Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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.
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).
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).
Neypes doctrine
If the motion is denied, the movants has a fresh period of 15 days from receipt or notice of the order
denying or dismissing the motion for reconsideration within which to file a notice to appeal. This new
period becomes significant if either a motion for reconsideration or a motion for new trial has been filed
but was denied or dismissed. This fresh period rule applies only to Rule 41governing appeals from the
RTC but also to Rule 40 governing appeals from MTC to RTC, Rule 42 on petitions for review from the RTC
to the CA, Rule 43 on appeal from quasi-judicial agencies to the CA, and Rule 45 governing appeals by
certiorari to the SC. Accordingly, this rule was adopted to standardize the appeal periods provided in the
Rules to afford fair opportunity to review the case and, in the process, minimize errors of judgment.
Obviously, the new 15 day period may be availed of only if either motion is filed; otherwise, the decision
becomes final and executory after the lapse of the original appeal period provided in Rule 41 (Neypes vs.
CA, GR 141524, Sept. 14, 2005). The Neypes ruling shall not be applied where no motion for new trial or
motion for reconsideration has been filed in which case the 15-day period shall run from notice of the
judgment.
The fresh period rule does not refer to the period within which to appeal from the order denying the
motion for new trial because the order is not appealable under Sec. 9, Rule 37. The nonappealability of
the order of denial is also confirmed by Sec. 1(a), Rule 41, which provides that no appeal may be taken
from an order denying a motion for new trial or a motion for reconsideration
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.
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.
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.
Precautionary Principle
Precautionary principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible
damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid
or diminish that threat (Sec. 4[f], Rule 1, Part 1).
The adoption of the precautionary principle as part of these Rules, specifically relating to evidence,
recognizes that exceptional cases may require its application. the inclusion of a definition of this principle
is an integral part of Part V, Rule on Evidence in environmental cases in order to ease the burden of the
part of ordinary plaintiffs to prove their cause of action. In its essence, precautionary principle calls for
the exercise of caution in the face of risk and uncertainty. While the principle can be applied in any
setting in which risk and uncertainty are found, it has evolved predominantly in and today remains most
closely associated with the environmental arena.
Applicability. When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a casual link between human
activity and environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle in resolving the case
before it. The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall be given the
benefit of the doubt (Sec. 1, Rule 20, Part V).
The precautionary principle bridges the gap in cases where scientific certainty in factual findings cannot
be achieved. By applying this principle, the court may construe a set of facts as warranting either judicial
action or inaction, with the goal of preserving and protecting the environment. This may be further
evinced from the second paragraph of Sec. 1, Rule 20, where bias is created in favor of constitutional
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. In effect, this principle shifts the burden of
evidence of harm away from those likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to change the status
quo. This principle should be treated as a principle of last resort, where application of the regular Rules
of Evidence would cause in an inequitable result for the environmental plaintiff:
a. Settings in which the risks of harm are uncertain;
b. Settings in which harm might be irreversible and what is lost is irreplaceable; and
c. Settings in which the harm that might result would be serious.
When these featuresuncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious
harmcoincide, the case for the precautionary principle is strongest. When in doubt, cases must be
resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Parenthetically, judicial
adjudication is one of the strongest for a in which the precautionary principle may find applicability.
Standards for application. In applying the precautionary principle, the following factors, among others,
may be considered:
a. threats to human life or health;
b. inequity to present or future generations; or
c. prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of the environmental rights of those
affected (Sec. 2, Rule 20).
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.
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)
A motion to dismiss is a typical example of a motion subject to omnibus motion rule, since a motion to
dismiss attacks a complaint which is a pleading. Following the omnibus motion rule, if a motion to
dismiss is filed, then the motion must invoke all objections which are available at the time of the filing of
said motion. If the objection which is available at the time is not included in the motion, that ground is
deemed waived. It can no longer be invoked as affirmative defense in the answer which the movant may
file following the denial of his motion to dismiss.
Hearsay Rule
The basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible.
Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier
of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's
lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her.
However, as significant as the hearsay rule itself are the exceptions to the rule which allow hearsay
testimony such as:
a. a statement by the opposing party in the lawsuit which is inconsistent with what he/she has said
in court (called an "admission against interest");
b. business entries made in the regular course of business, when a qualified witness can identify
the records and tell how they were kept;
c. official government records which can be shown to be properly kept;
d. a writing about an event made close to the time it occurred, which may be used during trial to
refresh a witness's memory about the event;
e. a "learned treatise" which means historical works, scientific books, published art works, maps
and charts;
f. judgments in other cases;
g. a spontaneous excited or startled utterance ("oh, God, the bus hit the little girl");
h. contemporaneous statement which explains the meaning of conduct if the conduct was
ambiguous;
i. a statement which explains a person's state of mind at the time of an event;
j. a statement which explains a person's future intentions ("I plan to.") if that person's state of
mind is in question;
k. prior testimony, such as in deposition (taken under oath outside of court), or at a hearing, if the
witness is not available (including being dead);
l. a declaration by the opposing party in the lawsuit which was contrary to his/her best interest if
the party is not available at trial (this differs from an admission against interest, which is
admissible in trial if it differs from testimony at trial);
m. a dying declaration by a person believing he/she is dying;
n. a statement made about one's mental set, feeling, pain or health, if the person is not available-
most often applied if the declarant is dead ("my back hurts horribly," and then dies);
o. a statement about one's own will when the person is not available;
p. other exceptions based on a judge's discretion that the hearsay testimony in the circumstances
must be reliable.
Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired
finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the
court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must
immediately be struck down.
Totality Rule
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.
Two-Dismissal Rule
The two-dismissal rule applies when the plaintiff has
a. twice dismissed actions,
b. based on or including the same claim,
c. in a court of competent jurisdiction.
The second notice of dismissal will bar the refilling of the action because it will operate as an
adjudication of the claim upon the merits. In other words, the claim may only be filed twice, the first
being the claim embodied in the original complaint. Since as a rule, the dismissal is without prejudice,
the same claim may be refiled. If the refiled claim or complaint is dismissed again through a second
notice of dismissal, that second notice triggers the application of the two-dismissal rule and the dismissal
is to be deemed one with prejudice because it is considered as an adjudication upon the merits.
Stare Decisis
This principle enjoins adherence to judicial precedents and requires courts to follow the rule established
in a decision of the Supreme Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in
subsequent cases by all courts in the land. It is based on the principle that once a question of law has
been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.
EXCEPTIONS: Estoppel by LACHES - NOTE: Jurisdiction under Rule 73 Sec. 1 does NOT relate to
jurisdiction per se but to venue. It is NOT an element of jurisdiction but of procedure, hence
institution in the court where the decedent is neither an inhabitant or have his estate may be
waived. (Uriarte vs. CFI)
Exceptions:
1. Where law and justice so require, and the proceeding of the association are subject to judicial
review, where there is fraud, oppression, or bad faith, or where the action complained of is
capricious, arbitrary or unjustly discriminating. (Fortunato vs. Palma, GRN 70203, Dec. 18, 1987,
156 SCRA 691)
2. If it is shown that the Church authorities have acted outside the scope of their authorities or in a
manner contrary to their organic law and rules and the Courts interference is necessary for the
protection of Civil and Property rights. (Negros District Conference, Inc. vs. CA, 108 Scra 458,
1981)
3. Where the proceedings in question are violative of the laws of society, or the law of the land, as
by depriving a person of due process of law.
4. Where there is lack of jurisdiction on the part of the tribunal conducting the proceedings, where
the organization exceeds its powers, or where the proceedings are otherwise illegal. (Lions Club
International vs. Amores, 121 SCRA 621, 1983)
2. Where the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the
action, the invocation of this defense may be done at any time. It is neither for the courts nor
the parties to violate or disregard that rule, let alone to confer that jurisdiction, this matter being
legislative in character. (La Naval vs. CA, 236 SCRA 78)
Hornbook Doctrine
An accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information.
GENERAL RULE: NO. They need not be proved, whether in a civil or criminal action.
EXCEPTION: Where such negative allegations are essential parts of the cause of action or
defense in a civil case, or are essential ingredients of the offense in a criminal case or defenses
thereto.
HOWEVER, in civil cases, even if the negative allegation is an essential part of the cause of action
or defense, such negative allegation does not have to be proved if it is only for the purpose of
denying the existence of a document which should properly be in the custody of the adverse
party.
Doctrine of Completeness
The statement as offered must not be merely part of the whole as it was expressed by the declarant; it
must be complete as far as it goes. To be complete does not mean that it should contain everything that
constitutes the res gestae of the subject of his statement, but it should express in full all that he intended
to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such fact.
EXCEPTION: Where prosecution witness was extensively cross- examined on the material points
and thereafter failed to appear and cannot be produced despite a warrant for his arrest.
A party who voluntarily offers the testimony of a witness in the case is bound by the
testimony of said witness, EXCEPT:
(1) adverse party;
(2) hostile witness;
(3) unwilling witness;
(4) witness required by law to be presented.
Res Gestae
Refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime
immediately before, during, or after its commission. These statements are a spontaneous reaction or
utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to
fabricate a false statement.
REQUISITES:
1. The occurrence of an injury;
2. The thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the defendant;
3. The occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have happened if
those who had control or management used proper care; and
4. The absence of explanation by the defendant (Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, G.R. No.
126297, Jan. 31, 2007).