Distinguish Cause of action from action
A CAUSE OF ACTION is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right or rights of the other (Maao Sugar Central vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 606; Sec. 2 of new Rule 2), causing damage to another. An ACTION is an ordinary suit in a court of Justice by which one party prosecutes another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.(Section 1 of former Rule 2). 2.
What is the concept of remedial law?
The concept of Remedial Law lies at the very core of procedural due process, which means a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial, and contemplates an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered (Albert v. University Publishing, G.R. No. L-19118, January 30, 1965). Remedial
Law is that branch of law which prescribes the method of enforcing the rights or obtaining redress for their invasion (Bustos v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-2068, October 20, 1948; First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 110571, March 10, 1994).
How shall the Rules of Court be construed?
The Rules of Court should be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (Sec. 6, Rule 1 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.) ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
However, strict observance of the rules is an imperative necessity when they are considered indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy dispatch of Judicial business. (Alvero vs. Judge de la Rosa, 76 Phil. 428)
Distinguish between substantive law and remedial law.
SUBSTANTIVE LAW is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights concerning life, liberty, or property, or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs. This is distinguished from REMEDIAL LAW which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion (Bustos v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-2068, October 20, 1948). 5.
Distinguish jurisdiction from venue?
JURISDICTION treats of the power of the Court to decide a case on the merits, while VENUE refers to the place where the suit may be filed. In criminal actions, however, venue is jurisdictional. Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue, of procedural law. Jurisdiction may be not be conferred by consent through waiver upon a court, but venue may be waived, except in criminal cases (Nocum et al. v. Tan, G.R. No. 145022, September 23, 2005; Santos III v. Northwest Airlines, G.R. No. 101538, June 23, 1992).
Give the effects of the following:
1 Splitting a single cause of action: and
2 Non-joinder of a necessary party.
1. The effect of splitting a single cause of action is found in the rule as follows: If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment on the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (Sec. 4 of Rule 2)
2. The effect of the non-joinder of a necessary party may be stated as follows: The court may order the inclusion of an omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained. The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion without justifiable cause to a waiver of the claim against such party. The court may proceed with the action but the judgment rendered shall be without prejudice to the rights of each necessary party. (Sec. 9 of Rule 3) 7.
Rolando filed a petition for declaration of the nullity of is marriage to Carmela because of the alleged psychological incapacity of the latter. After trial, the court rendered judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that Rolando failed to prove the psychological incapacity of his...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document