THE SUPREME COURT
At any time after a Division takes cognizance of a case and
The highest court of the land is the Supreme Court. It was not
affected by the Judiciary Law (BP 129) which reorganized the
judiciary in 1983. Being a constitutional court, its jurisdiction is
found in the fundamental law itself. The SC is both an original and
appellate court.
Composition
It is composed of the Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices.
The Constitution ordains that the President appoints the
members of the SC and judges of lower courts from a list of at least
three nominees prepared by the JBC for every vacancy and requires
the President to issue appointments, for lower courts, within 90
days from submission of the list (Art. VIII, Sec. 9) and to fill the
vacancy of the SC within 90 days from its occurrence. (Art. VIII Sec.
4(1). All such appointments need no confirmation. (Sec. 9)
Principal Functions of the Supreme Court
a.) Adjudication (Judicial Power)
b.)Administration or Disciplinary power
c.)Rule-making (Rule-making Power)
Divisions and En Banc
The SC sits either en banc or in divisions of 3, 5 or 7 members.
At present, it has 3 divisions of 5 members each.
A decision or resolution of a division, when concurred in by a
majority of its members who actually took part in the deliberations
on the issues in a case and voted thereon, and in no case without
the concurrence of at least 3 of such members, is a decision or
resolution of the SC. (Sec. 4(3) Art. VIII Constitution).
The Court en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions
or resolutions of a division may be appealed. (Circular No. 2-89)
No doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a
decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or
reversed except by the court sitting en banc. (Sec. 4(3))
How a Case Before a Division is Referred to the Court en banc
before a judgment or resolution therein rendered becomes final
and executory, the Division may refer the case en consulta to the
court en banc which, after consideration of the reasons of the
division for such referral, may return the case to the Division or
accept the case for decision or resolution.
Cases assigned to a Division including motions for
reconsideration which in the opinion of at least 3 members merit
the attention of the court en banc and are accepted by the majority
vote of the actual members of the court en banc may be
considered as en banc cases.
A resolution of the Division denying a party’s motion for
referral to the Court en banc of any division shall be final and not
appealable to the Court en banc.
When a decision or resolution is referred by a division to the
Court en banc, the latter may in the absence of sufficiently
important reasons decline to take cognizance of the same, in which
case, the decision or resolution shall be returned to the referring
Division. (Circular No. 2-89 effective March 1, 1989)
En Banc Cases
In a resolution dated February 23, 1984, the following are
considered en banc cases:
a.) Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, executive agreement, law, ordinance or
executive order or regulation is in question;
b.) Criminal cases in which the decision imposes the death
penalty;
c.) Cases raising novel questions of law;
d.) Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and
consuls;
e.) Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the
court en banc or in division may be modified or
reversed;
f.) Cases assigned to a division including motions for
reconsideration which in the opinion of at least 3
members merit the attention of the Court en banc
and are acceptable to a majority vote of the actual
membership of the Court en banc;
g.) All other cases as the Court en banc by a majority of its
actual membership may deem of sufficient
importance to merit its attention;
h.) Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal
of a judge, officer, or employee of the SC,
disbarment of a lawyer, or suspension of any of
 them for a period of more than one year or a fine of
P10,000.00, or both;
i.) Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the
Sandiganbayan, Comelec, COA, or Military
Tribunals;
j.) Habeas corpus against government or military officials;
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution
enumerates the ORIGINAL jurisdiction of the SC:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
[1] Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus.
Note that the foregoing provision does not define the
original jurisdiction of the SC as exclusive, hence it can be
concurrent or exclusive.
When is it exclusive and when concurrent?
I. SUPREME COURT
A. Original Jurisdiction
1. Exclusive
Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus against the following:
Court of Appeals (Republic Act No. 296 [1948], Sec. 171);
Commission on Elections En Banc (CONSTITUTION, Art. IX-
A, Sec. 7);
Commission on Audit (CONSTITUTION, Art. IX-A, Sec. 7);
Sandiganbayan (Presidential Decree No. 1606 [1979], Sec
7, as amended by Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997], Sec. 5);
Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (Rep. Act No. 1125 [1954],
Sec. 19, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9282 [2004], Sec. 12); and
Ombudsman in criminal and non-administrative
disciplinary cases.
2. Original Concurrent
with the Court of Appeals
Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus against the Civil Service Commission (Rep. Act No. 7902
[1995]).
Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus against the National Labor Relations Commission under
the Labor Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983], Sec. 9, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 7902, St. Martin’s Funeral Homes v.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 130866, September
16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494).
with the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Courts
Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto
Actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of
laws concerning monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade
(Rep. Act No. 296, Sec. 17, as amended by Rep. Act No. 5440
[1968]).
with the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Regional
Trial Courts
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.
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).
Petitions for issuance of writ of habeas data (Sec. 3, A.
M. No. 08-1-16-SC, effective February 2, 2008).
with the Regional Trial Courts
Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and
consuls (CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5[1]; Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, Sec. 21[2])
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The appellate jurisdiction is found in Section 5, Paragraph (2),
Article VIII 1987 Constitution:
2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
*a) 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.
*b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
*c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is
in issue.
d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
 e) All cases in which an error or question of law is
involved.
*If (a), (b), and (c) also involve questions of facts or mixed
questions of fact and of law, the aggrieved party shall appeal to
the Court of Appeals; and its final judgment may be appealed to
the Supreme Court. (Subpar 4, Third Par. Sec. 17, Judiciary Act or
RA 544)
B. Appellate Jurisdiction
1. Automatic review
From the Court of Appeals, in all criminal cases invoving
offenses for which the penalty imposed is death. (People v. Mateo).
2. Ordinary Appeal by Notice of 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)
3. By Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45)
Appeals from the Court of Appeals (Rep. Act No. 296, Sec.
17, as amended by Rep. Act No. 5440; Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec.
5[2]; Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Appeals from the Sandiganbayan on pure questions of
law, except cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,
life imprisonment, or death (Pres. Decree No. 1606, Sec. 7, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 8249; Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, Nos.
50581-50617, January 20, 1982, 111 SCRA 433; Rule 45, id.).
Appeals from judgments or final orders of the Regional
Trial Courts exercising original jurisdiction in the following:
a) 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;
b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto;
c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue; and
d) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved. (CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5[2-a, b,
c]; Rep. Act No. 296, Sec. 17, as amended; Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, Sec. 9[3]; Id., Rule 45; Id., Rule 41, Sec. 2[c]; Id., Rule 122,
Sec. 3[e]).
Appeals from decisions or final resolutions of the Court
of Tax Appeals 11 (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]).
4. By Special Civil Action of Certiorari (Rule 64, 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure) filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the
judgment/ final order/ resolution sought to be reviewed against
the following: 3.1. Commission on Elections (CONSTITUTION, Art.
IX-A, Sec. 7; Aratuc v. COMELEC, No. 49705-09, February 8, 1979,
88 SCRA 251).
3.2. Commission on Audit (Ibid., CONSTITUTION).
Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) from decisions of
the RTC
a) 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.
So if the RTC, which has the power, declares the law as
unconstitutional, the same has to be appealed directly to the SC. It
cannot pass through the CA because the SC has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction regarding the matter.
b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
This is related to the legality of tax cases – whether a tax or
tax penalty is legal or not. However, whatever decision the lower
court gives, it has to be appealed directly to the SC.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue
EXAMPLE: The RTC or the MTC says it has jurisdiction or it has
no jurisdiction over a case. The aggrieved party, it if wants to raise
that issue, it must go to the SC. When the issue is purely
jurisdiction, the SC shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
Now, when the law says all cases in which the jurisdiction of
any lower court is in issue, the cases involve 100% pure jurisdiction
as an issue. There are no factual issues involved. If the issue of
jurisdiction is mixed with a factual issue, the appeal should be in
the CA without prejudice to the filing of the same with the SC later.
So, this is 100% issue of jurisdiction. No factual issue is involved.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
Take note that ONLY an error or question of law is involved.
So, if there is a mixed question of law and a question of fact, appeal
must be filed with the CA. You only go to the SC if the appeal is
100% legal. That applies to both criminal and civil cases.
QUESTIONS OF LAW and QUESTIONS OF FACT
There is a question of law when the doubt or difference
arises as to what the law is applicable on a certain set of facts.
There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as
to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts (Sps. Santos vs. CA
337 SCRA 67).
Example: Where the question is whether or not the debtor
has paid the debt, the issue is one of fact. Where the question is
whether or not the manner of payment is of the type which
produces the legal effect of extinguishing the obligation, the issue
becomes one of law. Also, when under the set of facts the issue is
whether or not the law on double sales applies, there is a question
of law.
When the issue involves a review of the evidence, it involves
a question of fact because evidence, as defined, is the means,
sanctioned by the rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Sec. 1 Rule 128)
In an action for declaration of nullity of marriage the basis is
psychological incapacity. The RTC/Family Court dismissed the case
finding that there was no psychological incapacity. If the plaintiff
wants to appeal from that judgment, can she appeal directly to the
SC? Is it a question of fact or law?
No. The appeal should be to the CA. The issue raised is a
question of fact because there is need to review the evidence to
resolve it.
Suppose the court nullified the marriage on ground of
impotence and the defendant wants to appeal because he wants to
raise the issue whether or not impotence is a ground for
declaration of nullity of marriage this would be a question of law
because there is no need for review of the evidence to resolve it.
So appeal is to the SC.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts
The SC is not a trier of facts which means that passing upon a
factual issue is not within the province of the Court (Romy’s
Freight Service vs. Castro, 490 SCRA 160). The findings of facts of
the Court of Appeals are not generally reviewable by the SC
(Sarmiento vs. Yu 497 SCRA 513). Also, factual findings of the trial
court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
generally binding on the Court (Tan vs. GVT Engineering Services
498 SCRA 93; Office of the Ombudsman vs. Lazar0-Baldazo GR No.
170815 February 2, 2007).
It is not the function of the SC to determine the weight of the
evidence supporting the assailed decision (JR Blanco vs. Quasha
318 SCRA 373). However, factual issues may be delved into and
resolved where the findings and conclusions of the trial court or
the quasi-judicial bodies are frontally inconsistent with the
findings of the CA (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Tongson 499
SCRA 567).
Exceptions
While it is settled rule that the SC in the exercise of its power
of review is not a trier of facts, jurisprudence has, however,
recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be
resolved by the SC, namely:
a.) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises or conjectures;
b.) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd
or impossible;
c.) when there is grave abuse of discretion;
d.) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts;
e.) when the findings of facts are conflicting;
f.) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the
issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee;
g.) when the findings are contrary to the trial court;
h.) when the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based;
i.) when the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the
petitioner’s main and reply briefs, are not disputed
by the respondent;
j.) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record; and
k.) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts
not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, could
justify a different conclusion (Cristobal Cruz vs. Cristobal 498 SCRA
37; Heirs of Dicman vs. Carino 490 SCRA 240; Safeguard Security
Agency Inc. vs. Tangco 511 SCRA 67; De Los Santos vs. Elizalde 514
SCRA 14; NPC vs. De la Cruz GR No. 156093 Feb. 2, 2007; Spouses
Yu vs. Ngo Yet Te GR No. 155868 Feb. 6, 2007).

OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
Article IX (on the COA, Comelec and Civil Service Commission)
Section 7, paragraph (a), 1987 Constitution:
“Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote x x x.
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to
the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.”
The COMELEC, COA and the CSC act also as courts of justice.
They have powers to decide certain cases within their jurisdiction.
Election cases are covered by the COMELEC, claims against the
government, by COA and eligibility or removal from government
service of an appointive employee, by CSC.
Now, according to Section 7, any decision, order or ruling of
these commissions may be brought to the SC on certiorari, etc. So
you will see that the decisions of the constitutional commissions
are reviewable by the SC.
However, Congress amended the Judiciary Law particularly
Section 9 on the jurisdiction of the CA by now making decisions of
the CSC no longer appealable to the SC directly but appealable to
the CA. So based on the present law, out of the three
constitutional commissions, the only ones whose decisions are
appealable directly to the SC are those of the COMELEC and the
COA
What is the basis for Congress to pass such a law where a
decision of a constitutional body (CSC) is reviewable by a non-
constitutional body?
Under the Constitution, decisions of the constitutional
commissions are appealable to the SC. Does Congress have the
power to change that by making it appealable to the CA?
Yes because the provision, it says: “Unless otherwise provided
by this Constitution or by law..” Meaning, the decisions are
appealable to the SC unless otherwise provided by law. The
Constitution itself gave Congress the power to change it.
SC as Presidential Electoral Tribunal
Article VII, Section 4, last paragraph, 1987 Constitution:
“The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge
of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules
for the purpose.”
If there’s an electoral protest for the President and Vice-
President, the matter is not to be decided by the COMELEC but by
the SC acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
Judicial Review of Presidential Proclamation of Martial or
Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Article VII, Section 18 (3), 1987 Constitution – Commander-in-
Chief Clause
“The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis
of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ or extension thereof, and must promulgate
its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.”
So, the SC, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen
review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of
martial law. Meaning, the SC can inquire into the basis on why
martial law is declared.
This is intended to prevent the Supreme Court from invoking
the Political Question doctrine laid down in many earlier cases that
it is the prerogative of the President to determine, at his discretion,
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof.
Congress and Jurisdiction of the SC
1.) Article VIII, Section 2, 1987 Constitution:
The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not
deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases
enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
Congress may change or even remove the jurisdiction of the
RTC or CA. The law can change them because jurisdiction over the
subject matter is conferred by law. However, Congress does not
have the power to lessen or deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction under Section 5, Article VIII.
2.) However Article VI, Section 30 states:
 “No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its
advice and concurrence.”

Thus, Congress cannot lessen but it can increase the SC’s

powers and jurisdiction, PROVIDED it is with the latter's advice and
concurrence.

So more or less, these are the scattered provisions of the

Constitution dealing with the SC’s jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Section 5 of EO 33 also amended Sec. 9 of BP 129 to read as
follows:
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

“The Court of Appeals shall have the power to receive

The jurisdiction of the CA is now governed by BP 129 or the
evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. BP 129 was passed in 1983 by
issues raised in (a) cases falling within its original jurisdiction, such
the former Batasang Pambansa which practically abolished all the
as actions for annulment of judgments of regional trial courts, as
regular courts at that time, and also the special courts except the
provided in paragraph (2) hereof; and in (b) cases falling within its
SC which cannot be abolished by Congress. What was also spared
appellate jurisdiction wherein a motion for new trial based only on
was the Court of Tax Appeals which was likewise not affected.
the ground of newly discovered evidence is granted by it.”
In lieu of these, other courts were created. The
So, Section 9 of BP 129, which defines the second highest
constitutionality of BP 129 was challenged as violative of the
court of the land, has been amended by E.O. #33. In February 1995,
security of tenure of the judges. But its constitutionality was
it was amended again by RA 7902, known as “The Act expanding
sustained in the case of DELA LLANA vs. ALBA, 112 SCRA 294.
the jurisdiction of the CA.”
The CA is composed of 69 justices constituting 23 divisions
RA 7902 restored the power of the CA to try cases and
after new divisions were created, based in Cebu City and the other
conduct hearings, receive evidence, and perform any and all acts
in Cagayan de Oro City pursuant to RA 8246.
necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within the
original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant
They decide cases by a division of three. They sit en banc only
new trials or further proceedings (without limiting the motion for
for administrative matters not to decide a case as it would be
new trial based on newly discovered evidence). Trials or hearings in
impractical considering their number.
the CA must be continuous and completed within 3 months unless
extended by the Chief Justice.
Before BP 129, the court was also called the “Court of
Appeals,” the counterpart of the present CA, though the CA now is
The essential features of the CA’s jurisdiction are as follows:
different and more powerful than the old one. BP 129 abolished
the old CA and created another court which was called the
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (IAC).

Original Concurrent
So, from the 1983 to 1986, it was called the IAC. After the
EDSA Revolution, President Aquino, pursuant to her law-making
[1] Section 9, paragraph 1, BP 129
powers, issued E.O. #33 amending the Judiciary Law and changed
the name of IAC to CA (referring to the jurisdiction of the IAC).
Section 9 – Jurisdiction – The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
Many people thought that the CA of President Aquino under
(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of
E.O. #33 is actually the IAC under another name only, but in a case
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
decided by the SC, reported in
habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and
auxiliary writs or processes whether or
IN RE: LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO
not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
210 SCRA 589 [1992]

HELD:
A. Original Jurisdiction
“It is the holding of the Court that the present Court of
1. Exclusive
Appeals is a new entity, different and distinct from the Court of
Actions for annulment of judgments of the Regional Trial
Appeals or the Intermediate Appellate Court existing prior to
Courts (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 9[2]); 1997 Rules of Civil
Executive Order No. 33, for it was created in the wake of the
Procedure, Rule 47).
massive reorganization launched by the revolutionary government
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
of Corazon C. Aquino in the aftermath of the people power (EDSA)
involving an act or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
revolution in 1986.”
otherwise provided by law (Rule 65, Sec. 4, as amended by A.M.
No. 077-12-SC dated December 12, 2007).
2. Concurrent
with the Supreme Court Refer to 2.1. above under I.A.,
supra
with the Supreme Court and Regional Trial Courts Refer
to Sec. 2.2. above under I.A., supra
with the Supreme Court, Sandiganbayan, and Regional
Trial Courts Refer to 2.3. above under I.A., supra
Q. Being concurrent, what will happen if such a case is filed
simultaneously in the CA and SC?
A: The consequence is found in Section 17 of the Interim
Rules. In other words, the Interim Rules are still intact.
Interim Rules, Sec. 17. Petitions for writs of certiorari, etc. -
No petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus
or quo warranto may be filed in the IAC if another similar petition
has been filed or is still pending in the SC. Nor may such petition
be filed in the SC if a similar petition has been filed or is still
pending in the IAC, unless it is to review the action taken by the
IAC on the petition filed with it. A violation of this rule shall
constitute contempt of court and shall be a cause for the
summary dismissal of both petitions, without prejudice to the
taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party
concerned.
Original Exclusive
[2] Section 9, paragraph 2, BP 129
(1) “Exclusive” jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgments of Regional Trial Courts;
Q: Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC’s, is this similar
to an appeal? Is this the same as appealing the decision of the RTC
to the CA?
A: No, because in appeal, you are invoking the appellate
jurisdiction of the CA. Here in paragraph 2, it is not appellate but
original jurisdiction. Meaning, you are filing an action before the
CA for the first time. And the nature of the action is to annul a
judgment of the RTC.
The implementation is found in Rule 47 of the Rules.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Paragraph 3, Sec. 9 of BP 129 defines the appellate jurisdiction
of the CA.
[3] Section 9, paragraph 3, BP 129
(2) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, decisions, resolutions,
orders or awards of the RTCs and
quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or
commissions, 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 SC in accordance with the
Constitution, the Labor Code of the
Philippines under PD 442, as amended,
the provisions of this Act, and of
subparagraph (1) of the third
paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the
fourth paragraph of Sec. 17 of the
Judiciary Act of 1948.
B. Appellate Jurisdiction
1. Ordinary Appeal by Notice of Appeal or with Record on
Appeal
Appeals from the Regional Trial Courts, except those
appealable to the Supreme Court under Sec. 2(3) of I.B. above.
Appeals from the Regional Trial Courts on constitutional,
tax, jurisdictional questions involving questions of fact or mixed
questions of fact and law or which should be appealed first to the
Court of Appeals (Republic Act No. 296 [1948] Sec. 17, par. 4.4, as
amended, which was not intended to be excluded by Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983], Sec. 9[3]).
Appeals from the decisions and final orders of the Family
Courts (Republic Act No. 8369 [1997], Sec. 14).
Appeals from the Regional Trial Courts, 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 (Rule 122, Sec. 3[c], as
amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective October 15, 2004;
People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640)
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.12
2. Special civil action of certiorari (Rule 65) against decisions
and final resolutions of the National Labor Relations Commission
(A. M. No. 99-2-01-SC; St. Martin Funeral Homes v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 13086, September 16, 1998, 295
SCRA 494; Torres, et. al. v. 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 penalty14 (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
Appeals from the Civil Service Commission (Rep. Act No.
7902 [1995]; Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
Appeals from the Regional Trial Courts in cases appealed
from the Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts, which are not a matter of right (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129
[1983], Sec. 22; Rule 42, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 122,
Sec. 3[b]).
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:
1. Securities and Exchange Commission;
2. Office of the President;
3. Land Registration Authority;
4. Social Security Commission;
5. Civil Aeronautics Board;
6. Intellectual Property Office (formerly the Bureau of
Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfer);
7. National Electrification Administration;
8. Energy Regulatory Board;
9. National Telecommunications Commission;
10. Department of Agrarian Reform under Rep. Act No. 6657;
11. Government Service Insurance System;
12. Employees Compensation Commission;
13. Agricultural Inventions Board;
14. Insurance Commission;
15. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission;
16. Board of Investments;
17. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission;
18. Voluntary arbitrators authorized by law; and
19. Decisions of Special Agrarian Courts
Appeals from the National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (NCIP) (Rep. Act No. 8371 [1997], Sec. 67).
Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases (A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC; Fabian v.
Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 470).
Take note, the appellate jurisdiction of the CA is generally
EXCLUSIVE except in criminal cases decided by the RTC when the
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death.
Now, if you will analyze paragraph 3, you will notice that the CA is a
powerful court because it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
all final judgments, decisions, resolution, orders or awards of RTC’s.
So as a general rule, if the RTC, anywhere in the country renders a
decision and you want to appeal, whether civil or criminal, chances
are it will go the to CA. It is a powerful court, because it covers all
RTC’s and the appellate jurisdiction is generally exclusive.
And not only RTC’s. The law says “and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commissions…” Not only decisions of
the RTC but also of quasi-judicial agencies or bodies, also called
administrative bodies. Administrative bodies are actually
part of the executive branch but they act just like courts of justice.
They can decide cases and there are hundreds of administrative
agencies in the Philippines. And therefore, if you lose a case before
anyone of these bodies, or tribunals, you appeal the decision not
with the SC, but to the CA.
The amendments by RA 7902 is even more specific by adding
this phrase, “including the SEC, SSS, the Employees Compensation
commission and the Civil Service Commission (CSC).”
That is the addition.
CSC –Before this law was passed, under the Constitution,
decisions of the CSC are appealed to the SC together with the
COMELEC and the COA. But with the passage of RA 7902, the
appeal from the CSC has been transferred to the CA, so what is left
behind in the Constitution are the COMELEC and the COA.
Obviously, the purpose of this statute is to unburden the SC
with so many cases.
The phrase “except those falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court…”means all cases should be
appealed to the CA except those which belong to the SC under the
Constitution. We know that already.
 And also “except those falling under the Labor Code of the
Philippines.”
A labor case is not supposed to be filed in court but with a
quasi-judicial agency known as the NLRC and you start in the local
level – from the Labor Arbiter, then the decisions of the Labor
Arbiter are appealable to the NLRC and then from there, where will
you go?
And then there is the phrase, "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.”
So, the new Judiciary Law still makes some reference to the
old law. This shows that the entire 1948 Judiciary Law has not
been totally repealed. Some provisions are still intact because of
the reference.
Now what is this subparagraph 1 of the third paragraph?
It only applies to criminal cases. EXAMPLE: A person is
sentenced to reclusion perpetua, his co-accused is sentenced to
reclusion temporal or prison mayor, and all of them will appeal, all
of them should go to the SC. Otherwise, you will be splitting the
appeal into two parts. (Modified in the People vs Mateo case as
discussed in Criminal Procedure.)
Subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 refers
to appeal from the RTC on pure legal question which should be
filed with the SC.
Q: Suppose there are questions of fact, or it is an appeal on
questions of fact and questions of law?
A: Under the 1948 Judiciary Law, you cannot appeal directly to
the SC. You must appeal to the CA.
The same thing when the issue is on the constitutionality of a
treaty, law, legality of tax, when the jurisdiction of the lower court
is in issue, as explained here in this paragraph of the Judiciary Act
of 1948, if the appeal is 100% constitutional issue, jurisdictional or
legality issue – appeal is to the SC under the Constitution. But if it
is mixed with questions of fact, do not go to the SC. You go first to
the CA. That is what the paragraph is all about.
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of ordinary appeal
from the RTC and the Family Courts (Sec. 9[3] BP Blg. 129).
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review
from the RTC rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction (Sec. 22 BP Blg. 129; Rule 43, Rules of Court; Sec. 9 BP
Blg. 129)
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review
from the decisions, resolutions or orders or awards of the CSC,
Central Board of Assessment Appeals and other bodies mentioned
in Rule 43 (Sec. 9[3]), BP Blg. 129) and of the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases (Enemecio vs.
Office of the Ombudsman 419 SCRA 82; Gonzales vs. Rosas 423
SCRA 488).
Note that under RA No. 9282, the judgments AND FINAL
ORDERS OF THE Court of Tax Appeals are no longer appealable by
way of petition for review to the CA. Judgments of the CTA
rendered en banc are appealable to the SC by way of Rule 45 (Sec.
11 RA No. 9282)
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of MTCs in
cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its delegated
jurisdiction (Sec. 34 BP Blg. 129 as amended by RA No. 7691). This
is because decisions of MTCs in these cases cases are appealable in
the same manner as decisions of RTCs (Sec. 34 BP Blg. 129).
Power to try and conduct hearings
[4] Section 9, last paragraph, BP 129:
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and
conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts
necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its
original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant
and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or hearings
in the CA must be continuous and must be completed within
three (3) months unless extended by the Chief Justice. (As
amended by RA 7902)
Even if the CA is not a trial court, under the law it has the
power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues in cases
falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the
power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings (Sec.
9 [3], BP 129 as amended by RA 7902). The CA may pass upon
factual issues as when a petition for certiorari is filed before it
(Alcazaren vs. Univet Agricultural Products, Inc. 475 SCRA 636).
This paragraph shows that the present CA is a more powerful
court than before. It is a unique court. Aside from being an
appellate court, it also acts as a trial court. It may receive evidence
but only those evidence which were overlooked by the trial court.
It can order a new trial or conduct a new trial itself.
 The CA may pass upon factual issues as when a petition for
certiorari is filed before it(Alcazaren vs. Univet Agricultural
Products, Inc. 475 SCRA 636) or in petitions for writ of amparo or
habeas corpus data or in case of actions to annul judgment of the
RTC over which the CA has original jurisdiction (Bar 2008).

Q: If an issue of fact is tried before the RTC, can I always ask

the CA to allow me to present evidence? Does it mean to say now
that since the CA is a very powerful court, it can take the place of
the RTC? A: That is already interpreted in the case of

LINGER AND FISHER vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

125 SCRA 522 [1983]

HELD: The power of the CA to receive evidence refers only to

incidental facts which were not 100 percent touched upon, or
matters which were simply overlooked by the trial court. You
cannot opt not to present evidence before the RTC. It only refers to
incidental facts.
“Evidence necessary in regards to factual issues raised in cases
falling within the Appellate Court’s original and appellate
jurisdiction contemplates ‘incidental’ facts which were not touched
upon, or fully heard by the trial or respondent Court. The law could
not have intended that the Appellate Court would hold an original
and full trial of a main factual issue in a case, which properly
pertains to Trial Courts.”
JURISDICTION OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS
Q: How many RTC’s are there in the Philippines?
BP 129 Section 13 (1) Creation of Regional Trial Courts –
There are hereby created thirteen (13) Regional Trial Courts, one
for each of the following regions: x x
So the Judiciary law has divided the country into 13 areas
called JUDICIAL REGIONS. From the 1st to the 12th, the 13th is
actually in the National Capital Region (NCR), Metro Manila. Every
division is divided into branches.
Every RTC judge is appointed to a region which shall be his
permanent station, and his appointment states the branch of the
court and seat to which he shall be originally assigned. However,
the SC may assign temporarily an RTC judge to another region as
public interest may require, provided that such temporary
assignment shall not last longer than 6 months without the consent
of the RTC judge concerned.
The SC shall define the territory over which a branch of the
RTC shall exercise his authority. The law provides:
BP 129, Section 18. Authority to define territory appurtenant
to each branch – The Supreme Court shall define the territory over
which a branch of the Regional Trial Court shall exercise its
authority. The territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the
territorial area of the branch concerned for purposes of
determining the venue of all suits, proceedings or actions,
whether civil or criminal, as well as determining the Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts over which the said branch may exercise appellate
jurisdiction. The power herein granted shall be exercised with a
view to making the courts readily accessible to the people of the
different parts of the region and making the attendance of
litigants and witness as inexpensive as possible.
Though RTC Cebu City is found in the 7th Judicial Region, which
includes Cebu, Bohol, Negros Oriental and Siquijor province, its
territorial area is not the entire region, (7th Judicial Region), where
it belongs or even the entire province of Cebu or limited to Cebu
City only because it depends on the territory as defined by the SC.
Now, the law says, the SC has the power to define the area of
its branch for purposes of supervising that area and the MTC there.
Now, as early as 1983, the SC has already come out with the
administrative order defining the area of responsibility of each
branch throughout the Philippines.
Interim Rules, Sec. 2. Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts. -
a) MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs shall exercise their
jurisdiction in the city, municipality or circuit for which the judge
thereof is appointed or designated.
b) A Regional Trial Court shall exercise its jurisdiction
within the area defined by the SC as the territory over which the
particular branch concerned shall exercise its authority, in
accordance with Sec. 18 of BP 129.
Jurisdiction of the RTC
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION– Note Section 19 was
amended by RA 7691, effective April 15, 1994 and entitled “An Act
Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts”.
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION with other courts –
Section 21
APPELLATE JURISDICTION – Section 22
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
A. Original Jurisdiction
1. Civil
Exclusive
Subject of the action not capable of pecuniary
estimation;
Actions involving title or possession of real property or
interest therein where the assessed value exceeds P20,000.00
or in Metro Manila P50,000.00, except for forcible entry and
unlawful detainer;
Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where
demand or claim exceeds P300,000.00, or in Metro Manila
P400,000.00;
Matters of probate, testate or intestate, where gross
value of estate exceeds P300,000.00, or in Metro Manila
P400,000.00;
Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person, or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
function;
Other cases where the demand, exclusive of interest,
damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs, or value of
property in controversy exceeds P300,000.00, or in Metro Manila
P400,000.00 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 19, as amended by
Rep. Act No. 7691 [1994]). However, if the claim for damages is the
main cause of the action, the amount thereof shall be considered in
determining the jurisdiction of the court. (Administrative Circular
No. 09-94, dated June 14, 1994).
Additional original jurisdiction transferred under Sec.
of the Securities Regulation Code:
a) Devices or schemes employed by, or any acts of, the board
of directors, business associates, its officers or partnership,
amounting to fraud and misrepresentation xxx;
b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate partnership
relations xxx;
c) Controversies in the election or appointment of directors,
trustees, officers, or managers of such corporation, partnership, or
association; and
d) Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be
declared in a state of suspension of payments xxx(Rep. Act No.
8799, approved July 19, 2000).
Application for issuance of writ of search and seizure in
civil actions for infringement of intellectual property rights (Sec. 3,
A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC, effective February 15, 2002).
Violations of Rep. Act No. 9160, or “Anti-Money
Laundering Act of 2001,” as amended by Rep. Act No. 9194.19
Concurrent
with the Supreme Court
Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and
consuls (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983], Sec. 21[1]).
with the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Petitions
for habeas corpus and quo warranto.
with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and
Sandiganbayan
Petitions for writ of amparo and writ of habeas data
(Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, or “The Rule on the Writ of Amparo,”
effective October 24, 2007; Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, effective
February 2, 2008).
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, if
they relate to an act or omission of a municipal trial court,
corporation, board, officer, or person (Sec. 4, Rule 65, as amended
by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, dated December 12, 2007).
with the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Application for Protection Order under Republic Act No. 9282,
Sec. 10, unless there is a Family Court in the residence of
petitioner.
with the Insurance Commission Claims not exceeding
P100,000.00 (INSURANCE CODE [1974], Sec. 416; Pres. Decree No.
612 [1975]). Applicable if subject of the action is not capable of
pecuniary estimation; otherwise, jurisdiction is concurrent with
Metropolitan Trial Court, etc.
2. Criminal
Exclusive
Criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal, or body (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983],
Sec. 20). These include criminal cases where the penalty
provided by law exceeds six (6) years imprisonment irrespective of
the fine (Republic Act No. 7691 [1994]).20
These also include criminal cases not falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, where none of
the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade
“27” and higher (Rep. Act No. 7975 and Rep. Act No. 8249).
But in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine,
the Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction if the amount of the fine
exceeds P4,000.00. (Rep. Act No. 7691 as clarified by
Administrative Circular No. 09-94 dated June 14, 1994).
Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime is lodged with the
trial court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most
serious penalty imposable for an offense forming part of the
complex crime.
Sec. 19 Jurisdiction in civil cases – Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
[1] In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
What does incapable of pecuniary estimation mean?
In an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, the basic issue
is one other than the recovery of a sum of money. If ever there is a
claim for money, it should only be incidental to the main issue.
Where the action is principally the recovery of a sum of
money, the action is one capable of pecuniary estimation and
jurisdiction would then depend on the amount of the claim
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees,
litigation expenses and costs. (Raymundo vs. CA, 213 SCRA 457
[1992]; Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, 88 SCRA 623 [1979])
The basic issue in an action incapable of pecuniary estimation
is one other than the recovery of money. In this kind of action the
money claim is merely incidental (ibid)
How to determine whether the action is capable or incapable
of pecuniary estimation-
“In determining whether an action is one the subject matter
of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the
recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of
pecuniary estimation and whether jurisdiction is in the MTCs or
the CFIs would depend on the amount of the claim. However,
where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover
a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or
a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has
considered such actions as cases where the subject of the
litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively by the CFI.”
Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are
those for specific performance, support, or foreclosure of mortgage
or annulment of judgment, also actions questioning the validity of a
mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover
the price paid and for rescission which is a counterpart of specific
performance. (Russel vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA, 739, 744-745 [1999])
Such ruling was, however, modified in Go vs. UCPB, GR No.
156182 Nov. 11, 2004 where the court declared the following as
real actions:
1.) judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage;
2.) actions to annul real estate mortgage;
for the reason that a real estate mortgage is a real right as
well as a real property. So an action to cancel or annul a real estate
mortgage necessarily affects title to the real property, hence a real
action and jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the
property.
A complaint for expropriation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation (Barangay San Roque vs. Heirs of Pastor, 334 SCRA 127).
An action seeking to annul a resolution of a government-
owned and controlled corporation is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation (Polomolok Water District vs. Polomolok
General Consumers Association GR No. 162124, October 19, 2007).
An action to annul a Deed of Declaration of Heirs and for a
partition of land with an assessed value of P5,000.00 is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation where the partition aspect is
only incidental to the action for annulment (Russel vs. Vestil 304
SCRA 739).
An action for partition of a real property located in Taytay
Rizal and with an assessed value of P20,000.00, the resolution of
which involves the determination of hereditary rights, is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus, should be filed in the
RTC (Suggested answer UP Law Center Bar 2000) Note: This answer
could also be subject to an alternative answer, when it is argued
that an action for partition is one which involves interest in real
property. Hence, jurisdiction would be dependent on the assessed
value of the property.
An action for specific performance to compel the defendant
to execute a deed of conveyance covering a parcel of land with an
assessed value of P19,000.00 is an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation because the main issue is whether or not there is a right
to compel specific performance (Suggested answer, UP Law Center
Bar 2000). Note: This answer is subject to an alternative answer
which asserts that where the primary purpose of the action is to
recover or obtain ownership of the real property, the action is one
affecting title to real property and is, therefore, a real action. In a
real action, jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the
property.
An action for specific performance is one generally considered
incapable of pecuniary estimation (Russel vs. Vestil, supra).
The amount of damages that may be claimed in addition to
the prayer for specific performance is not determinative of
jurisdiction. Thus, an action for specific performance and damages
of P200,000.00 is cognizable by the RTC even if the amount of
damages sought to be recovered is within the jurisdiction of the
MTC.
Where, however, the demand is in the alternative, as in an
action to compel the defendant to deliver the house by completing
its construction or to pay the sum of P644.31, the action is one that
is capable of pecuniary estimation (Cruz vs. Tan 87 Phil. 627). Thus
an action for specific performance or in a the alternative, for
damages in the amount of P180,000.00 is one capable of pecuniary
estimation. Here, the amount of damages is determinative of
jurisdiction (Bar 1997).
If as gleaned from the complaint, the principal relief sought by
the complaint is for the court to issue an injunction against the
adverse party and his representatives to permanently enjoin them
from preventing the survey of the subject land, the complaint is not
a possessory action but one for injunction. As such, the subject
matter of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation and
properly cognizable exclusively by the RTC under Sec. 19(1) of BP
Blg. 129, as amended by RA No. 7691 (Bokingo vs. CA 489 SCRA
521).
An action for injunction is within the jurisdiction of the RTC
being an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. (Bar 1997).
An action for replevin of a motorcycle valued at P150,000.00
is capable of pecuniary estimation. The basis of jurisdiction is the
value of the personal property sought to be recovered. The amount
of P150,000.00 falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC. (Bar 1997).

An action for interpleader is capable of pecuniary estimation.
If the subject of interpleader is real property, then the jurisdictional
amount is determined by the assessed value of the land. If it be
personal property, then the value of the property.
Hence, an action of interpleader to determine who between
the defendants is entitled to receive the amount of P190,000.00
from the plaintiff is within the jurisdiction of the MTC (Bar 1997;
Makati Development Corporation vs. Tanjuatco 27 SCRA 401).
[2] In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession
of, real property or any interest therein, where the assessed value
of the property involved exceeds P20,000 or for civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such value exceeds P50,000 except actions
for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands and
buildings; original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
So in all real actions outside of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer, jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the
real property subject thereof.
What is a real action?
It is one affecting title to or possession of real property, or
interest therein. (Sec. 1, Rule 4)
Examples would be accion publiciana (an action to recover
possession of real property), accion reinvidicatoria (action to
recover ownership of real property), quieting of title, provided the
assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000.00.
So, for a lesser value, MTC has jurisdiction. This is why MTCs
now have jurisdiction over accion publiciana when the value of the
property is P20,000 or less.
In forcible entry and unlawful detainer, jurisdiction lies with
the MTC regardless of the assessed value.
Now, if in Metro Manila, the value is P50,000.
[3] In all civil actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
where the demand or claim exceeds One Hundred Thousand
pesos (P100,00.00) [now PhP 300,000.00] or, in Metro Manila,
where such demand or claim exceeds Two Hundred Thousand
pesos (P200,000.00)[now, PhP 400,000].
EXAMPLE: The shipper will ship to you goods involving a
common carrier and while in transit, the goods are lost or they are
totally damaged. You would like to file a claim or a case against the
carrier, what kind of a case is it? That is an admiralty or maritime
case.
Q: In which court will you file it?
A: It depends on how much is your claim. If your claim of the
damaged or lost cargo exceeds P300,000, then, RTC; if it is
P300,000 or less, MTC. In Metro Manila, the jurisdictional amount
is higher – it should be over P400,000.
RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of
this Act, the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4),
and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by
this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional
amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of
Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall
be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to
Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000,00).
[4] In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate,
where the gross value of the estate exceeds One Hundred
Thousand pesos (P100,000.00) [now php300,000] or, in probate
matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two
Hundred Thousand pesos (P200,000.00) [now P400,000].
In the subject of Wills and Succession, when a person dies, his
estate, his property will be settled for the benefit of his creditors
and heirs. That is what you call either as testate or intestate
proceedings depending on whether the deceased left a will or
none.
If there are debts due the decedent, thus, payable by his/her
estate, settlement would mean liquidation, which includes
inventory of all the assets and obligations payable, payment of the
debts, then distribution of the residue to the heirs. This is done by
the court thru an administrator appointed by it or thru the
executor appointed by the decedent.
Q: Where should the estate of the deceased person be
settled, RTC or MTC?
A: It depends on how much is the gross value of his estate. If it
exceeds P300,000, RTC. If it is P300,000 or less, it should be with
the MTC. In Metro Manila again, the gross should be more than
P400,000.

The jurisdiction of the court as a probate or intestate court
relates only to matters having to do with the settlement of the
estate and probate of the will of the decedent but does not extend
to the determination of questions of ownership that arise during
the proceedings.
[5] In all actions involving the contract of marriage and
marital relations.
Most of these cases are under the Family Code and now fall
under the jurisdiction of family courts (RA 8369, The Family Courts
Act of 1997). But because family courts have not yet been
constituted, the SC has designated RTCs to take cognizance of such
cases.
Q: What are the possible actions which you can imagine
involving the contract of marriage and marital relations?
A: Annulment of marriage, legal separation, declaration of
nullity, dissolution of the absolute community of husband and wife,
and action for support.
RA 8369, SECTION 5.Jurisdiction of Family Courts. — The
Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and
decide the following cases:
xxxxxx
d) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of
nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status and
property relations of husband and wife or those living together
under different status and agreements, and petitions for
dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;
xxxxxx
No. 6 will be discussed later.
[7] In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now
provided by law;
Before BP 129 or before 1980, there were special courts
existing. Among these courts were the so called Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Courts (JDRC). Then you have the Court of
Agrarian Relations (CAR) which tried cases involving tenancy,
agricultural lessor, agricultural lessee, agricultural lands. When BP
129 was enacted, the CAR and the JDRCs were abolished together
with the other courts created by law. Cases which they used to
handle were automatically transferred to the RTC. That was after
BP 129 took effect.
What were the cases which were usually falling within the
original jurisdiction of the former JDRC?
Usually, those involving family and children, like support filed
by the child against his father, compulsory recognition, custody of
children, adoption proceedings.
Under BP 129, all of these are now within the jurisdiction of
RTC.
HOWEVER, this has been amended again by RA 8369 (Family
Courts Act of 1997) and these cases are now under the jurisdiction
of the FAMILY COURTS: (See Sections 5 [b], [c], [e], [g])
RA 8369, SECTION 5.Jurisdiction of Family Courts. — The
Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and
decide the following cases:
xxxx
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas
corpus in relation to the latter;
c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation
thereof;
xxxx
g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as
abandoned, dependent or neglected children, petitions for
voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the suspension,
termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases
cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order
No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws;
xxxxx
As regards the law transferring the jurisdiction of the CAR to
the RTC, it became partially obsolete with the enactment of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or RA 6657 (June 15,
1988). Under the CARL, all agrarian disputes between landlord and
tenant, lessor and lessee were transferred to the DAR particularly
the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), making them quasi-judicial
cases. So, from CAR to RTC, from RTC to DARAB
So the RTC has NO jurisdiction, EXCEPT in the following 2
cases:
QUISMUNDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
201 SCRA 609 [1991]
HELD: “Wth the enactment of Executive Order No. 229, which
took effect on August 29, 1987, the Regional Trial Courts were
divested of their general jurisdiction to try agrarian reform matters.
The said jurisdiction is now vested in the Department of Agrarian
Reform. Said provisions thus delimit the jurisdiction of the regional
trial courts in agrarian cases only to two instances:
1.) petitions for the determination of just compensation to
landowners; and
2.) prosecution of criminal offenses under said Act.
EXAMPLE: If you are a landowner and your agricultural land is
placed under the CARP coverage, the government will fix the
payment for you. The trouble is that you did not agree on the
amount of payment. You want to contest the amount of
compensation payable, in which court will you file your action?
RTC and you ask for higher compensation.
[8] In all cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses,
and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One
Hundred Thousand pesos (P100,000.00) [now P300,000] or, in
such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive
of the above-mentioned items exceeds Two Hundred Thousand
pesos (P200,000.00)[now P400,000]
The best example is money claim. Most cases which go to
court now are money claims – an action to collect sum of money.
Q: Unpaid loan – you would like to collect an unpaid loan of
your debtor. Where will you file your case?
A: It depends on how much are you collecting. If it is over
P300,000 outside Metro Manila – RTC, in Metro Manila, –
P400,000. If the amount that you are collecting is only P300,000 or
less obviously, you file your case in the MTC.
If the value of the claim is > P300,000 – RTC
If the value of the claim is = or < P300,000 – MTC
Q: Suppose the principal amount that you borrowed from me
is P300,000, the interest is P30,000. And you are collecting P10,000
for moral damages, another P10,000 for expense of litigation, etc.
So my total claim is P350,000. Where will I file the case?
A: MTC. In determining the jurisdictional limit of P300,000, do
not include the interest, damages, attorney’s fees, etc. So you
deduct those from the principal claim even if you put them in your
complaint because the law says, “xxx exclusive of interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs
xxx.”
Q: What are litigation expenses and costs?
A: Costs are not the same as attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses. Actually, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses are part
of damages. Costs are governed by Rule 141, while attorney’s fees
and litigation expenses are governed by the Civil Code.
ACTIONS PURELY FOR DAMAGES
SITUATION: Suppose the action is purely for damages, like
breach of contract of carriage. Instead of bringing you to your
destination, you ended up in the hospital. You now sue the
common carrier for damages and your claim is P1 million for
injuries, moral, exemplary, etc. Where will you file the case?
This question has been clarified by SC Circular No. 09-94:
“Guidelines in the Implementation of RA 7691 Extending the
Jurisdiction of the MTCs” where the SC said that the provision
excluding damages applies only if the damages are INCIDENTAL to
the action. If the main cause of action is 100% damages, you
include it in determining tire P300,000 jurisdictional limit of the
MTC.
EXAMPLE: Ms. Pastor rode on a PAL fight. The plane crashed
but she survived. She claims for damages for breach of contract of
carriage amounting to P1 million.
Q: Where will she file her case?
A: RTC because the amount of the claim for damages
exceeded P300,000. Since the case is purely for damages, it is
included in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
The rule is, you only exclude the damages if it is a secondary
claim. But if damages is the primary or only claim, you determine
whether the total claim for damages is above P300,000, or equal to
or less than P300,000.
The SC said in this Circular, “the exclusive damages of
whatever kind” in determining the jurisdiction under Section 19
paragraph [8] applies to cases where the damages are merely
incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action.
However, if the claim for damages is the main cause of action, the
amount of such claim should be considered in determining the
jurisdiction.
EXAMPLE: P will file a case against D to recover a piece of land
worth P20,000.00 only. But her claim for damages exceeds
P300,000.
Q: In what court will P file a civil case where she wants to
recover a piece of land with value of only P20,000?
A: MTC because of paragraph [2]. As regards the damages of
P300,000.00, MTC still has jurisdiction because such damages,
being incidental, is not included in determining the jurisdiction of
the RTC.

Now, the law says, “exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs or
THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN CONTROVERSY exceeds
P300,000….”
Q: What is the property in controversy?
A: Obviously here, the property is PERSONAL PROPERTY not
real. If the property sought to be recovered is real, apply paragraph
[2] of Section 19 on recovery of real property.
Q: You want to recover your car which your friend borrowed
but did not return, which court has jurisdiction?
MTC if the value is P300,000.00 or less, and RTC, if over.
Q: Who shall determine the value or how should the value be
determined?
A: In determining the jurisdiction of the court, over the
subject matter, the allegations in the complaint governs.
Let us go to some interesting cases on this provision.
ORTIGAS AND CO., LTD PARTNERSHIP vs. HERRERA
120 SCRA 89 [1983]
FACTS: A entered into an agreement with B where A
deposited the sum of P50,000 with B. After certain conditions are
complied B has to return the amount to A. According to A the
conditions are already complied with but B still refuses to return
the money. So A filed a complaint which he denominated as sum of
money and since he is only asking for the return of P50,000, A filed
the case in the MTC.
ISSUE #1: Whether or not the MTC has jurisdiction over the
case.
HELD: The MTC has NO jurisdiction. It should be filed in the
RTC. It is not an action to collect a loan. You are not recovering a
loan. You are compelling him to comply with the agreement – to
return the money after certain conditions are complied with. You
are trying to enforce your agreement. therefore your action is an
action for SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE which should be tried by the
RTC under paragraph [1].
“When a party to a contract has agreed to refund to the other
party a sum of money upon compliance by the latter of certain
conditions and only upon compliance therewith may what is legally
due him under the written contract be demanded, the action is one
not capable of pecuniary estimation.” So it is cognizable by the RTC.
ISSUE #2: But according to the plaintiff, when he filed the
complaint, it is entitled “for sum of money” which should fall under
paragraph [8]. Is the plaintiff correct?
HELD: NO. The plaintiff is wrong. The title of the action is not
determinative on the court. Just like the rule on contracts where
the nature of the contract is not determined by the title but by
stipulation.
“The factual allegations in the complaint seeking for the
performance of an obligation of a written contract which is a
matter clearly incapable of pecuniary estimation prevail over the
designation of the complaint as one for the sum of money and
damages.”
As may be seen from the foregoing enumeration, jurisdiction
is determined:
(1) by the nature of the action; or
(2) by the value of the demand; or
(3) by the value of the property involved.
[6] In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions
Practically, this makes the RTC the universal catcher – what
does not belong to any other court, belongs to the RTC. That’s
what this provision is saying.
That is why, because of this, there are problems reaching the
SC on jurisdiction – whether a case belongs to this, to the regular
court or to a special quasi-judicial body. And we are going to go
over some of these cases.
SANDOVAL vs. CANEBA
190 SCRA 77 [1990]
FACTS: The quarrel in this case involves the owner of the
subdivision and the buyer. Later on, the buyer refused to pay the
unpaid installments. The subdivision developer filed a case for the
collection of unpaid installments over the subdivision lots.
HELD: The regular courts have no jurisdiction. That should be
decided by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)
formerly known as NHA. Under PD 957, it is the HLURB not the RTC
or MTC which has the jurisdiction to hear a case involving non-
payment of installments over subdivision lots.
The counterpart of this case was the case of

CT TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. HIBIONADA
191 SCRA 268 [1990]
FACTS: This is also the case between the buyers of a
subdivision lot against the subdivision developer. Only this time it
is the subdivision lot buyers who are suing the developer of the
subdivision. The subdivision lot owners filed against the subdivision
developer for not maintaining properly the roads of the
subdivision. So they filed a case for specific performance with
damages to compel the developer to comply with the contract to
maintain the roads.
HELD: The jurisdiction is with the HLURB and not with the
regular courts. But according to the plaintiff “But I’m also claiming
for damages so that it should be filed before the regular courts.
How can the HLURB award damages? Only the regular courts can
award the damages.” Can the HLURB award damages? According
to the SC:
“The argument that only courts of justice can adjudicate
claims resoluble under the provisions of the Civil Code is out of step
with the fast-changing times. There are hundreds of administrative
bodies now performing this function by virtue of a valid
authorization from the legislature. This quasi-judicial function, as it
is called, is exercised by them as an incident of the principal power
entrusted to them of regulating certain activities falling under their
particular expertise.”
So quasi-judicial bodies are now authorized to award
damages.
As a matter of fact in Labor Relations, the question is asked
whether the NLRC is authorized to grant damages also to an
employee, moral and exemplary, which normally is only awarded
by courts. The Labor Code says yes. In other words, even damages
now can be awarded by administrative bodies such as NLRC.
FAJARDO vs. BAUTISTA
232 SCRA 291 [1994]
FACTS: Isabelo and Marita Jareno are the owners and
developers of a subdivision. Fajardo and others, as buyers, signed
separate contracts each designated a contract to sell under which
for consideration therein stated, the Jarenos bound themselves to
sell to Fajardo et al the lot subject thereof, and after the latter shall
have paid the purchase price and interest shall execute in favor of
Fajardo et al the corresponding deeds of sale.
When these contracts to sell are still ongoing the Jarenos sold
these lots to other buyers and the title was transferred to the
second buyer. So when Fajardo et al learned about it, they filed
separate complaints with the RTC for annulment of the sale to the
other buyers.
Now, according to Fajardo, the jurisdiction of the case belongs
to the RTC and not with the HLURB because the title of the lots are
transferred to the other buyers. It is no longer under the name of
Jareno. Secondly, their action is for the annulment of title to a third
person. Thirdly, these third persons are not the developers;
fourthly, under the Judiciary Law, actions involving title to a real
property are to be tried by the RTC.
HELD: The RTC still has NO jurisdiction because the case
involved unsound real estate business practice on the part of the
subdivision owners and developers. Under the law, unsound real
estate business practice is under the HLURB. The practice in the
case is not a sound real estate business – I am a developer, I enter
into a contract with you and then later on I sold the contract to a
third person, that is unsound!
“By virtue of P.D. 1344, the HLURB has the exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. In addition to involving
unsound real estate business practices, the complaints also involve
specific performance of the contractual and statutory obligations of
the owners or developers of the subdivision.” So it is still with the
HLURB and not with the regular courts.
BENGUET CORPORATION vs. LEVISTE
204 SCRA 99 [1991]
FACTS: A mining company entered into an operations
agreement for management with another mining company. Then
later on, one wants to file a case for rescission of the agreement for
one reason or another. So it was filed with the RTC.
HELD: The RTC has NO jurisdiction again because PD 1281
vested with the Bureau of Mines with jurisdictional supervision
and control over all issues on mining claims and that the Bureau
of Mines shall have the original exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide cases involving the cancellation and enforcement of
mining contracts.
The trend is to make the adjudication of mining cases a
purely administrative matter. Another case is the case of
MACHETE vs. COURT OF APPEALS
250 SCRA 176 [1995]
FACTS: This case involves the collection by the landowner of
unpaid back rentals from his leasehold tenants. The landowner
filed the money claims before the RTC.
 HELD: The RTC has no jurisdiction over cases for collection of
back rentals for the leasehold tenants. This is an agrarian dispute
which exclusively cognizable by the DARAB.
“The failure of petitioners to pay back rentals pursuant to the
leasehold contract with landowner is an issue which is clearly
beyond the legal competence of the trial court to resolve. The
doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to
arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the
jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative
body of special competence.”
Let’s go to Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). That is
the government body which administers all government
examination for professionals except members of the law
profession. Now, this is what happened in the case of
LUPANGCO ET AL vs. COURT OF APPEALS
160 SCRA 848 [1988]
FACTS: Lupangco et al were BS Accounting graduates and
reviewing to take the CPA exams in 1985.
There were some anomalies (leakages) in the 1985 CPA Board
Examination. By next year, the PRC passed a resolution prohibiting
CPA examinees to attend review classes or conferences because of
leakages. They are prohibited from receiving any handouts, review
materials or any tip from any school, college or university. That was
Resolution No. 105 of the PRC.
So petitioners Lupangco et al, all CPA reviewers filed an
injunction suit against the PRC and to declare the resolution
unconstitutional. They filed it with the RTC. The PRC moved to
dismiss alleging that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case
because the one which has the jurisdiction is the CA – exclusive
jurisdiction to review any decision, order, ruling or- resolution of
any quasi-judicial body. And the PRC is a quasi-judicial body. So
their resolution can only be questioned before the CA and not with
the RTC.
HELD: The PRC is WRONG because PRC is not only a quasi-
judicial body, it is also a quasi-legislative body. It also acts as
legislative body by issuing rules and regulations.
Now, what kind of resolution is being questioned here? It is a
resolution pursuant to its purely administrative function. It is a
measure to preserve the integrity of licensure examination.
Therefore, it does not belong to the CA. It is not the type of
resolution contemplated by Section 9.
“The authority of the CA to review all resolutions of all quasi-
judicial bodies pursuant to the law does not cover rules and
regulations of general applicability issued by the administrative
body to implement its purely administrative policies and functions
like Resolution No. 105 which was adopted by the PRC as a
measure to preserve the integrity of licensure examinations.” So
that is not the resolution reviewable by the CA.
Now, under what provision under Section 19 can we justify
the jurisdiction of the RTC in the case. The SC said: It is under
paragraph 1 where the case is incapable of pecuniary estimation or,
it may fall under paragraph 6 where the case is not within the
exclusive jurisdiction by any court, tribunal or- body exercising
Judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
So, if it is not reviewable by the CA, in what court can you
question the resolution? Definitely, not the CA, definitely not the
SC. I don’t think it’s with the NLRC. So it will fall under the
jurisdiction of the RTC. Or, it can also fall under paragraph [1,]
where the subject matter of the suit is not capable of pecuniary
estimation because what is the nature of the demands is to declare
unconstitutional this resolution. So it belongs to the jurisdiction of
the RTC.
BERNARDO vs. CALTEX PHIL. INC.
216 SCRA 170 [1992]
FACTS: Under E.O. No. 172, when there is a dispute between
an operator or dealer and an Oil company regarding dealership
agreement, the case shall be under the jurisdiction of the Energy
Regulatory Board (ERB). So any dispute regarding their relationship
agreement except disputes arising out of the relationship as debtor
and creditor. So if the dispute arose out of the relationship as
debtor and creditor, it should be filed with the RTC.
Now what happened here is that on December 5, 1990,
Bernardo, a dealer of Caltex, ordered gasoline from Caltex. So he
ordered in the morning. At 6:00 at night on the same day, there
was a price increase. So when the gasoline was delivered the
following day, Caltex charged Bernardo for the increased price.
Bernardo refused to pay and he filed a case before the RTC. Caltex
argued that the case should be filed with the ERB.
HELD: The RTC has jurisdiction because “a contract of sale of
petroleum products was here perfected between Caltex and its
operator/dealer Bernardo; that in virtue of the payment admittedly
made by Bernardo, Caltex became a “debtor” to him in the sense
that it was obligated to make delivery to Bernardo of the
petroleum products ordered by him; and that the only issue is the
manner by which Caltex shall perform its commitment in
Bernardo’s favor. It is rather one cognizable by the Regional Trial
Court, as a dispute indeed ‘arising out of their relationship as
debtor and creditor.’”
“What the controversy is all about, to repeat, is simply the
prices at which the petroleum products shall be deemed to have
been purchased from Caltex by Bernardo in December 5, 1990. This
is obviously a civil law question, one determinable according to the
provisions of the Civil Code and hence, beyond the cognizance of
the Energy Regulatory Board.”
Lack of Jurisdiction by RTC on Customs Matters
The RTC is devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity
or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by
the Bureau of Customs, and to enjoin or otherwise interfere with
the said proceedings even if the seizure was illegal. Such act does
not deprive the Bureau of Customs of jurisdiction thereon. (RV
Marzan Freight, Inc. v. CA, 424 SCRA 596)
The Court held that the Trial court was incompetent to pass
upon and nullify: (1)the seizure of the cargo in the abandonment
proceedings, and (2) the declaration made by the District Collector
of Customs that the cargo was abandoned and ipso facto owned by
the government. It, likewise, has no jurisdiction to resolve the issue
of whether or not the private respondent was the owner of the
cargo before it was gutted by fire. The trial court should have
rendered judgment dismissing the complaint, without prejudice to
the right of the private respondent to ventilate the issue before the
Commissioner of Customs and/or to the CTA as provided for in the
Tariff and Customs Code.
Disputed Assessments
The CTA has jurisdiction over disputed assessments, and the
ordinary courts over non-disputed ones. Failure of a taxpayer to
appeal to the CTA makes the assessment final and executory.
Thereafter, if a collection suit is filed in the court, there can no
longer be any inquiry on the merits of the original case. (Republic v.
Dy Chay 1 SCRA 975; Olivares v. Marquez, 438 SCRA 679)
Non-Disputed Assessments
As provided in RA 9262, the CTA has:
“(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases
involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges
and penalties; Provided, however, that collection cases where the
principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and
penalties, claimed is less than P1M shall be tried by the proper
MTC, MetTC and RTC.
The tax collection case would fall under the jurisdiction of the
first level courts where the amount does not exceed P300,000.00
or in MM where it does not exceed P400,000.00.
Where, however, what is being questioned is the very
authority and power of the assessor, acting solely and
independently, to impose the assessment and of the treasurer to
collect the tax, and not merely the amounts of the increase in the
tax, jurisdiction over the case was properly with the trial courts.
(Olivares v. Marquez 438 SCRA 679)
Special jurisdiction to try special cases
Certain branches of the RTC may be designated by the SC to
handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations
cases, agrarian cases, urban and land reform cases which do not fall
under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and/or
such other special cases as the SC may determine in the interest of
a speedy and efficient administration of justice (Sec. 233 BP Blg.
129)
Jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies
Sec. 5.2 of the Securities Regulation Code (RA No 8799)
provides that the RTCs shall exercise original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
a.) Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any
act, of the board of directors, business associates, its
officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and
misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the
interest of the public and/or of the stockholders,
partners, members of associations or organizations
registered with the Commission.
b.) Controversies arising out of inter-corporate or
partnership relations, between and among stockholders,
members or associates; between any or all of them and
the corporation, partnership or association of which they
are stockholders, members or associates, respectively,
and between such corporation, partnership or
association and the state insofar as it concerns their
individual franchise or right to exist as such entity.
c.) Controversies in the election or appointments of
directors, trustees, officers or managers of such
corporations, partnerships or associations; and
d.) Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to
be declared in the state of suspension of payments in
cases where the corporation, partnership or association
possesses sufficient property to cover all its debts but
foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they
respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation,
partnership or association has no sufficient assets to
cover its liabilities, but is under the management of a
Rehabilitation Receiver or Management Committee.
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
 Sec. 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. - Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
[1] In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction which
may be enforced in any part of their respective regions;
Q: What is the difference between the original jurisdiction of
the RTC in Section 21 and the original jurisdiction of the RTC in
Section 19?
A: In Section 19, you have the EXCLUSIVE original jurisdiction,
whereas in Section 21 you have the original jurisdiction but
CONCURRENT with other courts.
Thus “original” jurisdiction stated in Section 21 is also shared
with the SC and CA. Therefore , the SC, CA, and RTC have original
concurrent jurisdiction under Section 21. Like issuance of writs of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus,
etc. This is concurrent with the CA and the SC. Such writs may be
issued by (a) the RTC under Section 19; (b) CA under Section 9; and
(c) SC under Article VIII Section 5 of the Constitution. The 3 courts
share concurrent jurisdiction over these cases.
However the only difference is that writs issued by an RTC can
only be enforced in the same region where the RTC belongs. Unlike
writs issued by the SC and CA, they can be enforced anywhere in
the Philippines.
[2] In actions affecting ambassadors and other public
ministers and consuls.
The SC and RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction in actions
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls. Section
21 paragraph 2 states only of the concurrent original jurisdiction of
the SC and RTC. Section 19 on the jurisdiction of CA does not
include the action stated in section 21 paragraph 2 as part of its
(CA’s) jurisdiction.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
Sec. 22. Appellate jurisdiction. - Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs in their respective territorial
jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the
entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and
such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the
parties or required by the RTCs. The decision of the RTCs in such
cases shall be appealable by petition for review to the CA which
may give it due course only when the petition show prima facie
that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that
will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or
judgment sought to be reviewed.
B. Appellate Jurisdiction
All cases decided by lower courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts,
etc.) in their respective territorial jurisdictions (Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, Sec. 22).
Now take note that the RTC also has appellate jurisdiction
under Section 22. These are cases decided by the MTC. So they act
as a sort of ‘court of appeals.’ The RTC exercises appellate
jurisdiction over all cases decided by the MTC in their respective
territorial jurisdiction.
Q: How will the RTC decide on the appeal?
A: It shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the
proceedings had in the court of origin (MTC) such as memoranda
and/or briefs as may be submitted. This means that witnesses will
not be made to appear again in the appeal. It is only a matter of
reviewing the testimony, stenographic notes, evidence presented,
memoranda and briefs by the RTC judge.
Q: What are memoranda and briefs?
A: It is where the appealing party will argue that the decision
is wrong and try to convince the judge that the decision is wrong,
and the other party to counter act that the decision is correct.
Q: Assuming that the case is originated in the MTC and
subsequently dismissed by the RTC on appeal, is the decision by the
RTC rendered pursuant to its appellate jurisdiction appealable to
the CA?
A: YES, but the mode of appeal is now different. The decision
of the RTC in such cases shall be appealable by petition to review to
the CA. The CA may or may not give it due course.
Q: What is the difference between an appeal made from the
RTC to CA and appeal from the MTC to RTC, which is dismissed by
the latter and subsequently appealed to the CA?
A: The former (RTC – CA) is in pursuance to the original
jurisdiction of the RTC. The latter (MTC-RTC-CA) is in pursuance to
the appellate jurisdiction of the RTC. (They are governed by
different rules)
To illustrate:
 Pursuant to original Pursuant to appellate guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil
jurisdiction of the RTC: jurisdiction of the RTC: liability which the accused may have incurred. The sentence,
however, shall be suspended without need of application, pursuant
COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS to Pres. Decree No. 1903, otherwise known as “The Child and Youth
Welfare Code;”

2. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, and habeas

Ordinary appeal Petition for Review
(Rule 41) (Rule 42)
RTC RTC
Ordinary Appeal
(Rule 40)
MTC
Unlike in a case under the original jurisdiction of the RTC,
where an appeal to the CA is a matter of course. Meaning, for as
long as your appeal is on time and properly made, the CA will
entertain it.
It is different, however, in a case under the appellate
jurisdiction of the RTC, even if your appeal is on time and properly
made, there is no assurance that the CA will entertain the appeal.
The CA may give it due course only when your petition for review
shows prima facie evidence that the lower court has committed an
error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of
the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.
Summary of RTC jurisdiction:
1.) As to the EXCLUSIVE original jurisdiction – Section 19 (BP
129);
2.) As to its original CONCURRENT jurisdiction – Section 21
(BP 129);
3.) As to its APPELLATE jurisdiction – Section 22 (BP 129)
JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURTS
V. FAMILY COURTS
A. Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction
1. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below
eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age,
when one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the
commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is found
corpus in relation to the latter (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC,
effective May 15, 2003; Sec. 3, A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC, effective
April 15, 2003);
3. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation
thereof (Secs. A.20 and B.28, A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC, effective August
22, 2002; See also Rep. Act No. 9523, or “An Act Requiring
Certification of the Department of Social Welfare and Development
to Declare A Child ‘Legally Available for Adoption’ as a Prerequisite
for Adoption Proceedings, Amending for this Purpose Certain
Provisions of Republic Act No. 8552, otherwise known as The
Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, Rep. Act No. 8043, otherwise
known as The Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995, Pres. Decree No.
603, otherwise known as The Child and Youth Welfare Code, and
for Other Purposes,” approved on March 12, 2009);
4. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of
nullity of marriage, and those relating to marital status and
property relations of husband and wife or those living together
under different status and agreements, and petitions for
dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains (Sec. 2, A.M. No. 02-11-
10-SC, effective March 15, 2003);
5. Petitions for involuntary commitment of a child, for
removal of custody against child-placement or child-caring agency
or individual, and for commitment of disabled child (Secs. 4[b],
5[a][ii], 6[b], A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC, effective April 15, 2002);
6. Petitions for support and/ or acknowledgment;
7. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions
of Exec. Order No. 209, otherwise known as “The Family Code of
the Philippines;”
8. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned,
dependent, or neglected children, petitions for voluntary or
involuntary commitment of children, the suspension, termination,
or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable
under Pres. Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56 (series of 1986)
and other related laws;
9. Petitions for constitution of family home;24
10. Cases against minors cognizable under Rep. Act No. 9165,
or “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” (See also
A.M. No. 07-8-2-SC, effective November 5, 2007); and
 11. Violation of Rep. Act No. 7610 [1991], otherwise known as
the “Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploration
and Discrimination Act,” as amended by Rep. Act No. 7658 *1993+
and as further amended by Rep. Act No. 9231 [2003].
12. Violation of Rep. Act No. 9775, otherwise known as the
“Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009”
13. Cases of domestic violence against:
Women - which are acts of gender based violence that
results, or are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological
harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse
such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman's
personhood, integrity and freedom of movement; and
Children – which include the commission of all forms of
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and discrimination
and all other conditions prejudicial to their development.25
14. Cases of violence against women and their children under
Rep. Act No. 9262, otherwise known as “Anti-Violence Against
Women and their Children Act of 2004,”26 including applications
for Protection Order under the same Act;27 and
15. Criminal cases involving juveniles if no preliminary
investigation is required under Sec. 1, Rule 112 of Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure28 (Sec. 1, A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, effective April
15, 2002).
In areas where there are no Family Courts, the above
enumerated cases shall be adjudicated by the Regional Trial Court
(Sec. 17, RA No. 8369).
Jurisdiction of Shari’a Courts
Types:
1. These courts were created under Art. 137 of PD 1083
dated February 4, 1977. Their creation, as stated in Art.
2 of the decree, is a recognition of the “legal system of
the Muslims in the Philippines as part of the law of the
land and seeks to make Islamic institutions more
effective.”
2. These courts are the a) Shari’a District Courts and the b)
Shari’a Circuit Courts (Art. 137, PD 1083). Under the
same article, the Shari’a courts and the personnel
thereof are subject to the administrative supervision of
the Supreme Court.
3. The Shrari’a District judges receive the same
compensation and enjoy the same privileges as the
judges of Courts of First Instance, now Regional Trial
Courts (Art. 142, PD 1083). Shari’a Circuit Court judges
shall receive the same compensation and enjoy the
same privileges as judges of MTCs. (Art. 154, PD 1083)
Original jurisdiction of Shari”a District Courts
Exclusive Original jurisdiction over:
(a) All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy,
paternity and filiation under the Code;
(b) All cases involving disposition, distribution and
settlement of the estate of the deceased Muslims,
probate of wills, issuance of letters of administration or
appointment of administrators or executors regardless
of the nature or the aggregate value of the property;
(c) Petitions for the declaration of absence and death and
for the cancellation or correction of entries in the
Muslim Registries mentioned in Title VI of Book Two of
the Code;
(d) All actions arising from customary contracts in which the
parties are Muslims, if they have not specified which
law shall govern their relations; and
(e) All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction,
certiorari, habeas corpus, and all other auxiliary writs
and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Concurrent original jurisdiction of Shari’a District Courts with
existing civil courts over:
(a) Petitions by Muslims for the constitution of a family
home, change of name and commitment of an
insane person to an asylum;
(b) All other personal and real actions not mentioned in
paragraph (d) of the immediately preceding topic,
wherein the parties involved are Muslims except
those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
which shall fall under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Court; and
(c) All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory
relief wherein the parties are Muslims or the
property involved belongs exclusively to Muslims.
Appellate jurisdiction of Shari’a District Courts over:
(a) all cases tried in the Shari’a Circuit Courts within their
territorial jurisdiction;
(b) and decide all cases appealed to it on the basis of the
evidence and records transmitted as well as such
memoranda, briefs or oral arguments as the parties
may submit (Art. 144, PD 1083).
Finality of decisions
Under Art. 145 of the decree, the decisions of the Shari’a
District Courts whether on appeal from the Shari’a Circuit Court or
not, shall be final. Nothing herein contained shall affect the original
and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in the
Constitution.
 Original jurisdiction of Shari’a Circuit Courts

Exclusive original jurisdiction over:

(1) All cases involving offenses defined and punished under
this Code;
(2) All civil actions and proceedings between parties who
are Muslims or have been married in accordance
with Art. 13 involving disputes relating to:
(a) Marriage;
(b) Divorce recognized under the Code (PD 1083);
(c) Bethrotal or breach of contract to marry;
(d) Customary dower (mahr);
(e) Disposition and distribution of property upon
divorce;
(f) Maintenance and support, and consolatory
gifts, (mut’a); and
(g) Restitution of marital rights.
(3) All cases involving disputes relative to communal
properties. (Art. 155, PD 1083)

Rules applicable
The Shari’a courts shall be governed by special rules of
procedure as the Supreme Court may promulgate (Art. 148 and Art.
158, PD 1083).
JURISDICTION OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
VI. METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL
Actually, when you know the jurisdiction of the RTC,
TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES
automatically you know the jurisdiction of the MTC. In criminal
cases for example, RTC has jurisdiction when the penalty imposable
A. Original Jurisdiction
is imprisonment of more than 6 years until death penalty. So,
1. Civil
necessarily, if it is 6 years or below, the MTC has jurisdiction. Same
Exclusive
with civil cases.

Actions involving personal property valued at not more

Summary of jurisdiction of MTC:
than P300,000.00 or in Metro Manila P400,000.00;
A.) As to original jurisdiction – Section 33
B.) As to delegated jurisdiction – Section 34
Actions demanding sums of money not exceeding
C.) As to special jurisdiction – Section 35
P300,000.00 or in Metro Manila P400,000.00; in both cases,
exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses
and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged, but
A.) EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
the filing fees thereon shall be paid. These include admiralty and
maritime cases;
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. -
Actions involving title or possession of real property
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal
where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00 or in Metro
Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
Manila P50,000.00;
1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and
Provisional remedies in principal actions within their
probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of
jurisdiction, and in proper cases, such as preliminary attachment,
provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the
preliminary injunction, appointment or receiver and delivery of
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not
personal property; (Rule 57, 58, 59, and 60)
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro
Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, with jurisdiction
demand does not exceed two hundred thousand pesos
to resolve issue of ownership to determine issue of possession;
(P200,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
Probate proceedings, testate or intestate, where gross
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of
value of estate does not exceed P300,000.00 or in Metro Manila
which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest,
P400,000.00 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 33, as amended by
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses,
Rep. Act No. 7691); and
and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees:
Provided further, That where there are several claims or causes of
Inclusion and exclusion of voters. (Sec. 38, Batas
actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the
Pambansa Blg. 881, Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines
same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality
[1985]).
of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether
the causes of action arose out of the same or different
Delegated30 Cadastral and land registration cases
transactions.
assigned by the Supreme Court where there is no controversy or
opposition and in contested lots valued at more than P100,000.00
RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of
(Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 34, as amended by Rep. Act No.
this Act, the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4),
7691).
and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by
this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos
Special Petition for habeas corpus in the absence of all
(P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional
Regional Trial Court judges (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 35).
amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of
2. Criminal
Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall
Exclusive
be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to
Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000,00).
 All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed
within their respective territorial jurisdictions;
All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more
than six (6) years irrespective of the fine and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties and the civil liability arising
therefrom; provided, however, that in offenses involving damage
to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 32, as amended
by Rep. Act No. 7691);31
All offenses committed not falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan where none of the
accused is occupying a position corresponding to salary grade “27”
and higher (As amended by Rep. Act No. 7975 and Rep. Act No.
8249); and
In cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine
not exceeding P4,000.00, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, etc. have
jurisdiction (Administrative Circular No. 09-94, dated June 14,
1994).
Special Applications for bail in the absence of all Regional
Trial Court judges. (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 35).
Well if you know the jurisdiction of the RTC on money claims
and probate cases, automatically you will also know that of the
MTC.
Under the law, it is only the principal claim or the main claim
which is computed. Interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys
fees, litigation expenses and cost are not included in determining
the jurisdiction when they are merely incidental to or a
consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases where
the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the
causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in
determining the jurisdiction of the court.
TOTALITY RULE
Now, continuing with Section 33, it says there in paragraph
[1]:
“Provided further, That where there are several claims or
causes of actions between the same or different parties,
embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall
be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective
of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions.”
Under This rule, where there are several claims or causes of
actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the
same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of
the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the
causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions
(Sec. 33 as amended by RA No. 7691; PANTRANCO North Express
Inc. vs. Standard Insurance Company Inc., 453 SCRA 482).
ILLUSTRATION of joinder of causes of action:
The defendant secured from me two loans covered by 2
promissory notes and all of them are due and he has not paid me
any. Let's say each note covers a principal amount of P175,000.00.
I decided to file one complaint embodying 2 causes of action
against him although I have the option also to file 2 separate
complaints. If you will look at the value of each claim which is
P175,000 that is triable by the MTC but if you will add the claims
that will be P350,000.00.
Q: Which court will have jurisdiction?
A: The RTC because the jurisdictional amount is the total
amount.
Never mind that there are 2 separate loans because the law
says “irrespective of whether the cause of action arose out of the
same or different transactions.”
In the example, there are two causes of action arising from
two separate transactions. Illustrate a joinder of causes of action
arising from only one transaction.
Suppose the loan is payable in installments on separate dates.
Each failure is a cause of action.
Now in the examples, there is only one plaintiff and one
defendant.
What about when there are several plaintiffs or defendants?
EXAMPLE: There are four (4) passengers riding on a public
vehicle. They were all injured when the bus met an accident and all
of them were hospitalized. So after they were discharged, the four
of them wanted to sue the bus company for damages arising from
contract of carriage or culpa contractual. They decided to file only
one complaint and, in effect, joined the 4 causes of action.
Q: What will be now the basis of jurisdiction the claim of each
plaintiff or the totality of the claims of the 4 plaintiffs?
A: The totality of the claims. You apply the totality rule
because the law says “where there are several claims or cause of
action between the same or different parties.”
So whether the parties are the same or the parties are
different embodied in the same complaint the amount of the
demand shall be the totality of the claims the totality rule applies in
both situations.
Totality Rule subject to rule on joinder of parties
Where two or more plaintiffs, having separate causes of
action, sue one defendant or a plaintiff sues one or more
defendants in a single complaint, based on several causes of action
for or against each other, respectively, the totality rule applies only
where there is a common question of fact or law among them as
provided in Section 6 of Rule 3.
When there are several parties-plaintiffs or defendants and
there are several causes of action, as in the last example given,
when you join the causes of action there will necessarily be a
joinder of parties. In such a case there can only be a proper joinder
of causes of action when there is a proper joinder of parties and
the totality rule applies only when the joinder is proper.
When is a joinder of parties proper?
It is proper when there is a common question of fact and law.
Note also that joinder of parties is permissive (Sec. 6, R3)
Jurisdiction and Payment of Docket Fees
Even if the amount of damages and attorney’s fees do not
determine jurisdiction, they must still be specifically alleged in the
complaint for the purpose of payment of docket fees. Thus, the
higher the amount one is claiming the higher the filing fee.
Why pay the docket fee?
Because it is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed
docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action. (Sun Insurance Office Ltd. [SIOLI] v.
Asuncion 170 SCRA 274, 285 [1989])
Let us review what we learned in criminal procedure.
SECTION 1.
Xxxxxx
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against
the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary
damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint
or information, the filing fees therefore shall constitute a first lien
on the judgment awarding such damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified
in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall
be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees
shall be required for actual damages.
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount
of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual
damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks
to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary
damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees based
on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged
but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court,
the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first
lien on the judgment.
For dependent civil action
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 126334. November 23, 2001.]
EMILIO EMNACE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ESTATE
OF VICENTE TABANAO, SHERWIN TABANAO, VICENTE WILLIAM
TABANAO, JANETTE TABANAO DEPOSOY, VICENTA MAY TABANAO
VARELA, ROSELA TABANAO and VINCENT TABANAO, respondents.
Payment of Filing fees In Case Civil Aspect Is Deemed
Impliedly Instituted In the Criminal Action:
In any event, the Court now makes that intent plainer, and in
the interest of clarity and certainty, categorically declares for
guidance of all concerned that when the civil action is deemed
impliedly instituted with the criminal in accordance with Section 1,
Rule 111 of the Rules of Court – because the offended party has
not waived the civil action, or reserved the right to institute it
separately, or instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action
– the rule is as follows: (1) when the amount of the damages, other
than actual, is alleged in the complaint or information filed in court,
then the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended
party upon filing thereof in court for trial; (2) in any other case,
however, -- i.e. when the amount of damages is not so alleged in
the complaint or information filed in court the corresponding filing
fees need not be paid and shall simply constitute a first lien on the
judgment, except in an award for actual damages. (General vs. Hon.
Claravall, et al., 195 SCRA 623)
 Q: Suppose there was no mention of any claim for moral or
exemplary damages, by not stating the amount claimed, can he still
prove them during the trial?
YES.
But he did not pay docket fee?
A: Never mind, once it is awarded, there is now a lien in the
judgment for the payment of the docket fee.
For Independent Civil Actions
In the case of Sun Insurance if the damages was not
mentioned in the complaint in the civil case they are deemed
waived. If it is mentioned, and the amount is fixed you must pay
the docket fee at the start of the case though if it is not complete,
you are given the chance to complete the payment or amend the
complaint within reasonable time.
In criminal cases, even if there is no mention of damages in
the information, you can still prove and claim them as long as there
is no waiver or reservation.
When docket fee is due for actual damage:
So in criminal cases, if the claim for moral or exemplary
damages is mentioned in the information, you must pay the docket
fee upon filing of the information. But whether alleged in the
information or not, you can claim for actual damages and there is
no docket fee for actual damages except in cases under BP 22. That
is the exception which is now embodied in Section 1 paragraph [b]
which was taken from SC circular 57-97 – there is no payment of
docket fee for actual damages except in criminal cases for violation
of BP 22 because paragraph [b] says:
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount
of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual
damages claimed.
OTHER CASES ON FILING FEE IN CIVIL CASES:
In the case of
MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. CA
149 SCRA 562
FACTS: The plaintiff files a complaint and paid the docket fee
but he did not specify the amount of the damages he was claiming.
He contended that he is claiming for moral damages in such
amount as the court will grant. Respondent contended, on the
other hand, that it cannot be done, there is a necessity to state the
exact amount of the damages in order to determine the correct
amount of the docket fee. So the plaintiff amended the complaint
and paid the balance of the docket fees.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent amendment cures the
defect?
HELD: No, the defect is incurable. Thus, the action has to be
dismissed. The court acquires no jurisdiction over the case. The
remedy is to re-file the complaint and pay again the complete
amount of the docket fee. The prior payment made is forfeited in
as much as the defect in the first complaint is incurable.
So based on the MANCHESTER ruling, you cannot cure the
defect by merely amending the complaint.
However, the SC, after reflecting on what it said in the case of
MANCHESTER, realized the harshness of their decision. This
Manchester ruling was relaxed in the subsequent case of SUN
INSURANCE OFFICE which is now the governing law:
SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LTD. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
170 SCRA 274 [1989]
HELD: Thus, the Court rules as follows:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate
initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee,
that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or
nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is
not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may
allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case
beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third
party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered
filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefore is paid. The
court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time
but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim
by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the
prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a
claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has
been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee
therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the
responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to
enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.
Payment of docket fee and counterclaims
Second rule:
“The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims…”

Re Compulsory Counterclaim
Rule 141 on Legal Fees was revised effective August 26, 2004
by AM No. 04-2-04-SC and the revision includes the payment of
docket fees not only for permissive counterclaim but also for
compulsory counterclaims. But the SC suspended the enforcement
of the new rates of legal fees under Rule 141 effective September
21, 2004, with respect to compulsory counterclaims, among others.
It did not suspend the imposition of legal fees.
However, in Korea Technologies Co. Ltd. Vs. Lerma, 542 SCRA
1, January 7, 2008, the Court said:
“On July 17, 1998, at the time PGSMC filed its Answer
incorporating its counterclaims against KOGIES, it was not liable to
pay filing fees for said counterclaim being compulsory in nature.
We stress, however, that effective August 16, 2004, under Sec. 7 of
Rule 141, as amended by AM No. 04-2-04-SC, docket fees are now
required to be paid in compulsory counterclaim or cross claims.”
And the third rule laid down in Sun Insurance:
If the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleadings,
the filing fee therefor shall be a lien in the judgment. It shall be the
responsibility of the clerk of Court or his duly-authorized deputy to
enforce the lien, assess and collect the additional fee.
Q: When can this possibly happen?
A: That can happen for example if I ask for damages. A man
was hospitalized because of physical injuries. While still in the
hospital he filed an action for damages and based the amount of
damages on the current billing but alleged that he continues to
incur expenses as may be determined in the course of trial. He paid
the docket fee corresponding to the amount mentioned. After trial
he was able to establish expenses in the sum of P50,000.00.
Q: Can the court award the P 50,000?
A: Yes, because the additional expenses came only after the
filing of the case. The additional docket fee will constitute a lien on
the award.
The Sun Insurance is a leading case on docket fee. It was
followed with a third case in December 1989 which further clarified
the SUN INSURANCE ruling. This is the case of
TACAY vs. RTC OF TAGUM, DAVAO DEL NORTE
180 SCRA 433 [1989]
NOTE: When this case was filed, there was no SUN
INSURANCE decision yet. The guiding rule was still MANCHESTER.
But while this was pending the SUN INSURANCE was already out.
FACTS: The case was for recovery of land with damages. So it
is not purely for damages. So the amount of filing fee is assessed
based on the assessed value of the land because it is a real action,
which the plaintiff paid.
Defendant moved to dismiss based on MANCHESTER because
the plaintiff did not specify in the complaint how much damages he
was claiming. Now the RTC of Tagum denies the motion to dismiss.
The defendant goes to the SC citing MANCHESTER.
Of course the SC said that the Manchester ruling was no
longer controlling because of Sun Insurance.
But it enunciated another rule.
HELD:
“Where the action involves real property and a related claim
for damages as well, the legal fees shall be assessed on the basis of
both (a) the value of the property and (b) the total amount of
related damages sought. The court acquires jurisdiction over the
action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied by the
payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the
time of the filing of the pleading, as of the time of full payment of
the fees within such reasonable time as the court may grant,
unless, of course, prescription has set in the meantime.”
In other words, the total docket fee must be based on the
assessed value of the land and for the damages. Thus: (1.) If the
docket fee for the recovery of land is paid but none for the
damages, do not dismiss the entire case! Just do not consider the
claim for the damages. Or, (2.) second option, citing SUN
INSURANCE, give him reasonable time to pay the balance.
While Sun Insurance relaxed the rule (as to how or when to
complete the payment), it did not however, effect any change in
the rule that it is not only the filing of the complaint but also the
payment of the docket fee that is necessary for the acquisition of
the jurisdiction of the court over the complaint filed. (Gensoli & Co.
v. NLRC, 289 SCRA 407, 413 [1998]). If the filing of the initiatory
pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fees, the
court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in
no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
(Colarina v. CA, 303 SCRA 647, 654 [1999])
Other interesting cases on docket fees.
No “file now, pay later” policy

FILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
171 SCRA 674 [1989]
FACTS: Adrian dela Paz sued all oil companies (Shell, Caltex,
Mobil, etc.) of the Philippines for infringement of patent with
prayer for the payment of reasonable compensation for damages.
According to him, these companies used in their operation a
certain type of machine which he claimed he invented. His patent
was infringed. Thus, all these companies are all liable to him for
royalties. The estimated yearly royalty due him is P236,572. Since
the violation has been for many years already, his claims reached
millions. The trial court ordered him to pay P945,636.90 as docket
fee. He had no money so he questioned it. The trial court ruled:
“We will allow you to file the case and the docket fee is
deductible from whatever judgment of damages shall be awarded
by the court.”
HELD: There is no such thing as file now pay later. No
justification can be found to convert such payment to something
akin to a contingent fee which would depend on the result of the
case.
“Filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the
handling of cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipments,
salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, etc., computed as to man
hours used in handling of each case. The payment of said fees
therefore, cannot be made dependent on the result of the action
taken, without entailing tremendous losses to the government and
to the judiciary in particular.”
What is the remedy of the plaintiff if he/she cannot really pay
the filing fee?
Have himself declared by the court as a pauper litigant.
LACSON vs. REYES
182 SCRA 729
FACTS: There was a case filed and then the lawyer filed a
motion to direct the plaintiff to pay him his attorney’s fees – a
motion for payment of attorney’s fees.
Is the lawyer required to pay a filing fee?
HELD: Yes. “It may be true that the claim for attorney's fees
was but an incident in the main case, still, it is not an escape valve
from the payment of docket fees because as in all actions, whether
separate or as an offshoot of a pending proceeding, the payment of
docket fees is mandatory. The docket fee should be paid before the
court would validly act on the motion.”
SUSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
278 SCRA 284 [August 21, 1997)
FACTS: Mortz filed a case against Charles in Leyte. After filing,
the court dismissed the case because it should be filed in Cebu.
Mortz wrote a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
asking that the docket fee paid in Leyte be considered applicable to
Cebu. OCA granted his request.
Charles questioned it because of the rule that the payment of
docket fee is jurisdictional.
HELD: “The OCA has neither the power nor the authority to
exempt any party not otherwise exempt under the law or under
the Rules of Court in the payment of the prescribed docket fees. It
may be noteworthy to mention here that even in the Supreme
Court, there are numerous instances when a litigant has had to re-
file a petition previously dismissed by the Court due to a
technicality (violation of a pertinent Circular), and in these
instances, the litigant is required to pay the prescribed docket fee
and not apply to the re-filed case the docket fees paid in the earlier
dismissed case.”
“In the case at bar, in the strict sense, Mortz’s complaint
cannot be deemed to have been ‘re-filed’ in Cebu City because it
was not originally filed in the same court but in the RTC Leyte.
Thus, when Mortz’s complaint was docketed by the clerk of court
of the RTC Cebu City, it became an entirely separate case from that
dismissed by the RTC of Leyte due to improper venue. As far as the
case in Cebu is concerned, while undoubtedly the order of
dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits of the case, the
order, nevertheless, is a final order. This means that when private
respondent did not appeal therefrom, the order became final and
executory for all legal intents and purposes.”
DE LEON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
287 SCRA 94 [March 6, 1998]
FACTS: The question for decision is whether in assessing the
docket fees to be paid for the filing of an action for annulment or
rescission of a contract of sale, the value of the real property,
subject matter of the contract, should be used as basis, or whether
the action should be considered as one which is not capable of
pecuniary estimation and therefore the fee charged should be a
flat rate of P400.00 as provided in Rule 141, Section 7(b)(1) of the
Rules of Court.
 Defendant argued that an action for annulment or rescission
of a contract of sale of real property is a real action and, therefore,
the amount of the docket fees to be paid by Plaintiff should be
based either on the assessed value of the property, subject matter
of the action, or its estimated value as alleged in the complaint.
Since Plaintiff alleged that the land, in which they claimed an
interest as heirs, had been sold for P4,378,000.00 to defendant,
this amount should be considered the estimated value of the land
for the purpose of determining the docket fees.
Plaintiff countered that an action for annulment or rescission
of a contract of sale of real property is incapable of pecuniary
estimation and, so, the docket fees should be the fixed amount of
P400.00 in Rule 141, Section 7(b).
HELD: Plaintiff is correct. “In determining whether an action is
one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary
estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining
the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is
primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether
jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first
instance would depend on the amount of the claim. “
However, where the basic issue is something other than the
right to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is
purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
sought, like in suits to have the defendant perform his part of the
contract (specific performance) and in actions for support, or for
annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this Court has
considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation
may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable
exclusively by courts of first instance.”
“The rationale of the rule is plainly that the second class
cases, besides the determination of damages, demand an inquiry
into other factors which the law has deemed to be more within the
competence of courts of first instance, which were the lowest
courts of record at the time that the first organic laws of the
Judiciary were enacted allocating jurisdiction.”
“Actions for specific performance of contracts have been
expressly pronounced to be exclusively cognizable by courts of first
instance and no cogent reason appears, and none is here advanced
by the parties, why an action for rescission (or resolution) should
be differently treated, a "rescission" being a counterpart, so to
speak, of ‘specific performance’.”
“In both cases, the court would certainly have to undertake an
investigation into facts that would justify one act or the other. No
award for damages may be had in an action for rescission without
first conducting an inquiry into matters which would justify the
setting aside of a contract. Issues of the same nature may be raised
by a party against whom an action for rescission has been brought,
or by the plaintiff himself.”
“It is, therefore, difficult to see why a prayer for damages in
an action for rescission should be taken as the basis for concluding
such action as one capable of pecuniary estimation — a prayer
which must be included in the main action if plaintiff is to be
compensated for what he may have suffered as a result of the
breach committed by defendant, and not later on precluded from
recovering damages by the rule against splitting a cause of action
and discouraging multiplicity of suits.”
“Thus, although eventually the result may be the recovery of
land, it is the nature of the action as one for rescission of contract
which is controlling.”
“Since the action of Plaintiff against Defendant is solely for
annulment or rescission which is not susceptible of pecuniary
estimation, the action should not be confused and equated with
the ‘value of the property’ subject of the transaction; that by the
very nature of the case, the allegations, and specific prayer in the
complaint, sans any prayer for recovery of money and/or value of
the transaction, or for actual or compensatory damages, the
assessment and collection of the legal fees should not be
intertwined with the merits of the case and/or what may be its end
result.”
In Go vs. UCPB, GR No. 156182 Nov. 11, 2004 the court
declared the following as real actions:
3.) judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage;
4.) actions to annul real estate mortgage;
for the reason that a real estate mortgage is a real right as
well as a real property. So an action to cancel or annul a real estate
mortgage necessarily affects title to the real property, hence a real
action and jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the
property.
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 126334. November 23, 2001.]
EMILIO EMNACE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ESTATE
OF VICENTE TABANAO, SHERWIN TABANAO, VICENTE WILLIAM
TABANAO, JANETTE TABANAO DEPOSOY, VICENTA MAY TABANAO
VARELA, ROSELA TABANAO and VINCENT TABANAO, respondents.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J p:
I. Whether or not respondent Judge acted without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance
of a case despite the failure to pay the required docket fee;
On August 8, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed
decision, 12 dismissing the petition for certiorari, upon a finding
that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction was committed by the trial court in issuing the
questioned orders denying petitioner's motions to dismiss.
Not satisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition for review,
raising the same issues resolved by the Court of Appeals, namely:
 I. Failure to pay the proper docket fee;
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
It can be readily seen that respondents' primary and ultimate
objective in instituting the action below was to recover the
decedent's 1/3 share in the partnership's assets. While they ask for
an accounting of the partnership's assets and finances, what they
are actually asking is for the trial court to compel petitioner to pay
and turn over their share, or the equivalent value thereof, from the
proceeds of the sale of the partnership assets. They also assert that
until and unless a proper accounting is done, the exact value of the
partnership's assets, as well as their corresponding share therein,
cannot be ascertained. Consequently, they feel justified in not
having paid the commensurate docket fee as required by the Rules
of Court.
We do not agree. The trial court does not have to employ
guesswork in ascertaining the estimated value of the partnership's
assets, for respondents themselves voluntarily pegged the worth
thereof at Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00). Hence, this case is
one which is really not beyond pecuniary estimation, but rather
partakes of the nature of a simple collection case where the value
of the subject assets or amount demanded is pecuniarily
determinable. 13 While it is true that the exact value of the
partnership's total assets cannot be shown with certainty at the
time of filing, respondents can and must ascertain, through
informed and practical estimation, the amount they expect to
collect from the partnership, particularly from petitioner, in order
to determine the proper amount of docket and other fees. 14 It is
thus imperative for respondents to pay the corresponding docket
fees in order that the trial court may acquire jurisdiction over the
action. 15
Nevertheless, unlike in the case of Manchester Development
Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 16 where there was clearly an effort to
defraud the government in avoiding to pay the correct docket fees,
we see no attempt to cheat the courts on the part of respondents.
In fact, the lower courts have noted their expressed desire to remit
to the court "any payable balance or lien on whatever award which
the Honorable Court may grant them in this case should there be
any deficiency in the payment of the docket fees to be computed
by the Clerk of Court." 17 There is evident willingness to pay, and
the fact that the docket fee paid so far is inadequate is not an
indication that they are trying to avoid paying the required amount,
but may simply be due to an inability to pay at the time of filing.
This consideration may have moved the trial court and the Court of
Appeals to declare that the unpaid docket fees shall be considered
a lien on the judgment award.
Petitioner, however, argues that the trial court and the Court
of Appeals erred in condoning the non-payment of the proper legal
fees and in allowing the same to become a lien on the monetary or
property judgment that may be rendered in favor of respondents.
There is merit in petitioner's assertion. The third paragraph of
Section 16, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court states that:
The legal fees shall be a lien on the monetary or property
judgment in favor of the pauper-litigant.
Respondents cannot invoke the above provision in their favor
because it specifically applies to pauper-litigants. Nowhere in the
records does it appear that respondents are litigating as paupers,
and as such are exempted from the payment of court fees. 18
The rule applicable to the case at bar is Section 5(a) of Rule
141 of the Rules of Court, which defines the two kinds of claims as:
(1) those which are immediately ascertainable; and (2) those which
cannot be immediately ascertained as to the exact amount. This
second class of claims, where the exact amount still has to be
finally determined by the courts based on evidence presented, falls
squarely under the third paragraph of said Section 5(a), which
provides:
In case the value of the property or estate or the sum claimed
is less or more in accordance with the appraisal of the court, the
difference of fee shall be refunded or paid as the case may be.
(Emphasis ours)
In Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
19 this Court pronounced that the above-quoted provision "clearly
contemplates an initial payment of the filing fees corresponding to
the estimated amount of the claim subject to adjustment as to
what later may be proved." 20 Moreover, we reiterated therein the
principle that the payment of filing fees cannot be made contingent
or dependent on the result of the case. Thus, an initial payment of
the docket fees based on an estimated amount must be paid
simultaneous with the filing of the complaint. Otherwise, the court
would stand to lose the filing fees should the judgment later turn
out to be adverse to any claim of the respondent heirs.
The matter of payment of docket fees is not a mere triviality.
These fees are necessary to defray court expenses in the handling
of cases. Consequently, in order to avoid tremendous losses to the
judiciary, and to the government as well, the payment of docket
fees cannot be made dependent on the outcome of the case,
except when the claimant is a pauper-litigant.
Applied to the instant case, respondents have a specific claim
— 1/3 of the value of all the partnership assets — but they did not
allege a specific amount. They did, however, estimate the
partnership's total assets to be worth Thirty Million Pesos
(P30,000,000.00), in a letter 21 addressed to petitioner.
Respondents cannot now say that they are unable to make an
estimate, for the said letter and the admissions therein form part
of the records of this case. They cannot avoid paying the initial
docket fees by conveniently omitting the said amount in their
amended complaint. This estimate can be made the basis for the
initial docket fees that respondents should pay. Even if it were later
established that the amount proved was less or more than the
amount alleged or estimated, Rule 141, Section 5(a) of the Rules of
Court specifically provides that the court may refund the excess or
exact additional fees should the initial payment be insufficient. It is
clear that it is only the difference between the amount finally
awarded and the fees paid upon filing of this complaint that is
subject to adjustment and which may be subjected to a lien.
In the oft-quoted case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Hon.
Maximiano Asuncion, 22 this Court held that when the specific
claim "has been left for the determination by the court, the
additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment
and it shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly
authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the
additional fee." Clearly, the rules and jurisprudence contemplate
the initial payment of filing and docket fees based on the estimated
claims of the plaintiff, and it is only when there is a deficiency that
a lien may be constituted on the judgment award until such
additional fee is collected.
Based on the foregoing, the trial court erred in not dismissing
the complaint outright despite their failure to pay the proper
docket fees. Nevertheless, as in other procedural rules, it may be
liberally construed in certain cases if only to secure a just and
speedy disposition of an action. While the rule is that the payment
of the docket fee in the proper amount should be adhered to, there
are certain exceptions which must be strictly construed. 23
In recent rulings, this Court has relaxed the strict adherence to
the Manchester doctrine, allowing the plaintiff to pay the proper
docket fees within a reasonable time before the expiration of the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 24
In the recent case of National Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals,
25 this Court held that:
The court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of
the initiatory pleading is accompanied by the payment of the
requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of
the pleading, as of the time of full payment of the fees within such
reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of course,
prescription has set in the meantime.
It does not follow, however, that the trial court should have
dismissed the complaint for failure of private respondent to pay
the correct amount of docket fees. Although the payment of the
proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial court
may allow the plaintiff in an action to pay the same within a
reasonable time before the expiration of the applicable prescriptive
or reglementary period. If the plaintiff fails to comply within this
requirement, the defendant should timely raise the issue of
jurisdiction or else he would be considered in estoppel. In the latter
case, the balance between the appropriate docket fees and the
amount actually paid by the plaintiff will be considered a lien or any
award he may obtain in his favor. (Emphasis ours)
Accordingly, the trial court in the case at bar should
determine the proper docket fee based on the estimated amount
that respondents seek to collect from petitioner, and direct them
to pay the same within a reasonable time, provided the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period has not yet expired. Failure to
comply therewith, and upon motion by petitioner, the immediate
dismissal of the complaint shall issue on jurisdictional grounds.
Jurisdiction of the MTC in Forcible Entry and Unlawful
Detainer
Sec. 33[2] Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible
entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases,
the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings
and the question of possession cannot be resolved without
deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be
resolved only to determine the issue of possession. x x x x”
These are called accion interdictal and the only issue is
physical possession of the property. The two cases should not be
confused with accion publiciana which is also the recovery of
possession.
In unlawful detainer, the plaintiff prays not only to eject the
defendant but also to claim for back rentals or the reasonable
amount of the use and occupation of the property in case of
forcible entry.
Q: Suppose the unpaid rentals already amount to almost half
a million pesos, where should the case be filed?
A: The case should still be filed with the MTC. What
determines jurisdiction is the nature of the action, and not the
amount of recoverable rentals.
Q: In an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, can the
party present evidence of ownership?
A: The general rule is NO because the MTC cannot adjudicate
ownership. That has to be threshed out in the proper civil action in
the RTC. But if evidence of ownership is presented in the forcible
entry or unlawful detainer case, it is only incidental and it is only
resolved to determine the issue of possession. Such declaration of
ownership is not final. The question of ownership must be litigated
in a separate action in the RTC.
Let us now proceed to the third paragraph of Section 33 as
amended by R.A. 7691:
Real Actions other then Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
[3] Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of, real property or any interest
therein where the assessed value of the property or interest
therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or,
in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does
not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared
for tax purposes, the value of such property shall be determined
by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (As amended by RA
7691)
Aside from forcible entry and unlawful detainer, MTCs now
have jurisdiction over other real actions or actions involving title to
or possession, or any interest therein, like accion publiciana and
accion reinvidicatoria cases where the assessed value of the land
should not exceed P20,000. In Metro Manila, it is not exceeding
P50,000 In cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the
value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of
the adjacent lots.. That is the amendment brought about by RA
7691 which expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC.
An accion reivindicatoria is a suit which has for its object the
recovery of possession over the real property as owner. It involves
recovery of ownership and possession based on said ownership.
An accion publiciana is one for the recovery of possession or
the right to possess. It is also referred to as an ejectment suit after
the expiration of one year after the occurrence of the cause of
action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.
It is considered a plenary action to recover the right of possession
when dispossession is effected by means other than unlawful
detainer or forcible entry.
What is the Assessed value?
The assessed value of real property can have reference only to
the tax rolls in the municipality where the property is located, and
is contained in the tax declaration. It is elementary that the tax
declaration indicating the assessed value of the property enjoys the
presumption of regularity as it has been issued by the proper
government agency (Hilario vs. Salvador, 457 SCRA 815).
In Vda. De Barrera vs. Heirs of Legaspi, GR No. 174346, Sept.
12, 2008, the facts point to a complaint for reconveyance of
possession of real property with preliminary injunction and
damages filed in the RTC of Tangub City. One of the defenses raised
by the defendants was the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the
complaint, the assessed value of the subject property as reflected
in the uncontroverted tax declaration is only P11,160.00. The trial
court, in its decision, rejected the contention of the defendant
holding that since the complaint alleged the estimated value of the
land as P50,000.00, such allegation must prevail over the assessed
value of P11,160.00 relied upon by the defense. What determines
the nature of the action and the jurisdiction over the complaint,
said the trial court, are the facts alleged in the complaint and not
those alleged in the answer of the defendants. The CA affirmed.
On appeal by certiorari the SC held:
“The subject land has an assessed value of P11,160.00 as
reflected in the Tax Declaration No. 7565, a common exhibit of the
parties. The bare claim of respondents that it has a value of
P50,000.00 thus fails. The case, therefore, falls within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the municipal trial court.
It was error then for the RTC to take cognizance of the
complaint based on the allegation that “the present estimated
value of the land is P50,000.00”…The estimated value, commonly
referred to as the fair market value of the property.”
B.) DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land
Registration Cases. - MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs may be assigned
by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does not
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to
be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of
the respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the
corresponding tax declarations of the real property. Their
decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner
as decisions of the RTCs. (As amended by RA 7691)
As a rule cadastral and land registration cases fall under the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
What is the difference between a land registration proceeding
and a cadastral proceeding?
Cadastral is compulsory registration.
This is related to your study of Land, Titles and Deeds (The
Property Registration Decree). When you file a petition for land
registration, the object is to have your property registered and fall
under the Torrens System of the Land Registration.
Q: Now, what is this delegated jurisdiction all about?
A: It refers only to cadastral and land registration cases which
involve the titling of property under the Torrens system or
cadastral land registration.
Under the Property Registration Decree, only the RTC has
authority to entertain land registration and cadastral cases. But
now, Section 34 gives the Supreme Court the authority to
DELEGATE to MTCs to hear and decide land registration and
cadastral cases under the following conditions:
 1.) when there is no controversy or nobody is contesting
your petition; or
2.) even if the petition is contested where the value of the
land to be titled does not exceed P100,000.
In which case, these MTCs can decide and their decisions are
appealable directly to the CA because in exercise of delegated
jurisdiction it is acting as an RTC.
The value of the lot shall be ascertained by the affidavit of the
claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are
more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the
real property.
Now do not confuse this P100,000 (Section 34) with the
P20,000 under Section 33. Section 34 deals with cadastral and land
registration cases. Section 33 involves civil cases (accion publiciana,
etc.)
C.) SPECIAL JURISDICTION OF MTC
Sec. 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. - In the
absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any
Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit
Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas
corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or
city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
This is what we call special jurisdiction. It only applies to two
(2) types of cases: (1) Habeas corpus and (2) hearing of petitions
for bail.
Remember that habeas corpus is not within the jurisdiction of
the MTC. It is with the RTC. In an application for bail the RTC also
has jurisdiction because the offense may be a heinous one, but
under the law on criminal procedure you can file a petition for bail
to have your temporary freedom while the case is going on. That’s
supposed to be in the RTC.
But suppose there is no available RTC judge, all of them are
sick or all of them are attending a convention (this actually
happened in Davao in 1990) Section 35 provides that the MTC, in
the absence of RTC judges, can hear and decide on habeas corpus
case petitions and applications or petitions for bail in criminal
cases.
That is allowed because of the urgency of the situation. There
is no need for a SC authorization. However, this is only allowed in
the absence of the RTC judges. But if the RTC judge comes back, he
has to take over the petition.
REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE as amended by
A.M. 02-11-09-SC, effective November 25, 2002
Cases subject to summary procedure
(a) Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases; and
(b) All other claims where the total claim does not exceed
P100,000.00 (outside Metro Manila), or does not exceed
P200,000.00 (Metro Manila) exclusive of interests and
costs. Probate proceedings are not covered by the rule
on summary procedure even if the gross value of the
estate does not exceed P100,000.00 or P200,000.00.
Some basic principles to be remembered in civil cases subject
to a summary procedure:
(a) Not all pleadings in an ordinary civil action are allowed in
a summary procedure. The only pleadings allowed are
(1) complaint; (2) compulsory counterclaim; (3) cross-
claim pleaded in the answer, (4) answers to these
pleadings (Sec. 3)
(b) The court in a summary procedure may dismiss the case
outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil
action (Sec. 4)
(c) Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within
the period of ten (10) days from service of summons, the
court may motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff,
render judgment (not an order declaring the defendant
in default) as may be warranted by the facts alleged and
limited to what is prayed for (Sec. 6)
(d) There shall be preliminary conference held but there
shall be no trial. Instead the parties shall submit
affidavits and position papers (Secs ,8,9)
(e) Within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the last
affidavits and positions papers, or the expiration of the
period for filing the same, the court shall render
judgment (Sec. 10)
(f) As a rule a motion to dismiss is not allowed except on
either of two grounds (1) lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, or (2) failure to comply with the
barangay conciliation proceedings (Sec. 19(a))
(g) Although a petition for certiorari is prohibited in cases
subject to summary procedure, the Court in one case
allowed the petition because the trial court gravely
abused its discretion by indefinitely suspending the
proceedings in ejectment cases thus, acting contrary to
the purposes of the Rules on Summary Procedure. The
SC recognized that because the order of the trial court
cannot be appealed from it being an interlocutory and
since the proceedings are covered by the Rules on
 Summary Procedure, a ‘procedural void’ exists. Invoking
its power to suspend the rules to promote substantial
justice, the SC gave due course to the petition pro hac
vice because of the extraordinary circumstances of the
case. The Court observed that allowing the petition
would avoid the mischiefs sought to be curbed by the
Rules and would give spirit and life to the Rules on
Summary Procedure (Go vs. CA 297 SCRA 574).
(h) It must be emphasized that in a civil case governed by
the Rules on Summary Procedure, no hearing is
conducted. Instead, the parties are required to submit
their respective position papers (Five Star Marketing
Corporation vs. Booc, 535 SCRA 28).
Q: Now, what are the PROHIBITED documents, motions, or
pleadings under the Summary Rules?
A: The following (Under Section 19):
1.) Motion to quash except when your ground is
a.) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; or
b.) failure to comply with the Barangay Conciliation;
2.) Motion for bill of particulars;
3.) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgment, or for reopening of trial; your remedy here is
appeal;
4.) Petition for relief from judgement;
5.) Motion for extension of time to file an affidavit;
6.) Memoranda;
7.) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition
against any interlocutory orders issued by the court;
8.) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
9.) Dilatory motions postponements;
10.) Reply;
11.) Third-party complaints;
12.) Interventions;
Jurisdiction Over Small Claims Cases
Introduction of the Concept of Small Claims Court in the
Philippines
The idea of establishing Small Claims Courts in the Philippines
was first proposed to the Supreme Court through a study
conducted
in 1999 by Justice Josue N. Bellosillo, former Senior Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court. After observing small claims
courts
and interviewing judges of such courts in Dallas, Texas, United
States in 1999, Justice Bellosillo proposed in a Report that
courts
can be established in the Philippines to handle exclusively
small
claims without the participation of lawyers and where
ordinary
litigants can prosecute and defend a small claims action
through
ready-made forms. He envisioned the small claims courts as
another
positive approach, in addition to mandatory pre-trial, for
solving
court congestion and delay.6 The study and report was
subsequently
endorsed for legislative action to Senator Franklin Drilon who
later
funded a project for this purpose.
At the regular session of the Fourteenth Congress, House Bill
No. 2921 entitled “An Act Establishing Small Claims Courts”
was
introduced by Congressman Jose V. Yap. Thereafter, on July 3,
2007, Senate Bill No. 800 entitled “Philippine Small Claims
Court
Act” was filed by Senator Ramon A. Revilla, Jr. and, on
September
3, 2007, the bill passed First Reading and was referred to the
Committee(s) on Justice and Human Rights and Finance. The
same
is still pending with these committees at present.
In 2007, the United States Agency for International
Development
(USAID) awarded a two-year grant to the American Bar
Association-
Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI) to pursue judicial reform
activities in the Philippines for the fiscal period October 2007
to
September 30, 2009 . In a letter to Chief Justice Reynato S.
Puno
dated October 10, 2007, ABA-ROLI proposed the
establishment of
small claims pilot courts among first level courts in different
regions
of the Philippines. The small claims pilot court project was
proposed
by ABA to USAID after consultation with various Supreme
Court
officials in conjunction with the 2000 Action Plan for Judicial
Reform.
Among the critical issues being addressed by the APJR are
case congestion and delay. The congestion of case dockets is
central
to a multitude of problems, either as cause or effect; it is
either the
 34 A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC
manifestation or the source of other difficulties. Addressing
this
concern is thus an imperative8 which is why present reforms
in
judicial systems and procedures have included the following:
1. streamlining procedural rules to eliminate provisions
that cause delay and permit dilatory tactics;
2. re-engineering the jurisdictional structure of the
courts to ensure easy geographical access to the courts
particularly by the poor litigants;
3. improving the case management system toward more
transparency, accountability and integrity of the
judicial process and for better efficiency; and
4. strengthening of the mediation mechanism to promote
early dispute resolution nationwide.This involves the
institutionalization of court-annexed mediation, and
the establishment of a Mediation Center to continually
monitor and assess the performance of the system
and provide training and research.
Notwithstanding the absence of a law at the present time
creating
small claims courts in our country, the Supreme Court through
a 2. The establishment of Criteria to Select Appropriate
program in partnership with ABA-ROLI and USAID, can
promulgate
and implement a simplified rule of procedure exclusively for
small
claims and assign a certain number of existing first level courts
to
take cognizance of small claims. This does not need legislative
action as the Court can designate several first level courts all
over
the country to jump-start the pilot project. Thus, pursuant to
its
rule-making power, the Court under the present Constitution
can
adopt a special rule of procedure to govern small claims cases
and
select pilot courts that would empower the people to bring
suits
before them pro se to resolve legal disputes involving simple
issues
of law and procedure without the need for legal
representation and
extensive judicial intervention. This system will enhance
access to
justice especially by those who cannot afford the high costs of
litigation even in cases of relatively small value.13 It is
envisioned
that by facilitating the traffic of cases through simple and
expeditious
rules and means, our Court can improve the perception of
justice in
this country, thus giving citizens a renewed “stake” in
preserving
peace in the land. This is a hopeful message to our people that
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases 35
“there is no need to despair for there is deliverance in law;
that is
a promise that has been fulfilled by law in the past; it is a
promise
law will again fulfill in the future.”14
In December 2007, the Supreme Court established a Technical
Working Group composed of the Court Administrator, the
Program
Management Office Administrator, selected judges and other
officials
of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines to
undertake the following activities:
1. The development of Rules and Procedures to
Implement Pilot Small Claims Courts;
Regions/Judges for Pilot Small Claims Courts and
set Peso Limits for the Small Claims Courts;
3. Through the Philippine Judicial Academy, the conduct
of training programs for Judges and their personnel
participating in the Pilot Small Claims Courts project;
and
4. The employment of “Justice on Wheels” buses to
launch pilot small claims tribunals.
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases 1
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC
RULE OF PROCEDURE
FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2008
MANILA, PHILIPPINES
SEPTEMBER 2008
RULE OF PROCEDURE
FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES
SECTION 1. Title.—This Rule shall be known as “The Rule of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases.”
SEC. 2. Scope.—This Rule shall govern the procedure in
 actions before the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts
in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts
for payment of money where the value of the claim does not
exceed
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) exclusive of
interest
and costs.
Explanatory Note: The purpose of a small claims process
is to provide an inexpensive and expeditious means to settle
disputes
over small amounts. For purposes of the project, the amount
has been set for claims involving amounts of not more than
P100,000.00.
The theory behind the small claims system is that ordinary
litigation fails to bring practical justice to the parties when the
disputed claim is small, because the time and expense
required by
the ordinary litigation process is so disproportionate to the
amount
involved that it discourages a just resolution of the dispute.
The
small claims process is designed to function quickly and
informally.
There are no attorneys, no formal pleadings and no strict legal
rules
of evidence. The small claims court system is not a “typical
inferior
court.” Parties are encouraged to file small claims court
actions to
resolve their minor disputes as opposed to resorting to self-
help or
forcible means to seek their remedy. (Pace v. Hillcrest Motor
Co.,
161 Cal. Rptr. 663, 664 Ct. App. 1980)
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.—For purposes of this Rule:
(a) Plaintiff refers to the party who initiated a small
claims action. The term includes a defendant who
has filed a counterclaim against plaintiff;
(b) Defendant is the party against whom the plaintiff has
filed a small claims action. The term includes a
plaintiff against whom a defendant has filed a claim,
or a person who replies to the claim;
(c) Person is an individual, corporation, partnership,
limited liability partnership, association, or other
juridical entity endowed with personality by law;
(d) Individual is a natural person;
(e) Motion means a party’s request, written or oral, to
the court for an order or other action. It shall
include an informal written request to the court,
such as a letter;
(f) Good cause means circumstances sufficient to justify
the requested order or other action, as determined
by the judge; and
(g) Affidavit means a written statement or declaration of
facts that are sworn or affirmed to be true.
SEC. 4. Applicability.—The Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions
which are: (a) purely civil in nature where the claim or relief
prayed
for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement of
sum
of money, and (b) the civil aspect of criminal actions, either
filed
before the institution of the criminal action, or reserved upon
the
filing of the criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule 111 of
the
Revised Rules Of Criminal Procedure.
These claims or demands may be:
(a) For money owed under any of the following:
1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan;
3. Contract of Services;
4. Contract of Sale; or
5. Contract of Mortgage;
(b) For damages arising from any of the following:
1. Fault or negligence;
2. Quasi-contract; or
3. Contract;
(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement
or an arbitration award involving a money claim
covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic
Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1991.
Explanatory Note: The kinds of cases that can be filed in
Small Claims Court vary, but the case must seek money only.
For
example, a suit cannot be brought in Small Claims Court to
force
a person or business to fix a damaged good; or to demand
fulfillment
of a promised obligation which is not purely for money, or to
seek
money to compensate for pain and suffering. Some of the
kinds of
 cases which are allowed as small claims include the following:
1. Actual damage caused to vehicles, other personal
property, real property or person;
2. Payment or reimbursement for property, deposit, or
money loaned;
3. Payment for services rendered, insurance claim, rent,
commissions, or for goods sold and delivered;
4. Money claim pursuant to a contract, warranty or
agreement; and
5. Purely civil action for payment of money covered by
bounced or stopped check.
SEC. 5. Commencement of Small Claims Action.—A small
claims action is commenced by filing with the court an
accomplished
and verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) in duplicate,
accompanied by a Certification of Non-forum Shopping (Form
1-A,
SCC), and two (2) duly certified photocopies of the actionable
document/s subject of the claim, as well as the affidavits of
witnesses
and other evidence to support the claim. No evidence shall be
allowed during the hearing which was not attached to or
submitted
together with the Claim, unless good cause is shown for the
admission
of additional evidence.
No formal pleading, other than the Statement of Claim
described
in this Rule, is necessary to initiate a small claims action.
SEC. 6. Joinder of Claims.—Plaintiff may join in a single
statement of claim one or more separate small claims against
a applicable,
defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive
of interest
and costs, does not exceed P100,000.00.
SEC. 7. Affidavits.—The affidavits submitted under this Rule
shall state only facts of direct personal knowledge of the
affiants
which are admissible in evidence.
A violation of this requirement shall subject the party, and the
counsel who assisted the party in the preparation of the
affidavits,
if any, to appropriate disciplinary action. The inadmissible
affidavit(s)
or portion(s) thereof shall be expunged from the record.
SEC. 8. Payment of Filing Fees.—The plaintiff shall pay the
docket and other legal fees prescribed under Rule 141 of the
Revised
Rules of Court, unless allowed to litigate as an indigent.
A claim filed with a motion to sue as indigent (Form 6-SCC)
shall be referred to the Executive Judge for immediate action
in case
of multi-sala courts, or to the Presiding Judge of the court
hearing
the small claims case. If the motion is granted by the
Executive
Judge, the case shall be raffled off or assigned to the court
designated
to hear small claims cases. If the motion is denied, the plaintiff
shall be given five (5) days within which to pay the docket
fees,
otherwise, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice. In
no case
shall a party, even if declared an indigent, be exempt from the
payment of the P1,000.00 fee for service of summons and
processes
in civil cases.
Explanatory Note: A plaintiff may commence an action in the
small claims court by filing a Statement of Claim under oath
with
the Clerk of the first level court in person or by mail. The claim
form shall be a simple nontechnical form approved or
adopted by
the Supreme Court. The claim form shall set forth (1) the
name and
address of the defendant, if known; (2) the amount and the
basis of
the claim; (3) that the plaintiff, where possible, has demanded
payment and, in applicable cases, possession of the property;
(4)
that the defendant has failed or refused to pay, and where
has refused to surrender the property; and (5) that the
plaintiff
understands that the judgment on his or her claim will be
conclusive
and without a right of appeal. The plaintiff should attach to
the
claim all documents necessary to prove his/her right to reliefs
prayed
for. The form or accompanying instructions shall include
information
that the plaintiff (1) may not be represented by an attorney;
(2) has
no right of appeal; and (3) may ask the court to waive fees for
filing
and serving the claim on the ground that the plaintiff is
indigent
 unable to pay them, using the forms approved by the
Supreme Court
for that purpose.
SEC. 9. Dismissal of the Claim.—After the court determines
that the case falls under this Rule, it may, from an
examination of
the allegations of the Statement of Claim and such evidence
attached
thereto, by itself, dismiss the case outright on any of the
grounds
apparent from the Claim for the dismissal of a civil action.
Explanatory Note: Jurisdiction and venue requirements in
small
claims actions shall be the same as in other civil actions
provided
in the Rules of Civil Procedure. A defendant may challenge
jurisdiction or venue or court location by including these
defenses
in his Response before appearing in the scheduled hearing. In
all
cases, even if the defendant does not ask for dismissal of the
case
in the Response or appear at the hearing, the court shall
inquire into
the facts sufficiently to determine whether jurisdiction and
authority
of the court over the action are proper, and shall make its
determination accordingly.
SEC. 10. Summons and Notice of Hearing.—If no ground for
dismissal is found, the court shall forthwith issue Summons
(Form
2-SCC) on the day of receipt of the Statement of Claim,
directing
the defendant to submit a verified Response.
The court shall also issue a Notice (Form 4-SCC) to both
parties, directing them to appear before it on a specific date
and
time for hearing, with a warning that no unjustified
postponement
shall be allowed, as provided in Section 19 of this Rule.
The summons and notice to be served on the defendant shall
be accompanied by a copy of the Statement of Claim and
documents
submitted by plaintiff, and a copy of the Response (Form 3-
SCC) to
be accomplished by the defendant. The Notice shall contain
an
express prohibition against the filing of a motion to dismiss or
any
other motion under Section 14 of this Rule.
SEC. 11. Response.—The defendant shall file with the court
and serve on the plaintiff a duly accomplished and verified
Response
within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt
of
summons. The Response shall be accompanied by certified
photocopies of documents, as well as affidavits of witnesses
and
other evidence in support thereof. No evidence shall be
allowed
during the hearing which was not attached to or submitted
together
with the Response, unless good cause is shown for the
admission of
additional evidence.
SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Response.—Should the
defendant fail to file his Response within the required period,
the
court by itself shall render judgment as may be warranted by
the
facts alleged in the Statement of Claim limited to what is
prayed for.
The court however, may, in its discretion, reduce the amount
of
damages for being excessive or unconscionable.
SEC. 13. Counterclaims Within the Coverage of this Rule.—
If at the time the action is commenced, the defendant
possesses a
claim against the plaintiff that (a) is within the coverage of this
Rule, exclusive of interest and costs; (b) arises out of the same
transaction or event that is the subject matter of the
plaintiff’s
claim; (c) does not require for its adjudication the joinder of
third
parties; and (d) is not the subject of another pending action,
the
claim shall be filed as a counterclaim in the Response;
otherwise,
the defendant shall be barred from suit on the counterclaim.
The defendant may also elect to file a counterclaim against
the
plaintiff that does not arise out of the same transaction or
occurrence,
provided that the amount and nature thereof are within the
coverage
 of this Rule and the prescribed docket and other legal fees are
paid.
Explanatory Note: If a defendant has a claim against a plaintiff
that exceeds the limits stated in Section 2 of this Rule, and the
claim
relates to the contract, transaction, matter, or event which is
the
subject of the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant may commence
an
action against the plaintiff in a court of competent
jurisdiction. If
said claim which is beyond the limit of money claim provided
in this
Rule is filed with the Response before the Small Claims Court,
the
latter shall dismiss the counterclaim.
SEC. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions.—The following
pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not be allowed in the
cases
covered by this Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgment, or for reopening of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits, or any other paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition
against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) Third-party complaints; and
(l) Interventions.
SEC. 15. Availability of Forms; Assistance by Court
Personnel.—The Clerk of Court or other court personnel shall
provide
such assistance as may be requested by a plaintiff or a
defendant
regarding the availability of forms and other information
about the
coverage, requirements as well as procedure for small claims
cases.
SEC. 16. Appearance.—The parties shall appear at the
designated date of hearing personally or through a
representative
authorized under a Special Power of Attorney (Form 5-SCC) to
enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to Judicial
Dispute
Resolution (JDR) and to enter into stipulations or admissions
of
facts and of documentary exhibits.
SEC. 17. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed.—No attorney
shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing,
unless
the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.
If the court determines that a party cannot properly present
his/
her claim or defense and needs assistance, the court may, in
its
discretion, allow another individual who is not an attorney to
assist
that party upon the latter’s consent.
Explanatory Note: Except as permitted by this section, no
attorney shall appear in a small claims action except when the
latter
shall maintain or defend an action in any of the following
capacities:
(1) By or against himself or herself;
(2) By or against a partnership in which he or she is a
general partner and in which all the partners are
attorneys; or
(3) By or against a professional corporation of which he
or she is an officer or director and of which all other
officers and directors are attorneys.
Nothing in this section shall prevent an attorney from doing
any of the following:
(1) Providing advice to a party to a small claims action,
either before or after the commencement of the action;
or
(2) Submitting an affidavit as a witness for a party in
order to state facts of which he or she has personal
knowledge and about which he or she is competent
to do so.
If the court determines that a party does not speak or
understand
English or Filipino sufficiently to comprehend the proceedings
or
give testimony, to the questions of the court, if any, and
needs
assistance in so doing, the court may permit another
individual
(other than an attorney) to assist that party. If the court
interpreter
or other competent interpreter of the language or dialect
known to
 the party is not available to aid that party in a small claims
action,
at the first hearing of the case the court shall postpone the
hearing
one time only to allow the party the opportunity to obtain
another
individual (other than an attorney) to assist that party. Any
additional
continuances shall be at the sound discretion of the court.
SEC. 18. Non-appearance of Parties.—Failure of the plaintiff
to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the claim without
prejudice. The defendant who appears shall be entitled to
judgment
on a permissive counterclaim.
Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the same effect
as failure to file a Response under Section 12 of this Rule. This
shall
not apply where one of two or more defendants who are sued
under
a common cause of action and have pleaded a common
defense
appears at the hearing.
Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal with
prejudice of both the claim and counterclaim.
SEC. 19. Postponement When Allowed.—A request for
postponement of a hearing may be granted only upon proof
of the
physical inability of the party to appear before the court on
the
scheduled date and time. A party may avail of only one (1)
postponement.
Explanatory Note: A party may submit an oral or written
request to postpone a hearing date for good cause, as follows:
(1) If the written request is in writing, it may be made
either by letter or on a form adopted or approved by
the Supreme Court;
(2) The request shall be filed before the hearing date
and accompanied by proof of physical inability, unless
the court determines that the requesting party has
good cause to file the request on the date of hearing
itself; and
(3) If the court finds that the interests of justice would
be served by postponing the hearing, the court shall
do so and shall notify all parties by mail on the same
day of the new hearing date, time and place.
This Section does not limit the inherent power of the court to
order postponements of hearings in strictly appropriate
circumstances.
The postponement fee of One Hundred Pesos (or as provided
in
Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court, as amended on Legal Fees)
shall
be charged and collected before the filing of a request for
postponement and rescheduling of a hearing date.
SEC. 20. Duty of the Court.—At the beginning of the court
session, the judge shall read aloud a short statement
explaining the
nature, purpose and the rule of procedure of small claims
cases.
SEC. 21. Judicial Dispute Resolution.—At the hearing, the
judge shall conduct Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) through
mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation, or any other
mode
of JDR. Any settlement (Form 7-SCC) or resolution (Form 8-
SCC)
of the dispute shall be reduced into writing, signed by the
parties
and submitted to the court for approval (Form 12-SCC).
SEC. 22. Failure of JDR.—If JDR fails and the parties agree
in writing (Form 10-SCC) that the hearing of the case shall be
presided over by the judge who conducted the JDR, the
hearing
shall so proceed in an informal and expeditious manner and
terminated
within one (1) day.
Absent such agreement, (a) in case of a multi-sala court, the
case shall, on the same day, be transmitted (Form 11-SCC) to
the
Office of the Clerk of Court for immediate referral by the
Executive
Judge to the pairing judge for hearing and decision within five
(5)
working days from referral; and (b) in case of a single sala
court,
the pairing judge shall hear and decide the case in the court of
origin
within five (5) working days from referral by the JDR judge.
Explanatory Note: In hearings before the small claims court,
witnesses shall still be sworn in. The judge shall conduct the
hearing
in an informal manner so as to do substantial justice between
the
parties. The judge shall have the discretion to admit all
evidence
which may be of probative value although not in accordance
with
 formal rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence
provided
in the Rules of Court, except that privileged communications
shall
not be admissible. The object of such hearings shall be to
determine
the rights of the litigants on the merits and to dispense
expeditious
justice between the parties.
An interventionist role by judges in such hearings is effective
in eliciting evidence from litigants in person. It is seen by
unrepresented parties as a “helping hand” which they
appreciate,
provided that judges avoid the danger of appearing to be
partial. By
discussing the facts of the case, judges find what common
ground
does exist between the parties. This tends to narrow the
differences
between the parties and make the final judicial decision easier
– judge is duty-bound to give the legal basis for the findings.
whereas traditional open court trials, with the presence of
lawyers
and the use of cross-examination tend to polarize the parties,
increase
antagonism and heighten the differences.
In this regard, Lord Woolf, Great Britain’s case management
expert, has observed:
“The role of the judge in small claims is not only
that of an adjudicator. It is a key safeguard of the rights
of both parties. In most cases, the judge is effectively a
substitute for a legal representative. His duty is to ascertain
the main matters at issue, to elicit the evidence, to reach
a view on the facts of the matter and to give a decision.
In some cases he may encourage the parties to settle. In
doing so he should ensure that both parties have presented
the evidence and called the witnesses germane to their
case and that he has identified and considered any issue
of law which is pertinent to the case in hand. He must
also hold the ring and ensure that each party has a fair
chance to present his own case and to challenge that of his
opponent.”
The key judicial skills in conducting such hearings are to
maintain a balance between informality and fairness, to
ensure a
level playing field and to protect the weak and the scrupulous.
In
practice, this is achieved by preventing interruptions and
parties
talking over each other, and making it clear that both parties
will
have plenty of time to say all that they wish before the end of
the
hearing.
SEC. 23. Decision.—After the hearing, the court shall render
its decision on the same day, based on the facts established
by the
evidence (Form 13-SCC). The decision shall immediately be
entered
by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and a
copy
thereof forthwith served on the parties.
The decision shall be final and unappealable.
Explanatory Note: Despite the relative informality of the
procedure, judgments are based upon a strict application of
the
substantive law and an objective judicial analysis of the facts.
The
The prohibition against appeals assures immediate and swift
justice.
The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part due
process.
It is merely a statutory privilege and a procedural remedy of
statutory
origin, a remedy that may be exercised only in the manner
and in
accordance with the provisions of the law authorizing such
exercise.
The applicable provisions of the law allowing appeals from
decisions
of the first level courts are Sections 36 and 38 of B.P. Blg. 129,
as
amended, also known as “The Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980.”
The procedure on appeal is subject to the limitations and
restrictions
provided by this Act and any such rules as the Supreme Court
may
hereafter prescribe. Sec. 36 of B.P. Blg. 129 provides an
instance
wherein the Supreme Court may adopt special procedures,
including
cases where appeal may not be allowed, to achieve an
expeditious
and inexpensive determination of particular cases requiring
summary
disposition.
 SEC. 24. Execution.—If the decision is rendered in favor of
the plaintiff, execution shall issue upon motion (Form 9-SCC). 2. Plaintiff is suing defendant for:
SEC. 25. Applicability of the Rules of Civil Procedure.—The CAUSE OF ACTION
Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply suppletorily insofar as they Collection of Sum of Money
are Damages
not inconsistent with this Rule. Civil aspect of Criminal Case
SEC. 26. Effectivity.—This Rule shall take effect on October Enforcement of Barangay Agreement
1, 2008 for the pilot courts designated to apply the procedure Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases 13
for 3. Plaintiff’s cause of action arose from and is evidenced by:
small claims cases following its publication in two newspapers ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT/S AFFIDAVIT/S
of Promissory Note/Undertaking How many:
general circulation. Contract/Agreement
Receipt
Others
4. The principal obligation of defendant/s amounting to
P became due and demandable on
12 A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC .
FORM 1-SCC Interest at the rate of % per annum/per month
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES accrued on the principal sum due from such date of default.
5. Despite repeated demands by plaintiff, the latest of which
was on
, defendant has failed to pay the obligation.
, 6. (a) This claim has been referred to the appropriate
Plaintiff, barangay
vs. Civil Case No. authorities but no settlement was reached between the
For: parties. A Certificate to
, File Action was issued to the plaintiff, the original of which is
Defendant. attached hereto.
x ------------------------------------ x (b) The parties are not covered by the barangay
STATEMENT OF CLAIM mandatory
Plaintiff respectfully alleges: conciliation process under the Local Government Code of the
1. The personal circumstances of the parties are as follows: Philippines.
NAME OF PLAINTIFF/S SEX AGE CIVIL STATUS Prayer
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment to be
INDIVIDUAL CORPORATION PARTNERSHIP SOLE rendered
PROPRIETORSHIP ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of
NAME OF P , with interest at the rate of
REPRESENTATIVE: % per annum/
_ per month, from , until fully paid.
ADDRESS ZIP CODE ; 20 .
PLAINTIFF
PLACE WHERE FILED
NAME OF DEFENDANTS//S SEX AGE CIVIL STATUS

INDIVIDUAL CORPORATION _PARTNERSHIP SOLE FORM 1-A-SCC

PROPRIETORSHIP VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF
NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE: NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, , of legal age,
ADDRESS ZIP CODE ,
and a resident
 of
,
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, GREETINGS:
hereby, depose and You are hereby required, within ten (10) days from receipt of
say: this
1. That I am the in the above-entitled Summons, to file with this Court and serve on plaintiff, your
case and verified Response
have caused this to be to the attached Statement of Claim. The form of the required
prepared; that I read and understood its contents which are Response is
true attached hereto.
and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based on You are required to submit with your Response copies of
authentic records; documents as
2. That I have not commenced any action or proceeding well as affidavits of any witness to stand as your evidence in
involving this case. You
the same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or must present the original documents on the day of the
any hearing.
other tribunal or agency; that to the best of my knowledge, no A motion to dismiss is prohibited and shall not be entertained.
such Your failure to respond within the 10-day period will authorize
action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the the Court
Court of to render judgment based solely on the Statement of Claim.
Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, and that, if I should Witness my hand under the seal of this Court, this day of
learn ,
thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or 20 , at , Philippines.
is BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
pending before these courts or tribunal or agency, I undertake
to
report that fact to the Court within five (5) days therefrom. FORM 3-SCC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
day of , 20 .

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of ,
, 20 . Plaintiff,
NOTARY PUBLIC vs. Civil Case No.
(citizenship) (civil status) For:
(Name) ,
Defendant.
FORM 2-SCC x ------------------------------------ x
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES RESPONSE
Defendant/s respectfully allege/s:
1. Defendant admits all the allegations in paragraph/s
of the
, Statement of Claim.
Plaintiff, 2. Defendant specifically denies all the allegations in
vs. Civil Case No. paragraphs
For: of the Statement of Claim.
, 3. Defendant opposes the grant of the prayer in the
Defendant. Statement of Claim
x ------------------------------------ x for the following reasons, as supported by the attached
SUMMONS documents and affidavits:
TO: (enumerate defenses)
 4. As the Statement of Claim is baseless, defendant is entitled representative to appear in his behalf and participate in all the
to the proceedings as
following counterclaims: if the party represented were present. For this purpose, the
Actual Damages of P required authority
Moral Damages of P should be evidenced by accomplishing the attached Form 5-
Exemplary Damages of P SCC (Special Power
Costs of suit of Attorney).
Prayer WITNESS the HON. , Presiding
WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays for judgment to be Judge
rendered of this Court, this day of , 20 , at
dismissing the Statement of Claim, and granting the , Philippines.
counterclaims, ordering BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
plaintiff to pay defendant the following sums:
Actual Damages of P
Moral Damages of P FORM 5-SCC
Exemplary Damages of P SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
Costs of suit KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
DEFENDANT I, , of legal age, single/married,
(VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION with
OF NON- FORUM SHOPPING, if with permissive counterclaim) residence at do hereby
appoint, name and
FORM 4-SCC constitute , likewise of
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES legal age, singe/
married, with residence at
as my true
and legal representative to act for and in my name and stead
, and to represent
Plaintiff, me during the hearing of Civil Case No. , to enter
vs. Civil Case No. into amicable
For: settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute
, resolution and to make
Defendant. admissions or stipulations of facts and documents without
x ------------------------------------ x further consultation
NOTICE OF HEARING from me.
Once issues are joined upon the filing of the defendant’s I hereby grant my representative full power and authority to
Response, this execute and
case will be called for Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) and perform every act necessary to render effective the power to
hearing before compromise as
the Presiding Judge of this Court on at though I myself have so performed it and hereby approving all
. that he may do
Failure of the plaintiff to appear at the JDR and hearing shall by virtue of these presents.
cause the In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand this day of
dismissal of the Statement of Claim, and the defendant who , 20 , at .
appears shall be
entitled to a judgment on his counterclaim. On the other Principal
hand, failure of the
defendant to appear at the JDR and hearing shall cause the Agent
Court to render Witnesses:
judgment based solely on the Statement of Claim.
A party may not be represented by a lawyer, but may (ACKNOWLEDGMENT)
authorize any other
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FORM 6-SCC
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

,
Plaintiff,
, vs. Civil Case No.
Plaintiff, For:
vs. Civil Case No. ,
For: Defendant.
, x ------------------------------------ x
Defendant. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
x ------------------------------------ x The parties respectfully allege that:
MOTION TO PLEAD AS INDIGENT 1. Plaintiff filed this claim against defendant for:
, unto this Honorable Court, collection of sum of money
respectfully alleges damages
that: civil aspect of criminal case
1. I am a resident of ; enforcement of barangay agreement
2. My gross income and that of my immediate family does not recovery of personal property
exceed 2. The parties have come to an amicable settlement and have
; executed a
3. I do not own real property with an assessed value of more compromise agreement with the following terms and
than (amount conditions.
as provided in the Revised Rules of Court, as amended) as (copy terms and condition here)
shown by the attached 3. The parties agree that the approval of this agreement by
Certification issued by the Office of the City/Municipal the Court
Assessor and the City/ shall put an end to this litigation, except for purposes of
Municipal Treasurer’s Office; execution in case of
4. Due to financial constraint, I cannot afford to pay for the default.
expenses of WHEREFORE, premises considered, the parties respectfully
a court litigation as I do not have enough funds for food, pray that
shelter and other the court approve this agreement and render judgment on
basic necessities; the basis thereof.
5. Should the court render judgment in my favor, the amount , 20 .
of the docket
and other legal fees which I was exempted from paying shall Plaintiff Defendant
be a lien on the
judgment, unless the court orders otherwise.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed FORM 8-SCC
that I be (Motion for voluntary dismissal of the claim and counterclaim)
exempted from the payment of docket and other legal fees as REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
indigent pursuant
to Section 21, Rule 3 in relation to Section 18, Rule 141 of the
Revised Rules
of Court. ,
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are Plaintiff,
likewise prayed vs. Civil Case No.
for. For:
PLAINTIFF ,
Defendant.
FORM 7-SCC x ------------------------------------ x
 JOINT MOTION WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed
Plaintiff and defendant, unto this Honorable Court, that a
respectfully allege writ of execution be issued to implement the judgment of the
that: Court dated
1. Plaintiff and defendant have mutually and voluntarily .
settled their , 20 .
claim and counterclaim to the entire satisfaction of each
other; and Plaintiff/Defendant
2. The parties no longer have a cause of action against each NOTICE OF HEARING
other. NAME OF DEFENDANT
WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff and defendant (IF FILED BY PLAINTIFF)
respectfully pray that the plaintiff’s statement of claim and NAME OF PLAINTIFF
defendant’s (IF FILED BY DEFENDANT)
counterclaim incorporated in his response be dismissed. NAME OF CLERK OF COURT.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are Please be notified that the undersigned will submit the
likewise prayed foregoing motion
for. for the consideration and approval of the Court on
, 20 . at
, 20 .

Plaintiff Defendant Plaintiff/Defendant

To the Branch Clerk of Court:
Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration of
the Court FORM 10-SCC
without hearing and further argument from the parties. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff Defendant
,
Plaintiff,
FORM 9-SCC vs. Civil Case No.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES For:
,
Defendant.
x ------------------------------------ x
, AGREEMENT
Plaintiff, Having failed to resolve the matter through Judicial Dispute
vs. Civil Case No. Resolution,
For: plaintiff and defendant hereby agree that Judge
, shall
Defendant. continue with the hearing on the instant matter and hereby
x ------------------------------------ x waive their right to
MOTION FOR EXECUTION have a different judge hear the case.
Plaintiff/Defendant, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully , 20 .
alleges that:
1. On , a judgment was rendered by the Plaintiff Defendant
Court, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
2. The judgment is final and unappealable. FORM 11-SCC
3. The defendant/plaintiff has not complied with the (Referral to pairing judge)
judgment. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
 follows:
It appearing that the agreement is not contrary to law,
morals, good
, customs, public moral and public policy, and pursuant to
Plaintiff, Articles 2028 and
vs. Civil Case No. 2037 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the same is hereby
For: APPROVED and
, ADOPTED as the Decision of this court.
Defendant. The parties are hereby ordered to faithfully comply with the
x ------------------------------------ x terms and
ORDER conditions of the agreement.
In view of the failure of judicial dispute resolution and there , 20 .
being no
agreement from the parties to let the undersigned continue JUDGE
hearing the instant
case, the record of this case is transmitted to the Office of the
Clerk of Court FORM 13 – SCC
for immediate referral by the Executive Judge to the Pairing REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Judge for hearing
and decision pursuant to Section 21 of the Rule of Procedure
for Small Claims
Cases. ,
SO ORDERED. Plaintiff,
, 20 . vs. Civil Case No.
For:
JUDGE ,
Defendant.
x ------------------------------------ x
FORM 12-SCC DECISION
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES This is a small claims action for (state which of the claims or
demands
below is the subject of the action filed):
[For money owed under any of the following:
, 1. Contract of lease;
Plaintiff, 2. Contract of loan;
vs. Civil Case No. 3. Contract of services;
For: 4. Contract of sale; or
, 5. Contract of mortgage;
Defendant. For damages arising from:
x ------------------------------------ x 1. Fault or negligence;
DECISION BASED ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT 2. Quasi-contract; or
Plaintiff filed this case against defendant for 3. Contract;
The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an
in the amount of . arbitration award involving a money claim covered by this
Defendant denied plaintiff’s claim on the ground of Rule
pursuant to Section 417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise
and set up a counterclaim for . known as
The parties, however, reached an amicable settlement and The Local Government Code of 1991].
submitted to Plaintiff alleges that (state material allegations and prayer in
the court a compromise agreement, the terms and conditions the Statement
of which are as of Claim).
 Defendant alleges that (state reasons for denial of the claim heard by the Presiding Judge
and other who conducted the JDR)
material allegations in the Response including counterclaims, Copy furnished:
if any). All parties
On (date), both parties appeared during the hearing Office of the Clerk of Court of
conducted by (state
name of Judge who conducted the JDR. State whether parties
appeared RATIONALE
personally or through a specially authorized representative). of the
Considering the failure of the parties to arrive at any Proposed Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
settlement of the A. Introduction
dispute, this court proceeded with the hearing of the case The most significant recurring theme of every program for
which was terminated judicial reform of the Supreme Court is the pressing need for a
on . more
The issue to be resolved by this court is whether accessible, much swifter and less expensive delivery of justice.
Undeniably, the slow grind of the wheels of justice is the
. result of
Plaintiff’s evidence consists of: (state documents of plaintiff, a variety of factors, foremost of which is the perennial
affidavits congestion
submitted, if any, and statements made by plaintiff and of court dockets which has transformed court litigation into a
witnesses under oath protracted battle, that invariably exhausts the time, effort and
during the hearing). resources of party-litigants, especially the poor. Many
Defendant’s evidence consists of: (state documents of strategies
defendant, have been devised to unclog heavy court dockets, and one
affidavits submitted, if any, and statements made by such
defendant and witnesses approach is the use of mandatory Pre-trial and Alternative
under oath during the hearing). Dispute
This court finds that the claim of plaintiff (or defendant in a Resolution mechanisms such as mediation, arbitration and
counterclaim) conciliation. Another scheme that has been widely used in
is (state whether meritorious or devoid of merit) under many
Article/Section (state foreign legal systems but which has yet to be tried in the
the applicable provisions of law) or pursuant to established Philippines
jurisprudence (cite is the small claims case processing method used by small
applicable jurisprudence). In this case, this court found that claims
(state first the courts, often referred to as the “People’s Court,” as it comes
factual findings established by the evidence and then the legal most
conclusions). directly into contact with the citizenry of a jurisdiction.
Wherefore, the (claim/counterclaim) is (granted/denied). This Small claims courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that hear
court civil cases between private litigants. Courts authorized to try
orders to pay to small
the claims may also have other judicial functions, and the name
amount of (state the monetary award or damages) with by
interest of (if applicable which such a court is known varies by jurisdiction: it may be
under Civil Code and/or settled jurisprudence) until fully paid. known
SO ORDERED. by such names as county court or magistrate’s court. Small
(Date of decision.) claims
(Signature) courts can be found in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New
Presiding Judge Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, the United
(or Pairing Judge in the absence Kingdom
of written agreement of the and the United States.
parties that the case shall be 29

B. The History and the Reforms of Small Claims Court
1. In the United States1
For almost a century now, small claims courts have provided
a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the United
States.
Originating around 1912 or 1913, these courts were
established
primarily as a means for small businesses to collect money
from
borrowers through a process that was faster, less formal, and
less
expensive than traditional civil litigation.
Following the lead of the establishment of the initial small
claims court in Kansas, USA in 1912 or 1913, every state in the
United States has created some form of a small claims court
system.
Although the financial claims limits, methods of procedure,
and
overall structure vary from state to state, the concept is
essentially
the same, i.e., that relatively minor disputes, involving dollar
amounts
that are insufficient to warrant processing the case through
the
normal court procedure, justify expeditious and simplified
handling.
The consumer justice reform movements of the 1960s and
1970s brought renewed research and interest in the small
claims
courts. This movement emphasized the need for reform of
small
claims courts to facilitate the adjudication of consumer
grievances.
Although “consumer justice reformers” were concerned that
businesses and corporations were more likely to use attorneys
in
small claims courts thereby placing inexperienced individual
defendants at a disadvantage, studies showed that
defendants with
an attorney were more likely to win against plaintiffs than
unrepresented defendants, whereas plaintiffs without
attorneys did
just as well as represented plaintiffs against unrepresented
defendants.
The result was an appraisal of the need to bar attorneys and
collection agencies from the small claims courts.
Small claims courts in the United States are often considered
courts of equity and are not necessarily bound by the letter of
the
law. These courts have flexibility to use more holistic
approaches
to problem solving and dispute resolution than what is typical.
Most judges act according to what makes sense to them, even
if this
means setting aside legal formalities. Moreover, traditional
rules of evidence and court processes do not apply. The rules of
small
claims courts emphasize conciliation and pragmatism over
winning, and rules of evidence and civil procedure have been
simplified to allow maximum access to the courts by individuals
unable to afford an attorney.
2. Small Claims Courts in Canada2
All provinces in Canada have procedures for small claims. In
general, there are two different models. In most provinces, as in
British Columbia, Alberta, and new Brunswick, small claims courts
operate independently of the superior courts. In other jurisdictions,
the small claims courts are either branches or divisions of the
superior courts
The small claims courts are meant to be an easier and less
expensive way to resolve disputes than in the superior courts.
Small
Claims Court procedure is regulated both by provincial
legislation and rules in most provinces. It is simplified and less
costly with no strict pleading requirements and formal discovery
process.
3. Small Claims Courts in England and Wales3
From early times, England had a tradition of local court where
ordinary men could pursue justice in the form of civil claims
without the aid of lawyers. Some were set up by local statutes,
others by custom. These local courts could not keep pace with the
changes in society brought about by the Industrial Revolution. By
the 1830s, the decade of great liberal reform, there was a great
public awakening to the urgent need for constitutional reform in
the administration of justice. The result was the County Courts Act
ofn 1846, described in its preamble as an “Act For The More Easy
Recovery of Small Debts and Demands in England.” It was initially a
poor man’s court. Andrew Amos, the first judge at Marylebone
County, described regular litigants as being “a great
proportion of the poorer classes, gaining their livelihoods by
bricklaying, gardening or other out of door occupations and who
subsist upon credit in the winter months, and complaints against
whom are usually issued in the summer months.” The county
court’s jurisdiction for claims brought in contract and tort gradually
increased from £50 in 1888 to £5,000 in 1984.
The purpose and structure of the county court system has in
many ways remained the same since 1846. The aim is still to make
civil justice available locally – there are now 223 county courts in
England and Wales. They have continued to be responsive to the
needs of smaller cases which, although small in terms of their
financial value, are important to the litigants involved. However,
recent decades have seen two major changes in relation to small
claims – first, the introduction of a dedicated small claims
procedure
in 1973 and secondly, the introduction of the Civil Procedure
Rules reforms of 1998 with emphasis on proportionality.
Since January 1996, when the small claims limit in England
and Wales was trebled overnight to £3,000, district judges have
been expected to play the role of “interventionist” and assist
litigants in presenting their own cases personally at small claims
hearings.
Like adjudicators in other parts of the world, district judges in
these countries have been encouraged to intervene to an
increasing extent at small claims hearings. Such interventionism is,
indeed, vital and although there may be wide variations between
jurisdictions in the methods that are adopted to deal with small
claims, the idea of the adjudicator freely entering the arena of the
dispute to assist unrepresented litigants is fundamental in almost
all matters about small claims.

4. Small Claims Tribunals in Singapore5

The Small Claims Tribunals in Singapore have been in
operation since 1 February 1985. The Tribunals have fulfilled an
integral role in providing the community with accessible justice for
civil claims involving small amounts. Various features and programs
have been put in place to enhance access to justice for the
community, by removing barriers such as cost, delay, distance, time
and inconvenience. The Tribunals, constituted as part of the
Subordinate
Courts of Singapore, were established for the primary purpose
of providing a quick and inexpensive avenue for the resolution of
small claims arising from disputes between consumers and
suppliers. There was a need for a less expensive and less formal
forum to deal with such small claims. Hence, in 1985, the Small
Claims Tribunals Act was passed, which authorized the setting up of
one or more Tribunals to help consumers who have claims of up to
$2,000 relating to disputes arising from contracts for the sale of
goods or the provision of services.