Reviewer in Jurisdiction (Remedial Law)

JURISDICTION REVIEWERIdea, Dennie Vieve DP.

CASE TITLE CONCEPTSJUDICIAL POWER

MEANING and JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSYBELGICA v. OCHOA

Requisites for the exercise of Judicial Power:

(a) there must be an actual case or controversy;(b) the person challenging the act must have the locus standi (legal standing);(c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity ; and,(d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution - The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such

lower courts as may be established by law. It includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights whichare legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or notthere 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."

FRANCISCO v. HREPESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL POWER:

1.)Actual case or controversy is one that involves a conflict of legal rights. The case must be ripe and not moot and academic. There must be a


justiciable controversy.

Justiciable controversy – a definite and concrete dispute touching legal relations of the parties having adverse legal interests which may be resolved by court.

Exception to the mootness rule:

- There is a grave violation of the Constitution;- There is a paramount public interest involved;- The issues raised requires formulation of controlling principles to

guide the bench, the bar and the public.- The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

2.)Locus standi or legal standing or has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.

- When suing as a CITIZEN, the interest of the petitioner assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement.

- When suing as a TAXPAYER, he is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that there is a wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional


law.- When suing as a LEGISLATOR, he is allowed to sue to question the

validity of any official action which he claims infringes his prerogatives as a legislator.

Exception to the rule:- Although the person suing has no legal standing, the case can still be

reviewed if it shows(1) Issues paramount of public interest; or,(2) Issues of transcendental importance.

3.)Case be filed at the earliest opportunity

4.)The issue of constitutionality is the very lis mota of the case. Lis mota – the cause of the suit or action.

ANGARA v. COMELEC JUDICIAL POWER.

In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof.

DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY

- When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does notin reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the


Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.

Further, the Court held that - the Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government. x x x The judiciaryin turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution.

A. Definitions and Concepts1. Judicial PowerPOLITICAL QUESTION

LANSANG VS. GARCIA ISSUE:W/N the Court may review the suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus issued by the President?

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC: The Court held Yes, revising its decision in the previous jurisprudence

Barcelon and Montenegro cases – it declared that THE JUDICIARY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE INTO THE FACTUAL BASIS OF SUCH SUSPENSION, and suchsuspension is to be annulled if no legal ground could be established. Thus, SUCH ACTION IS ALREADY CONSIDERED JUSTICIABLE TO BE DECIDED BY THECOURTS.

Sterling v. Constantin:“when there is substantial showing that the exertion of state power has overridden private rights…the subject is necessarily one of judicial


inquiry”.

VINUYA vs. EXEC.SECRETARY

ISSUE:W/N the Exec. Dept. committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing petitioner’s claim for official apology of Japan?

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

The Court held NO. The Court stressed that THE MATTER IS OF POLITICAL QUESTION AND CANNOT

BE DECIDED UPON BY THE JUDICIARY.

WHAT IS A POLITICAL QUESTION? Citing Tanada vs. Cuenco: “political questions refer to those which

under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government”.

In the case at bar, since it involves foreign relations, it is found to present a political question because “foreign relations” is a matter within the exclusive discretion of the President (executive).

MAMBA vs. LARA ISSUE:W/N the lower court erred in determining that the matter of contract enteredinto by the provincial government is in the nature of political question?



The Court held Yes. The court explained that the filing of the instant case before the RTC

seek to restrain the public respondents from implementing flotation bonds, nullifying contracts and the likes, which, obviously, THE ISSUES RAISED DO NOT REFER TO THE WISDOM BUT TO THE LEGALITY OF THE ACTS, hence, it is within the AMBIT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Besides, even if it falls within the nature of political questions, Courts may still review it as pursuant to its expanded certiorari powers.

FORTUN vs. GLORIAARROYO

ISSUE:W/N the Courts may still review the validity of Presidential Proclamation 1959 (declaring martial law re Ampatuan incident), although it was already lifted, hence, moot and academic?

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC: The Court, in this case, stressed that, the Executive and Legislative is

in tandem in exercising the power to proclaim martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus. After the President has initiated the proclamation, ONLY THE CONGRESS CAN MAINTAIN THE SAME BASED ON ITS OWN EVALUATION OF THE SITUATION. ONLY WHEN CONGRESS DEFAULTS IN ITS EXPRESS DUTY TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION THRU SUCH REVIW SHOULD THE SUPREME COURTIN ITS FINAL RAMPANT.

A. Definitions and Concepts2. Courts and Judges; Definitions

COURT OF LAW AND COURT OF EQUITY DISTINGUISHEDTING HO, JR. vs. TENG GUI This is a case which involves a parcel of land as part of an intestate

wherein the Petitioner asked the Court to ive equity considerations since there was an implied trust between him and Respondent regarding the partition, although his father is a Chinese citizen, whom, supposedly, has no


right to acquire lands in the Philippines.

ISSUE: W/N the case can be given equity considerations?

RULING: The court held NO. The contention must fail because the prohibition

against an alien from acquiring lands from public domain is absolute andnot even an implied trust can be permitted to arise considerations. Savethe exception provided in cases in hereditary succession, Respondent’s disqualification from owning lands is absolute.

Invoking the principle that a court is not only a court of law but also a court of equity, is likewise misplaced. It has been held that EQUITY, AS A RULE, WILL FOLLOW THE LAW AND WILL NOT PERMIT THAT TO BE DONE INDIRECTLY WHICH, BECAUSE OF PUBLIC POLICY, CANNOT BE DONE DIRECTLY.

MULLER vs. MULLER A case involving spouses Muller who latter on annulled their marriage and now in conflict as regards to the separation of their properties. Muller, husband, a german, invokes that he has right to reimbursement in their property in Antipolo.

ISSUE: W/N Respondent is entitled for reimbursement of the funds used in Antipolo property on the ground of equity?

RULING: The Court held No. The court emphasized that, where the purchase is made

in violation of an existing statute, and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favour of a party who is guilty of fraud.


That THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE COURT IS NOT ONLY A COURT OF LAW BUT ALSO A COURT OF EQUITY IS MISPLACED. A litigant may be denied relief by a courtof equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair, dishonest, deceitful.

In the instant case, Respondent cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought the property despite being an alien which is not allowed in the Constitution.

PHIL. CARPET MFG. v. TAGYAMON Involves a labor case where the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack ofmerit which was sustained by the NLRC on the grounds of laches. Respondents appealed to the CA, the appellate court reversed NLRC’s decision because theprinciple of laches does not apply to the case, because the prescriptive period has not yet expired.

Issue: W/N Respondents are guilty of laches?

RULING: The Court held No.

LACHES - defined as th failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do due diligence...

The court stated that it has been repeatedly held that LACHES IS A DOCTRINE OF EQUITY WHILE PRESCRIPTION IS BASED ON LAW. Our Courts basically courts of law and not courts of equity. Thus, laches cannot beinvoked to resist the enforcement of an existing legal right.

COURT OF JUSTICE and QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES DISTINGUISHED


REPUBLIC v. ASUNCION The case involves a conviction of a police office who shot the suspect, pending the clarification if such act was committed in the fulfilment of his duty.

ISSUE: W/N the Sandiganbayan is included in the term “regular court” and hascognizance on the subject criminal case?

RULING: Court held YES. Sandiganbayan is part of the “regular courts” provided in R.A. 6975. The Court relied on the deliberations on the passage of the law which

revealed that the terms “civil courts” and “regular courts” were use interchangeably and considered synonymous.

The assertion that it is not a regular court but a “special court” is untenable because special and regular courts are not opposite of one another, hence, not being a court of general jurisdiction does not mean it is not a regular court.

SPECIAL – means designed for particular purpose REGULAR – means steady or uniform in course/pratice

1.) PICHAY JR. v. ODESLA-IAD

2.) BIRAOGO v. PHIL.TRUTH COMMISSION

1.) The case involves E.O. No. 12 issued by PGMA creating the Phil. Anti-Graft Commission which was later on abolished by E.O 13 by PNoy, creating ODESLA-Investigative and Adjudicatory Division.

ISSUE: W/N IAD-ODESLA is vested with judicial power and encroaches the power of the Ombudsman?

RULING:


No. ODESLA-IAD is a fact-finding body not vested with quasi-judicial powers.

As the OSG explained, while the term “adjudicatory” appears of its appellation, it cannot try and resolve cases, ITS AUTHORITY IS LIMITED TO INVESTIGATIONS, PREPARATION REPORTS AND SUBMISSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

FACT FINDING IS NOT ADJUDICATION AND CANNOT BE LICENSED TO A JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF A COURT OF JUSTICE OR EVEN OF QUASI-JUDICIAL OFFICE.

FUNCTION OF RECEIVING EVIDENCE IS NOT A JUDICIAL FUNCTION.

In this case, IAD-ODESLA does not encroach the powers of the Ombudsman because the primary function of the OMB is to investigate and prosecute cases while ODESLA only investigates.

2.) Case involving E.O No. 1 issued by PNoyre creation of the Phil. Truth Commission to investigate the corruption of PGMA’s administration.

**SAME ISSUE AND RULING WITH PICHAY V ODESLA.1.) SIMON v. CHR

2.) CARIÑO v. CHR

1.) The case involved the demolition of squatters in the North EDSA wherein the informal settlers filed a complaint within the CHR. Petitioner, however, questioned the jurisdiction/authority of the CHR regarding the matter.

ISSUE: W/N the CHR has the authority and/or jurisdiction to handle to matter?


RULING: The Court held NO. Article 13, Sec. 18 (1) which provides for the powers and functions of

the CHR states that it is to “investigate”. However, the power to issue “cease and desist order” is not investigatory in character but an adjudicatory power which the CHR does not possess.

Not being a court of justice, the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the CDO, for it may only be issued by the CA or the Supreme Court.

2.) The case involves public school teachers who initiated a rally before the DECS who were later on dismissed from service. The teachers filed a complaint with the CHR; DECS Secretary Cariño questioned the jurisdiction/authority of the CHR regarding the matter.

**SAME ISSUE AND RULING WITH SIMON v CHR.

*JURISDICTION DISTINGUISHED FROM EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

ANTONINO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS IMPORTANT CONCEPTS LAID DOWN BY THE SC:

ISSUE: W/N Petitioner’s use of remedy of a petition for annulment of judgment a against the orders of the RTC is valid?

RULING/S: The Court held that the remedy of annulment of judgment is only

available under exceptional circumstances: when there is EXTRINSIC FRAUDand LACK OF JURISDICTION.

There is no reason to disturb the issuances of the RTC that are already


final and executory. A PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT CANNOT SERVE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE LOST REMEDY OF AN APPEAL.

Before one can avail of such relief (Petition for annulment of judgement), one must have failed to move for a: NEW TRIAL, OR APPEAL FROM, OR FILE A PETITION FOR RELIEF AGAINST AN ISSUANCE thru no fault not attributable to him.

JURISDICTION is different from the EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION:

Jurisdiction means the authority to decide a causeExercise of jurisdiction means “when there is a jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising therein is but an exercise of jurisdiction.

SPS. ABRENICA v. SPS. MANZO In this case, Petitioners filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgement with the Court of Appeals on the ground of extrinsic fraud. However, the CA dismissed the petition saying that “in the case at bar, not only has the court a quo jurisdiction over the persons and subject, what petitioner is truly complaining of is the exercise of jurisdiction, not the jurisdiction itself. That the errors in the exercise of jurisdiction are mere errors of judgement which are the proper subject of the case”.

RULING: The Rules of Procedure were formulated to achieve the ends of justice,

not to thwart them. The ruling of the CA that the remedy of annulment of judgment is no

longer available is correct since the RTC decision has become final and executory thru fault of the petitioners for filing appeals.

Court emphasized that: “But it is equally true that an appeal being a purely statutory


right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down by the Rules of Court”.

EULOGIO MANILA v. GALARDO-MANZO

RULING: Respondents alleged loss of remedies attributable to their former

counsel’s late filing of their motion and that they only hired a new counsel after the former’s death is not persuasive.

LACK OF JURISDICTION – absence of or no jurisdiction, that the court could not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does notvest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter.

In this case, the RTC is vested with appellate jurisdiction over ejectment cases decided by the lower courts, however, it has no right toadjudicate finality over ownership of property issues.

NAVIDA vs. DIZON Jurisdiction over the matter is conferred by law In this case, although defendants are from other countries, the court

has jurisdiction over them since the cause of action is regarding the chemical poisoning and not about jurisdiction per se.

That once a court is vested of jurisdiction by law, the jurisdiction cannot be dislodged by anybody other than by the legislature thru an enactment of a law.

WHAT DETERMINES THE JURISDICITON OF THE COURT IS THE NATURE OF THE ACTION PLEADED AS APPEARING FROM THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT.

Terms: Forum non conveniens – not the convenient venue Motions for Bill of Particulars – A party e allowed to prepare before

tr1ial


Litis pendencia – exist when there are two cases involving the same parties and interests – the subsequent case must be dismissed.

In this case, product liability tort is the specific tort asserted against defendant. The court held that such kind of tort is not covered by our laws.

REPUBLIC v. MANGOTARABIACO v. PCRB RULING:

When does EXTRINSIC FRAUD exists? When there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party

outside of the trial of the case where the defeated party was prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception.

Whether the trial court has jurisdiction depending on the nature of the action? Action in personam – against a person’s liability Action in rem – against the thing itself Action quasim rem – one wherein an individual is named as defendant

and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation burdening the property.

1JURISDICTION OVER RES IS ACQUIRED THRU:

Seizure of property under legal process and brought to actual custodyof the law;

Result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power ofthe court is recognized.


Note: While the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the res, its

jurisdiction is limited to a rendition of judgment on the res. It cannot extend jurisdiction beyond the res and issue a judgment

enforcing petitioners personal liability. The court should acquire jurisdiction over the person first,

VELAYO-FONG v. VELAYO Whether or not the issue involved in the appeal filed with the CA is a question of la and therefore not within the jurisdiction of CA to resolve?

The Court, in this case, laid down the three mode of appeal from the decisions of the RTC:

1.) ORDINARY APPEAL OR APPEAL BY WRIT OF ERROR (judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in its original jurisdiction);

2.) PETITION FOR REVIEW (if judgment is rendered by the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction);

3.) PETITION FOR REVIEW to the SUPREME COURT

When does a question of law arises?

When there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an

examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.


When does a question of fact arises? When the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. When the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question

posed is one of fact.

EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE – when the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines (Section 17, Rule 14, Rules of Court)

FOUR INSTANCES WHEN EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS PROPER:1. When the action affects the personal status of the plaintiffs;2. When the action relates to, or the subject of which is property,

within the Philippines in which the defendant claims a lien or interest;

3. When the relief demanded in such action consists, wholly or partly, inexcluding the defendant from any property located in the Philippines; and,

4. When the defendant’s property has been attached within the Philippines.

ESSENCE OF ADJUDICATORY POWERS

SPS FERRER v. PUHAWANCase involves an injunction suit against NAPACOR regarding Caliraya Hyrdoelectric Power Plant and the subject land where the latter is situated.

RULING: The Court said that the petition in questions are the errors of law

rather that errors of jurisdiction. That a certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by the lower

court...as long as the court acted within its jurisdiction, any alleged


errors committed in such exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgement.

THE ESSENCE OF ADJUDICATORY POWER IS TO APPLY THE LAW TO FACTS, as supported by evidence and the records.

ADHERENCE TO JURISDICTION; EXCEPTIONVDA. DE BALLESTEROS v. RURAL

BANK OF CANAMANThe Court recognizes the doctrine on adherence of jurisdiction. However, such principle is not without exception.

In well settled jurisprudence, the court held that: “this court is not unmindful nor unaware of the doctrine on the adherence of jurisdiction. HOWEVER, THE RULE IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND HAS EXCEPTIONS. ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS IS THAT WHEN THE CHANGE IN JURISDICTION IS CURATIVE IN CHARACTER”.

JURISDICTION CONTRADISTINGUISHED FROM VENUE

DOLOT V. PAJE 1.) Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction on environmental laws?2.) Whether or not the conditions for a continuing mandamus has not

been complied with?

Jurisdiction and Venue1.) The Court held yes. It is well-settled that jurisdiction, the power

and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case is conferred by law.

Under B.P. 129, jurisdiction over spcial civil action (like this case), certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is vested in the RTC.

VENUE relates only to the place of trial or geographical location in


which an action or proceeding should be brought and does not equate to jurisiction.

Even when there is an error in veue, it is not a warrant for the dismissal of the case because VENUE MAY BE WAIVED.

Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases RTC ruled that the dismissal of the case is based on the following

grounds:1.) No final court decree, order or decision yet;2.) the case was prematurely filed for failure to exhaust admin

remedies;3.) failure to attach judicial affidavits and furnish copies to

respondents

CONCEPT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS: A COMMAND OF CONTINUING COMPLIANCE WITH A FINAL JUDGMENT AS IT

PERMITS THE COURT TO RETAIN JURISDICTION AFTER JUDGMENT IN ORDER TO ENSURE SUCCSSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RELEFS. This applies only to environmental cases.

First introduced in MMDA v. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay which provides that “under Rule 8 of the Rulesof Court, the writ of continuing mandamus enjoys a distinct procedure other than that of ordinary civil actions for the enforcement/violation of environmentallaws”.

FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS... There should be sufficiency in form and substance of the petition


filed. Sufficiency in form means it should be verified and must contain

supporting evidence as well as sworn certification on non-forum shopping.

Sufficiency in substance means petition must contain substantive allegations

1. An agency neglects the performance of an act or unlawfully excludes another from enjoying a right

2. The act to be performed by the govt agency is specifically enjoined by law3. Such duty results from an office/duty in connection with enforcement of an

environmental law/rule4. There is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law.

To avail the writ, the petition should mainly involve an environmental law, rule or right. But there is no need for a final decree before the writ be issued.

ANG v. SPOUSES ANG RULING Situs (venue) for bringing real and personal civil actions is fixed

by the Rules of Court to attain greatest convenience possible to the litigants and their witnesses by affording them maximum accessibilityto the courts.

However, while the choice of venue is primarily a convenience on the part of the Petitioner, such should not be construed to unduly deprive a defendant of the rights conferred upon him by the Rules of Court.

Rules on venue are designed to insure just and orderly administrationof justice or the impartial and even-handed determination of every action and proceeding.


TAGLAY v. DARAY Case about qualified trespassing; prosecutor filed information. Then upon arraignment, pre-trial was scheduled but the Presiding Judge of MCTC dismissit saying that JUVENILES MUST BE TRIED IN A FAMILY COURT, so it was referred to the RTC.

SPOUSES MENDIOLA vs. CA Four tests to determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not1. Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and counterclaim

largely the same?2. Would res judicata bar the claim?3. Will substantially the same evidence support the claim? 4. Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim?

VENUE v. JURISDICTION Venue in civil actions was not jurisdictional and might even be

waived by the parties. Venue related only to the place of trial or geographical location in

which an action or proceeding should be brought and does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court.

In contrast, Jurisdiction refers to the power to hear and determine acause and is conferred by law and not by the parties.

NO APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN FROM:1. An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;2. An order denying a petition for relief or any similar action seeking

relief from judgment;3. An interlocutory order;4. An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;5. An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession

or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress;


6. An order of execution;7. A judgment or final order for or against one or more several parties or

in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending;

8. An order dismissing an action without prejudice.

IN ALL THE ABOVE INSTANCES WHERE THE JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE, THE AGGRIEVED PARTY MAY FILE AN APPROPRIATE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION UNDER RULE 65.

ALEJANDRO V. OMBUDSMAN FFIB ISSUE/S:1.) Whether or not the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies

has been complied with?2.) Whether or not the office of Ombudsman has jurisdiction over elective

officials and has the power to dismiss the same?

RULING:1.)

Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies:- A procedure for administrative review, appeal or reconsideration,

where the courts will not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been givenan opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum.

In the case, petitioner has fully exhausted the administrative remedy when he filed the motion for reconsideration on the decision of the Deputy Ombudsman. THERE IS NO FURTHER NEED TO REVIEW THE CASE AT ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL SINCE THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN HAS ALREADY ACTED ON IT


AND HE WAS ACTING FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.

2. THE OMBUDSMAN HAS JURISDICTION OVER ELECTIVE OFFICIALS

- As provided in R.A. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act and of the Consitution,the Ombudsman is tasked to exercise disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials, save only for impeachable officers.

-The Ombudsman has two jurisdiction – the primary and concurrent

- PRIMARY JURISDICTION – to investigate any act or omission of a publicofficer or employee who is under the jurisdiction the Sandiganbayan

- CONCURRENT JURISDICTION – any act or omission of a public officer or employee occupying a salary grade lower than 27 is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. In admin cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining authorities, the body where the complaint is filed first acquires jurisdiction.

CSC v. ALFONSO In this case, Respondent filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration of the preventive suspension order and requested a change of venue11 from the CSC-Central Office to the CSC-National Capital Region (CSC-NCR). In the motion, he argued that it is the CSC-NCR regional office that has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to Section 6 of CSC Resolution No.99-1936, but it was denied.

He again filed another MR, arguing that the CSC had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the administrative case filed against him. According to


him, it is the PUP Board of Regents that has the exclusive authority to appoint and remove PUP employees pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 829215 in relation to R.A. No. 4670.

Verily, since the complaints were filed directly with the CSC, and the CSC has opted to assume jurisdiction over the complaint, the CSC’s exercise of jurisdiction shall be to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction.

There are two kinds of preventive suspension of government employees charged with offenses punishable by removal or suspension:

(1) preventive suspension pending investigation; and

(2) preventive suspension pending appeal if the penalty imposed by the disciplining authority is suspension or dismissal and, after review, the respondent is exonerated.

Preventive suspension pending investigation is not a penalty. It is ameasure intended to enable the disciplining authority to investigate charges against respondent by preventing the latter from intimidatingor in any way influencing witnesses against him.

CSC vs. SOJOR Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission: The Constitution grants to the CSC administration over the entire civil

service. As defined, the civil service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the government, including every government-owned or controlled corporation.


It is evident that CSC has been granted by the Constitution and the Administrative Code jurisdiction over all civil service positions in thegovernment service, whether career or non-career.

In this case, Respondent, a state university president with a fixed termof office appointed by the governing board of trustees of the university, is a non-career civil service officer. He was appointed by the chairman and members of the governing board of CVPC. By clear provision of law, respondent is a non-career civil servant who is under the jurisdiction of the CSC.

Moreover, The power of the BOR to discipline officials and employees is not exclusive. CSC has concurrent jurisdiction over a president of a state university.

ALU v. RAMOLETE WHETHER THE RTC HAS JURISDICTION ON A CASE WHERE THERE IS LABOR DISPUTE?

- In this case, Petitioners, defendants in a case, invokes that:1.) The trial court did not have jurisdiction to issue the restraining order

in cases of the same nature as one at bar;2.) Peaceful picketing cannot be lawfully enjoined by any court in this

jurisdiction.

- On the other hand, Respondents, therein plaintiffs invokes the negative. What confers jurisdiction are the allegations in the complaint.

In the case at bar, plaintiffs sought the amount of PhP50,000.00 by way of damages on overt acts, which they considered illegal, and which had cause them losses. They also asserted that there existed no


employer-employee relationship between them. Hence, UPON SUCH ALLEGATION, THE CFI (trial court) HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE AND IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE RULES OF COURT TO ISSUE AN INJUCTIVE WRIT.

Also, although they alleged that there is a LABOR DISPUTE, such mere allegation does not automatically deprive the Court of its jurisdiction .

It is well-settled that when the court has jurisdiction over or a subject matter, the orders or decisions upon all questions pertainingto the cause are orders or decisions within its jurisdiction, and, however irregular or erroneous they may be, they cannot be corrected by certiorari.

DELA CRUZ v. MOIR In this case, the Court thoroughly discussed that certiorari will notlie under the law of the Philippines except in cases where the court acted without or with excess of its jurisdiction.

Certiorari, as a necessary consequence, will not lie to correct errors.

It must be remembered that Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause and it does not depend either upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of the decisions made.

As to the exercise of jurisdiction, when an error is committed, it does not deprive a court of its jurisdiction.

The court has power and authority to conduct the case as he believes law and justice require as long as he does not violate the principle


of due process of law.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION ON CRIMINAL ACTIONSSTO. TOMAS VS. SALAC Facts: Respondents assail the constitutionality of R.A. 8042 or the Migrant

Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 for it would gravely paralyze the deployment of overseas workers abroad and unjust penalization on the crime of“illegal recruitment”.


One of the issues raised is that Section 9 of the said law is unconstitutional for the provision will allow the offended parties to file criminal case in their place of residence would negate the general rule on venue of criminal cases. That the RTC ruled that VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL IN PENAL LAWS AND, ALLOWING THE FILING OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS AT THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF THE OFFENDED PARTIES VIOLATES THEIRRIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

But the Supreme Court held that there is nothing different on the VENUE established for violations of R.A. 8042 and that established in the Rules of jCriminal Procedure. That SECTION 9 OF R.A. 8042, AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE ON VENUE OF CRIMINAL ACTION, IS CONSISltTENT WITH THAT LAW’S DECLARED POLICY OF PROVIDING CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT PROTECTS AND SERVES THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE VICTIMS OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT.

On the constitutionality of the law, the SC ruled that R.A. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and deployment of OFWs.


That the court cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the laws enacted by the Legislative Department. Hence, in the absence of a clear and unmistakable case that the statute is unconstitutional, the Court must upholdits validity.

TEOFILO EVANGELISTA v. PEOPLE Facts: 1.) Petitioner was convicted of the crime of illegal possession of

firearms and ammunition, in violation of P.D. 1866, which commenced in Dubai Airport where he was not released immediately because of the firearms he possessed until when he was held in question in the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.

2.) The RTC and the CA ruled that Petitioner is guilty of the said crime, asserting that there was constructive possession. As held in the case People vs. Dela Rosa, “the kind of possession punishable under P.D.1866 is one where the accused possessed a firearm either physically or constructively with animus possidendi(intention to possess the same).

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:r

Petitioner contends that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case sincehis alleged possession transpired while he was at the Dubai Airport and it has already ceased when he was in the Philippines. The Court held that:

The place where the crime is committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. IN ORDER FOR THE COURTS TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE OFFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMMITTED OR ANY OF ITS ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS HAVE TAKEN PLACE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.


Contrary to the arguments of the Petitioner, there is no doubt thatthe crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions was committed in the Philippines. His accomplishment of the Customs Declaration Form upon his arrival at the NAIA is a very clear evidence.

Moreover, the JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OVER CRIMINAL CASES IS DETERMINED BY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION.

Note:Illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions (elements):

1. Existence of subject firearm; and, The accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the

corresponding license for it.BONIFACIO VS. RTC-MAKATI Facts:

1.) Petitioners are trustees of the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition,Inc. (PEPCI) and administrators of the website pepcoalition.com.

2.) Herein private respondent, Jessie Gimenez, filed a complaint for the crime of libel against petitioners for posting maliciously “highly derogatory statements and false accusations against YGC” which he represents.

3.) The complaint was filed before the RTC-Makati for the said website was accessed in Makati City. The RTC ruled in favor of Gimenez.

4.) The DOJ, on the other hand, reversed the decision invoking that “internet libel” is non-existent, hence, accused cannot be held liable under Art. 353 of the RPC.

5.) On their part, Petitioners now moved for a quash of the information


assail the jurisdiction of the trial court, considering the venue and jurisdiction of courts when it comes to the crime of libel, that internet libel is not punishable under the RPC.


That in the crime of libel, the jurisdiction of the court depends on the place where the subject article was printed and first published or that the offended parties resided in that place at the time of the alleged defamatory material was printed and first published. In this case, PETITIONERS MAINTAINED THE INFORMATION FAILED TO ALLEGE SUCH INFORMATION.

VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL IN CRIMINAL CASES…the prosecution (respondents) erroneously laid the venue of the case in the place where the offended party accessed the internet-published article.

VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL IN CRIMINAL CASES…THIS PRINCIPLE ACQUIRES EVEN GREATER IMPORT IN LIBEL CASES. VENUE FOR LIBEL CASES:

Where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense;

Where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published.

The SC ruled that for the court to hold that the RTC Makati has jurisidiction simply because the defamatory article as accessed therein would open the floodgates to the libel suit filed in all other locationswhere the pepcoalition website is likewise accessed or capable of being


accessed.

UNION BANK OF THE PHILS vs.PEOPLE

Facts:1.) Private Petitioner Desi Tomas, who signed the certification of

forum shopping filed by Petitioner Bank, was charged with perjury under Article 183 of the RPC.

2.) Tomas assails the charges against her, invoking that the venue was improperly laid since it is the Pasay RTC (where the certificate was submitted and used) and not the MeTC of Makati (where the certificate issworn) that has the jurisdiction over her case.

3.) The RTC-Makati ruled that “the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed, or any of its essential elements occurred. Xxx. Since thedocument was subscribed and sworn in Makati, the court was the proper venue of the criminal action.


Two-folds reasons in the rule on venue and jurisdiction on criminalactions:

1.) The jurisdiction of the trial courts is limited to well-defined territories committed within its territorial jurisdictions; and,

2.) Laying the venue in criminal actions is grounded on necessity and justice of having an accused on trial where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available.

Unlike in civil cases, finding of improper venue in criminal cases


carries jurisdictional consequences.

In the CRIME OF PERJURY, which is an obstruction of justice; that a deliberate material falsification under oath constitutes the crime of perjury, and the crime is complete when a witness’ statement has once been made. Hence, the crime is committed thru the making of a false affidavit is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his affidavit. Moreover, when the CRIME IS COMMITTED THRU FALSE TESTIMONY UNDER OATH, VENUE IS AT THE PLACE WHERE THE TESTIMONY UNDER OATH IS GIVEN.4. CLASSIFICATION OF JURISDICTION (DEFINITION)

CUENCA vs. PCGG IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

JURISDICTION – the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case.

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER – conferred by the Constitution or by law

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON – acquired by his/her voluntary submission to the authority of the court or through the exercise of its coercive processes

JURISDICTION OVER THE RES – obtained by actual or constructive seizure placing the property under the orders of the courts.

In this case, jurisdiction over the subject matter is the primary concern.

Whether or not Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over the case? The fact that the stocks in question were subject matter of the


ill-gotten wealth case before the Sandiganbayan, hence, the latter has jurisdiction over the case.

The issue that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan onlyencompasses cases where PCGG is impleaded is satisfied in this case.

SEQUESTRATION – provisional remedy or freeze order issued by the PCGG designed to prevent the disposal and dissipation of ill-gotten wealth.

ASIA INTERNATIONAL AUCTIONEERSvs. PARAYNO, JR.

Facts:1.) Congress enacted R.A. 7277 creating the Subic Special Economic Zone

and extending a number of economic or tax incentives therein.2.) Petitioners complains the taxes that will be imposed upon it, the

former engaged in importation of secondhand or used motor vehicles and the like.

3.) Petitioners assails the Revenue Memorandum Circular 31-2003 issued by the Commission on Internal Revenue, Respondent being the commissionerat that time.

4.) That the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and it is the Court of Tax Appeals that has proper jurisdiction to hear the case.


Issue on Jurisdiction is so basic that it may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. In fact, courts may take cognizance of the issue even if it not raised by the parties themselves.

Does the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the


case? Petitioners alleged that since the issues raised were not the

“rate, structure, or figures of imposed taxes, rather, it is the authority of the Respondent Commissioner to impose such taxes”. The SC did not agree.

That the assailed revenue memorandum are actually rulings or opinions of the CIR on the tax treatment if motor vehicles sold at public auction within the SSEZ under R.A. 7227. It is pursuant to the National Internal Revenue Code.

JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY LAW NOT BY THE PARTIES NOR BY THEIR AGREEMENT/CONSENTHEIRS OF SANTIAGO NISPERAS vs.

NISPERAS-DISCUSINIMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial officer or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition, is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of whether the petitioner is entitled to such relief/s.

Jurisdiction over subject matter is conferred by the Constitution and the law, and not by the consent or waiver of the parties where the courtotherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Like on the jurisdiction of DARAB, as held in Morta Sr. vs. Occidental, the following elements must be present:

1.) The parties has landowner and tenant relationship;2.) The subject matter of the relationship is agricultural land;3.) There is consent between the parties to the relationship;


4.) That the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agri production;

5.) There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant;6.) The harvest is shared between them.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION – does not allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body

CONJUANGCO v. REPUBLIC THE SANDIGANBAYAN HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUBDIVIDED AMENDED COMPLAINTS, INCLUDING THE SHARES ALLEGEDLY ACQUIRED BY COJUANGCO BY VIRTUE OF THE PCA AGREEMENTS.

From the allegations of the defendants’ illegal acts thereat made, it isfairly obvious that both cases partake, in the context of EO Nos. 1, 2 and 14, series of 1986, the nature of ill-gotten wealth suits. xxx. Recovery of these assets––determined as shall hereinafter be discussed as prima facie ill-gotten––falls within the unquestionable jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. 7975 and E.O. No. 14, Series of 1986, vests the Sandiganbayan with, among others, original jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases instituted pursuant to and in connection with E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.HOW JURISDICTION IS DETERMINED

BCDA vs. PARO IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:


How jurisdiction is determined?- It is determined by the allegations in the complaint.

Whether or not the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board has jurisdiction over the case?

For a case be within the purview of DARAB’s jurisdiction, an “agrarian dispute” must be present.

AGRARIAN DISPUTE – refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship, over lands devoted to agriculture..

Since in the case, agrarian dispute is not attendant, jurisdiction of DARAB is not applicable, hence, the RTC has the jurisdiction. Moreover, the basic rule in jurisdiction that the latter is determined by the allegations in the complaint.

REPUBLIC vs. ROMAN CATHOLICARCHBISHOP OF MANILA (RCAM)


It is axiomatic that the nature of an actual and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over such action are to be determined from:1.) the material allegations of the complaint;2.) the law in force at the time the complaint is filed;3.) The character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the

plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred.

In the present case, the material averments show that the action filed is one for cancellation of titles and reversions, not for annulment of judgment of the RTC.


The RTC may take cognizance of reversion suits which do not call for an annulment of judgment of the RTC acting as Land Registration Court.

Note:- As a general rule, the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be

questioned in a special civil action for certiorari which is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.

However, when the denial of the motion to dismiss is tainted with grave abuseof discretion, the grant of the extraordinary

BPI vs. EDUARDO HONG IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

Whether the RTC can take cognizance if the injunction suit despite the pendency of the case in SEC?

ACTION FOR INJUNCTION – a suit which has for its purpose the enjoinment of the defendant, perpetually or for a particular time, from the commission or continuance of a specific act. AS A RULE, ACTION FOR INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES LIE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE RTC.

Jurisdiction, being a matter of substantive law, the established rule isthat the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court.

In this case, R.A. 8799, took effect on 08 August 2000, transferred to the appropriate regional trial court the SEC’s jurisdiction over those cases enumerated in Section 5, P.D. 902-A re suspension of payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed.

-


HEIRS OF CANDIDO DEL ROSARIOvs. MONICA DEL ROSARIO


Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties. The active participation of the parties in the proceedings before the DARAB does not vest jurisdiction on the latter, AS JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED ONLY BY LAW.

Failure of the parties to challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB does not prevent the SC from addressing the issue. Issue of jurisdiction are not subject to the whims of the parties.

An order rendered by a tribunal or agency without jurisdiction is a total nullity.

ALLOCATION OF POWERS/JURISDICTIONBAGUIO MARKET VENDORS vs. HON.

CABATO-CORTESIMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

Whether or not petitioner’s application for extrajudicial foreclosure isexempt from legal fees under Article 62(6) of R.A. 6938 (Cooperative Code)?

The court held No. Such exemption in the said law is limited only to two type of actions:

1.) Action brought under R.A. 6938; and,2.) Actions brought by the Cooperative Development Authority to

enforce the payment of obligations contracted in favour of cooperatives.

However, the present case does not fall in any of the two limitations; the action brought by Petitioner is under Act 3135.


POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO ENACT JUDICIAL RULES

Article 8, section 5 (5) of the Constitution provides the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules without the intervention of the Legislature.

The payment of legal fees is a vital component of the rules promulgated by the Court, it cannot be validly annulled, challenged or modified by Congress. As one of the safeguards of the Court’s institutional independence, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practive and procedure is now the Court’s exclusive domain.

GOMEZ-CASTILLO vs. COMELEC IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

The allocation of jurisdiction is vested in Congress, and cannot be delegated to another office or agency of the Government.

The Rules of Court does not define jurisdictional boundaries of the courts. It can only determine the means, ways or manner in which said jurisdiction, as fixed by the Constitution and acts of Congress, shall be exercised.

Jurisdiction over election contests involving elective municipal officials has been vested in the RTC under B.P. 881.

On the other hand, A.M. 07-4-15-SC is only designed to ensure a just andorderly administration of justice; by specifying proper venue where suchcases may be filed and heard.

Castillo’s filing in the RTC Bacoor amounted only to wrong choice of venue but it does not divest the RTC of its jurisdiction over the case.

DBM VS. KOLONWEL TRADING In this case, Respondent sought for a protest with the BAC when it did


not win the bidding for textbooks held by the department of education.

Under R.A. 9184, there are three requirements that must be met by the party desiring to protest the decisions of the Bids and Awards Committee-

1. The protest must be in writing2. The protest must b submitted to the head of the procuring entity; and

3. The payment of a on-refundable protest fee

In this case, Respondent was not able to comply with the above mentionedrequirements

That respondent sought judicial intervention of the RTC before even dulycompleting the protest process.

Considering that the Respondent’s petition in RTC Manila, the court could not have lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter ofthis case. Hence, the petition should be dismissed.

COMELEC vs. AGUIRRE IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

It bears emphasis that Congress has the plenary power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. Hence, it may by law, provide that certain class of cases should be exclusively heard and determined by a specific court.

In this case, Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, vested the RTC the exclusive jurisdiction on criminal cases in violation of the same.

COSCO PHILS vs. KEMPER IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:


Jurisdiction is the power with which the courts are invested for administering justice; that is, for hearing and deciding cases. In orderfor the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, itmust acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties.

COURTS ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS UPON FILING OF THE COMPLAINT, AND TO BE BOUND BY A DECISION, A PARTY SHOULD FIRST BE SUBJECTED TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION.

Since the court has no jurisdiction over the complaint and respondent, petitioner is not estopped from challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction, even at the pre-trial stage, since issue on jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.

WHEN ACT IS DONE WITHOUT JURISDICTIONPEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN Grave abuse of discretion - generally refers to capricious or whimsical

exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.

In this case, the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, in disregarding basic rules of statutory construction, acted with grave abuse of discretion. Its interpretation of the term legal disqualification in Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code defies legal cogency. Legal disqualification


cannot be read as excluding temporary disqualification in order to exempt therefrom the legal prohibitions under the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991.

On the contrary, legal disqualification in Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code simply means disqualification under the law.

Jurisdiction over the person; civil actions; JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF/PETITIONERMACASAET v. CO Jurisdiction over the person, or jurisdiction in personam –the power of

the court to render a personal judgment or to subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment and other rulings rendered in the action – is an element of due process that is essential in all actions, civil as well as criminal, except in actions in rem or quasi in rem.

Jurisdiction over the defendant in an action in rem or quasi in rem is not required, and the court acquires jurisdiction over an action as longas it acquires jurisdiction over the res that is the subject matter of the action. The purpose of summons in such action is not the acquisitionof jurisdiction over the defendant but mainly to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process.

A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court.

PETITION NOT FILED BY PLAINTIFF PERSONALLY OR WITHOUT AUTHORITY IS DEEMED NOT FILEDPALMIANO-SALVADOR V. ANGELES What is the effect of a complaint filed by one who has not proven his


authority to represent a plaintiff in filing an action? - In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals, the Court categorically stated that “if a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over thecomplaint and the plaintiff.

As reiterated in Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Company: in order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, and to be bound bya decision, a party should first be subjected to the court's jurisdiction. Clearly, since no valid complaint was ever filed with the MeTC, the same did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent.

JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTOPTIMA REALTY v. HERTZ PHILS

Whether or not the MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent Hertz?

In civil cases, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be acquired either by service of summons or by the defendant’s voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority.

In this case, the MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent Hertz by reason of the latter’s voluntary appearance in court.


In Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Dy, the court said: “jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired either by the coercive power of legal processes exerted over his person,or his voluntary appearance in court.”

As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It is by reason of this rule that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction.

EXCEPTION: concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority.

ELICE AGRO v. YOUNG Whether the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of EAIC, defendant in Civil Case No. 96-177?

It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant’s voluntary appearance in court.

When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void.


The purpose of summons is not only to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also to give notice to the defendant that an action has been commenced against it and to afford it an opportunity to be heard on the claim made against it. The requirements of the rule on summons must be strictly followed, otherwise, the trial court will not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant.

1.) RAPID CITY REALTY v.SPOUSES VILLA;

2.) EUROPA v. HUNTERSGARMENTS MFG.

“A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based on the ground of invalid service of summons is not deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.”

It is settled that if there is no valid service of summons, the court can still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by virtue of the latter’s voluntary appearance under Section 20 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.

The filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction.

A party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court’s jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority.

Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that:

(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on


voluntary appearance;

(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and

(3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution.

PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS Mere service of the appellants' brief on PNB did not operate to bring the Bank into the case. Jurisdiction over a person is acquired by service of summons and copy of the complaint on him (Rule 14, Rules of Court).

SHARUF v. BUBLA It is settled law in this jurisdiction that a court may acquire jurisdiction over the person of a party either by his voluntary appearance in court demanding affirmative relief or by having him served. With summons within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines.

Bubla was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 33461 filed against the hereinpetitioner. By filing his complaint, therefore, Bubla submitted voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the respondent court and the latter acquired such jurisdiction even if, as a matter of fact, Bubla had neverbeen able to enter the Philippines.

HOW JURISDICTION OVER A DEFENDANT OUTSIDE OF THE PHILIPPINES IS ACQUIREDMACASAET v. CO As a rule, Philippine courts cannot try any case against a defendant who

does not reside and is not found in the Philippines because of the


impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court; but when the case is an action in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because they have jurisdiction over the res, and jurisdiction over the person ofthe non-resident defendant is not essential.

JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT ACQUIRED BY SUMMON NOT BY MERE INFORMATION ACQUIRED BY DEFENDANTCRISOLOGO v. OMELIO Judge Omelio’s (Respondent) failure to effect proper service of summons

upon the defendants John and Jane Does in the complaint constitutes gross ignorance of the law. The rules and procedures on summons are veryelementary, that non-observance and lack of knowledge on them constitutegross ignorance of the law, especially for judges who are supposed to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the procedural rules.

In this case, common knowledge dictates that it would be impossible for a copy of the motion, mailed only on July 3, 2002, to be delivered by registered mail to counsel for the plaintiff on or before July 5, 2002. Obviously, therefore, the plaintiff had no notice whatsoever of the filing of the motion and the hearing date for the same.

Sps. Crisologo claim that the case should not have proceeded because no summons were made upon the John and Jane Does impleaded in the complaint. Since defendants John and Jane Does are unidentified persons,summons must be made with leave of court and by publication.

As a general rule, jurisdiction cannot be acquired over the defendant without service of summons, even if he knows of the case against him.


Jurisdiction, however, can be acquired without service of summons, if the defendant voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court by appearing through his counsel in filing the appropriate pleadings. In this case, Judge Omelio claims that service of summons to unknown defendants can be dispensed with because Sps. Crisologo voluntarily appeared and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court.

RESPONDENT’S ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE CASE = ESTOPPELMAXICARE v. CONTRERAS Maxicare argues that questions on jurisdiction “may be raised at any

stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and the right to do so is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.” Maxicare likewise asserts that “if the issue on jurisdiction may be resolved by an appellate tribunal motu propio when the same has not been raised in the courts below, with more reason that the same should be allowed to be considered and decided uponby the appellate court when, as in the present petition, the said issue has been raised in the pleadings before the appellate court.”

Maxicare is already estopped from belatedly raising the issue of lack ofjurisdiction considering that it has actively participated in the proceedings before the LA and the NLRC.

The Court has consistently held that “while jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a party’s active participation in the proceedings before a court without jurisdiction will estop such party from assailing the lack of it.” It is an undesirable practice of a party to participate in the proceedings, submit his case for decision and then accept the judgment, if favorable, but attack it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse.

HEIRS OF JOSE FERNANDO v. DEBELEN

"While it is true that jurisdiction may be raised at any time, "this rule presupposes that estoppel has not supervened." In the instant case,


respondent actively participated in all stages of the proceedings beforethe trial court and invoked its authority by asking for an affirmative relief. Clearly, respondent is estopped from challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction, especially when an adverse judgment has been rendered."

Similarly, as this Court held in Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, that included invoking its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively barred the respondent by estoppel from challenging the court’s jurisdiction.

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER (JURIS IN REM)DAR v. PARAMOUNT HOLDINGS

ISSUE in this case: Whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction over the dispute that seeks the nullification of the subject properties’ sale?

The jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited under the law, as it was created under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 129-A specifically to assume powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reformcases under E.O. No. 229 and E.O. No. 129-A.

In this case, the CA emphasized that the DARAB’s jurisdiction over the dispute should be determined by the allegations made in the petition. Since the action was essentially for the nullification of the subject properties’ sale, it did not involve an agrarian suit that is within theDARAB’s jurisdiction.

Not every sale or transfer of agricultural land would warrant DARAB’s


exercise of its jurisdiction. The law is specific that the property mustbe shown to be under the coverage of agrarian reform laws.

Basic is the rule that the "jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to anyor all such reliefs."

VALCURZA v. TAMPARONG SUBJECT MATTER of this case: CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOA)

The issue in this case is whether a complaint involving DAR’s implementation of the agrarian law and implementation of CLOA is within the jurisdiction of DARAB (Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board) [or whether matter involving administrative implementation of the CARL and other agrarian laws are the exclusive prerogatives of the DAR Secretary?]?

The Court held NO. reiterating that the court or tribunal must look intothe material allegations in the complaint to know whether the nature or subject matter of the case is within their jurisdiction.

DAR is vested by E.O 229 with quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, as well as its implementation.

The jurisdiction of the DAR over ADJUDICATION of reform cases was later on delegated to the DARAB; while its JURISDICTION over agrarian reform implementation was assigned to its regional offices.


As previously mentioned, to constitute an agrarian dispute, the following should be present:

1. The parties has landowner and tenant relationship;2. The subject matter of the relationship is agricultural land;3. There is consent between the parties to the relationship;4. That the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agri production;5. There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant;6. The harvest is shared between them.

In the case at bar, the elements are not present. Hence, although the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the

cancellation of CLOAs relating to an agrarian dispute between landownersand tenants; however, in cases concerning the cancellation of the same that involve parties who are not agri tenants or lessees, JUST LIKE THE PRESENT CASE, are WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DAR Secretary, and not the DARAB.

PROVINCE OF AKLAN v. JODY KING The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the courts even if the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction.

Exceptions to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction:


(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;

(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;

(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant;

(d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive;

(e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice;

(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;

(g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage;

(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;

(i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;

(j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;

(k) when strong public interest is involved; and,


(l) in quo warranto proceedingsPADLAN v. SPOUSES DINGLASAN SUBJECT MATTER of this case: “INVOLVING TITLE TO A REAL PROPERTY”

ISSUE/S:1. Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter?

“involving title to a real property” – the plaintiff’s cause of action is based on a claim that he owns such property or that he has a legal right to have exclusive control, possession, enjoyment or disposition ofthe same.

TITLE – “legal link” between a person who owns a property and the property itself.

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE – document of ownership under the Torrens system ofregistration issued by the government

TITLE is the CLAIM, RIGHT OR INTEREST in real property while a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE is the EVIDENCE of such CLAIM.

From the complaint, the case filed by Respondent is not simply a case for the cancellation of a particular certificate but an ACTION ASCERTAINING WHICH OF THE PARTIES IS THE LAWFUL OWNER OF THE SUBJECT LOT– JURISDICTION OVER WHICH IS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSED VALUE OF SUCH LOT.

That under R.A. 7691, Section 1 provides that the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases such as those involving title, real properties which exceeds the amount of PhP20,000. On the other hand, Sec. 3 of the same law provides that those with assessed value which does not exceed PhP20,000.00, the MTC has the jurisdiction.


Since in the case, the subject lot was sold only for PhP4,000.00, the assessed value is lower than that within RTC’s jurisdiction, hence, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present case.

PEOPLE v. ESTREBELLA SUBJECT MATTER of this case: CRIME OF RAPE

The case involves the complainant, minor and mental retarded, a victim of the crime of rape. Respondent, convicted of the crime, alleged that the case shall be dismissed because the RTC has no jurisdiction over thecase pursuant to Rule 110, section 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court which states that:

The offended party, even if she were a minor, has the right to institutethe prosecution for the above offenses, independently of her parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her minority. (Because in this case, victim is mentally retarded).

However, the Court said such contention is erroneous. That it is well-settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action (in this case, RAPE) is conferred by law and that JURISDICTION OVER A GIVEN CRIMENOT VESTED BY LAW UPON A PARTICULAR COURT, MAY NOT BE CONFERRED BY THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE OFFENSE.

Moreover, invoking that complainant/victim is incompetent due to her mentality, the defect has been cured when complainant’s brother testifies. Undoubtedly, the RTC had jurisdiction to try the case.

REPUBLIC PLANTERS’ BANK v. SUBJECT MATTER of this case: JURISDICTION


MOLINA In this case, Public Respondent Hon. Borromeo dismissed that complaint

on the grounds of res judicata. However, the Supreme Court did not agreewith such decision.

The Court said that, a judgement, to be considered res judicata, must bebinding, and must be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Otherwise, the judgment is nullity.

In the present case, the trial court dismissed the case although it stated that it did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of private respondents.

The court thus further that – for the court to have authority to disposeof the case on the merits, IT MUST ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECTMATTER AND THE PARTIES. If it did not, then it cannot render binding decision, favourable or adverse, or dismiss the case with prejudice which, in effect, is an adjudication on the merits.

However in the case, since the trial court has no jurisdiction over the parties, no binding decision is present, no adjudication on the merits, hence, no presence of res judicata

ALU-TUCP v. HON. BORROMEO SUBJECT MATTER of this case: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Petitioners filed a complaint against Respondent Corporation on the grounds of unfair labor practice and wages which the RTC rendered a decision in favour of Respondent.


In this case, the Supreme Court held that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case because cases involving UNFAIR LABOR DISPUTES is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LABOR ARBITER.

“The contention that the CFI (trial court) had jurisdiction over the case of unfair labor practice is not well taken”.

JURISDICTION NEITHER AFFECTED NOR ALTERED BY ANY THEORY/DEFENCE OF DEFENDANTMEDICAL PLAZA v. CULLEN That jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, IT

IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE PLEAS OR THE THEORIES SET UP BY THE DEFENDANT IN AN ANSWER OR MOTION TO DISMISS.

The case involves a dispute between a condominium developer and one of its members.

In this case, there is a question as to whether the controversy involve an intra-corporate issues as would fall whether on the jurisdiction of the RTC as a special commercial court or on RTC’s jurisdiction as an ordinary/regular court?

The Supreme Court first defined INTRA-CONRPORATE CONTROVERSY:

One which pertains to any of the following relationships:1. between the corporation, partnership or association and THE PUBLIC2. between the corporation, partnership or association and THE STATE3. between the corporation, partnership or association and ITS STOCKHOLDERS, OFFICERS4. among stockholders, partners of associates themselves.


The court in this case rules that the same involves an intra-corporate controversy, and, pursuant to R.A. 8799, the RTC as a Special CommercialCourt has jurisdiction over the case.

JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNTMASLAG v. MONZON

1.) Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides for the dismissalof an improper appeal:

An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Courtof Appeals raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by said court.

Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court shall be dismissed.

2.) TWO MODES OF APPEALING AN RTC DECISION ON ISSUES OF FACT ANF LAW:

An ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in cases where the RTC exercised its original jurisdiction. It is done by filing a Notice of Appeal with the RTC.

Petition for review under Rule 42 in cases where the RTC exercised its appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions. It is done by filinga Petition for Review with the CA.

Date post:	23-Apr-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	feu
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Reviewer in Jurisdiction (Remedial Law)

Documents