Differentiate Rem from Sub

Substantive law creates, defines, and regulates rights andduties concerning life, liberty or property (Primicias v. Ocampo, 93Phil. 446, 452) the violation of which gives rise to a cause of action(Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640, 650).Remedial law prescribes the methods of enforcing the rightsand obligations created by substantive law (Bustos v. Lucero, 81Phil. 640, 653-654) by providing a procedural system for obtainingredress for the invasion of rights and violations of duties and bylaying out rules as to how suits are filed, tried and decided upon bythe courts.

2. What is the rule making power of the Supreme Court? Its limitations?

Rule-Making Power of the Supreme CourtSection 5 (5), Art. VIII of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the 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.Limitations of the Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court(1) The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases(2) 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).(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)3. Concept of Judicial Power Sec. 1, par. 2, Art. VIII of the Philippine Constitution defines judicial power as "the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."According to retired Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz in his bookPhilippine Political Law, this provision of the 1987 Constitution expanded the definition of judicial power by including not only the traditional exercise of judicial power - which is the settlement of conflicting legal rights - but also giving the judiciary the power to review the exercise of discretion by the political branches of government. Justice Cruz contends that the Supreme Court can now rule even on the wisdom of the president and congress's decision (political questions) if they are guilty of grave abuse of discretion.However, father bernas, was careful to point out in his bookThe 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Reviewer-Primerthat the expanded definition of judicial power (also known as expandedcertiorarijurisdiction) did not do away with the political question doctrine (the rule that courts cannot rule on the exercise of discretion by the political branches under the principle of separation of powers), but to prevent the judiciary from shying away in its duty to review acts of the executive and legislature at the mere invocation of the political question doctrine even when there is clear abuse in the exercise of power by these branches.At any rate, inFrancisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, in denying the plea for the Court not to review the impeachment proceeding brought before the House of Representatives against former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., has ruled that it is not only a power but a duty on the courts to rule on actions of the other branches of government whenever there has been a grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of their powers.

4. What is a court? DistinguishAcourtis atribunal, often asgovernmentalinstitution, with theauthoritytoadjudicatelegal disputesbetweenpartiesand carry out theadministration of justiceincivil,criminal, andadministrativematters in accordance with therule of law.[1]In bothcommon lawandcivil lawlegal systems, courts are the central means fordispute resolution, and it is generally understood that all persons have an ability to bring their claims before a court. Similarly, therights of those accusedof a crime include the right to present adefensebefore a court.Ajudgepresidesovercourtproceedings, either alone or as a part of apanelof judges. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across differentjurisdictions. The judge is supposed to conduct the trialimpartiallyand in anopen court. The judge hears all thewitnessesand any otherevidencepresented by the barristers of the case, assesses the credibility andargumentsof the parties, and then issues a ruling on the matter at hand based on his or her interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgment.Review Courts Supreme Court Court of Appeals

Trial Courts Regional Trial Court Provincial Regional Trial Court Metro Manila Regional Trial Court Metropolitan Trial Court Municipal Trial Court Municipal Circuit Trial Court

Special Courts Court of Tax Appeals Sandiganbayan5. Exceptions to the coverage of ROC: look at Section 46. Can we give retroactive effect to procedural///p. 3 of riano7. Study..8 Define:Liberal Construction..- LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLE:The cases should be determined on the merits in order to give the parties full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on technicalities or procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be served better. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid application of rules, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided. In fact, Section 6 of Rule 1 states thatthe Rules shall beliberally construed in order to promote their objective of ensuring the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding(DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FAMILY FOODS MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. G.R. No. 180458, July 30, 2009, Third Division, Nachura, J.). Corollary to this, it is settled thatliberal construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where there may be some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading,provided that the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the rules. After all, rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; they are used only to help secure substantial justice(MEDISERV, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 161368, April 5, 2010, First Division, Villarama, Jr., J.) Thus, inRepublic vs. Jennifer Cagandahan,G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008, 2nd Division, the Supreme Court agreed that there is substantial compliance with Rule 108 (which requires the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected bythePetition shall be made parties to the proceedings) when respondent furnished a copy of the petition to the local civil registrar. The High Court invoked Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court which states that courts shallconstrue the Rules liberallyto promote their objectives of securing to the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of the matters brought before it.About these ads