CIVIL PROCEDURE

protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,

and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules
shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speed
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

Rules 1 71

I.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Limitations of the Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court

Concept of Remedial Law

(1) The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure

for the speedy disposition of cases

Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the method of

enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion

(2)

Substantive Law as Distinguished from Remedial Law

They shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade

(3)
They shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights (Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII, Constitution).

Substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights and duties

regarding life, liberty or property which when violated gives rise to a
cause of action (Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640).

(4) The power to admit attorneys to the Bar is not an arbitrary and
despotic one, to be exercised at the pleasure of the court, or from
passion, prejudice or personal hostility, but is the duty of the court to
exercise and regulate it by a sound and judicial discretion. (Andres vs.
Cabrera, 127 SCRA 802)

Remedial law prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and

obligations created by substantive law by providing a procedural
system for obtaining redress for the invasion of rights and violations of
duties and by prescribing rules as to how suits are filed, tried and
decided by the courts.

Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural

rules

As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what

acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as
distinguished from remedial law which provides or regulates the steps
by which one who commits a crime is to be punished.

(1) When compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of

justice requires it. What constitutes and good and sufficient cause that
would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon courts. (CIR
v. Migrant Pagbilao Corp., GR 159593, Oct. 12, 2006). Reasons that
would warrant the suspension of the Rules: (a) the existence of special
or compelling circumstances (b) merits of the case (c) cause not

Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court

Section 5 (5), Art. VIII of the Constitution provides that the Supreme
Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the
1

entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by

the suspension of rules (d) a lack of ay showing that the review sought
is merely frivolous and dilatory (e) the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby (Sarmiento v. Zaratan, GR 167471, Feb. 5, 2007)

(1)
It is an organ of government belonging to the judicial
department the function of which is the application of the laws to the
controversies brought before it as well as the public administration of
justice.

(2) To relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure

to comply with the prescribed procedure and the mere invocation of
substantial justice is not a magical incantation that will automatically
compel the Court to suspend procedural rules. (Cu-Unjieng v. CA, 479
SCRA 594)

(2) It is a governmental body officially assembled under authority of

law at the appropriate time and place for the administration of justice
through which the State enforces its sovereign rights and powers (21
CJS 16).
(3)
It is a board or tribunal which decides a litigation or
contest (Hidalgo v. Manglapus, 64 OG 3189).

(3)
Where substantial and important issues await resolution.
(Pagbilao, supra)
(4) When transcendental matters of life, liberty or state security are
involved.(Mindanao Savings Loan Asso. V. Vicenta Vda. De Flores,
469 SCRA 416).

Court distinguished from Judge

(1) A court is a tribunal officially assembled under authority of law;
a judge is simply an officer of such tribunal;

(5) The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate

rules of practice and procedure necessarily carries with it the power to
overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the
amendment of the Rules of Court (Pinga vs. Heirs of Santiago, GR
170354, June 30, 2006).

(2) A court is an organ of the government with a personality separate

and distinct from the person or judge who sits on it;
(3) A court is a being in imagination comparable to a corporation,
whereas a judge is a physical person ;

Nature of Philippine Courts

(4) A court may be considered an office; a judge is a public officer;

and

Philippine courts are both courts of law and equity. Hence, both legal
and equitable jurisdiction is dispensed with in the same tribunal. (US v.
Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321)

(5)
The circumstances of the court are not affected by the
circumstances that would affect the judge.

What is a Court

Classification of Philippine Courts

2

(1)
Regular courts engaged in the administration of justice are
organized into four (4) levels:

Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over all criminal and civil cases

involving graft and corrupt practices act, and such other offenses
committed by public officers and employees including those in
GOCCs in relation to their office. It also has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of RTCs
whether in the exercise of their own original or appellate jurisdiction
over criminal and civil cases committed by public officers or
employees including those in GOCCs in relation to their office.

(a) First Level (MTCs, MeTCs, MCTCs) which try and decide (1)
criminal actions involving violations of city or municipal ordinances
committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction and offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective
of the amount of fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or
other penalties, and (2) civil actions including ejectment, recovery of
personal property with a value of not more than P300,000 outside MM
or does not exceed P400,000 in MM;

(d)

(b)
Second Level (RTCs, Family Courts) courts of general
jurisdiction; among the civil actions assigned to them by law are those
in which the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation,
or involving title to or possession of real property where the assessed
value of the property exceeds P20,000 outside MM or exceeds
P50,000 in MM, except actions for ejectment (forcible entry and
unlawful detainer), or where the demand exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and
cost, or the value of the personal property or controversy exceeds
P300,000 outside MM or exceeds P400,000 in MM. RTCs also
exercise appellate jurisdiction, to review cases appealed from courts of
the first level;

Fourth Level (Supreme Court)

Courts of Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

(1)
A court is one with original jurisdiction when actions or
proceedings are originally filed with it. A court is one with appellate
jurisdiction when it has the power of review over the decisions or
orders of a lower court
(2) MeTCs, MCTCs and MTCs are courts of original jurisdiction
without appellate jurisdiction. RTC is likewise a court of original
jurisdiction with respect to cases originally filed with it; and appellate
court with respect to cases decided by MTCs within its territorial
jurisdiction. (Sec. 22, BP 129)

(c)
Third Level (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan) CA is an
appellate court, reviewing cases appealed to it from the RTC, on
questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. Appeals to it
decided by the RTC in the exercise of original jurisdiction are a matter
of right; appeals with respect to cases decided by the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction are a matter of discretion.
Occasionally, CA may act as a trial court, as in actions praying for the
annulment of final and executor judgments of RTCs on the ground of
extrinsic fraud subsequently discovered, against which no other
remedies lies.

(3) CA is primarily a court of appellate jurisdiction with competence

to review judgments of the RTCs and specified quasi-judicial agencies
(Sec. 9[3], BP 129). It is also a court of original jurisdiction with
respect to cases filed before it involving issuance of writs of certiorari,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and prohibition. CA is a
court of original and exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment
of judgments of RTCs (Sec. 9 [1],[2], BP 129).
(4) The SC is fundamentally a court of appellate jurisdiction but it
may also be a court of original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, and in cases involving
3

petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII,
Constitution). The Supreme Court en banc is not an appellate court to
which decisions or resolutions of a division of the Supreme Court may
be appealed.

Principle of Judicial Hierarchy

(1) This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with
concurrent jurisdiction, beginning from the lowest, on to the next
highest, and ultimately to the highest. This hierarchy is determinative
of the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of the proper
forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established
policy necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the Courts time
and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its
exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the
Courts docket (Sec. 9[1], BP 129; Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII, Constitution of
the Philippines).

Courts of General and Special Jurisdiction

(1)
Courts of general jurisdiction are those with competence to
decide on their own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all cases,
civil and criminal, of a particular nature. Courts of special (limited)
jurisdiction are those which have only a special jurisdiction for a
particular purpose or are clothed with special powers for the
performance of specified duties beyond which they have no authority
of any kind.

(2) A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the
redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts. The SC is a court
of last resort. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of
deciding cases in the first instances. Its jurisdiction to issue
extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely
necessary or where serious and important reasons exist.

(2) A court may also be considered general if it has the competence

to exercise jurisdiction over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions. It is in the context that the RTC is considered a court of
general jurisdiction.

(3) Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first

level courts should be filed with the RTC and those against the latter
with the CA. a direct invocation of the SCs original jurisdiction to
issue these writs should be allowed only where there are special and
important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the
petition.

Constitutional and Statutory Courts

(4)
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if
warranted by the nature and importance of the issues raised in the
interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations, or in cases of
national interest and of serious implications. Under the principle of
liberal interpretations, for example, it may take cognizance of a
petition for certiorari directly filed before it.

(1) A constitutional court is one created by a direct Constitutional

provision. Example of this court is the SC, which owes its creation
from the Constitution itself. Only the SC is a Constitutional court.
(2)
A statutory court is one created by law other than the
Constitution. All courts except the SC are statutory courts. SB was not
directly created by the Constitution but by law pursuant to a
constitutional mandate.

Doctrine of Non-interference or Doctrine of Judicial Stability

4

(1) Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with

each others orders. Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin
the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another RTC. The
principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the
judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate
jurisdiction or power of review.

How jurisdiction over plaintiff is acquired

(1) Acquired when the action is commenced by the filing of the
complaint. This presupposes payment of the docket fees

(2) This doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies.

When the law provides for an appeal from the decision of an
administrative body to the SC or CA, it means that such body is coequal with the RTC in terms of rand and stature, and logically beyond
the control of the latter.

II.

How jurisdiction over defendant is acquired

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in an
action in personam; it is not a prerequisite in an action in rem and
quasi in rem. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person is
necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case, while in a
proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court,
provided the latter has jurisdiction over the res.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction the power and authority of the court to hear, try and
decide a case.

(1) By voluntary appearance of the defendant, without service of

summons or despite a defective service of summons. The defendants
voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of
summons.

Jurisdiction over the Parties

(1) The manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the
parties depends on whether the party is the plaintiff or the defendant

(2) Instances when appearance of defendant is not tantamount to

voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court: (a) when
defendant files the necessary pleading; (b) when defendant files
motion for reconsideration of the judgment by default; (c) when
defendant files a petition to set aside the judgment of default; (d) when
the parties jointly submit a compromise agreement for approval of the
court; (e) when defendant files an answer to the contempt charge; (f)
when defendant files a petition for certiorari without questioning the
courts jurisdiction over his person.

(2) Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by his filing of the

complaint or petition. By doing so, he submits himself to the
jurisdiction of the court.
(3) Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is obtained either
by a valid service of summons upon him or by his voluntary
submission to the courts authority.
(4) The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction over the plaintiff and the
defendant applies to both ordinary and special civil actions like
mandamus or unlawful detainer cases.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter

5

(1) It is the power to deal with the general subject involved in the
action, and means not simply jurisdiction of the particular case then
occupying the attention of the court but jurisdiction of the class of
cases to which the particular case belongs. It is the power or authority
to hear and determine cases to which the proceeding is question
belongs.

Errors of judgment include errors of procedure or mistakes in the

courts findings.
(3)
Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal; errors of
jurisdiction are correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
Any judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may
be struck down at any time, even on appeal; the only exception is
when the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel.

(2) When a complaint is filed in court, the basic questions that ipso
facto are to be immediately resolved by the court on its own: (a) What
is the subject matter of their complaint filed before the court? (b) Does
the court have jurisdiction over the said subject matter of the
complaint before it? Answering these questions inevitably requires
looking into the applicable laws conferring jurisdiction.

(4) When a court, tribunal, or officer has jurisdiction over the person
and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other
questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction.
Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction
are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and
jurisprudence, errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special
civil action for certiorari.

Jurisdiction versus exercise of jurisdiction

(1) Jurisdiction if the power or authority of the court. The exercise
of this power or authority is the exercise of jurisdiction.

How jurisdiction is conferred and determined

(1) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law because it is conferred
by law. This jurisdiction which is a matter of substantive law should be
construed to refer only to jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Jurisdiction over the parties, the issues and the res are matters of
procedure. The test of jurisdiction is whether the court has the power
to enter into the inquiry and not whether the decision is right or wrong.

Error of jurisdiction vs. error of judgment

(1) An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was
issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction. It occurs when
the court exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law, or when
the court or tribunal although with jurisdiction, acts in excess of its
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
jurisdiction.

(2) It is the duty of the court to consider the question of jurisdiction

before it looks at other matters involved in the case. If the court finds
that it has jurisdiction, it is the duty of the court to exercise the
jurisdiction conferred upon it by law and to render a decision in a case
properly submitted to it. It cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction.
Failure to do so may be enforced by way of mandamus proceeding.

(2) An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the
exercise of its jurisdiction. As long as the court acts within its
jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its
discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment.
6

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

(1) When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that

the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court shall
dismiss the same. (Sec. 1, Rule 9). The court may on its own initiative
object to an erroneous jurisdiction and may ex mero motu take
cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the case and has a
clearly recognized right to determine its own jurisdiction.

(1) Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which

is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially
where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of
the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters
of fact.

(2) Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. When the court
dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
it is common reason that the court cannot remand the case to another
court with the proper jurisdiction. Its only power is to dismiss and not
to make any other order.

(2) The objective is to guide a court in determining whether it

should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an
administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of
some question arising in the proceeding before the court(Omictin vs.
CA, GR 148004, January 22, 2007).

(3) Under the omnibus motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading

like a motion to dismiss shall include all grounds then available and all
objections not so included shall be deemed waived. The defense of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is however, a defense not
barred by the failure to invoke the same in a motion to dismiss already
filed. Even if a motion to dismiss was filed and the issue of jurisdiction
was not raised therein, a party may, when he files an answer, raise the
lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because this defense is
not barred under te omnibus motion rule.

Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction / continuity of jurisdiction

(1)
In view of the principle that once a court has acquired
jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that
it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. This principle also means
that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent
happenings or events, although of a character which would have
prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court,
once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it
finally disposes of the case.

Effect of estoppel on objection to jurisdiction

(1) The active participation of a party in a case is tantamount to
recognition of that courts jurisdiction and will bar a party from
impugning the courts jurisdiction. Jurisprudence however, did not
intend this statement to lay down the general rule.(Lapanday
Agricultural & Development Corp. v. Estita, 449 SCRA 240;
Mangaiag v. Catubig-Pastoral, 474 SCRA 153). The Sibonghanoy
applies only to exceptional circumstances. The general rule remains: a
courts lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the

(2) Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the
court of jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses is the power to
amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after the judgment has
become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it
(Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96).

Objection to jurisdiction over the subject matter

7

proceedings even on appeal (Francel Realty Corp. v. Sycip, 469 SCRA

424; Concepcion v. Regalado, GR 167988, Feb. 6, 2007).

parties enter into stipulations of facts and documents or enter into

agreement simplifying the issues of the case.

(2) The doctrine of estoppels by laches in relation to objections to

jurisdiction first appeared in the landmark case of Tijam vs.
Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29, where the SC barred a belated objection to
jurisdiction that was raised only after an adverse decision was rendered
by the court against the party raising the issue of jurisdiction and after
seeking affirmative relief from the court and after participating in all
stages of the proceedings. This doctrine is based upon grounds of
public policy and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness
of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.

(5) It may also be conferred by waiver or failure to object to the

presentation of evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings. Here
the parties try with their express or implied consent issues not raised
by the pleadings. The issues tried shall be treated in all respects as if
they had been raised in the pleadings.

(3) The SC frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting ones

case for decision, and then accepting the judgment only if favorable,
but attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if it is not (BPI v. ALS Mgt. &
Devt. Corp., 427 SCRA 564).

(1) Jurisdiction over the res refers to the courts jurisdiction over the
thing or the property which is the subject of the action. Jurisdiction
over the res may be acquired by the court by placing the property of
thing under its custody (custodia legis). Example: attachment of
property. It may also be acquired by the court through statutory
authority conferring upon it the power to deal with the property or
thing within the courts territorial jurisdiction. Example: suits
involving the status of the parties or suits involving the property in the
Philippines of non-resident defendants.

Jurisdiction over the res or property in litigation

Jurisdiction over the issues

(1) It is the power of the court to try and decide issues raised in the
pleadings of the parties.

(2) Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by the seizure of the thing
under legal process whereby it is brought into actual custody of law, or
it may result from the institution of a legal proceeding wherein the
power of the court over the thing is recognized and made
effective (Banco Espaol Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291).

(2) An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an

action have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which
they are desirous of obtaining a decision. Where there is no disputed
point, there is no issue.
(3)
Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and
determined by the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings present the
issues to be tried and determine whether or not the issues are of fact or
law.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

(1)
Exclusive original jurisdiction in petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus against the CA, COMELEC, COA, CTA,
Sandiganbayan, NLRC

(4)
Jurisdiction over the issues may also be determined and
conferred by stipulation of the parties as when in the pre-trial, the
8

(2)

Concurrent original jurisdiction

(a) With Court of Appeals in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and

mandamus against the RTC, CSC, Central Board of Assessment
Appeals, Quasi-judicial agencies, and writ of kalikasan, all subject to
the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

(d)

When the judgment is based on 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 the
appellant and the appellee;

(b) With the CA and RTC in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against lower courts and bodies and in petitions for quo
warranto, and writs of habeas corpus, all subject to the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts.

(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;

(c) With CA, RTC and Sandiganbayan for petitions for writs of
amparo and habeas data

(i)
When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;

(d) Concurrent original jurisdiction with the RTC in cases affecting

ambassadors, public ministers and consuls.

(j)
When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence
of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; ad

(3) Appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review on certiorari

(appeal by certiorari under Rule 45) against CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC
on pure questions of law; and in cases involving the constitutionality
or validity of a law or treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or
regulation, legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or penalty,
jurisdiction of a lower court; and CTA in its decisions rendered en
banc.

(k)
When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly
considered, could justify a different conclusion.

Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals

(4)
Exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by the
Supreme Court:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction in actions for the annulment of

the judgments of the RTC.

(a)
When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises or conjectures;

(2)

(a) With SC to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus

against the RTC, CSC, CBAA, other quasi-judicial agencies
mentioned in Rule 43, and the NLRC, and writ of kalikasan.

(b)
When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible;
(c)

Concurrent original jurisdiction

When there is grave abuse of discretion;

9

(b) With the SC and RTC to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against lower courts and bodies and writs of quo warranto,
habeas corpus, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, and
writ of continuing mandamus on environmental cases.

(b) Inaction by CIR in cases involving disputed assessments,

refunds of IR taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto,
or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by
BIR, where the NIRC or other applicable law provides a specific
period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed an implied
denial;

(c) With SC, RTC and Sandiganbayan for petitions for writs of
amparo and habeas data
(3)

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction

(a)

by way of ordinary appeal from the RTC and the Family Courts.

(c) Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local

taxes originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their
original or appellate jurisdiction;
(d) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs (1) in cases
involving liability for customs duties, fees or other charges, seizure,
detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other
penalties in relation thereto, or (2) other matters arising under the
Customs law or other laws, part of laws or special laws administered
by BOC;

(b) by way of petition for review from the RTC rendered by the
RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
(c) by way of petition for review from the decisions, resolutions,
orders or awards of the CSC, CBAA and other bodies mentioned in
Rule 43 and of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases.

(e) Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the

exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the
assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the
provincial or city board of assessment appeals;

(d) over decisions of MTCs in cadastral or land registration cases

pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction; this is because decisions of
MTCs in these cases are appealable in the same manner as decisions of
RTCs.

(f)
Decision of the secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated
to him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner
of Customs which are adverse to the government under Sec. 2315 of
the Tariff and Customs Code;

Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (under RA 9282 and Rule

5, AM 05-11-07-CTA)
(1)

(g) Decisions of Secretary of Trade and Industry in the case of nonagricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of
Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article,
involving dumping duties and counterveiling duties under Secs. 301
and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard
measures under RA 8800, where either party may appeal the decision
to impose or not to impose said duties.

Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal

(a) Decisions of CIR in cases involving disputed assessments,

refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in
relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws
administered by BIR;

(2)
10

Exclusive original jurisdiction

(a) Over all criminal cases arising from violation of the NIRC of the
TCC and other laws, part of laws, or special laws administered by the
BIR or the BOC where the principal amount of taxes and fees,
exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is less that P1M or where
there is no specified amount claimed (the offenses or penalties shall be
tried by the regular courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be
appellate);

(b)

(c) Bribery (Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II, RPC) where one
or more of the principal accused are occupying the following positions
in the government, whether in permanent, acting or interim capacity at
the time of the commission of the offense
1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of
regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27
and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (RA 6758)

(b) In tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments

for taxes, fees, charges and penalties where the principal amount of
taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is less than
P1M tried by the proper MTC, MeTC and RTC.
(3)

2. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as G-27

and up under RA 6758

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction

(a)
In criminal offenses (1) over appeals from the judgment,
resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax cases originally decided by
them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction, and (2) over petitions
for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC in the
exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided
by the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs in their respective jurisdiction;

3. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provisions

of the Constitution
4. Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions
without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution
5. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and
higher under RA 6758

(b) In tax collection cases (1) over appeals from the judgments,
resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax collection cases originally
decided by them in their respective territorial jurisdiction; and (2) over
petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC
in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases
originally decided by the MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs in their
respective jurisdiction.

(d) Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and

employees mentioned in Sec. 4(a) of RA 7975 as amended by RA
8249 in relation to their office
(e) Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with
EO Nos. 1, 2, 14-A (Sec. 4, RA 8249)
(2)
Concurrent original jurisdiction with SC, CA and RTC for
petitions for writs of habeas data and amparo

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

(1)

Original jurisdiction in all cases involving

(a)

Violations of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

Violations of RA 1379 (Anti-Ill-Gotten Wealth Act)

Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts

11

(1)

Exclusive original jurisdiction

(a) matters incapable of pecuniary estimation, such as rescission of

contract

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

(b) title to, possession of, or interest in, real property with assessed
value exceeding P20,000 (outside Metro Manila), or exceeds P50,000
in Metro Manila

(c)
Controversies in the election or appointments of directors,
trustees, officers or managers of such corporations, partnerships or
associations

(c) probate proceedings where the gross value of the estate exceeds
P300,000 outside MM or exceeds P400,000 in MM

(d)
Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be
declared in the state of suspension of payments in cases where the
corporation, partnership of 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 of association has no sufficient assets to cover its
liabilities, but is under the management of a Rehabilitation Receiver or
Management Committee.

(d) admiralty or maritime cases where the demand or claim exceeds

P300,000 outside MM or exceeds P400,000 in MM
(e) other actions involving property valued at more than P300,000
outside MM or more than P400,000 in MM

(4)

(f)
criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan

Concurrent and original jurisdiction

(a) with the Supreme Court in actions affecting ambassadors, other

public ministers and consuls

(2) Original exclusive jurisdiction over cases not falling within the
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions

(b) with the SC and CA in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and

mandamus against lower courts and bodies in petitions for quo
warranto, habeas corpus, and writ of continuing mandamus on
environmental cases

(3) Original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide intracorporate controversies:
(a) Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any acts, 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 SEC

(c) with the SC, CA and Sandigabayan in petitions for writs of

habeas data and amparo

(b)
Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership
relations, between and among stockholders, members or associates;
between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or

(6) Special jurisdiction over JDRC, agrarian and urban land reform
cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of quasi-judicial agencies
when so designated by the SC.

(5) Appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by lower courts in their

respective territorial jurisdictions

12

Jurisdiction of Family Courts

(1)

Criminal cases

(a)

Exclusive original jurisdiction

Under RA 8369, shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over the

following cases:

1. Summary proceedings for violations of city or municipal

ordinances committed within their respective territorial
jurisdiction, including traffic laws

(1)
Petitions for guardianship, custody of children and habeas
corpus involving children
(2)

2. offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6)

years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil
liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon,
irrespective of the kind, nature, value or amount thereof;
provided however, that in offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction thereof (Sec. 2, RA 7691).

Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof

(3) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of

marriage and those relating to 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
(4)

Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment

(5) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of

EO 209 (Family Code)

Civil actions

(a)

Exclusive original jurisdiction

1. civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate,
including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases,
where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount the
demand does not exceed P200,000 outside MM or does not
exceed P400,000 in MM, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs.

(6)
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 PD 603, EO 56
(1986) and other related laws
(7)

(2)

2. Summary proceedings of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,

violation of rental law

Petitions for the constitution of the family home

(8)
In areas where there are no Family Courts, the aboveenumerated cases shall be adjudicated by the RTC (RA 8369)

3. title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein

where the assessed value of the property or interest therein
does not exceed P20,000 outside MM or does not exceed
P50,000 in MM

Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trail Courts/Municipal Trial Courts

13

(3) Special jurisdiction over petition for writ of habeas corpus and
application for bail if the RTC Judge in area is not available

(1)

Civil Cases

(a) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of

the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered.
Where attorneys fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed P20,000;

(4) Delegated jurisdiction to hear and decide cadastral and land

registration cases where there is no controversy provided the value of
the lad to be ascertained by the claimant does not exceed P100,000

(b)
All other cases, except probate proceedings where the total
amount of the plaintiffs claim does not exceed P100,000 (outside
MM) or P200,000 (in MM), exclusive of interest and costs.
Jurisdiction over small claims
(1) MTCs, MeTCs and MCTCs shall have jurisdiction over actions
for payment of money where the value of the claim does not exceed
P100,000 exclusive of interest and costs (Sec. 2, AM 08-8-7-SC, Oct.
27, 2009).

(2)

Criminal Cases

(a)

Violations of traffic law, rules and regulations;

(b)

Violation of the rental law;

(2) Actions covered are (a) purely civil in nature where the claim or
relief prayed for by the plaintiff is soley 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 (Sec. 4, AM
08-8-7-SC). These claims may be:

(c)
All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed is
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or fine not exceedint
P1,000, or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or
otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom, provided, that in
offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence,
RSP shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.

(a) For money owed under the contracts of lease, loan, services,
sale, or mortgage;
(b) For damages arising from fault or negligence, quasi-contract, or
contract; and

(3) SRP does not apply to a civil case where the plaintiffs cause of
action is pleaded in the same complaint with another cause of action
subject to the ordinary procedure; nor to a criminal case where the
offense charged is necessarily related to another criminal case subject
to the ordinary procedure.

(c)
The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an
arbitration award involving a money claim pursuant to Sec. 417 of RA
7160 (LGC).

Cases covered by the Rules on Barangay Conciliation

Cases covered by Rules on Summary Procedure (Sec. 1, RSP)

(1) The Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring
together the parties actually residing in the same municipality or city
for amicable settlement of all disputes except:
14

(a)
Where one party is the government or any subdivision or
instrumentality thereof

3. Actions coupled with provisional remedies, such as preliminary

injunction, attachment, replevin and support pendente lite

(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute
relates to the performance of his official functions

4. Where the action may be barred by statute of limitations

(j)
Labor disputes or controversies arising from employeremployee relationship

(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or

a fine exceeding P5,000

(k)
(d)

Where the dispute arises from the CARL

Offenses where there is no private offended party

(l)
Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which can be
directly filed in court.

(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different

cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon
(f)
Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of
different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units
adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon

Totality Rule
(1) 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 claims of
action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the
same or different transactions (Sec. 33[1], BP 129).

(g)
Such other classes of disputes which the President may
determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the
Secretary of Justice
(h)
Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships, or
juridical entities. The reason is that only individuals shall be parties to
barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or
respondents

III. ACTIONS

(i)
Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent
injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically:
Action (synonymous with suit) is the legal and formal demand of
ones right from another person made and insisted upon in a court of
justice (Bouviers Law Dictionary). The kinds of actions are ordinary
and special, civil and criminal, ex contractu and ex delicto, penal and
remedial, real, personal, and mixed action, action in personam, in rem,
and quasi in rem,

1. A criminal case where the accused is under police custody or

detention
2. A petition for habeas corpus by a person illegally detained or
deprived of his liberty or one acting in his behalf
15

(3) Not every action involving real property is a real action because
the realty may only be incidental to the subject matter of the suit.
Example is an action for damages to real property, while involving
realty is a personal action because although it involves real property, it
does not involve any of the issues mentioned.

Ordinary Civil Actions, Special Civil Actions, Criminal Actions

(1) Ordinary civil action is one by which one party sues another,
based on a cause of action, to enforce or protect a right, or to prevent
or redress a wrong, whereby the defendant has performed an act or
omitted to do an act in violation of the rights of the plaintiff. (Sec.
3a) The purpose is primarily compensatory.

(4)
Real actions are based on the privity of real estates; while
personal actions are based on privity of contracts or for the recovery of
sums of money.

(3) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person

for an act or omission punishable by law (Sec. 3[b], Rule 1). The
purpose is primarily punishment.

(5)
The distinction between real action and personal action is
important for the purpose of determining the venue of the action. A
real action is local, which means that its venue depends upon the
location of the property involved in the litigation. A personal action is
transitory, which means that its venue depends upon the residence of
the plaintiff or the defendant at the option of the plaintiff.

Civil Actions versus Special Proceedings

Local and Transitory Actions

(1) The purpose of an action is either to protect a right or prevent or

redress a wrong. The purpose of special proceeding is to establish a
status, a right or a particular fact.

(1) A local action is one founded on privity of estates only and there
is no privity of contracts. A real action is a local action, its venue
depends upon the location of the property involved in litigation.
Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest
therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a
portion thereof is situated (Sec. 1, Rule 4).

(2) Special civil action is also one by which one party sues another
to enforce or protect a right, or to prevent or redress a wrong.

Personal Actions and Real Actions

(2) Transitory action is one founded on privity of contracts between

the parties. A personal action is transitory, its venue depends upon the
residence of the plaintiff or the defendant at the option of the plaintiff.
A personal action may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or
any of the principal plaintiffs resides or where the defendant or any of
the principal defendants resides, or in the case of non-resident
defendant, where he may be found, at the election of the
plaintiff (Sec. 2, Rule 4).

(1) An action is real when it affects title to or possession of real

property, or an interest therein. All other actions are personal actions.
(2) An action is real when it is founded upon the privity of real
estate, which means that the realty or an interest therein is the subject
matter of the action. The issues involved in real actions are title to,
ownership, possession, partition, foreclosure of mortgage or
condemnation of real property.
16

(4) An action in personam is not necessarily a personal action. Nor

is a real action necessarily an action in rem. An in personam or an in
rem action is a classification of actions according to foundation. For
instance, an action to recover, title to or possession of real property is a
real action, but it is an action in personam, not brought against the
whole world but against the person upon whom the claim is made.

Actions in rem, in personam and quasi in rem

(1) An action in rem, one instituted and enforced against the whole
world.

(5)
The distinction is important to determine whether or not
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required and
consequently to determine the type of summons to be employed.
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court
to validly try and decide a case against said defendant where the action
is one in personam but not where the action is in rem or quasi in rem.

(2) An action in personam is one filed against a definite defendant.

It is intended to subject the interest of defendant on a property to an
obligation or lien. Jurisdiction over the person (defendant) is required.
It is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought
against the person, and is based on the jurisdiction of the person,
although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of,
specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in
accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose is to impose
through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability
directly upon the person of the defendant. No other than the defendant
is liable, not the whole world, as in an action for a sum of money or an
action for damages.

(6) SC sums up the basic rules in Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside

Rural Bank, GR 161417, February 8, 2007:
The question of whether the trial court has jurisdiction depends on the
nature of the action whether the action is in personam, in rem,
or quasi in rem. The rules on service of summons under Rule 14
likewise apply according to the nature of the action.

(3) An action quasi in rem, also brought against the whole world, is
one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such
persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. An individual is named
as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
interests therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. It
deals with status, ownership or liability or a particular property but
which are intended to operate on these questions only as between the
particular parties to the proceedings and not to ascertain or cut off the
rights or interests of all possible claimants. Examples of actions quasi
in rem are action for partition, action for accounting, attachment,
foreclosure of mortgage.

An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his

personal liability. And action in rem is an action against the thing itself
instead of against the person. An action quasi in rem is one wherein an
individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is
to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the
property.
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a
proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction over the res.
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (1) by the seizure of the
property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody
of the law; or (2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in
which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.
17

Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant not for the
purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying
the due process requirements.

(2) A cause of action is determined by the pleadings; whereas a right

of action is determined by the substantive law;
(3) A right of action may be taken away by the running of the statute
of limitations, by estoppels or other circumstances which do not at all
affect the cause of action(Marquez v. Varela, 92 Phil. 373).

IV. CAUSE OF ACTION (Rule 2)

Failure to State Cause of Action
Meaning of Cause of Action
(1) The mere existence of a cause of action is not sufficient for a
complaint to prosper. Even if in reality the plaintiff has a cause of
action against the defendant, the complaint may be dismissed if the
complaint or the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of
action. This means that the cause of action must unmistakably be
stated or alleged in the complaint or that all the elements of the cause
of action required by substantive law must clearly appear from the
mere reading of the complaint. To avoid an early dismissal of the
complaint, the simple dictum to be followed is: If you have a cause of
action, then by all means, state it! Where there is a defect or an
insufficiency in the statement of the cause of action, a complaint may
be dismissed not because of an absence or a lack of cause of action by
because the complaint states no cause of action. The dismissal will
therefore, be anchored on a failure to state a cause of action.

(1) A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party

(defendant) violates the rights of another (plaintiff).
(2) It is the delict or wrong by which the defendant violates the right
or rights of the plaintiff (Ma-ao Sugar Central v. Barrios, 76 Phil.
666).
(3)

The elements are:

(a) A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under

whatever law it arises or is created;
(b) An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or
not to violate such right; and

(2) It doesnt mean that the plaintiff has no cause of action. It only
means that the plaintiffs allegations are insufficient for the court to
know that the rights of the plaintiff were violated by the defendant.
Thus, even if indeed the plaintiff suffered injury, if the same is not set
forth in the complaint, the pleading will state no cause of action even if
in reality the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant.

(c) Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the

right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the
defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action
for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.
Right of Action versus Cause of Action

Test of the Sufficiency of a Cause of Action

(1) A cause of action refers to the delict or wrong committed by the

defendants, whereas right of action refers to the right of the plaintiff to
institute the action;

(1) The test is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court
could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of the
complaint (Misamis Occidental II Cooperative, Inc. vs. David, 468
SCRA 63; Santos v. de Leon, 470 SCRA 455).
18

(2) To be taken into account are only the material allegations in the
complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or other matter aliunde
are not considered but the court may consider in addition to the
complaint the appended annexes or documents, other pleadings of the
plaintiff, or admissions in the records (Zepeda v. China Banking Corp.,
GR 172175, Oct. 9, 2006).

pending when the second action is filed, the latter may be dismissed
based on litis pendencia, there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause. If a final judgment had been rendered
in the first action when the second action is filed, the latter may be
dismissed based on res judicata, that the cause of action is barred by
prior judgment. As to which action should be dismissed would depend
upon judicial discretion and the prevailing circumstances of the case.

(3) In determining whether or not a cause of action is sufficiently

stated in the complaint, the statements in the complaint may be
properly considered. It is error for the court to take cognizance of
external facts or to hold preliminary hearings to determine its
existence (Diaz v. Diaz, 331 SCRA 302). The sufficiency of the
statement of the COA must appear on the face of the complaint and its
existence may be determined only by the allegations of the complaint,
consideration of other facts being proscribed and any attempt to prove
extraneous circumstances not being allowed(Viewmaster Construction
Corp. v. Roxas, 335 SCRA 540).

Joinder and Misjoinder of Causes of Actions (Secs. 5 and 6, Rule

2)
(1) Joinder of causes of action is the assertion of as many causes of
action as a party may have against another in one pleading alone (Sec.
5, Rule 2). It is the process of uniting two or more demands or rights of
action in one action, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules
on joinder of parties;

Splitting a Single Cause of Action and Its Effects

(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by
special rules;

(1) It is the act of instituting two or more suits for the same cause of
action (Sec. 4, Rule 2). It is the practice of dividing one cause of action
into different parts and making each part the subject of a separate
complaint (Bachrach vs. Icaringal, 68 SCRA 287). In splitting a cause
of action, the pleader divides a single cause of action, claim or demand
into two or more parts, brings a suit for one of such parts with the
intent to reserve the rest for another separate action (Quadra vs. CA,
GR 147593, July 31, 2006). This practice is not allowed by the Rules
because it breeds multiplicity of suits, clogs the court dockets, leads to
vexatious litigation, operates as an instrument of harassment, and
generates unnecessary expenses to the parties.

(c) Where the cause of action are between the same parties but
pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed
in the RTC provided one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for
recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
jurisdiction (totality rule).
(2)
Restrictions on joinder of causes of action are: jurisdiction,
venue, and joinder of parties. The joinder shall not include special civil
actions or actions governed by special rules.

(2) The filing of the first may be pleaded in abatement of the other
or others and a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a
bar to, or a ground for dismissal of, the others (Sec. 4, Rule 2; Bacolod
City vs. San Miguel, Inc., L-2513, Oct. 30, 1969). The remedy of the
defendant is to file a motion to dismiss. Hence, if the first action is

(3) When there is a misjoinder of causes of action, the erroneously

joined cause of action can be severed or separated from the other cause
19

of action upon motion by a party or upon the courts own initiative.

Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for the dismissal of the
case.

20