Civpro 6...

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAW ON CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE PHILIPPINES
The origin of our law on procedure is American. Forget the law on procedure during the Spanish regime.
But the first known ancestor of the law on Civil Procedure was the old Act 190, otherwise known as the
Code of Civil Procedure, which was enacted on August 7, 1901 by the United States and Philippine
Commission.
And that was the law until 1940 because on July 01,1940 the SC enacted the Rules of Court which we
now call the Old Rules of Court. That continued for another 24 years until January 01, 1964 when the SC
enacted the Revised Rules of Court repealing the Old Rules of Court. And that continued for another 33
years until July 01,1997 where the SC enacted and which took effect on that day (July 01, 1997) the New
Rules on Civil Procedure.
SUMMARY:
1.) First Law – August 07, 1901 – Act 190 – Code of Civil Procedure (40 years)
2.) Second Law – July 01, 1940 – Old Rules of Court (24 years)
3.) Third Law – January 01, 1964 – Revised Rules of Court (33 years)
4.) Fourth Law – July 01, 1997 – New Rules of Civil Procedure.
SOURCES OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Well of course the sources are almost the same as the prior law. The old Rules of Court is also a source.
Many provisions were taken from the 1964 Rules, substantive law like the Civil Code and jurisprudence.
And of course SC circulars. Many circulars are now incorporated under the new rule. So those are the
main sources.
SOURCES
1. Previous Rules of Court;
2. Jurisprudence;
3. New Civil Code;
4. SC Circulars
RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Rules of Court (1940, 1964, 1997) have all been enacted by the SC. It is law, not enacted by Congress
but enacted by the SC.
Q: What is the authority of the SC to enact a law when actually the role of the judiciary is only to
interpret the law? Is this not a violation of the separation of powers?
A: The authority of the SC in enacting the prior rules and the present rules is what you call its rule-
making power which provision was found in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Based on the
present law, the rule-making power of the SC is expressed in Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph [5] which
is substantially the same as the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions which states that: the SC "shall promulgate
the rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts.”
LIMITATIONS TO THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SC
The Constitution has also placed limitations on these powers. As currently worded, one limitation
provided for by the Article is “the rules of procedure to be enacted by the SC "shall provide for a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases.” The second one is: “the
rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade.” And the third is: “the rules shall not diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights.”
LIMITATIONS
1. The Rules of Court shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases;
2. The Rules of Court shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade; and
3. The Rules of Court shall not diminish, modify or increase substantive rights.
Substantive rights are created by substantive law so the Rules of Procedure should not increase,
diminish or modify them. In effect, the Rules of Court should not amend the substantive law. It can only
interpret substantive law but should not change it completely. Those are the limitations. With that we
are now ready to tackle the 1997 rules on civil procedure.
JURISDICTION IN GENERAL
The word JURISDICTION is derived from 2 Latin words: 1.) JURIS – law; 2.) DICO – to speak, or to say. So,
in effect, when you say jurisdiction, literally translated, it means, “I speak by the law.” It means that you
are saying “I speak with authority” because when you invoke the law, then your act is authorized.
So when you say, “I speak by the law” you mean I will do it in the name of the law. It connotes authority
or power.
So jurisdiction implies authority or power to act.
But what act or acts is/are authorized?
If we relate jurisdiction to courts, it means authority or the power to hear, try and decide a case. So
jurisdiction means the power or authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case. In its complete
aspect, jurisdiction includes not only the powers to hear and decide a case, but also the power to
enforce the judgment (14 Am. Jur. 363-364) as the judgment or decree is the end for which jurisdiction
is exercised, and it is only through the judgment and its execution that the power of the court is made
efficacious and its jurisdiction complete (21 CJS, Courts, S 9). The power to control the execution of its
decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. It cannot be the subject of substantial subtraction and
the most important part of the litigation is the process of execution of decisions (Echegaray vs. Sec. of
Justice, 301 SCRA 96).

Civpro 6...

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civpro 6...

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAW ON CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE PHILIPPINES

SOURCES OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

1. Previous Rules of Court;

3. New Civil Code;

RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

LIMITATIONS TO THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SC

So jurisdiction implies authority or power to act.

But what act or acts is/are authorized?

You might also like