CHAPTER 5

Basic Remedial Law Principles

Outline:

1. Jurisdiction and Venue2. Payment of Docket fee is jurisdictional3. Respect to the hierarchy of courts4. Actions5. Causes of actions6. Parties to civil actions

7. Venue of actions8. Criminal action and criminal law9. Civil actions10. Criminal action distinguished from civil

action

1. Jurisdiction and Venue

Jurisdiction is the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case. It is the power and authority to hear and determine a cause or the right to act in a case (Gubat, 2000).

Jurisdiction is a power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of and decide causes according to law and to carry his sentence into execution (Lectlaw.com, 2007).

Venue is the place where the case is to be heard or tried. In criminal cases, the venue of the crime goes into the territorial jurisdiction of the court (Lopez v. Paras)

Jurisdiction is different from venue. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and decide a case; venue is the place where the case is

to be heard or tried. Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue is a matter of procedural law. Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter; venue

establishes the relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent. Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by parties; venue may be conferred by

the act or agreement of the parties (Manila Railroad v. Attorney General)

JURISDICTION VENUE authority to hear and determine a case place or the court where the case is to be tried and

heard a matter or substantive law a matter of procedural law

establishes a relation between the court and subject matter

establishes a relation between the plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent

fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties

maybe conferred by the act or agreement of the parties

How Jurisdiction is acquired. Jurisdiction of the court over the plaintiff or petitioner is acquired by the filing of the complaint,

petition, or initiatory pleading before the court by the plaintiff or petitioner (Personal jurisdiction)

Jurisdiction of the court over the defendant or respondent is acquired by the voluntary appearance by the defendant or respondent to the court or by the service of summons.

Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is conferred by law. Jurisdiction of the court over the res (thing) is acquired by actual or constructive seizure

(Regalado, 1997)

2. Payment of docket fee is jurisdictional The SC reiterated that payment of the prescribed docket fee is jurisdictional. In a civil case filed before the court, proper docket fees have to be paid before the court will

attain jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the authority or power of the court to hear and decide cases. The SC reiterates the importance of docket fess and the need of such fees for court to acquire

jurisdiction.

The SC enunciates the following doctrines:

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum v. CA. The SC had occasion to rule that: “Filing fees are intended to take care of court to take care of court expenses in the handling of cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, etc. computed as to man hours used in handling each case. The payment of said fees therefore can’t be made dependent on the result of the action taken without entailing tremendous losses to the government and to the judiciary in particular.”

Lee v. Republic, Nalimit v. Degamo and Mogaspi v. Ramolete. The SC ruled that a case is deemed filed upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of filing of the case in court.

Manchester Development Corporation v. CA. The SC further refined the principle, as the SC ruled, that “a court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee” and in order to curb the unethical practice of misleading the docket clerk in the assessment of the correct filling fee, the SC laid down the rule that “henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading, but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any cause.”

The Court in Manchester made its ruling in view of its finding that there existed the unethical practice of lawyers and parties of filing an original complaint without specifying in the prayer the amount of damages which, however, is stated in the body of the complaint. This stratagem is clearly intended for no other purpose than to evade payment of the correct filing fees by misleading the docket clerk in the assessment thereof. Thus the court therein held that jurisdiction shall be acquired only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee.

Sun Insurance Office ltd. V. Hon Maximiano Asuncion. Affirmed the basic principle laid down in Manchester but “reduced its stringency somewhat by providing that only those claims as to which the amounts were not specified would be refused acceptance or expunged and that, in any case, the defect was not necessarily fatal or irremediable as the plaintiff could on motion, be granted a reasonable time within which to amend his complaint and pay the requisite filing fees, unless in the

meantime, the period of limitation of the right of action was completed” (General v. Claravall). In other words, that ruling in Manchester was later relaxed in the case of Sun Insurance which allowed the subsequent payment of the correct docket fees provided it is made within the reglementary (*regulative) period or before prescription has set in. The reason given was that there was no intent on the part of the petitioners therein to defraud the government, unlike the plaintiff in the case of Manchester.

Tacay et. Al. v. Tagum et. Al. This Court inspired by the doctrine laid down in Manchester, issued Circular No. 7 on March 4, 1988, which was aimed at the practice of certain parties who omit from the prayer of their complaints any specification of the amount of damages, the omission being clearly intended for no other purpose than to evade the payment of the correct filing fees by deluding the docket clerk in his assessment of the same. In all these cases, the rule was applied for failure of the plaintiff to include in the prayer of the complaint the total amount of damages sought against the defendant. The reason for this, according to the Tacay case, is because the amount of damages will help determine two things: 1. the jurisdiction of the court. 2. The amount of docket fees to be paid.

In Manchester, there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the plaintiffs therein to evade payment of the correct docket fees. In the case of the petitioner, he already explained, and this “we find acceptable and justified, that since the schedule of the new rates of court fees was not then available and the filing of the petition for the election contests was done thru the mail, the old rates readily came to mind, and this was the reason why only 200 pesos was remitted at the same time with the petition.”

As a summary, in election cases, the evil sought to be avoided in Manchester and similar cases can never obtain since 1. The filing fee in an election cases is fixed and not dependent on the amount of damages sought

to be recovered, if any;2. A claim for damages in an election case is merely ancillary (*providing something additional to a

main part or function) to the main cause of action and is not even determinative of the court’s jurisdiction which governed by the nature of the action filed (Pahilan v. Tabalba)

Dorego v. Perez; Bello v. Fernandez. The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal.

Acda v. Minister of Labor. In both original and appellate cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees.

The requirement of an appeal fee is by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential requirement without which the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal was files at all. The right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provision of the law.

3. Respect to the hierarchy of courts

Santiago v. Vasquez. The SC said that “We discern in the proceedings in this case a propensity on the part of petitioner, and for that matter the same may be said of a number of litigants who initiate recourses before us, to disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial system by seeking relief directly from this Court despite the fact that the same is available in the lower courts in the exercise of their original or concurrent jurisdiction. This practice must be stopped, not only because of the imposition upon the precious time of delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of the case which often has to be remanded referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues since this Court is not a trier of facts. We, therefore, reiterate the judicial policy that this court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired can’t be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of our primary jurisdiction.” PhilNaBank Employess Association (PEMA) v. Estaneslao

The SC said in another case that:

Supreme Court not a Trier of facts. In any event we wish to point out that the principle of the hierarchy of the courts generally applies to cases involving factual questions. The oft-repeated justification for invoking it is that such cases do not only impose upon the precious time of the Court but, more important, inevitably result in their delayed adjudication. Often, such cases have to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum or as better equipped to resolve the issues, since the SC is not a trier of facts. Inasmuch as the petition at bar involves only constitutional and legal questions concerning public interest, the Court resolved to exercise primary jurisdiction on the matter.