Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2. Concurrent
JURISDICTION
2.1.
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION
SUPREME COURT
A. Original Jurisdiction
1. Exclusive
Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus against the
following:
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
Sec. 7, Article IX-A, 1987 Constitution; Aratuc vs. COMELEC, No. L49705-09, February 8, 1979, 88 SCRA 251).
Hierarchy of courts
Effect of amendment of Sec. 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure
by virtue of A.M. 07-7-12-SC dated
December 12, 2007, deleting the Supreme Court.
I.
2.2.
with Court of Appeals and Regional
Trial Courts
See Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295
SCRA 470.
4
However, the petitions should be filed with the Court of Appeals;
otherwise, they shall be dismissed. (A.M. No. 99-2-01-SC) See also
Torres, et. al. vs. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, et. al.,
G.R. No. 149634, August 6, 2004, 433 SCRA 455.
2.3.
2.4.
B. Appellate Jurisdiction
1. Ordinary Appeal by Notice of Appeal
From the Court of Appeals, in all criminal cases
involving offenses for which the penalty imposed
is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; or a
3
lesser penalty is imposed10 for offenses
committed on the same occasion or which arose
out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the
more severe offense for which the penalty of
death is imposed (Sec. 13[c], Rule 124, Sec.
13[b], Rule 124), as amended by A.M. No. 00-503-SC, effective October 15, 2004)
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
10
11
The procedure in the Court of Tax Appeals reveals that only decisions of
said Court en banc shall be appealable to the Supreme Court via a
petition for review on certiorari. (See Sec. 16, A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA).
This is because appeals from decisions and resolutions of the Court of Tax
Appeals Divisions fall under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the
Court of Tax Appeals en banc.
4
3. By Special Civil Action
thirty (30) days from
final order/ resolution
against the following:
Civil Procedure)
3.1.
3.2.
Commission on Audit
Constitution)
II.
(Ibid., 1987
COURT OF APPEALS
Original Jurisdiction
1. Exclusive
1.1.
1.2.
2. Concurrent
2.1.
2.2.
Courts
5
effective October 15, 2004; People vs.
Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004,
433 SCRA 640)
12
Sec. 34 of Batas Blg. 129, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691 states:
Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land
Registration Cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the Supreme
Court to hear and determine cadastral or land registration
cases covering lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots where the value of which
does note exceed One Hundred Thousand pesos (PhP
100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit
of the claimant or by agreement of the respective
claimants if there are more than on, or from the
corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their
decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same
manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.
13
Notice that while Secs. 3[d] and 10 of Rule 122, as amended by A.M.
No. 00-5-03-SC, use the words automatic review, in People vs. Mateo,
G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 340, the Supreme Court
used the words intermediate review and explained the rationale for such
amendment:
While the Fundamental Law requires mandatory
review by the Supreme Court of cases where the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or
death, nowhere, however, has it proscribed an
intermediate review.
If only to ensure utmost
circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, the Court now
deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a
review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated
to the Supreme Court. x x x If the Court of Appeals
should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment, it could then render judgment imposing
the corresponding penalty as the circumstances so
warrant, refrain from entering judgment and elevate the
entire records of the case to the Supreme Court for its
final disposition.
14
In People vs. Bunaladi, G.R. No. UDK-13384, October 18, 2004, the
Supreme Court stated that no notice of appeal is necessary in cases
where the death penalty is imposed by the Regional Trial Court. In
People vs. Rocha and Ramos, G.R. No. 173797, August 8, 2007, the
Supreme Court clarified that there is no mandatory review in cases where
the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Note, however, that the imposition of the death penalty has been
prohibited by Rep. Act No. 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
Death Penalty in the Philippines, approved on June 24, 2006. 2006.
6
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Sec. 3[b],
Rule 122)
4.2. Appeals from decisions of the Regional Trial
Courts acting as Special Agrarian Courts in
cases involving just compensation to the
landowners concerned (Land Bank of the
Philippines vs. De Leon, G. R. No. 143275,
September 10, 2002, 388 SCRA 537)
4.3. Appeals from the Civil Service Commission
(Rep. Act No. 7902 [1995]; Rule 43, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure)
4.4. Appeals from awards, judgments, final
orders, or resolutions of, or authorized by,
quasi-judicial agencies in the exercise of
their quasi-judicial functions. Among these
are:
1.
Securities and Exchange
Commission
2.
Office of the President
3.
Land Registration Authority
4.
Social Security Commission
5.
Civil Aeronautics Board
6.
Intellectual Property Office
(formerly the Bureau of
Patents, Trademarks, and
Technology Transfer)
7.
National Electrification
Administration
8.
Energy Regulatory Board
9.
National Telecommunications
Commission
10.
Department of Agrarian Reform
under Rep. Act No. 6657
11.
Government Service Insurance
System
12.
Employees Compensation
Commission
13.
Agricultural Inventions Board
14.
Insurance Commission
15.
Philippine Atomic Energy
Commission
16.
Board of Investments
17.
Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission
18.
Voluntary arbitrators authorized
by law.
4.5. Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases
(A.M.
No. 99-2-02-SC; Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R.
No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295
SCRA 470)
4.6.
III. SANDIGANBAYAN
A. Original Jurisdiction
1. Exclusive
1.1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
amended
[1997]).
1.3.
Act
No.
8249
Rep.
1.2.
by
15
Court
of
3.1.
3.2.
8
if it is in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction (Sec. 4, Rule 65, as
amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC
dated December 12, 2007)
B. Appellate Jurisdiction
Decisions and final orders of Regional Trial Courts in
the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction
under Pres. Decree No. 1606 [1979], as amended,
shall be appealable to the Sandiganbayan in the
manner provided by Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.
(Sec. 5, Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997])
III.
1.1.6. Other
cases
where
demand,
exclusive of interest, damages,18
attorneys fees, litigation expenses
and costs, or value of property in
controversy
exceeds
PhP
300,000.00 or in Metro Manila PhP
400,000.00
(Sec.
19,
Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129[1983] as
amended by Rep. Act No. 7691
[1994]). However, if the claim for
damages is the main cause of the
action, the amount thereof shall
be considered in determining the
jurisdiction
of
the
court.
(Administrative Circular No. 0994, dated June 14, 1994)
A. Original16 Jurisdiction
1. Civil
1.1.
Exclusive17
1.1.1. Where subject of the action is
incapable of pecuniary estimation;
1.1.2. Actions
involving
title
or
possession of real property or
interest
therein
where
the
assessed
value
exceeds
PhP
20,000.00 or in Metro Manila PhP
50,000.00 except for forcible entry
and unlawful detainer;
1.1.7. Additional
original
jurisdiction
transferred under Sec. 5.2. of the
Securities Regulation Code.
16
The old rates in 1.1.3, 1.1.4 and 1.1.6 were PhP 100,000.00 outside
of Metro Manila, and PhP 200,000.00 in Metro Manila. These rates have
now been increased to PhP 300,000.00 and PhP 400,000.00 respectively,
based on the principle of automatic expansion under Rep. Act No. 7691,
amending Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
17
Actions involving marriage and marital relations now fall within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of Family Courts.
a) Devices
or
schemes
employed by, or any acts of,
the
board
of
directors,
18
9
business
associates,
its
officers
or
partnership,
amounting to fraud and
misrepresentation xxx
b) Controversies arising out of
intra-corporate
partnership
relations xxx
c) Controversies in the election
or appointment of directors,
trustees,
officers,
or
managers
of
such
corporation, partnership, or
association
d) Petitions
of
corporations,
partnerships or associations
to be declared in a state of
suspension of payments xxx
(Rep.
Act
No.
8799,
approved July 19, 2000)
1.2.
19
1.1.8.
1.1.9.
Concurrent
1.2.3.2.
Petitions
for
certiorari,
prohibition, and
mandamus,
if
they relate to an
act or omission
of a municipal
trial
court,
10
corporation,
board, officer, or
person (Sec. 4,
Rule
65,
as
amended
by
A.M. No. 07-712-SC,
dated
December
12,
2007)
2. Criminal
2.1.
Exclusive
20
Criminal
cases
not
within
the
exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, or body. (Sec. 20, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983]). These
11
jurisdictions.
[1983])
3.
4.
5.
6.
Petitions
for
support
and/
or
acknowledgment;
Summary judicial proceedings brought under
the provisions of Executive Order No. 209,
otherwise known as The Family Code of the
Philippines;
V. FAMILY COURTS
2.
22
7.
12
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
24
15.
25
13
Criminal Procedure28 (Sec. 1, A.M. No. 02-118-SC, effective April 15, 2002)
VI. METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS,
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
COURTS AND MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN
CITIES
A. Original29 Jurisdiction
1. Civil
1.1.
Exclusive
1.1.1. Actions
involving
personal
property valued at not more than
PhP 300,000.00 or in Metro Manila
PhP 400,000.00;
1.1.2. Actions demanding sums of money
not exceeding PhP 300,000.00 or
in Metro Manila PhP 400,000.00;
in both cases, exclusive of
interest, damages, attorneys fees,
litigation expenses and costs, the
amount
of
which
must
be
28
The old rates in 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.1.6 were PhP 100,000.00 or less,
outside of Metro Manila, and PhP 200,000.00 or less, in Metro Manila.
These rates have now been increased to PhP 300,000.00 and PhP
400,000.00 respectively, based on the principle of automatic expansion
under Rep. Act No. 7691, amending Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
14
1.2
Delegated30
Special
Petition for habeas corpus in the absence
of all Regional Trial Court judges. (Sec.
35, Batas Blg. 129 [1983])
2. Criminal
2.1.
Exclusive
2.1.1. All violations of city or municipal
ordinances committed within their
respective territorial jurisdictions;
2.1.2. All
offenses
punishable
with
imprisonment of not more than six
(6) years irrespective of the
amount of fine and regardless of
other imposable accessory or
other penalties and the civil
liability
arising
therefrom;
provided,
however,
that
in
offenses involving damage to
property
through
criminal
negligence,
they
shall
have
exclusive
original
jurisdiction.
(Sec. 32, Batas Blg. 129 [1983] as
30
2.2.
Special
Applications for bail in the absence of all
Regional Trial Court judges. (Sec. 35,
Batas Blg. 129 [1983])
Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime lies with the trial court
having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious penalty
imposable for an offense forming part of the complex crime. (See Cuyos
vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-46934, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 302). Thus,
where the imposable penalty for the physical injuries charged would come
within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, while the fine for the
damage to the property would fall on the Regional Trial Court, the court
that would take cognizance of the case must be determined not by the
corresponding penalty for the physical injuries charged but by the fine
imposable for the damage to the property resulting from the reckless
imprudence.
15
1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving
disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the
National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue;
2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving
disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters arising under the
National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code
provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be
deemed a denial;
3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local
tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their
original or appellate jurisdiction;
4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability
for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or
release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in
relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or
other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;
5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and
taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board
of assessment appeals;
6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to
him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of
Customs which are adverse to the Government under Sec. 2315 of the
Tariff and Customs Code;
7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of
nonagricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of
Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article,
involving dumping and countervailing duties under Sec. 301 and 302,
respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures
under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal the
decision to impose or not to impose said duties.
B. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from
violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs
Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or
the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses or felonies
mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount of taxes and
fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified amount
claimed shall be tried by the regular courts and the jurisdiction of the
CTA shall be appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the
contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil
action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall at all
times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in the
same proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being
deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no
right to reserve the filling of such civil action separately from the criminal
action will be recognized.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses
a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the
Regional Trial Courts in tax cases originally decided by them, in
their respected territorial jurisdiction.
b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the
Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over
tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their
respective jurisdiction.
C. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and
executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provided,
however, That collection cases where the principal amount of taxes and
fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million
pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:
a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the
Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them,
in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the
Regional Trial Courts in the Exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over
tax collection cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their
respective jurisdiction. (Sec. 7, RA 1125, amended by RA 9282)