Remedial Law Review I

(SY 2018-2019)
Assignment 1

Dianne Pari-an Medianero LLB 4-B

A. Be able to distinguish between substantive law and procedural
law by the following:
1. Define and provide citation or reference:
Substantive Law is that part of the law which creates rights
concerning life, liberty or property, or the powers of instrumentalities for
the administration of public affairs. (Primicias vs. Ocampo, 81 Phil 650) It
creates, defines, and regulates rights. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p.
1429)
Procedural Law is that part of the law which prescribes the method
of enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for their invasion. (Black’s
Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 1429)
2. Submit case digests of the following cases
2.1. Primicias vs Ocampo, G.R. No. L-6120, June 30, 1953.
Facts:
This is a petition for prohibition against Respondent Judge from
proceeding with the trial of two criminal cases pending against petitioner
without the assistance of assessors pursuant to Section 49 of RA 409.
Primicias was charged before CFI Manila with two statutory
offenses. On April 1952, before trial, Petitioner sought to file a motion praying
assessors be appointed to assist the court pursuant to the Section 49 of RA 409
or the Revised Charter of City of Manila. The court, however, denied the motion.
It held that with the promulgation of the Rules of Court by the Supreme Court,
which became effective on July 1, 1940, all rules concerning pleading, practice
and procedure in all courts of the Philippines previously existing were not only
superseded but expressly repealed, hence, the Supreme Court, having been
vested with the rule-making power, expressly omitted the portions of the Code
of Civil Procedure regarding assessors in said Rules of Court. Hence, this
petition.
Issue:

1. Whether or not the right of the petitioner to trial with the aid of
assessors is an absolute substantive right.
2. Whether or not said right cannot be impaired by the rule-making
power of the Supreme Court.
3. Whether or not said right could not be repealed by the Rules of Court.
Ruling:
Rules of procedure should be distinguished from substantive law. A
substantive law creates, defines or regulates rights concerning life, liberty or
property, or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the administration
of public affairs, whereas rules of procedure are provisions prescribing the
method by which substantive rights may be enforced in courts of justice.
The trial with the aid of assessors as granted by section 154 of the Code
of Civil Procedure and section 2477 of the old Charter of Manila are parts of
substantive law and as such are not embraced by the rule-making power of the
Supreme Court. This is so because in said section 154 this matter is referred to
as a right given by law to a party litigant.
More so, it was there said that these provisions "necessarily lead to the
conclusion that the intervention of the assessors is not an empty formality
which may be disregarded without violating either the letter or the spirit of the
law. It is another security given by the law to the litigants, and as such, it is a
substantial right of which they cannot be deprived without vitiating all the
proceedings. Were we to agree that for one reason or another the trial by
assessors may be done away with, the same line of reasoning would force us to
admit that the parties litigant may be deprived of their right to be represented
by counsel, to appear and be present at the hearings, and so on, to the extent of
omitting the trial in a civil case, and thus set at naught the essential rights
granted by the law to the parties, with consequent nullity of the proceedings.
Hence, the application that the respondents draw from the failure to
incorporate these provisions in the present Rules of Court to the effect that the
intention was to eliminate them or repeal them all together cannot, therefore,
stand in the light of the observations and authorities we have above adverted to.
In view of the foregoing, it is held that the provision on assessors
embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure, which clearly partakes the nature of
substantive right is still in force and that the same may still be invoked in the
light of the provisions of section 49 of the Republic Act No. 409.
 2.2. Baguio Market Vendors MultI-Purpose Cooperative vs.
Cabato – Cortes, G.R. No. 165922, February 26, 2010 (613 SCRA 733)

Facts:
Petitioner is a credit cooperative organized under Republic Act No.
6938 (RA 6938), or the Cooperative Code of the Philippines. Under said
law, cooperatives are exempt from the payment of all court and sheriff's
fees payable to the Philippine Government for and in connection with all
actions brought under this Code, or where such action is brought by the
Cooperative Development Authority to enforce the payment of
obligations contracted in favor of the cooperative.

Petitioner, as mortgagee, filed with the Clerk of Court of the

Regional Trial Court of Baguio City (trial court) a petition to
extrajudicially foreclose a mortgage under Act 3135, and in the process,
claims for exemption of legal feed. under RA 6938. RTC, however, denied
the exemption citing Rule 141 of the Rules of Court on legal fees. Hence,
this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner’s claim for exemption for legal fees
under RA 6938.

Ruling:
It is held that Article 62(6) of RA 6938 does not apply to petitioners
foreclosure proceeding since fees imposable do not pertain to action
brought under RA 6938 nor one initiated by CDA in favour of the
cooperative.
GSIS En Banc Ruling was reiterated and emphasized to shed light in
this issue of exemption. It is worthy to note that the 1987 Constitution
had already textually altered the power-sharing scheme under previous
charters by deleting Section 5(5) of Article 8 which refers to the Congress
subsidiary and corrective powers. Hence, the rule-making power of the
Supreme Court is no longer shared with the Congress, more so with the
Executive.
Verily, the payment of legal fees is a vital component of the rules
promulgated by this Court concerning pleading, practice and procedure;
it cannot be validly annulled, changed or modified by Congress. As one of
the safeguards of this Courts institutional independence, the power to
promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now the Courts
exclusive domain.
 2.3. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 143275.
March 20, 2003 (399 SCRA 376)

Facts:

Respondent spouses Arlene and Bernardo de Leon filed a petition to fix

the just compensation of a parcel of land before the Regional Trial Court
of Tarlac acting as Special Agrarian Court. Thereafter, DAR and LBP both
filed separate appeals using different modes. DAR filed a petition for
review based on Section 60 of RA 6657 and LBP filed an ordinary appeal
based on Section 61 of the same law. Of the two appeals, only the petition
for review has been given due course. Hence, LBP filed a motion for
reconsideration reiterating that the Petition for Review pursuant to
Section 60 of RA 6657 is unconstitutional inasmuch as it encroaches on
the exclusive rule-making power of the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not Section 60 of RA 6657 is unconstitutional as it infringes
on the exclusive rule-making power of the Supreme Court.
Ruling:
It is held, in declaring the petition for review as the proper mode of
appeal from judgments of Special Agrarian Courts, is a rule of procedure which
affects substantive rights.
Considering that there is an absence of jurisprudence interpreting
Sections 60 and 61 of RA 6657 regarding the proper way to appeal decisions of
Special Agrarian Courts as well as the conflicting decisions of the Court of
Appeals thereon, LBP cannot be blamed for availing of the wrong mode. Based
on its own interpretation and reliance on the Buenaventura ruling, LBP acted on
the mistaken belief that an ordinary appeal is the appropriate manner to
question decisions of Special Agrarian Courts. Hence, the motion is partially
granted.
However, in accordance with SC’s constitutional power to review rules of
procedure of special courts, the Decision in the instant case actually lays down a
rule of procedure, specifically, a rule on the proper mode of appeal from
decisions of Special Agrarian Courts. Under Section 5 (5), Article VIII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, rules of procedure shall not diminish, increase or
modify substantive rights. More so, it is now ruled that petition for review is the
correct mode of appeal from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts which shall
apply only to cases appealed after the finality of this Resolution.
B. Identify the relationship between Procedural Law and Substantive Law by
submitting a case digest of
1. Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc. G.R. No. 188051,
November 22, 2010
Facts:
Goodland executed Third Party Real Estate Mortgage on the subject
property in favour of AUB to secure P 202 million credit accommodation
extended by the latter to the Radio Marine Network, Inc. Radiomarine defaulted
payment. Hence, AUB instituted an extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings against
the Real Estate Mortgager. AUB was declared the highest bidder. Certificate of
sale was then issues and registered in the registry of property of Makati City.
After the expiration of period, AUB executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of
Ownership. Thereafter, AUB filed an ex parte application or petition for the
issuance of Writ of Possession. Goodland Company Inc, after knowing the said
petition, opposed the same, through its counsel Atty. Bautista. RTC denied such
opposition. Goodland sought recourse by filing a notice of appeal through
certain Atty. Mondragon. RTC, however, issued an order denying due course to
the Notice of Appeal for failure of Atty. Mondragon to effect a valid
substitution, thereby, considering it as a mere scrap of paper.

Issue:
Whether or not there is a procedural infirmity or invalid substitution
which attended the Goodland Company Inc.’ appeal

Ruling:
Under Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court, for a substitution of
attorney to be effectual, the following essential requisites must concur:
(1) there must be a written application for substitution;
(2) it must be filed with the written consent of the client;
(3) it must be with the written consent of the attorney substituted; and (4) in
case the consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot be obtained, there
must at least be proof of notice that the motion for substitution was served on
him in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Court.

Rules of procedure are in place to ensure the orderly, just, and speedy
dispensation of cases; to this end, inflexibility or liberality must be weighed. The
relaxation or suspension of procedural rules or the exemption of a case from
their operation is warranted only by compelling reasons or when the purpose of
justice requires it, for instance, to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
procedure prescribed.
Further, a bare invocation of the interest of substantial justice will not
suffice to override a stringent implementation of the rules. The fact that
Goodland Company Inc. stands to lose a valuable property is inadequate to
dispense with the exacting imposition of a rather basic rule.
In light of the foregoing, the court is bound to deny a liberal application
of the rules on substitution of counsel and resolve definitively that Goodland’s
notice of appeal merits a denial, for the failure of Atty. Mondragon to effect a
valid substitution of the counsel on record. Substantial justice would be better
served if the notice of appeal is disallowed.Verily, the petition is granted.