Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 97 views

    Substance Vs Procedure

    Uploaded by

    Dianne Medianero
    This case summary provides the essential information about the relationship between substantive law and procedural law based on the case Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc. 1) Substantive law creates, defines, and regulates rights such as property rights. Asia United Bank had substantive property rights over a mortgaged property after foreclosing on the mortgage due to non-payment of a loan. 2) Procedural law prescribes the methods for enforcing substantive rights, such as obtaining a writ of possession to enforce ownership rights over a foreclosed property. Asia United Bank filed an ex parte application for a writ of possession to enforce its substantive property rights. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while Congress has the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Substance Vs Procedure

    Uploaded by

    Dianne Medianero
    97 views6 pages
    This case summary provides the essential information about the relationship between substantive law and procedural law based on the case Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc. 1) Substantive law creates, defines, and regulates rights such as property rights. Asia United Bank had substantive property rights over a mortgaged property after foreclosing on the mortgage due to non-payment of a loan. 2) Procedural law prescribes the methods for enforcing substantive rights, such as obtaining a writ of possession to enforce ownership rights over a foreclosed property. Asia United Bank filed an ex parte application for a writ of possession to enforce its substantive property rights. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while Congress has the

    Original Description:

    Substance vs Procedure

    Original Title

    Substance vs Procedure

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case summary provides the essential information about the relationship between substantive law and procedural law based on the case Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc. 1) Substantive law creates, defines, and regulates rights such as property rights. Asia United Bank had substantive property rights over a mortgaged property after foreclosing on the mortgage due to non-payment of a loan. 2) Procedural law prescribes the methods for enforcing substantive rights, such as obtaining a writ of possession to enforce ownership rights over a foreclosed property. Asia United Bank filed an ex parte application for a writ of possession to enforce its substantive property rights. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while Congress has the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    97 views6 pages

    Substance Vs Procedure

    Uploaded by

    Dianne Medianero
    This case summary provides the essential information about the relationship between substantive law and procedural law based on the case Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc. 1) Substantive law creates, defines, and regulates rights such as property rights. Asia United Bank had substantive property rights over a mortgaged property after foreclosing on the mortgage due to non-payment of a loan. 2) Procedural law prescribes the methods for enforcing substantive rights, such as obtaining a writ of possession to enforce ownership rights over a foreclosed property. Asia United Bank filed an ex parte application for a writ of possession to enforce its substantive property rights. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while Congress has the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    Remedial Law Review I

    (SY 2018-2019)
    Assignment 1

    Dianne Pari-an Medianero LLB 4-B


    A. Be able to distinguish between substantive law and procedural
    law by the following:
    1. Define and provide citation or reference:
    Substantive Law is that part of the law which creates rights
    concerning life, liberty or property, or the powers of instrumentalities for
    the administration of public affairs. (Primicias vs. Ocampo, 81 Phil 650) It
    creates, defines, and regulates rights. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p.
    1429)
    Procedural Law is that part of the law which prescribes the method
    of enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for their invasion. (Black’s
    Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 1429)
    2. Submit case digests of the following cases
    2.1. Primicias vs Ocampo, G.R. No. L-6120, June 30, 1953.
    Facts:
    This is a petition for prohibition against Respondent Judge from
    proceeding with the trial of two criminal cases pending against petitioner
    without the assistance of assessors pursuant to Section 49 of RA 409.
    Primicias was charged before CFI Manila with two statutory
    offenses. On April 1952, before trial, Petitioner sought to file a motion praying
    assessors be appointed to assist the court pursuant to the Section 49 of RA 409
    or the Revised Charter of City of Manila. The court, however, denied the motion.
    It held that with the promulgation of the Rules of Court by the Supreme Court,
    which became effective on July 1, 1940, all rules concerning pleading, practice
    and procedure in all courts of the Philippines previously existing were not only
    superseded but expressly repealed, hence, the Supreme Court, having been
    vested with the rule-making power, expressly omitted the portions of the Code
    of Civil Procedure regarding assessors in said Rules of Court. Hence, this
    petition.
    Issue:

    1. Whether or not the right of the petitioner to trial with the aid of
    assessors is an absolute substantive right.
    2. Whether or not said right cannot be impaired by the rule-making
    power of the Supreme Court.
    3. Whether or not said right could not be repealed by the Rules of Court.
    Ruling:
    Rules of procedure should be distinguished from substantive law. A
    substantive law creates, defines or regulates rights concerning life, liberty or
    property, or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the administration
    of public affairs, whereas rules of procedure are provisions prescribing the
    method by which substantive rights may be enforced in courts of justice.
    The trial with the aid of assessors as granted by section 154 of the Code
    of Civil Procedure and section 2477 of the old Charter of Manila are parts of
    substantive law and as such are not embraced by the rule-making power of the
    Supreme Court. This is so because in said section 154 this matter is referred to
    as a right given by law to a party litigant.
    More so, it was there said that these provisions "necessarily lead to the
    conclusion that the intervention of the assessors is not an empty formality
    which may be disregarded without violating either the letter or the spirit of the
    law. It is another security given by the law to the litigants, and as such, it is a
    substantial right of which they cannot be deprived without vitiating all the
    proceedings. Were we to agree that for one reason or another the trial by
    assessors may be done away with, the same line of reasoning would force us to
    admit that the parties litigant may be deprived of their right to be represented
    by counsel, to appear and be present at the hearings, and so on, to the extent of
    omitting the trial in a civil case, and thus set at naught the essential rights
    granted by the law to the parties, with consequent nullity of the proceedings.
    Hence, the application that the respondents draw from the failure to
    incorporate these provisions in the present Rules of Court to the effect that the
    intention was to eliminate them or repeal them all together cannot, therefore,
    stand in the light of the observations and authorities we have above adverted to.
    In view of the foregoing, it is held that the provision on assessors
    embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure, which clearly partakes the nature of
    substantive right is still in force and that the same may still be invoked in the
    light of the provisions of section 49 of the Republic Act No. 409.
    2.2. Baguio Market Vendors MultI-Purpose Cooperative vs.
    Cabato – Cortes, G.R. No. 165922, February 26, 2010 (613 SCRA 733)

    Facts:
    Petitioner is a credit cooperative organized under Republic Act No.
    6938 (RA 6938), or the Cooperative Code of the Philippines. Under said
    law, cooperatives are exempt from the payment of all court and sheriff's
    fees payable to the Philippine Government for and in connection with all
    actions brought under this Code, or where such action is brought by the
    Cooperative Development Authority to enforce the payment of
    obligations contracted in favor of the cooperative.

    Petitioner, as mortgagee, filed with the Clerk of Court of the


    Regional Trial Court of Baguio City (trial court) a petition to
    extrajudicially foreclose a mortgage under Act 3135, and in the process,
    claims for exemption of legal feed. under RA 6938. RTC, however, denied
    the exemption citing Rule 141 of the Rules of Court on legal fees. Hence,
    this petition.

    Issue:
    Whether or not petitioner’s claim for exemption for legal fees
    under RA 6938.

    Ruling:
    It is held that Article 62(6) of RA 6938 does not apply to petitioners
    foreclosure proceeding since fees imposable do not pertain to action
    brought under RA 6938 nor one initiated by CDA in favour of the
    cooperative.
    GSIS En Banc Ruling was reiterated and emphasized to shed light in
    this issue of exemption. It is worthy to note that the 1987 Constitution
    had already textually altered the power-sharing scheme under previous
    charters by deleting Section 5(5) of Article 8 which refers to the Congress
    subsidiary and corrective powers. Hence, the rule-making power of the
    Supreme Court is no longer shared with the Congress, more so with the
    Executive.
    Verily, the payment of legal fees is a vital component of the rules
    promulgated by this Court concerning pleading, practice and procedure;
    it cannot be validly annulled, changed or modified by Congress. As one of
    the safeguards of this Courts institutional independence, the power to
    promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now the Courts
    exclusive domain.
    2.3. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 143275.
    March 20, 2003 (399 SCRA 376)

    Facts:

    Respondent spouses Arlene and Bernardo de Leon filed a petition to fix


    the just compensation of a parcel of land before the Regional Trial Court
    of Tarlac acting as Special Agrarian Court. Thereafter, DAR and LBP both
    filed separate appeals using different modes. DAR filed a petition for
    review based on Section 60 of RA 6657 and LBP filed an ordinary appeal
    based on Section 61 of the same law. Of the two appeals, only the petition
    for review has been given due course. Hence, LBP filed a motion for
    reconsideration reiterating that the Petition for Review pursuant to
    Section 60 of RA 6657 is unconstitutional inasmuch as it encroaches on
    the exclusive rule-making power of the Supreme Court.
    Issue:
    Whether or not Section 60 of RA 6657 is unconstitutional as it infringes
    on the exclusive rule-making power of the Supreme Court.
    Ruling:
    It is held, in declaring the petition for review as the proper mode of
    appeal from judgments of Special Agrarian Courts, is a rule of procedure which
    affects substantive rights.
    Considering that there is an absence of jurisprudence interpreting
    Sections 60 and 61 of RA 6657 regarding the proper way to appeal decisions of
    Special Agrarian Courts as well as the conflicting decisions of the Court of
    Appeals thereon, LBP cannot be blamed for availing of the wrong mode. Based
    on its own interpretation and reliance on the Buenaventura ruling, LBP acted on
    the mistaken belief that an ordinary appeal is the appropriate manner to
    question decisions of Special Agrarian Courts. Hence, the motion is partially
    granted.
    However, in accordance with SC’s constitutional power to review rules of
    procedure of special courts, the Decision in the instant case actually lays down a
    rule of procedure, specifically, a rule on the proper mode of appeal from
    decisions of Special Agrarian Courts. Under Section 5 (5), Article VIII of the 1987
    Philippine Constitution, rules of procedure shall not diminish, increase or
    modify substantive rights. More so, it is now ruled that petition for review is the
    correct mode of appeal from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts which shall
    apply only to cases appealed after the finality of this Resolution.
    B. Identify the relationship between Procedural Law and Substantive Law by
    submitting a case digest of
    1. Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc. G.R. No. 188051,
    November 22, 2010
    Facts:
    Goodland executed Third Party Real Estate Mortgage on the subject
    property in favour of AUB to secure P 202 million credit accommodation
    extended by the latter to the Radio Marine Network, Inc. Radiomarine defaulted
    payment. Hence, AUB instituted an extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against
    the Real Estate Mortgager. AUB was declared the highest bidder. Certificate of
    sale was then issues and registered in the registry of property of Makati City.
    After the expiration of period, AUB executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of
    Ownership. Thereafter, AUB filed an ex parte application or petition for the
    issuance of Writ of Possession. Goodland Company Inc, after knowing the said
    petition, opposed the same, through its counsel Atty. Bautista. RTC denied such
    opposition. Goodland sought recourse by filing a notice of appeal through
    certain Atty. Mondragon. RTC, however, issued an order denying due course to
    the Notice of Appeal for failure of Atty. Mondragon to effect a valid
    substitution, thereby, considering it as a mere scrap of paper.

    Issue:
    Whether or not there is a procedural infirmity or invalid substitution
    which attended the Goodland Company Inc.’ appeal

    Ruling:
    Under Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court, for a substitution of
    attorney to be effectual, the following essential requisites must concur:
    (1) there must be a written application for substitution;
    (2) it must be filed with the written consent of the client;
    (3) it must be with the written consent of the attorney substituted; and (4) in
    case the consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot be obtained, there
    must at least be proof of notice that the motion for substitution was served on
    him in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Court.

    Rules of procedure are in place to ensure the orderly, just, and speedy
    dispensation of cases; to this end, inflexibility or liberality must be weighed. The
    relaxation or suspension of procedural rules or the exemption of a case from
    their operation is warranted only by compelling reasons or when the purpose of
    justice requires it, for instance, to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
    commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
    procedure prescribed.
    Further, a bare invocation of the interest of substantial justice will not
    suffice to override a stringent implementation of the rules. The fact that
    Goodland Company Inc. stands to lose a valuable property is inadequate to
    dispense with the exacting imposition of a rather basic rule.
    In light of the foregoing, the court is bound to deny a liberal application
    of the rules on substitution of counsel and resolve definitively that Goodland’s
    notice of appeal merits a denial, for the failure of Atty. Mondragon to effect a
    valid substitution of the counsel on record. Substantial justice would be better
    served if the notice of appeal is disallowed.Verily, the petition is granted.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy