
result in grave injustice,

4.
that implied repeals are not favored, and
5.
that A.M. 03-03-04-SC, or the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas
Corpus in Relation to Custody of
Minors, state that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals shall have concurrent
jurisdiction over said writs.
Among the basic principles of the enactment of BP 129 was to do away with the concept
of concurrent jurisdiction. BP 129 has not been able to do away entirely with concurrent
jurisdiction. BP 129 does not use the term concurrent in vesting jurisdiction upon courts.
Generally, BP 129 has been able to do away with the concept of concurrence of
jurisdiction, except with respect to certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and
habeas corpus. Since the Constitution and BP 129 allocate original jurisdiction upon 3
courts, then it is safe to conclude that these 3 courts exercise original and concurrent
jurisdiction over these petitions.
2.5.2. Court of Appeals
A.
Original Jurisdiction
1. Exclusive
a. Actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 9[2],
Batas Blg. 129 [1983]; Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

1
Remedial
Coverage
7
b. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus involvingLaw
an act or
omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law (Sec.
4, Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC dated December 12, 2007)
2. Concurrent
a. with Supreme Court
1) Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the
Civil Service Commission (Rep. Act No. 7902 [1995])
2) Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the
National Labor Relations Commission under the Labor Code (Sec. 9,
Batas 129 [1983], as amended by Rep. Act No. 7902 [1995], St. Martins
Funeral Homes vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
130866, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494)
b. with Supreme Court and Regional Trial Courts
1) Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto
2) Actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of laws concerning
monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Sec. 17, Rep. Act No.
296 [1948], as amended by Rep. Act No. 5440 [1968])
c. with Supreme Court, Sandiganbayan, and Regional Trial Courts
1) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus relating to an act or
omission of a municipal trial court, or of a corporation, a board, an
officer, or person
2) Petitions for issuance of writ of amparo (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, effective October 24, 2007)
3) Petitions for issuance of writ of habeas data (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08-116- SC, effective February 2, 2008)
B. Appellate Jurisdiction
1. Ordinary Appeal
a. Appeals from Regional Trial Courts, except those appealable to the
Supreme Court under
b. Appeals from Regional Trial Courts on constitutional, tax, jurisdictional
questions involving questions of fact which should be appealed first to the
Court of Appeals (Sec. 17, subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Rep.
Act No. 296 [1948] as amended, which was not intended to be excluded by
Sec. 9[3], Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983])
c. Appeals from decisions and final orders of the Family Courts (Sec. 14,
Rep. Act No. 8369 [1997])
d. Appeals from Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases, where the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or where a lesser
penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or which
arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense
for which the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed

1
Remedial
Coverage
8
Law October
(Sec. 3[c], Rule 122, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective
15, 2004; People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA
640)
e. Direct Appeal from land registration and cadastral cases decided by
metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, and municipal circuit trial
courts based on their delegated jurisdiction
2. Petition for certiorari against decisions and final resolutions of the National
Labor Relations Commission (A. M. No. 99-2-01-SC; St. Martin Funeral Homes
vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 13086, September 16, 1998,
295 SCRA 494; Torres, et. al. vs. Specialized Packaging Development Corp. , et.
al. , G.R. No.149634, July 6, 2004, 433 SCRA 455)
3. Automatic review in cases where the Regional Trial Courts impose the death
penalty (Secs. 3[d] and 10, Rule 122, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC,
effective October 15, 2004; People vs. Mateo, supra)
4. Petition for review
a. Appeals from Regional Trial Courts in cases decided by the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction (Sec. 22, Batas Blg. 129 [1983]; Rule 42,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Sec. 3[b], Rule 122)
b. Appeals from decisions of the Regional Trial Courts acting as Special
Agrarian Courts in cases involving just compensation to the landowners
concerned (Land Bank of the Philippines vs. De Leon, G. R. No. 143275,
September 10, 2002, 388 SCRA 537)
c. Appeals from awards, judgments, final orders, or resolutions of, or
authorized by, quasi-judicial agencies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial
functions. Among these are: CSC, GSIS, NEA, CIAC, SEC, DAR, OP, CBAA,
BPTTT, ERC, LRA, CAB, BOI, PAEC, SSS, IC, ECC, Voluntary Arbitrator
d. Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
cases (A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC; Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742,
September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 470)
CA: EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Cases of annulment of judgment of an RTC.
CA: EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION

1.
Ordinary appeal from RTC and Family Courts
2.
Petition for review from RTC in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
3.
Petition for review from decisions, resolutions, orders or

awards from CSC, Ombudsman in administrative cases and other quasi-judicial agencies in exercise of its quasi-judicial
functions as mentioned in Sec. 1 Rule 43.
CA: CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

1.
With the SC:

1
Remedial
against the RTC, Civil Service Commission,
Coverage a. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus
9
Law
CBAA, NLRC, and other quasi-judicial agencies
b.
2.
3.
Petitions for Writ of Kalikasan
With the RTC and SC:

a.
Petition for habeas corpus b.
Petition for Quo warranto
c.
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against the MTC and other bodies
With the SC, RTC and Sandiganbayan:

a.
Petition for Writ of Amparo
b.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Data
Q: Is the SC a court of general jurisdiction?

A: The SC, despite being the highest court of the land, is not a court of general jurisdiction, it exercises only limited original
jurisdiction as provided for under the Constitution. It is generally not a trier of facts. The same is true in the CA. In Sec. 9
BP 129, the CAs authority is very limited.
Under BP 129, the Court of Appeals may authorize itself to conduct new trials and receive evidence in proper cases. The
Constitution, and even the Rules of Court, is silent whether or not the same power may be done by the Supreme Court.
Q: CA has exclusive original jurisdiction over Annulment of Judgment of an RTC under Rule 47. Does it mean that the
CA can annul a judgment rendered by an MTC
A: Since the CA is a court of limited jurisdiction, it is allowed to annul judgment only judgments from the RTC. It cannot
annul decisions of an MTC.
Q: Would it mean that the judgment of an MTC is immune from annulment of its judgment by the CA?
Yes. The decision of an RTC can be annulled by the CA. But the decision of an MTC is immune from annulment by the CA.
But, the decision of an MTC can be annulled by an RTC. It is not so provided in BP 129 that an RTC can annul a judgment of an
MTC, but it is provided for under Section 10 of Rule 47 on Annulment of Judgment in the Rules. Thus, jurisdiction is vested in
the RTC under the Rules for it to be able to annul judgments rendered by an MTC.
Q: Can we then challenge the jurisdiction of RTC as BP 129, a special law, should take precedence over a substantive law,
as BP
129 does not expressly give the RTC the authority to annul judgment of an MTC? Why?
A: We cannot. This is because, under BP 129 there is an allocation to the RTC of jurisdiction to entertain and decide all kinds of
actions which are not especially given to other courts. This is the provision why an RTC can annul judgments of the MTC as well
as the reason why the RTC is considered as the real court of general jurisdiction in our justice system. Since no substantive law
has allocated to other courts the jurisdiction to annul judgments of an MTC, it follows now that the RTC is the proper court to
decide on the matter as provided under BP 129 for an RTC to entertain and decide all kinds of actions not especially given to
other courts.
See: Islamic Da'wah Case
Remedial
Q:
Can an RTC entertain and decide on cases of annulment of
Why?
Coverage
0 judgments of another RTC prior to BP 129?Law
A: Before BP 129, SC held yes, because the RTC is a court of general jurisdiction. This is the reason why in BP 129, Congress
deemed it necessary to incorporate a provision giving exclusive authority to the CA to annul a judgment rendered by the RTC to
do away with the anomalous situation where an RTC is able to annul judgments rendered by another RTC, as there was no
specific substantive law prior to BP 129 which allocated to other courts the authority to annul judgments of the RTC.
Q: Can the SC annul the judgment of the CA?

No. The Constitution and BP 129 does not provide authority for the SC to annul judgments rendered by the CA. There is no
substantive law or special law authorizing SC to annul judgments rendered by the CA.
It does not mean that the decisions of the CA are immune from annulment. The SC could still exercise its equity jurisdiction,
most likely under Rule 65, in order to annul a judgment of the CA, based on the same grounds given under Rule 47, extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
2.5.3.
2.5.4.
2.5.5.
2.5.6.
2.5.7.
2.5.8.
Court of Tax Appeals

Sandiganbayan
Regional Trial Courts
Family Courts
Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts
Sharia Courts
2.6. Over small claims; cases covered by the Rules on Summary

Procedure and
Barangay
conciliation
2.7
Totality rule
3. Civil Procedure
3.1.
Actions
3.1.1. Meaning of ordinary civil actions
3.1.2. Meaning of special civil actions
3.1.3. Meaning of criminal actions
3.1.4. Civil actions versus special proceedings
3.1.5. Personal actions and real actions
3.1.6. Local and transitory actions
3.1.7. Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem
3.1.8. Independent Civil Actions
3.2.
Cause of action
3.2.1. Meaning of cause of action
3.2.2. Right of action versus cause of action
3.2.3. Failure to state a cause of action
3.2.4. Test of the sufficiency of a cause of action
3.2.5. Splitting a single cause of action and its effects
3.2.6. Joinder and mis-joinder of causes of action
3.3.
Parties to civil actions

3.3.1. Real parties-in-interest; indispensable parties;
representatives as parties;
necessary parties; indigent parties; alternative

2
Remedial
Coverage
1
Law
defendants
3.3.2. Compulsory and permissive joinder of parties
3.3.3. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties
3.3.4. Class suit
3.3.5. Suits against entities without juridical personality
3.3.6. Effect of death of party-litigant
3.4.
Venue
3.4.1. Venue versus jurisdiction
3.4.2. Venue of real actions
3.4.3. Venue of personal actions

Coverage
2
2
Remedial
Law
3.4.4. Venue of actions against non-residents

3.4.5. When the rules on venue do not apply
3.4.6. Effects of stipulations on venue
3.5.
Pleadings
3.5.1. Kinds of
pleadings a)
Complaint
b) Answer
i. Negative
defenses ii.
Negative
pregnant
iii. Affirmative
defenses c)
Counterclaims
i. Compulsory counterclaim
ii. Permissive counterclaim
iii. Effect on the counterclaim when the
complaint is dismissed d) Cross-claims
e) Third (fourth, etc.) party
complaints f) Complaint-inintervention
g) Reply
3.5.2. Pleadings allowed in small claim cases and cases covered
by the Rules on
Summary Procedure
3.5.3. Parts of a
pleading a) Caption
b) Signature and address
c) Verification and certification against
forum shopping i. Requirements of a
corporation executing the
verification/certification of nonforum shopping d) Effect of the signature of
counsel in a pleading
3.5.4. Allegations in a pleading
a) Manner of making
allegations i.
Condition
precedent
ii. Fraud, mistake, malice, intent, knowledge and
other condition of the mind, judgments, official
documents or acts
b) Pleading an actionable
document c) Specific denials
i. Effect of failure to make
specific denials ii. When a
specific denial requires an oath
3.5.5. Effect of failure to plead
a) Failure to plead defenses and objections
b) Failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim and crossclaim
3.5.6. Default

2
Coverage
3 of default
a) When a declaration
is proper b) Effect of an order of
default
c) Relief from an order of default
d) Effect of a partial
default e) Extent of
relief
f) Actions where default is not allowed
Remedial
Law

Coverage
2
4
Remedial
Law
3.5.7. Filing and service of

pleadings a) Payment
of docket fees
b) Filing versus service of
pleadings c) Periods of
filing of pleadings
d) Manner of
filing e) Modes
of service
i. Personal
service ii.
Service by
mail
iii. Substituted service
iv. Service of judgments, final orders or
resolutions v. Priorities in modes of
service and filing
vi. When service is deemed
complete vii. Proof of filing
and service
3.5.8. Amendment
a) Amendment as a matter
of right b) Amendments by
leave of court
c) Formal amendment
d) Amendments to conform to or authorize
presentation of evidence e) Different from
supplemental pleadings
f) Effect of amended pleading
3.6.
Summons
3.6.1. Nature and purpose of summons in relation to actions in
personam, in rem
and quasi in rem
3.6.2. Voluntary appearance
3.6.3. Personal service
3.6.4. Substituted service
3.6.5. Constructive service (by publication)
a) Service upon a defendant where his identity is
unknown or his whereabouts are unknown
b) Service upon residents temporarily outside the
Philippines
3.6.6. Extra-territorial service, when allowed
3.6.7. Service upon prisoners and minors
3.6.8. Proof of service
3.7.
Motions
3.7.1. Motions in general
a) Definition of a motion
b) Motions versus pleadings
c) Contents and forms of motions
d) Notice of hearing and hearing
of motions e) Omnibus motion
rule

2
Coverage
5
f) Litigated and ex parte
motions g) Pro-forma
motions
3.7.2. Motions for bill of particulars
a) Purpose and when
applied for b) Actions of
the court
Remedial
Law

Coverage
2
6
Remedial
Law
c) Compliance with the order and effect of

noncompliance d) Effect on the period to file
a responsive pleading
3.7.3. Motion to
dismiss a)
Grounds
b) Resolution of motion
c) Remedies of plaintiff when the complaint
is dismissed d) Remedies of the defendant
when the motion is denied
e) Effect of dismissal of complaint on
certain grounds f) When grounds pleaded
as affirmative defenses
g) Bar by dismissal
h) Distinguished from demurrer to evidence under Rule 33
3.8.
Dismissal of actions
3.8.1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff; two-dismissal rule
3.8.2. Dismissal upon motion by plaintiff; effect on existing
counterclaim
3.8.3. Dismissal due to the fault of plaintiff
3.8.4. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party
complaint
3.9.
Pre-trial
3.9.1. Concept of pre-trial
3.9.2. Nature and purpose
3.9.3. Notice of pre-trial
3.9.4. Appearance of parties; effect of failure to appear
3.9.5. Pre-trial brief; effect of failure to file
3.9.6. Distinction between pre-trial in civil case and pre-trial in
criminal case
3.9.7. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
a) Special Rules of Court on ADR (A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC)
3.9.8. INCLUDE: Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial
Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-trial and
Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC)
which became effective on 16 August 2004
3.10. Intervention
3.10.1. Requisites for intervention
3.10.2. Time to intervene
3.10.3. Remedy for the denial of motion to intervene
3.11. Subpoena
3.11.1. Subpoena duces tecum
3.11.2. Subpoena ad testificandum
3.11.3. Service of subpoena
3.11.4. Compelling attendance of witnesses; contempt
3.11.5. Quashing of subpoena
3.12. Modes of discovery
3.12.1. Depositions pending action; depositions before action
or pending appeal a) Meaning of deposition

2
Remedial
Coverage
7
Law
b) Uses; scope of examination
c) When may objections to admissibility be made
d) When may taking of deposition be terminated or its scope
limited

2
Remedial
Coverage
8
Law
3.12.2. Written interrogatories to adverse parties
a) Consequences of refusal to answer
b) Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories
3.12.3. Request for admission
a) Implied admission by adverse party
b) Consequences of failure to answer request
for admission c) Effect of admission
d) Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission
3.12.4. Production or inspection of documents or things
3.12.5. Physical and mental examination of persons
3.12.6. Consequences of refusal to comply with modes of
discovery
3.13. Trial
3.13.1. Adjournments and postponements
3.13.2. Requisites of motion to
postpone trial a) For absence
of evidence
b) For illness of party or counsel
3.13.3. Agreed statement of facts
3.13.4. Order of trial; reversal of order
3.13.5. Consolidation or severance of hearing or trial
3.13.6. Delegation of reception of evidence
3.13.7. Trial by commissioners
a) Reference by consent or ordered
on motion b) Powers of the
commissioner
c) Commissioners report; notice to parties and hearing
on the report
3.14. Demurrer to evidence
3.14.1. Ground
3.14.2. Effect of denial
3.14.3. Effect of grant
3.14.4. Waiver of right to present evidence
3.14.5. Demurrer to evidence in a civil case versus
demurrer to evidence in a criminal case
3.15. Judgments and final orders
3.15.1. Judgment without trial
3.15.2. Contents of a judgment
3.15.3. Judgment on the pleadings
3.15.4. Summary
judgments a)
For the claimant
b) For the defendant
c) When the case not fully
adjudicated d) Affidavits and
attachments
3.15.5. Judgment on the pleadings versus summary judgments
3.15.6. Rendition of judgments and final orders
3.15.7. Entry of judgment and final order

Coverage
2
9
Remedial
Law
3.16. Post-judgment remedies

3.16.1. Motion for new trial or
reconsideration a)
Grounds
b) When to file
c) Denial of the motion;
effect d) Grant of the
motion; effect
e) Remedy when motion is denied, fresh 15-day period
rule
3.16.2. Appeals in general
a) Judgments and final orders subject
to appeal b) Matters not appealable
c) Remedy against judgments and orders which are
not appealable d)
Modes of appeal
i. Ordinary appeal
ii. Petition for review
iii. Petition for review on certiorari
e) Issues to be raised on
appeal f) Period of
appeal
g) Perfection of appeal
h) Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC
i) Appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC
j) Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CA
k) Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CTA
l) Review of final judgments or final orders of the
Comelec
m) Review of final judgments or final orders of
the Ombudsman n) Review of final judgments or
final orders of the NLRC
o) Review of final judgments or final orders of quasijudicial agencies
3.16.3. Relief from judgments, orders and
other proceedings a) Grounds for
availing of the remedy
b) Time to file
petition c)
Contents of
petition
3.16.4. Annulment of judgments or final orders
and resolutions a)
Grounds for
annulment
b) Period to file action
c) Effects of judgment of annulment
3.16.5. Collateral attack of
judgments
3.17. Execution, satisfaction and effect of
judgments
3.17.1. Difference between finality of judgment for
purposes of appeal; for purposes of execution
3.17.2. When execution shall issue
a) Execution as a matter

3
Coverage
0
of right b) Discretionary
execution
3.17.3. How a judgment is executed
a) Execution by motion or by
independent action b) Issuance and
contents of a writ of execution
c) Execution of judgments for money
d) Execution of judgments for specific acts
Remedial
Law

Coverage
3
1
Remedial
Law
e) Execution of special
judgments f) Effect of levy
on third persons
3.17.4. Properties exempt from execution
3.17.5. Proceedings where property is claimed by third persons
a) In relation to third-party claim in attachment and
replevin
3.17.6. Rules on redemption
3.17.7. Examination of judgment obligor when judgment is
unsatisfied
3.17.8. Examination of obligor of judgment obligor
3.17.9. Effect of judgment or final orders
3.17.10. Enforcement and effect of foreign judgments or final
orders
3.18.
Provisional remedies
3.18.1. Nature of provisional remedies
3.18.2. Jurisdiction over provisional remedies
3.18.3. Preliminary attachment
a) Grounds for issuance of writ of
attachment b) Requisites
c) Issuance and contents of order of attachment;
affidavit and bond d) Rule on prior or
contemporaneous service of summons
e) Manner of attaching real and personal property; when
property
attached is claimed by third person
f) Discharge of attachment and the counter-bond
g) Satisfaction of judgment out of property attached
3.18.4. Preliminary injunction
a) Definitions and differences: preliminary injunction
and temporary restraining order; status quo ante
order
b) Requisites
c) Kinds of injunction
d) When writ may be issued
e) Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction
f) Grounds for objection to, or for the dissolution
of injunction or restraining order
g) Duration of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
h) In relation to R.A. No. 8975, ban on issuance of
TRO or writ of injunction in cases involving
government infrastructure projects
i) Rule on prior or contemporaneous service of
summons in relation to attachment
3.18.5. Receivership
a) Cases when receiver may be
appointed b) Requisites
c) Requirements before issuance
of an order d) General powers of a
receiver
e) Two kinds of bonds
f) Termination of receivership
3.18.6. Replevin

3
Coverage
2
a) When may writ be
issued b) Requisites
Remedial
Law

Coverage
3
3
Remedial
Law
c) Affidavit and bond; redelivery bond

d) Sheriffs duty in the implementation of the writ;
when property is claimed by third party
3.19.
Special civil actions

3.19.1. Nature of special civil actions
3.19.2. Ordinary civil actions versus special civil actions
3.19.3. Jurisdiction and venue
3.19.4. Interpleader
a) Requisites for
interpleader b) When
to file
3.19.5. Declaratory reliefs and
similar remedies a) Who may
file the action
b) Requisites of action for declaratory relief
c) When court may refuse to make judicial
declaration d) Conversion to ordinary
action
e) Proceedings considered as
similar remedies i.
Reformation of an instrument
ii. Consolidation of ownership
iii. Quieting of title to real property
3.19.6. Review of judgments and final orders or resolution of
the Comelec and
COA
a) Application of Rule 65 under Rule 64
b) Distinction in the application of Rule 65 to judgments
of the Comelec and COA and the application of Rule
65 to other tribunals, persons and officers
3.19.7. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
a) Definitions and distinctions
i. Certiorari distinguished from appeal by certiorari
ii. Prohibition and mandamus distinguished
from injunction b) Requisites
c) When petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus is proper d) Injunctive relief
e) Exceptions to filing of motion for reconsideration
before filing petition f) Reliefs petitioner is entitled to
g) Actions/omissions of MTC/RTC in
election cases h) When and where to
file petition
i) Effects of filing of an unmeritorious petition
3.19.8. Quo warranto
a) Distinguish from quo warranto in the Omnibus Election
Code
b) When government may commence an action
against individuals c) When individual may
commence an action
d) Judgment in quo warranto action
e) Rights of a person adjudged entitled to public office
3.19.9. Expropriation
a) Matters to allege in complaint for

3
Coverage
4 stages in every
expropriation b) Two
action for expropriation
Remedial
Law

Coverage
3
5
Remedial
Law
c) When plaintiff can immediately enter into

possession of the real property, in relation to
R.A. No. 8974
d) New system of immediate payment of initial just
compensation e) Defenses and objections
f) Order of expropriation
g) Ascertainment of just compensation
h) Appointment of commissioners; commissioners
report; court action upon commissioners report
i) Rights of plaintiff upon judgment and payment
j) Effect of recording of judgment
3.19.10. Foreclosure of real estate
mortgage
a) Judgment on foreclosure for
payment or sale b) Sale of
mortgaged property; effect
c) Disposition of proceeds
of sale d) Deficiency
judgment
i. Instances when court cannot render deficiency
judgment
e) Judicial foreclosure versus
extrajudicial foreclosure f) Equity of
redemption versus right of redemption
3.19.11. Partition
a) Who may file complaint; who should be
made defendants b) Matters to allege in the
complaint for partition
c) Two stages in every action for partition
d) Order of partition and partition by agreement
e) Partition by commissioners; appointment of
commissioners, commissioners report; court
action upon commissioners report
f) Judgment and its effects
g) Partition of personal
property h) Prescription
of action
3.19.12. Forcible entry and
unlawful detainer a) Definitions
and distinction
b) Distinguished from accion publiciana, accion
reivindicatoria and
accion interdictal
c) How to determine jurisdiction in accion
publiciana, accion reivindicatoria and accion
interdictal
d) Who may institute the action and when; against whom
the action
may be
maintained e)
Pleadings allowed
f) Action on the complaint
g) When demand is necessary
h) Preliminary injunction and preliminary

3
Remedial
Coverage
6 i)
Law
mandatory injunction
Resolving defense of
ownership
j) How to stay the immediate execution
of judgment k) Summary procedure,
prohibited pleadings
3.19.13. Contempt
a) Kinds of contempt
b) Purpose and nature of each
c) Remedy against direct contempt; penalty

Coverage
3
7
Remedial
Law
d) Remedy against indirect

contempt; penalty e) How contempt
proceedings are commenced f) Acts
deemed punishable as indirect
contempt g) When imprisonment
shall be imposed
h) Contempt against quasi-judicial bodies
4.
Special Proceedings
4.1. Settlement of estate of deceased persons, venue and process
4.1. 1. Which court has jurisdiction
4.1. 2. Venue in judicial settlement of estate
4.1. 3. Extent of jurisdiction of probate court
4.1.4. Powers and duties of probate court
4.2. Summary settlement of estates
4.2.1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs,
when allowed
4.2.2. Two-year prescriptive period
4.2.3. Affidavit of self-adjudication by sole heir
4.2.4. Summary settlement of estates of small value, when
allowed
4.2.5. Remedies of aggrieved parties after extrajudicial
settlement of estate
4.3. Production and probate of will
4.3.1. Nature of probate proceeding
4.3.2. Who may petition for probate; persons entitled to notice
4.4. Allowance or disallowance of will
4.4. 1. Contents of petition for allowance of will
4.4. 2. Grounds for disallowing a will
4.4. 3. Reprobate
a) Requisites before a will proved abroad would be
allowed in the
Philippin
es
4.4.4. Effects of probate
4.5. Letters testamentary and of administration
4.5. 1. When and to whom letters of administration granted
4.5. 2. Order of preference
4.5. 3. Opposition to issuance of letters testamentary;
simultaneous filing of petition for administration
4.5. 4. Powers and duties of executors and administrators;
restrictions on the powers
4.5. 5. Appointment of special administrator
4.5. 6. Grounds for removal of administrator
4.6. Claims against the estate
4.6.1. Time within which claims shall be filed; exceptions
4.6.2. Statute of non-claims

3
Remedial
Coverage
8 administrator against the estate
Law
4.6.3. Claim of executor or

Coverage
3
9
Remedial
Law
4.6.4. Payment of debts

4.7. Actions by and against executors and administrators
4.7.1. Actions that may be brought against executors and
administrators
4.7.2. Requisites before creditor may bring an action for
recovery of property fraudulently conveyed by the
deceased
4.8. Distribution and partition
4.8.1. Liquidation
4.8.2. Project of partition
4.8.3. Remedy of an heir entitled to residue but not given his
share
4.8.4. Instances when probate court may issue writ of execution
4.9. Trustees
4.9.1. Distinguished from executor/administrator
4.9.2. Conditions of the bond
4.9.3. Requisites for the removal and resignation of a trustee
4.9.4. Grounds for removal and resignation of a trustee
4.9.5. Extent of authority of trustee
4.10. Escheat
4.10.1. When to file
4.10.2. Requisites for filing of petition
4.10.3. Remedy of respondent against petition; period for filing
a claim
4.11. Guardianship
4.11.1. General powers and duties of guardians
4.11.2. Conditions of the bond of the guardian
4.11.3. Rule on guardianship over minor
4.12. Adoption
4.12.1. Distinguish domestic adoption from inter-country
adoption
4.12.2. Domestic
Adoption Act a)
Effects of
adoption
b) Instances when adoption may be
rescinded c) Effects of rescission of
adoption
4.12.3. Inter-country adoption
a) When allowed
b) Functions of the RTC
c) Best interest of the minor standard
4.13. Writ of habeas corpus
4.13.1. Contents of the petition
4.13.2. Contents of the return
4.13.3. Distinguish peremptory writ from preliminary citation
4.13.4. When not proper/applicable

4
Coverage
0
4.13.5. When writ disallowed/discharged
Remedial
Law

Coverage
4
1
Remedial
Law
4.13.6. Distinguish from writ of amparo and habeas data

4.13.7. Rules on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus
in relation to
Custody of Minors (A.M. No. 0304-04-SC)
4.14. Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
4.14.1. Coverage
4.14.2. Distinguish from habeas corpus and habeas data
4.14.3. Differences between amparo and search warrant
4.14.4. Who may file
4.14.5. Contents of return
4.14.6. Effects of failure to file return
4.14.7. Omnibus waiver rule
4.14.8. Procedure for hearing
4.14.9. Institution of separate action
4.14.10. Effect of filing of a criminal action
4.14.11. Consolidation
4.14.12. Interim reliefs available to petitioner and respondent
4.14.13. Quantum of proof in application for issuance of writ of
amparo
4.15. Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
4.15.1. Scope of writ
4.15.2. Availability of writ
4.15.3. Distinguished from habeas corpus and amparo
4.15.4. Contents of the petition
4.15.5. Contents of return
4.15.6. Instances when petition may be heard in chambers
4.15.7. Consolidation
4.15.8. Effect of filing of a criminal action
4.15.9. Institution of separate action
4.15.10. Quantum of proof in application for issuance of writ of
amparo
4.16. Change of name
4.16.1. Differences under Rule 103, R.A. No. 9048 and Rule 108
4.16.2. Grounds for change of name
4.17. Absentees
4.17.1. Purpose of the rule
4.17.2. Who may file; when to file
4.18. Cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry
4.18.1. Entries subject to cancellation or correction under Rule
108, in relation to
R.A. No.
9048
4.19. Appeals in special proceedings
4.19.1. Judgments and orders for which appeal may be taken
4.19.2. When to appeal
4.19.3. Modes of appeal

Coverage
4
2
Remedial
Law
4.19.4. Rule on advance

distribution
5.
Criminal Procedure
5.1. General matters
5.1.1. Distinguish jurisdiction over subject matter from
jurisdiction over person of the accused
5.1.2. Requisites for exercise of criminal jurisdiction
5.1.3. Jurisdiction of criminal courts
5.1.4. When injunction may be issued to restrain criminal
prosecution
5.2. Prosecution of offenses
5.2.1. Criminal actions, how instituted
5.2.2. Who may file them, crimes that cannot be prosecuted de
officio
5.2.3. Criminal actions, when enjoined
5.2.4. Control of prosecution
5.2.5. Sufficiency of complaint or information
5.2.6. Designation of offense
5.2.7. Cause of the accusation
5.2.8. Duplicity of the offense; exception
5.2.9. Amendment or substitution of complaint or information
5.2.10. Venue of criminal actions
5.2.11. Intervention of offended party
5.3. Prosecution of civil action
5.3.1. Rule on implied institution of civil action with criminal action
5.3.2. When civil action may proceed independently
5.3.3. When separate civil action is suspended
5.3.4. Effect of death of the accused or convict on civil action
5.3.5. Prejudicial question
5.3.6. Rule on filing fees in civil action deemed instituted with the
criminal action
5.4. Preliminary investigation
5.4.1. Nature of right
5.4.2. Purposes of preliminary investigation
5.4.3. Who may conduct determination of existence of probable
cause
5.4.4. Resolution of investigation prosecutor
5.4.5. Review
5.4.6. When warrant of arrest may issue
5.4.7. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation
5.4.8. Remedies of accused if there was no preliminary investigation
5.4.9. Inquest
5.5. Arrest
5.5.1. Arrest, how made
5.5.2. Arrest without warrant, when lawful
5.5.3. Method of arrest

Coverage
4
3
Remedial
Law
a) By officer with
warrant
b) By officer without
warrant c) By private
person
5.5.4. Requisites of a valid warrant of arrest
5.5.5. Determination of probable cause for issuance of warrant of
arrest
5.5.6. Distinguish probable cause of fiscal from that of a judge
5.6. Bail
5.6.1. Nature
5.6.2. When a matter of right; exceptions
5.6.3. When a matter of discretion
5.6.4. Hearing of application for bail in capital offenses
5.6.5. Guidelines in fixing amount of bail
5.6.6. Bail when not required
5.6.7. Increase or reduction of bail
5.6.8. Forfeiture and cancellation of bail
5.6.9. Application not a bar to objections in illegal arrest,
lack of or irregular preliminary investigation
5.6.10. Hold departure order & Bureau of Immigration watchlist
5.7. Rights of the accused
5.7.1. Rights of accused at the trial
5.7.2. Rights of persons under custodial investigation
5.8. Arraignment and plea
5.8.1. Arraignment and plea, how made
5.8.2. When should plea of not guilty be entered
5.8.3. When may accused enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense
5.8.4. Accused pleads guilty to capital offense, what the court
should do
5.8.5. Searching inquiry
5.8.6. Improvident plea
5.8.7. Grounds for suspension of arraignment
5.9. Motion to quash
5.9.1. Grounds
5.9.2. Distinguish from demurrer to evidence
5.9.3. Effects of sustaining the motion to quash
5.9.4. Exception to the rule that sustaining the motion is
not a bar to another prosecution
5.9.5. Double jeopardy
5.9.6. Provisional dismissal
5.10. Pre-trial
5.10.1. Matters to be considered during pre-trial
5.10.2. What the court should do when prosecution and offended
party agree to the plea offered by the accused
5.10.3. Pre-trial agreement

Coverage
4
4
Remedial
Law
5.10.4. Non-appearance during pre-trial

5.10.5. Pre-trial order
5.10.6. Referral of some cases for court annexed mediation
and judicial dispute resolution
5.11. Trial
5.11.1. Instances when presence of accused is required by law
5.11.2. Requisite before trial can be suspended on account of
absence of witness
5.11.3. Trial in absentia
5.11.4. Remedy when accused is not brought to trial within the
prescribed period
5.11.5. Requisites for discharge of accused to become a state
witness
5.11.6. Effects of discharge of accused as state witness
5.11.7. Demurrer to evidence
5.12. Judgment
5.12.1. Requisites of a judgment
5.12.2. Contents of judgment
5.12.3. Promulgation of judgment; instances of promulgation of
judgment in absentia
5.12.4. When does judgment become final (four instances)
5.13. New trial or
reconsideration
5.13.1. Grounds for new trial
5.13.2. Grounds for reconsideration
5.13.3. Requisites before a new trial may be granted on ground
of newly-discovered evidence
5.13.4. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration
5.13.5. Application of Neypes doctrine in criminal cases
5.14. Appeal
5.14.1. Effect of an appeal
5.14.2. Where to appeal
5.14.3. How appeal taken
5.14.4. Effect of appeal by any of several accused
5.14.5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal
5.15. Search and seizure
5.15.1. Nature of search warrant
5.15.2. Distinguish from warrant of arrest
5.15.3. Application for search warrant, where filed
5.15.4. Probable cause
5.15.5. Personal examination by judge of the applicant and
witnesses
5.15.6. Particularity of place to be searched and things to be seized
5.15.7. Personal property to be seized
5.15.8. Exceptions to search warrant
requirement a) Search
incidental to lawful arrest
b) Consented

4
Coverage
5
search
c) Search of moving vehicle
Remedial
Law

Coverage
4
6
Remedial
Law
d) Check points; body checks

in airport e) Plain view
situation
f) Stop and frisk situation
g) Enforcement of custom laws
h) Remedies from unlawful search and seizure
5.16. Provisional remedies
5.16.1. Nature
5.16.2. Kinds of provisional remedies
6.
Evidence
6.1. General principles
6.1.1. Concept of evidence
6.1.2. Scope of the Rules on Evidence
6.1.3. Evidence in civil cases versus evidence in criminal cases
6.1.4. Proof versus evidence
6.1.5. Factum probans versus factum probandum
6.1.6. Admissibility of evidence
a) Requisites for admissibility of evidence
b) Relevance of evidence and
collateral matters c) Multiple
admissibility
d) Conditional admissibility
e) Curative admissibility
f) Direct and circumstantial
evidence g) Positive and
negative evidence
h) Competent and credible evidence
6.1.7. Burden of proof and burden of evidence
6.1.8. Presumptions
a) Conclusive
presumptions b)
Disputable
presumptions
6.1.9. Liberal construction of the rules of evidence
6.1.10. Quantum of evidence (weight and sufficiency of evidence)
a) Proof beyond
reasonable doubt b)
Preponderance of
evidence
c) Substantial evidence
d) Clear and convincing evidence
6.2. Judicial notice and judicial
admissions
6.2.1. What need not be proved
6.2.2. Matters of
judicial notice a)
Mandatory
b) Discretionary
6.2.3. Judicial admissions
a) Effect of judicial admissions

4
Remedial
Coverage b) How judicial admissions7may be contradicted
Law
6.2.4. Judicial notice of foreign laws, law of nations and municipal
ordinance

Coverage
4
8
Remedial
Law
6.3. Object (real) evidence

6.3.1. Nature of object evidence
6.3.2. Requisites for admissibility
6.3.3. Categories of object evidence
6.3.4. Demonstrative evidence
6.3.5. View of an object or scene
6.3.6. Chain of custody, in relation to Section 21 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of
2002
6.3.7. Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC)
a) Meaning of DNA
b) Applicable for DNA testing order
c) Post-conviction DNA testing; remedy
d) Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence
and admissibility e) Rules on evaluation of reliability
of the DNA testing methodology
6.4. Documentary evidence
6.4.1. Meaning of documentary evidence
6.4.2. Requisites for admissibility
6.4.3. Best Evidence
Rule a) Meaning
of the rule
b) When applicable
c) Meaning of original
d) Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
6.4.4. Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)
a) Scope; coverage; meaning of electronic evidence; electronic
data message
b) Probative value of electronic documents or evidentiary
weight; method of proof c) Authentication of electronic
documents and electronic signatures
d) Electronic documents vis-a-vis the hearsay rule
e) Audio, photographic, video and ephemeral evidence
6.4.5. Parol Evidence Rule
a) Application of the parol evidence rule
b) When parol evidence can be introduced
c) Distinctions between the best evidence rule and parol
evidence rule
6.4.6. Authentication and proof of
documents a) Meaning of
authentication
b) Public and private documents
c) When a private writing requires authentication; proof of
a private writing d) When evidence of authenticity of a
private writing is not required (ancient
documen
ts)
e) How to prove genuineness of a handwriting
f) Public documents as evidence; proof of
official record g) Attestation of a copy

4
Coverage h) Public record of a public9 document
i) Proof of lack of record
j) How a judicial record is
impeached k) Proof of
notarial documents
Remedial
Law

Coverage
5
0
Remedial
Law
l) How to explain alterations in a document

m) Documentary evidence in an unofficial language
6.5. Testimonial evidence
6.5.1. Qualifications of a witness
6.5.2. Competency versus credibility of a witness
6.5.3. Disqualifications of witnesses
a) By reason of mental capacity or
immaturity b) By reason of
marriage
c) By reason of death or insanity of
adverse party d) By reason of
privileged communications
6.5.4. Examination of a witness
a) Rights and obligations of a witness
b) Order in the examination of an
individual witness i. Direct
examination
ii.
Cross
examination
iii.
Re-direct
examination iv. Recross examination
v.
Recalling
the
witness
c) Leading and misleading questions
d) Methods of impeachment of adverse partys witness
e) How the witness is impeached by evidence of inconsistent
statements (laying the predicate)
f) Evidence of the good character of
a witness g) Judicial Affidavit Rule
(A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
6.5.5. Admissions and confessions
a) Res inter alios
acta rule b)
Admission by a party
c) Admission by a third party
d) Admission by a co-partner
or agent e) Admission by a
conspirator
f) Admission by
privies g)
Admission by
silence
h) Confessions
i) Similar acts as evidence
6.5.6. Hearsay Rule
a) Meaning of hearsay
b) Reason for exclusion of hearsay
evidence c) Exceptions to the
hearsay rule
i.
Dying
declaration
ii. Declaration against

5
Coverage
1
interest
iii. Act or declaration about
pedigree
iv. Family reputation or tradition
regarding pedigree v. Common
reputation
vi. Part of the res
gestae
vii. Entries in the course of
business viii. Entries in
official records
Remedial
Law

Coverage
5
2
Remedial
Law
ix. Commercial lists and

the like x. Learned
treaties
xi. Testimony or deposition at a former trial
6.5.7. Opinion rule
a) Opinion of expert witness
b) Opinion of ordinary witness
6.5.8. Character
evidence a)
Criminal cases
b) Civil cases
6.5.9. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC)
a) Applicability of the rule
b) Meaning of child witness
c) Competency of a child
witness d) Examination of
a child witness
e) Live-link TV testimony of a
child witness f) Videotaped
deposition of a child witness
g) Hearsay exception in child
abuse cases h) Sexual abuse
shield rule
i) Protective orders
6.6. Offer and objection
6.6.1. Offer of evidence
6.6.2. When to make an offer
6.6.3. Objection
6.6.4. Repetition of an objection
6.6.5. Ruling
6.6.6. Striking out of an answer
6.6.7. Tender of excluded evidence
7.
Revised Rules on Summary

Procedure
7.1. Cases covered by the rule

7.2. Effect of failure to answer
7.3. Preliminary conference and appearances of parties
8. Katarungang Pambarangay Law (P.D. No. 1508; R.A. 7610, as

amended)
8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
8.4.
8.5.
8.6.
9.
Cases covered
Subject matter for amicable settlement
Venue
When parties may directly go to court
Execution
Repudiation
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)

5
Coverage
9.1. Scope and applicability of the3 rule
Remedial
Law

Coverage
9.2.
9.3.
9.4.
9.5.
9.6.
5
4
Remedial
Law
Commencement of small claims action; response

Prohibited pleadings and motions
Appearances
Hearing; duty of the judge
Finality of judgment
10. Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)

10.1. Scope and applicability of the rule
10.2. Civil procedure
10.2.1. Prohibition against temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction
10.2.2. Pre-trial conference; consent decree
10.2.3. Prohibited pleadings and motions
10.2.4. Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO)
10.2.5. Judgment and execution; reliefs in a citizens suit
10.2.6. Permanent Environmental Protection Order; writ of
continuing mandamus
10.2.7. Strategic lawsuit against public participation
10.3. Special proceedings
10.3.1. Writ of Kalikasan
10.3.2. Prohibited pleadings and motions
10.3.3. Discovery measures
10.3.4. Writ of continuing mandamus
10.4. Criminal procedure
10.4.1. Who may file
10.4.2. Institution of criminal and civil action
10.4.3. Arrest without warrant, when valid
10.2.4. Strategic lawsuit against public participation
10.4.5. Procedure in the custody and disposition of seized items
10.4.6. Bail
10.4.7. Arraignment and plea
10.4.8. Pre-trial
10.4.9. Subsidiary liabilities
10.5. Evidence
10.5.1. Precautionary principle
10.5.2. Documentary evidence
11. Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

11.1. Scope and where applicable
11.2 Contents and Procedure
11.3 Application to criminal
actions
11.4 Effect of non-compliance
11.5 Effect on other rules

Coverage
5
5
Remedial
Law
IMPORTANT NOTES:
1. This listing of covered topics is not intended and should not be used by the law
schools as a course outline. This was drawn up for the limited purpose of ensuring
that Bar candidates are guided on the coverage of the 2016 Bar Examinations.
2. All Supreme Court decisions - pertinent to a given Bar subject and its listed topics,
and promulgated up to May 31, 2016 - are examinable materials within the
coverage of the 2016 Bar Examinations.

Remedial Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedial Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedial Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Bar Examination

1.2. Substantive law vis--vis remedial law

1.3. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court

2016 Bar Examination

1.3.2. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend

2016 Bar Examination

1.4. Nature of Philippine courts

2016 Bar Examination

2016 Bar Examination

3) Municipal Trial Court

2016 Bar Examination

Over the parties

2016 Bar Examination

Over the subject matter

7. Does not depend on pleas or defenses of defendant in an answer or motion to

2016 Bar Examination

2016 Bar Examination

2.2 6. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction

2016 Bar Examination

Over the issues

Over the res or property in litigation

2016 Bar Examination

2016 Bar Examination

2016 Bar Examination

Sec. 9 BP 129, paragraph 3, last sentence:

SC: CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

With the RTC:

With the CA:

Petitions for Writ of Kalikasan

With the RTC and CA:

2016 Bar Examination

With the RTC, CA and Sandiganbayan:

Petition for Writ of Amparo

Petition for Writ of Habeas Data

SC: APPELLATE JURISDICTION

See: Rule 65, Section 4

Furthermore, under Section 6, Rule 135, when by law, jurisdiction is conferred on a

2016 Bar Examination

result in grave injustice,

that implied repeals are not favored, and

2016 Bar Examination

2016 Bar Examination

CA: EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CA: EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Ordinary appeal from RTC and Family Courts

Petition for review from RTC in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction

Petition for review from decisions, resolutions, orders or

CA: CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

With the SC:

2016 Bar Examination

Petitions for Writ of Kalikasan

With the RTC and SC:

Petition for habeas corpus b.

Petition for Quo warranto

With the SC, RTC and Sandiganbayan:

Petition for Writ of Amparo

Petition for Writ of Habeas Data

Q: Is the SC a court of general jurisdiction?

See: Islamic Da'wah Case