Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3
As this Court had already resolved said promulgate rules of pleading, practice
issue of jurisdiction in the above-cited and procedure is no longer shared by
cases, it is a salutary and necessary this Court with Congress, more so with
judicial practice to apply the rulings the Executive.
therein to the subject petition. Stare Under its rule-making authority, the
decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by Court has periodically passed various
the decisions and disturb not what is rules of procedure, among others, the
settled. Undaunted, petitioner now current 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
harps on the validity of Section 14 of Identifying the appropriate procedural
Rep. Act No. 6770 claiming it to be remedies needed for the reasonable
unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals, exercise of every court's judicial power,
it must be recalled, relied quite heavily the provisional remedies of temporary
on Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6770 in restraining orders and writs of
relation to Fabian v. Desierto in ruling preliminary injunction were thus
that it had no jurisdiction to entertain provided.
the petition filed thereat.
A temporary restraining order and a
On the merits of the petition, the Court writ of preliminary injunction both
constitute temporary measures availed
finds that petitioner failed to establish of during the pendency of the action.
that the respondent officials committed They are, by nature, ancillary because
grave abuse of discretion amounting to they are mere incidents in and are
excess or lack of jurisdiction. Grave dependent upon the result of the main
abuse of discretion implies a capricious action. It is well-settled that the sole
object of a temporary restraining order
and whimsical exercise of judgment or a writ of preliminary injunction,
tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to
Ombudsmans exercise of power must preserve the status quo until the merits
have been done in an arbitrary or of the case can be heard. They are
despotic manner which must be so usually granted when it is made to
appear that there is a substantial
patent and gross as to amount to an
controversy between the parties and
evasion of positive duty or a virtual one of them is committing an act or
refusal to perform the duty enjoined or threatening the immediate commission
to act at all in contemplation of law of an act that will cause irreparable
injury or destroy the status quo of the
Morales v. Court of Appeals, controversy before a full hearing can be
G.R. No. 217126-27, November had on the merits of the case. In other
10, 2015 words, they are preservative remedies
The rule making power of this Court for the protection of substantive rights
was expanded. This Court for the first or interests, and, hence, not a cause of
time was given the power to action in itself, but merely adjunct to a
promulgate rules concerning the main suit.204 In a sense, they are
protection and enforcement of regulatory processes meant to prevent
constitutional rights. The Court was also a case from being mooted by the
r granted for the first time the power to interim acts of the parties.
disapprove rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But 2. Power of the Supreme Court
most importantly, the 1987 Constitution to amend and suspend
took away the power of Congress to procedural rules
repeal, alter, or supplement rules
concerning pleading, practice and Echegaray v. The Secretary of
procedure. In fine, the power to Justice, G.R. No. 132601,
4
January 19, 1999 Resolution, procedure of exercising a right of action
301 SCRA 96 and enforcing a cause of action. In
The Rule making power of this Court particular, it pertains to the procedural
was expanded. This Court for the requirement of paying the prescribed
first time was given the power to legal fees in the filing of a pleading or
promulgate rules concerning the any application that initiates an action
protection and enforcement of or proceeding.
constitutional right. The Court was
also granted for the first time the Clearly, therefore, the payment of legal
power to disapprove rules of fees under Rule 141 of the Rules of
procedure of special courts and Court is an integral part of the rules
quasi-judicial bodies. But most promulgated by this Court pursuant to
importantly, the 1987 Constitution its rule-making power under Section
took away the power of Congress to 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution. In
repeal, alter, or supplement rules particular, it is part of the rules
concerning pleading, practice and concerning pleading, practice and
procedure. In fine, the power to procedure in courts. Indeed, payment of
promulgate rules of pleading, legal (or docket) fees is a jurisdictional
practice and procedure is no longer requirement. It is not simply the filing of
shared by this Court with Congress, the complaint or appropriate initiatory
more so with the Executive. If the pleading but the payment of the
manifest intent of the 1987 prescribed docket fee that vests a trial
Constitution is to strengthen the court with jurisdiction over the subject-
independence of the judiciary, it is matter or nature of the action.
inutile to urge, as public respondents Appellate docket and other lawful fees
do, that this Court has no jurisdiction are required to be paid within the same
to control the process of execution of period for taking an appeal. Payment of
its decisions, a power conceded to it docket fees in full within the prescribed
and which it has exercised since time period is mandatory for the perfection
immemorial. of an appeal. Without such payment,
In re: Petition for Recognition the appellate court does not acquire
of the Exemption of the GSIS jurisdiction over the subject matter of
from Payment of Legal Fees, the action and the decision sought to be
A.M. No. 08-2-01-0, February appealed from becomes final and
11, 2010 executory.
The power to promulgate rules Neypes v. Court of Appeals,
concerning pleading, practice and G.R. No. 141524, September
procedure in all courts is a traditional 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633
power of this Court. It necessarily To standardize the appeal periods
includes the power to address all provided in the Rules and to afford
questions arising from or connected to litigants fair opportunity to appeal their
the implementation of the said rules. cases, the Court deems it practical to
allow a fresh period of 15 days within
The Rules of Court was promulgated in which to file the notice of appeal in the
the exercise of the Courts rule-making Regional Trial Courts, counted from
power. It is essentially procedural in receipt of the order dismissing a motion
nature as it does not create, diminish, for a new trial or motion for
increase or modify substantive rights. reconsideration.
Corollarily, Rule 141 is basically Henceforth, this fresh period rule shall
procedural. It does not create or take also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals
away a right but simply operates as a from the Municipal Trial Courts to the
means to implement an existing right. Regional Trial Courts to the Court of
In particular, it functions to regulate the Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-
5
judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals sentence "The National Assembly may
and Rule 45 governing appeals by repeal, alter, or supplement the said
certiorari to the Supreme Court. The rules with the advice and concurrence
new rule aims to regiment or make the of the Supreme Court", right after the
appeal period uniform, to be counted phrase "Promulgate rules concerning
from receipt of the order denying the the protection and enforcement of
motion for new trial, motion for constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
reconsideration (whether full or partial) and procedure in all courts, the
or any final order or resolution. admission to the practice of law, the
Pinga v. Heirs of German integrated bar, and legal assistance to
Santiago, G.R. No. 170354, the underprivileged^" in the
June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 393 enumeration of powers of the Supreme
To be certain, when the Court Court. Later, Commissioner Felicitas S.
Promulgated the 1997 Rules of Civil Aquino proposed to delete the former
Procedure, including the amended Rule sentence and, instead, after the word
17, those previous jural doctrines that "[underprivileged," place a comma (,) to
were inconsistent with the new rules be followed by "the phrase with the
incorporated in the 1997 Rules of Civil concurrence of the National Assembly."
Procedure were implicitly abandoned Eventually, a compromise formulation
insofar as incidents arising after the was reached wherein (a) the Committee
effectivity of the new procedural rules members agreed to Commissioner
on 1 July 1997. BA Finance, or even the Aquino's proposal to delete the phrase
doctrine that a counterclaim may be "the National Assembly may repeal,
necessarily dismissed along with the alter, or supplement the said rules with
complaint, clearly conflicts with the the advice and concurrence of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court" and (b) in turn,
abandonment of BA Finance as doctrine Commissioner Aquino agreed to
extends as far back as 1997, when the withdraw his proposal to add "the
Court adopted the new Rules of Civil phrase with the concurrence of the
Procedure. If, since then, such National Assembly." The changes were
abandonment has not been affirmed in approved, thereby leading to the
jurisprudence, it is only because no present lack of textual reference to any
proper case has arisen that would form of Congressional participation in
warrant express confirmation of the Section 5 (5), Article VIII, supra. The
new rule. That opportunity is here and prevailing consideration was that "both
now, and we thus rule that the bodies, the Supreme Court and the
dismissal of a complaint due to fault of Legislature, have their inherent
the plaintiff is without prejudice to the powers."
right of the defendant to prosecute any
pending counterclaims of whatever 3. Power to suspend procedural
nature in the same or separate action. rules
We confirm that BA Finance and all
previous rulings of the Court that are Commission of Internal
inconsistent with this present holding Revenue v. Mirant Pagbilao
are now abandoned. Corp., G.R. No. 159593,
October 12, 2006, 504 SCRA
Morales v. Court of Appeals 484
The records of the deliberations of the The courts have the power to relax or
Constitutional Commission would show suspend technical or procedural rules or
that the Framers debated on whether or to except a case from their operation
not the Court's rule-making powers when compelling reasons so warrant or
should be shared with Congress. There when the purpose of justice requires it.
was an initial suggestion to insert the What constitutes good and sufficient
6
cause that would merit suspension of made to the court in behalf of one or
the rules is discretionary upon the the other of the parties to the action, in
courts. the absence and usually without the
Sarmiento v. Zaratan, G.R. No. knowledge of the other party or parties.
167471, February 5, 2007, As a general rule, notice of motion is
514 SCRA 246 required where a party has a right to
Considering the circumstances of the resist the relief sought by the motion
present case, we believe that and principles of natural justice demand
procedural due process was that his rights be not affected without
substantially complied with. an opportunity to be heard. It has been
said that ex parte motions are
There are, indeed, reasons which would frequently permissible in procedural
warrant the suspension of the Rules: (a) matters, and also in situations and
the existence of special or compelling under circumstances of emergency; and
circumstances, b) the merits of the an exception to a rule requiring notice is
case, (c) a cause not entirely sometimes made where notice or the
attributable to the fault or negligence of resulting delay might tend to defeat the
the party favored by the suspension of objective of the motion.
rules, (d) a lack of any showing that the
review sought is merely frivolous and McBurnie v. Ganzon, G.R. No.
dilatory, and (e) the other party will not 178034 & 178117, October 17,
be unjustly prejudiced thereby. 2013
Elements or circumstances (c), (d) and The rules of procedure should be
(e) exist in the present case. viewed as mere tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice. Their
The suspension of the Rules is strict and rigid application, which would
warranted in this case. The motion in result in technicalities that tend to
question does not affect the substantive frustrate rather than promote
rights of petitioner as it merely seeks to substantial justice, must always be
extend the period to file Memorandum. avoided. Even the Rules of Court
The required extension was due to envision this liberality. This power to
respondents counsels illness, lack of suspend or even disregard the rules can
staff to do the work due to storm and be so pervasive and encompassing so
flood, compounded by the grounding of as to alter even that which this Court
the computers. There is no claim itself has already declared to be final,
likewise that said motion was as we are now compelled to do in this
interposed to delay the appeal. As it case.
appears, respondent sought extension The Rules of Court was conceived and
prior to the expiration of the time to do promulgated to set forth guidelines in
so and the memorandum was the dispensation of justice but not to
subsequently filed within the requested bind and chain the hand that dispenses
extended period. Under the it, for otherwise, courts will be mere
circumstances, substantial justice slaves to or robots of technical rules,
requires that we go into the merits of shorn of judicial discretion. That is
the case to resolve the issue of who is precisely why courts in rendering real
entitled to the possession of the land in justice have always been, as they in
question. fact ought to be, conscientiously guided
by the norm that when on the balance,
Further, it has been held that a motion
technicalities take a backseat against
for extension of time x x x is not a
substantive rights, and not the other
litigated motion where notice to the
way around. Truly then, technicalities, in
adverse party is necessary to afford the
the appropriate language of Justice
latter an opportunity to resist the
application, but an ex parte motion
7
Makalintal, "should give way to the general rule that it does not review a
realities of the situation trial courts decision in an
Consistent with the foregoing precepts, administrative proceeding since its
the Court has then reconsidered even main concern therein is to determine
decisions that have attained finality, the ethical responsibilities of judicial
finding it more appropriate to lift entries conduct is not controlling. The facts of
of judgments already made in these case calls for the exercise of equity
cases. In Navarro v. Executive jurisdiction to the end that we render
Secretary,67 we reiterated the complete justice to all affected parties.
pronouncement in De Guzman that the As we have said, Equity as the
power to suspend or even disregard complement of legal jurisdiction seeks
rules of procedure can be so pervasive to reach and do complete justice where
and compelling as to alter even that courts of law, through the inflexibility of
which this Court itself has already their rules and want of power to adapt
declared final. their judgments to the special
circumstances of cases, are
4. Retroactivity of procedural rules incompetent to do so. Equity regards
the spirit of and not the letter, the
Go v. Sunbanun, G.R. No. intent and not the form, the substance
168240, Fevcbruary 9, 2011 rather than the circumstance, as it is
Procedural laws may be given variously expressed by different
retroactive effect to actions pending courts. Indeed, a court of equity which
and undetermined at the time of their has taken jurisdiction and cognizance of
passage, there being no vested rights in a cause for any purpose will ordinarily
the rules of procedure. Neypes, which retain jurisdiction for all purpose and
we rendered in September 2005, has award relief so as to accomplish full
been applied retroactively to a number justice between the party litigants,
of cases wherein the original period to prevent future litigation and make
appeal had already lapsed subsequent performance of the courts decree
to the denial of the motion for perfectly safe to those who may be
reconsideration. Auroras situation is no compelled to obey it.
exception, and thus she is entitled to Rubio v. Alabata, G.R. No.
benefit from the amendment of the 203947, February 26, 2014
procedural rules.
Due to the peculiarities of this case, the
5. Basic principles in jurisdiction Court, in the exercise of its equity
jurisdiction, relaxes the rules and
a. Principle of the exercise of decides to allow the action for the
equity jurisdiction revival of judgment filed by petitioners.
A situation where the court is called The Court believes that it is its bounden
upon to deide a controversy and release duty to exact justice in every way
the parties from their correlative possible and exercise its soundest
obligations but if it would result in discretion to prevent a wrong. Although
adverse consequences to the parties strict compliance with the rules of
and the public, the court would go procedure is desired, liberal
beyond its power to avoid negative interpretation is warranted in cases
consequences in the release of the where a strict enforcement of the rules
parties. will not serve the ends of justice; and
that it is a better rule that courts, under
Poso v. Mijares, A.M. RTJ-02- the principle of equity, will not be
1693, August 21, 2002, 387 guided or bound strictly by the statute
SCRA 485 of limitations or the doctrine of laches
The Supreme Court held that the
8
when to do so, manifest wrong or
injustice would result. Thus: c. Classes of jurisdiction
General- power to adjudicate all
"x x x procedural rules may, controversies except those
nonetheless, be relaxed for the most expressly withheld from the
persuasive of reasons in order to relieve plenary power s of the court.
a litigant of an injustice not
Special or Limited- restricts the
commensurate with the degree of his
courts jurisdiction only to
thoughtlessness in not complying with
particular cases and subject to
the procedure prescribed. Corollarily,
such limitations as may be
the rule, which states that the mistakes
provided by the governing law.
of counsel bind the client, may not be
strictly followed where observance of it Original- power of the court to
would result in the outright deprivation take judicial cognizance of a case
of the client's liberty or property, or instituted for judicial action for
where the interest of justice so requires. the first time under conditions
provided by law.
b. Elements of jurisdiction Appellate- authority of a court
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter higher in rank to re-examine the
It is conferred by law, and does final order or judgment of a lower
not depend on the objection or court which tried the case now
the acts or omission s of the elevated for judicial review.
parties or anyone of them. Exclusive- Power to adjudicate a
It is not waivable, except in cases case or proceeding to the
of estoppel to question or raise exclusion of all other courts at
jurisdiction. that stage.
It is determined upon the Concurrence/Confluent/Coordinat
allegations made in the e- Power conferred upon different
complaint, irrespective of whether courts, whether of the same or
the plaintiff is entitled or not, to different tanks to take cognizance
recover upon the claim asserted at the same stage of the same
therein, a matter resolved only case in the same or different
after and as a result of the trial. judicial territories.
2. Jurisdiction over the parties
Jurisdiction over the person of the D. Nature of Philippine courts
plaintiff is acquired by the filing of 1. Meaning of a court
the initiatory pleading, like a Judicial tribunals in the administration
complaint. and dispensation of justice. A court is a
Jurisdiction over the person of the body in the government to which the
defendant is acquired by the public administration of justice is
proper service of summon, or by delegated.
his voluntary appearance in court 2. Court as distinguished from a
and his submission to the judge
authority of the court. Courts may exist without a present
3. Jurisdiction over the res judge. There may be a judge without a
It is acquired by the seizure of the court. The judge may become
thing under legal process disqualified, but such fact does not
whereby it is brought into actual destroy the court. It simply means that
custody of law, or it may result there is no judge to act in the court. The
from the institution of a legal courts of the Philippine islands were
proceeding wherein the power of created and the judges were appointed
the court over the thing is thereto later. In a few instances, the
recognized and made effective. judges were appointed before the
9
courts were established. A person may supplant or contravene the law. The
be appointed a judge and be assigned rule must stand no matter how harsh it
to a particular district or court may seem.
subsequently. 8. Principle of judicial hierarchy
3. Classification of Philippine Hierarchy of courts meant that while
courts the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts
4. Courts of original and appellate have concurrent jurisdiction to issue
jurisdiction original writs of certiorari, prohibition,
Courts of original jurisdiction- mandamus, quo warranto and habeas
those where a case is originally corpus, such concurrence does not
commenced. accord litigants unrestrained freedom of
Appellate courts- those courts choice of court to which filing thereof
where a case is reviewed. may be directed.
5. Courts of general and special General rule: a higher court will not
jurisdiction entertain a direct resort to it unless the
Courts of General jurisdiction- redress cannot be obtained in the
Courts which take cognizance of appropriate lower court.
all cases, civil or criminal, except Exception: in cases of national interest
those assigned to special courts and of serious implications, Supreme
and courts of limited jurisdiction Court does not hesitate to set aside the
rule and proceed with the determination
Courts of special jurisdiction- The of the case.
SC explained that when the then Castro v. Carlos, G.R. No.
CFI takes cognizance of election 194944, April 16, 2013
protests, it acts as courts of
special jurisdiction. In this sense, Although Section 5(1) of Article VIII of
they have a limited jurisdiction. the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides
Thus, the CFI has no jurisdiction that the Supreme Court has original
over an election protest until the jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
special facts upon which it may prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
take jurisdiction are expressly and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of
shown in the motion of protest. this Court is not exclusive but is
There is no presumption in favor concurrent with that of the Court of
of jurisdiction of a court of limited Appeals and regional trial court and
or special jurisdiction. does not give petitioner unrestricted
6. Constitutional and statutory freedom of choice of court forum. The
courts hierarchy of courts must be strictly
Constitutional courts- those observed.
created by the constitution itself.
(SC) Settled is the rule that "the Supreme
Statutory courts- those created Court is a court of last resort and must
by the legislature. (CA, RTS, MTC- so remain if it is to satisfactorily
B.P 129) perform the functions assigned to it by
7. Courts of law and equity the fundamental charter and
Courts are first and foremost courts of immemorial tradition." A disregard of
law. Equity should be applied only in the the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
absence of any law governing the warrants, as a rule, the outright
relationship between the parties. While dismissal of a petition.
equity might tilt on the side of one
party, the same cannot be enforced so A direct invocation of this Courts
as to overrule positive provisions of law jurisdiction is allowed only when there
in favor of the other. Equity cannot are special and important reasons that
10
are clearly and specifically set forth in a The Diocese of Bacolod v.
petition. The rationale behind this policy Comelec, G.R. No. 205728,
arises from the necessity of preventing January 21, 2015
(1) inordinate demands upon the time The doctrine that requires respect for
and attention of the Court, which is the hierarchy of courts was created by
better devoted to those matters within this court to ensure that every level of
its exclusive jurisdiction; and (2) further the judiciary performs its designated
overcrowding of the Courts docket. roles in an effective and efficient
manner. Trial courts do not only
Dy v. Bibat-Palmos, G.R. No. determine the facts from the evaluation
196200, September 11, 2013 of the evidence presented before them.
They are likewise competent to
Under the principle of hierarchy of determine issues of law which may
courts, direct recourse to this Court is include the validity of an ordinance,
improper because the Supreme Court is statute, or even an executive issuance
a court of last resort and must remain in relation to the Constitution.67 To
to be so in order for it to satisfactorily effectively perform these functions,
perform its constitutional functions, they are territorially organized into
thereby allowing it to devote its time regions and then into branches. Their
and attention to matters within its writs generally reach within those
exclusive jurisdiction and preventing territorial boundaries. Necessarily, they
the overcrowding of its docket. mostly perform the all-important task of
Nonetheless, the invocation of this inferring the facts from the evidence as
Courts original jurisdiction to issue these are physically presented before
writs of certiorari has been allowed in them. In many instances, the facts
certain instances on the ground of occur within their territorial jurisdiction,
special and important reasons clearly which properly present the actual case
stated in the petition, such as, that makes ripe a determination of the
constitutionality of such action. The
(1) when dictated by the public welfare consequences, of course, would be
and the advancement of public policy; national in scope. There are, however,
(2) when demanded by the broader some cases where resort to courts at
interest of justice; their level would not be practical
(3) when the challenged orders were considering their decisions could still be
patent nullities; or appealed before the higher courts, such
(4) when analogous exceptional and as the Court of Appeals.
compelling circumstances called for and
justified the immediate and direct The Court of Appeals is primarily
handling of the case. designed as an appellate court that
reviews the determination of facts and
This case falls under one of the law made by the trial courts. It is
exceptions to the principle of hierarchy collegiate in nature. This nature ensures
of courts. Justice demands that this more standpoints in the review of the
Court take cognizance of this case to actions of the trial court. But the Court
put an end to the controversy and of Appeals also has original jurisdiction
resolve the matter which has been over most special civil actions. Unlike
dragging on for more than twenty (20) the trial courts, its writs can have a
years. Moreover, in light of the fact that nationwide scope. It is competent to
what is involved is a final judgment determine facts and, ideally, should act
promulgated by this Court, it is but on constitutional issues that may not
proper for petitioner to call upon its necessarily be novel unless there are
original jurisdiction and seek final factual questions to determine.
clarification. This court, on the other hand, leads the
11
judiciary by breaking new ground or Yadno v. Anchales, G.R. No.
further reiterating in the light of new 174582, October 11, 2012
circumstances or in the light of some
confusions of bench or bar existing We find that the Baguio RTC correctly
precedents. Rather than a court of first dismissed the case for injunction with
instance or as a repetition of the actions damages filed with it, since it had no
of the Court of Appeals, this court jurisdiction over the nature of the
promulgates these doctrinal devices in action. Petitioners' predecessors could
order that it truly performs that role. not in an action for injunction with
damages filed with the Baguio RTC
In other words, the Supreme sought the nullification of a final and
Courts role to interpret the Constitution executory decision rendered by the
and act in order to protect Urdaneta RTC and its subsequent orders
constitutional rights when these issued pursuant thereto for the
become exigent should not be satisfaction of the said judgment. This
emasculated by the doctrine in respect would go against the principle of judicial
of the hierarchy of courts. That has stability where the judgment or order of
never been the purpose of such a court of competent jurisdiction, the
doctrine. Urdaneta RTC, may not be interfered
with by any court of concurrent
Thus, the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts is not an iron-clad rule. This court jurisdiction (i.e., another RTC), for the
simple reason that the power to open,
has "full discretionary power to take
modify or vacate the said judgment or
cognizance and assume jurisdiction
order is not only possessed by but is
[over] special civil actions for certiorari .
restricted to the court in which the
. .filed directly with it for exceptionally
judgment or order is rendered or issued.
compelling reasons or if warranted by
the nature of the issues clearly and
The long standing doctrine is that no
specifically raised in the petition." As
court has the power to interfere by
correctly pointed out by petitioners, we
injunction with the judgments or
have provided exceptions to this
decrees of a court of concurrent or
doctrine:
coordinate jurisdiction. The various trial
First, a direct resort to this court is courts of a province or city, having the
allowed when there are genuine issues same or equal authority, should not,
of constitutionality that must be cannot, and are not permitted to
addressed at the most immediate time. interfere with their respective cases,
A direct resort to this court includes much less with their orders or
availing of the remedies of certiorari judgments. A contrary rule would
and prohibition to assail the obviously lead to confusion and
constitutionality of actions of both seriously hamper the administration of
legislative and executive branches of justice.
the government.
9. Doctrine of non-interference Spouses Crisologo v. Judge
or doctrine of judicial stability Omelio, A.M. No. RTJ-12-2321,
Courts of equal and coordinate October 2012
jurisdiction cannot interfere or review
with the orders of each other. A court is In the case at bar, petitioner filed an
barred from reviewing judgments of a independent action for the annulment
co-equal court over which it has not of the certificate of sale issued in favor
appellate jurisdiction nor power of of private respondent, contending that
review. the property levied upon and sold to
Also applicable to administrative private respondent by virtue of the writ
bodies. of execution issued in Criminal Case No.
12
90-2645 was her exclusive property, not In this case, the Court finds that the
that of the judgment obligor. Pursuant Paraaque RTC violated the doctrine
to our ruling in Sy v. Discaya, petitioner of judicial stability when it took
is deemed a stranger to the action cognizance of Teresita's nullification
wherein the writ of execution was case despite the fact that the
issued and is therefore justified in collection case from which it
bringing an independent action to emanated falls within the jurisdiction
vindicate her right of ownership over of the Makati RTC. Verily, the
the subject property. nullification case ought to have been
dismissed at the outset for lack of
Contrary to the stand taken by the trial jurisdiction, as the Paraaque RTC is
court, the filing of such an independent bereft of authority to nullify the levy
action cannot be considered an and sale of the subject property that
encroachment upon the jurisdiction of a was legitimately ordered by the
co-equal and coordinate court. The Makati RTC, a coordinate and co-
court issuing the writ of execution may equal court. In fact, the Paraaque
enforce its authority only over RTC was already on the right track
properties of the judgment debtor; thus, when it initially dismissed the
the sheriff acts properly only when he nullification case in its Decision51
subjects to execution property dated July 8, 2010. However, it
undeniably belonging to the judgment changed its stance and reconsidered
debtor. If the sheriff levies upon the its disposition upon Teresita's motion
assets of a third person in which the for reconsideration, thereby
judgment debtor has no interest, then committing reversible error. To
he is acting beyond the limits of his reiterate, the determination of
authority and is amenable to control whether or not the levy and sale of a
and correction by a court of competent property in the execution of a
jurisdiction in a separate and judgment was valid properly falls
independent action. This is in within the jurisdiction of the court
consonance with the well-established that rendered the judgment and
principle that no man shall be affected issued the writ of execution.
by any proceeding to which he is a
stranger. Execution of a judgment can A judgment rendered by a court
only be issued against a party to the without jurisdiction is null and void
action, and not against one who has not and may be attacked anytime. It
yet had his day in court. creates no rights and produces no
effect. It remains a basic fact in law
Compare with Tan v. Cinco, that the choice of the proper forum is
G.R. No. 213054, June 15, crucial, as the decision of a court or
2016 tribunal without jurisdiction is a total
To summarize, the various branches of nullity. A void judgment for want of
the regional trial courts of a province or jurisdiction is no judgment at all. All
city, having as they do the same or acts performed pursuant to it and all
equal authority and exercising as they claims emanating from it have no
do concurrent and coordinate legal effect.
jurisdiction, should not, cannot, and are
not permitted to interfere with their Del Rosario v. Ocampo-Ferrer,
respective cases, much less with their G.R. No. 215348, June 20,
orders or judgments. A contrary rule 2016
would obviously lead to confusion and At the outset, the Court emphasizes
seriously hamper the administration of that under the doctrine of judicial
justice. stability or non-interference in the
regular orders or judgments of a co-
13
equal court, the various trial courts there should be a remedy against this
of a province or city, having the violation. The remedy, however, is not
same equal authority, should not, the resort to another co-equal body but
cannot, and are not permitted to to a higher court with authority to
interfere with their respective cases, nullify the action of the issuing court.
much less with their orders or This is precisely the judicial power that
judgments. In Barroso v. Omelio, the the 1987 Constitution, under Article VIII,
Court had the opportunity to Section 1, paragraph 2, speaks of and
thoroughly explain the said doctrine which this Court has operationalized
in this manner: through a petition for certiorari, under
The doctrine of judicial Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
stability or non-interference in the
regular orders or judgments of a co- It is not a viable legal position to claim
equal court is an elementary that a TRO against a writ of execution is
principle in the administration of issued against an erring sheriff, not
justice: no court can interfere by against the issuing Judge. A TRO
injunction with the judgments or enjoining the enforceability of a writ
orders of another court of concurrent addresses the writ itself, not merely the
jurisdiction having the power to grant executing sheriff. x x x As already
the relief sought by the injunction. mentioned above, the appropriate
The rationale for the rule is founded action is to assail the implementation of
on the concept of jurisdiction: a court the writ before the issuing court in
that acquires jurisdiction over the whose behalf the sheriff acts, and, upon
case and renders judgment therein failure, to seek redress through a higher
has jurisdiction over its judgment, to judicial body.
the exclusion of all other coordinate
courts, for its execution and over all
incidents, and to control, in 10. Doctrine of non-interference in
furtherance of justice, the conduct of Associations
ministerial officers acting in Courts will not interfere with the
connection with this judgment. internal affairs of an unincorporated
association so as to settle disputes
Thus, we have repeatedly held that a between the members on question of
case where an execution order has policy, discipline, or internal
been issued is considered as still government, so long as the government
pending, so that all proceedings on the of the society is fairly and honestly
execution are still proceedings in the administered in conformity with its laws
suit. A court which issued a writ of and the law of the land and no property
execution has the inherent power, for or civil rights are invaded.
the advancement of justice, to correct
errors of its ministerial officers and to II. Jurisdiction
control its own processes. To hold
otherwise would be to divide the Locsin v. Nissan Lease Phils.
jurisdiction of the appropriate forum in Inc., G.R. No. 185567, October
the resolution of incidents arising in 20, 2010
execution proceedings. Splitting of Under these circumstances, we have to
jurisdiction is obnoxious to the orderly give precedence to the merits of the
administration of justice. case, and primacy to the element of
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power to
To be sure, the law and the rules are not hear and rule on a case and is the
unaware that an issuing court may threshold element that must exist
violate the law in issuing a writ of before any quasi-judicial officer can act.
execution and have recognized that In the context of the present case, the
14
Labor Arbiter does not have jurisdiction voluntary submission to the authority of
over the termination dispute Locsin the court.
brought, and should not be allowed to 3. Compare with Criminal
continue to act on the case after the Procedure
absence of jurisdiction has become
obvious, based on the records and the B. Jurisdiction over the subject
law. In more practical terms, a contrary matter
ruling will only cause substantial delay 1. Meaning of jurisdiction over the
and inconvenience as well as subject matter
unnecessary expenses, to the point of The power to hear and determine cases
injustice, to the parties. This conclusion, of a general class to which the
of course, does not go into the merits of proceedings in question belong.
termination of relationship and is Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
without prejudice to the filing of an conferred by law and not by the consent
intra-corporate dispute on this point or acquiescence of any or all of the
before the appropriate RTC. parties or by erroneous belief of the
court that it exists. Jurisdiction over the
Civil Service Commission v. subject matter is determined by the
Andal, G.R. No. 185749, cause or causes of action as alleged in
December 16, 2009 the complaint.
The CSC recognized the disciplinary 2. Jurisdiction versus the exercise
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over of jurisdiction
court personnel. This is consonant with Jurisdiction is conferred by substantive
Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 law while the exercise of jurisdiction
Constitution vesting in the Supreme unless otherwise provided by the law
Court administrative supervision over itself is governed by the Rules of Court
all courts and the personnel thereof, or by the orders issued from time to
thus: time by the Supreme Court.
Where there is jurisdiction over the
Sec. 6. The Supreme Court shall have person and the subject matter, the
administrative supervision over all decision of all other questions arising in
courts and the personnel thereof. the case is but an exercise of that
jurisdiction.
By virtue of this power, it is only the
3. Error of jurisdiction as
Supreme Court that can oversee the
distinguished from error of
judges and court personnels
judgment
administrative compliance with all laws,
rules and regulations. No other branch
4. How jurisdiction is conferred and
of government may intrude into this
determined
power, without running afoul of the
Only the Constitution or law confers
doctrine of separation of powers.
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
A. Jurisdiction over the parties
On the other hand, what determines the
1. How jurisdiction over the
nature of the action as well as the
plaintiff is acquired
court, which has jurisdiction over the
Jurisdiction is acquired over the person
case, is the allegation made by the
of the plaintiff and the subject matter
plaintiff in his complaint.
by the filing of the complaint or petition.
Gustilo v. Gustilo, G.R. No.
An action or proceeding is commenced
175497, October 19, 2011, 659
by the filing of the complaint or other
SCRA 619
initiatory pleading.
It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over
2. How jurisdiction over the
the subject matter is determined by
defendant is acquired
the allegations in the complaint.
By the service of summons or other
But where the parties raise the issue
coercive process upon him or by his
15
of ownership, as in this case, the assessed value of the property
courts may pass upon such issue to exceeds P20,000.00, fall under the
determine who between the parties jurisdiction of the RTC. Consequently,
has the right to possess the property. no grave abuse of discretion excess
This adjudication, however, is not of jurisdiction can be attributed to
final and binding as regards the issue the RTC in denying RCAMs motion to
of ownership; it is merely for the dismiss.
purpose of resolving the issue of
possession when it is inseparably Moreover, it should be stressed that
connected to the issue of ownership. the only incident before the CA for
The adjudication on the issue of resolution was the propriety of
ownership, being provisional, is not a RCAMs motion to dismiss, thus, it
bar to an action between the same was premature for the CA at this
parties involving title to the property. stage to apply the doctrine of
Also, any intra-corporate issues that equitable estoppel as the parties
may be involved in determining the have not presented any evidence
real owner of the property may be that would support such finding.
threshed out in a separate
proceeding in the proper commercial Ching v. Rodriguez, G.R. No.
court. 192828, November 28, 2011,
Republic v. Roman Catholic 661 SCRA 449
Archbishop of Manila, G.R. No. It is an elementary rule of
192975, November 12, 2012 procedural law that jurisdiction of
In the present case, the material the court over the subject matter
averments, as well as the character is determined by the allegations
of the relief prayed for by petitioners of the complaint irrespective of
in the complaint before the RTC, whether or not the plaintiff is
show that their action is one for entitled to recover upon all or
cancellation of titles and reversion, some of the claims asserted
not for annulment of judgment of the therein. As a necessary
RTC. The complaint alleged that Lot consequence, the jurisdiction of
Nos. 43 to 50, the parcels of land the court cannot be made to
subject matter of the action, were depend upon the defenses set up
not the subject of the CFIs judgment in the answer or upon the motion
in the relevant prior land registration to dismiss, for otherwise, the
case. Hence, petitioners pray that question of jurisdiction would
the certificates of title of RCAM be almost entirely depend upon the
cancelled which will not necessitate defendant. What determines the
the annulment of said judgment. jurisdiction of the court is the
Clearly, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court nature of the action pleaded as
on annulment of judgment finds no appearing from the allegations in
application in the instant case. the complaint. The averments in
the complaint and the character
The RTC may properly take of the relief sought are the
cognizance of reversion suits which matters to be consulted.
do not call for an annulment of
judgment of the RTC22 acting as a Gonzales v. GJH Land, Inc.,
Land Registration Court. Actions for G.R. No. 202664, November
cancellation of title and reversion, 10, 2015
like the present case, belong to the At the outset, the Court finds Branch
class of cases that "involve the title 276 to have correctly categorized Civil
to, or possession of, real property, or Case No. 11-077 as a commercial case,
any interest therein" and where the more particularly, an intra-corporate
16
dispute, considering that it relates to then assign said case to the only
petitioners' averred rights over the designated Special Commercial Court in
shares of stock offered for sale to other the station.
stockholders, having paid the same in
full. Applying the relationship test and 5. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
the nature of the controversy test, the Non-exhaustion of administrative
suit between the parties is clearly remedies
rooted in the existence of an intra- It is incumbent upon the party who has
corporate relationship and pertains to an administrative remedy to pursue the
the enforcement of their correlative same to its appropriate conclusion
rights and obligations under the before seeking judicial intervention.
Corporation Code and the internal and The theory is that the administrative
intra-corporate regulatory rules of the authorities are in a better position to
corporation, hence, intra-corporate, resolve questions addressed to their
which should be heard by the particular expertise that errors
designated Special Commercial Court committed by subordinates in their
as provided under A.M. No. 03-03-03- resolution may be rectified by their
SC25 dated June 17, 2003 superiors if given a chance to do so.
The failure to exhaust administrative
As a basic premise, let it be emphasized remedies, however, does not affect the
that a court's acquisition of jurisdiction jurisdiction of the court. Non-exhaustion
over a particular case's subject matter of administrative remedies only renders
is different from incidents pertaining to the action premature, that the claimed
the exercise of its jurisdiction. cause of action is not ripe for judicial
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a determination.
case is conferred by law, whereas a Doctrine of Primary jurisdiction
court's exercise of jurisdiction, unless The court cannot or will not determine a
provided by the law itself, is governed controversy involving a question which
by the Rules of Court or by the orders is within the jurisdiction of an
issued from time to time by the Court. administrative tribunal prior to resolving
In Lozada v. Bracewell, it was recently the same, where the question demands
held that the matter of whether the RTC the exercise of sound administrative
resolves an issue in the exercise of its discretion requiring special knowledge,
general jurisdiction or of its limited experience and services in determining
jurisdiction as a special court is only a technical or intricate matters of fact.
matter of procedure and has nothing to Exceptions:
do with the question of jurisdiction. A. where there is estoppel on the part
of the party invoking the doctrine;
the Court nonetheless deems that the B. where the challenged
erroneous raffling to a regular branch administrative act is patently
instead of to a Special Commercial illegal, amounting to lack of
Court is only a matter of procedure - jurisdiction;
that is, an incident related to the C. where there is unreasonable delay
exercise of jurisdiction - and, thus, or official inaction what will
should not negate the jurisdiction which irretrievably prejudice the
the RTC of Muntinlupa City had already complaint;
acquired. In such a scenario, the proper D. where the amount involved is
course of action was not for the relatively small so as to make the
commercial case to be dismissed; rule impractical and oppressive;
instead, Branch 276 should have first E. where the question involved is
referred the case to the Executive Judge purely legal and will ultimately
for re-docketing as a commercial case; have to be decided by the courts
thereafter, the Executive Judge should of justice;
17
F. where judicial intervention is the proper administrative bodies, relief
urgent; must first be obtained in an
G. when its application may cause administrative proceeding before a
great and irreparable damage; remedy is supplied by the courts even if
H. where the controverted acts the matter may well be within their
violate due process; proper jurisdiction. It applies where a
I. when the issue of non-exhaustion claim is originally cognizable in the
of administrative remedies has courts, and comes into play whenever
been rendered moot; enforcement of the claim requires the
J. when there is no other plain, resolution of issues which, under a
speedy and adequate remedy; regulatory scheme, have been placed
K. when strong public interest is within the special competence of an
involved; administrative agency. In such a case,
L. in quo warranto proceedings. the court in which the claim is sought to
Merida Waterworks District v. be enforced may suspend the judicial
Bacarro, G.R. No. 165993, process pending referral of such issues
September 30, 2008 to the administrative body for its view
Non-exhaustion of administrative or, if the parties would not be unfairly
remedies renders the action premature. disadvantaged, dismiss the case
The Court has consistently reiterated without prejudice.
the rationale behind the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies: The objective of the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction is to guide the court in
One of the reasons for the doctrine of determining whether it should refrain
exhaustion is the separation of powers, from exercising its jurisdiction until after
which enjoins upon the Judiciary a an administrative agency has
becoming policy of non-interference determined some question or some
with matters coming primarily (albeit aspect of some question arising in the
not exclusively) within the competence proceeding before the court.
of the other departments. The theory is
that the administrative authorities are Star Special Watchman and
in a better position to resolve questions Detective Agency Inc. v.
addressed to their particular expertise Puerto Princesa City, G.R. No.
and that errors committed by 181792, April 21, 2014
subordinates in their resolution may be
rectified by their superiors if given a The execution of the monetary
chance to do so It may be added that judgment against the UP was within the
strict enforcement of the rule could also primary jurisdiction of the COA. This
relieve the courts of a considerable was expressly provided in Section 26 of
number of avoidable cases which Presidential Decree No. 1445, to wit:
otherwise would burden their heavily
loaded dockets. Section 26. General jurisdiction. - The
authority and powers of the
The Province of Aklan v. Jody Commission shall extend to and
King Construction and comprehend all matters relating to
Development Corp., G.R. No. auditing procedures, systems and
197592 & 202623, November controls, the keeping of the general
27, 2013 accounts of the Government, the
preservation of vouchers pertaining
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction thereto for a period of ten years, the
holds that if a case is such that its examination and inspection of the
determination requires the expertise, books, records, and papers relating to
specialized training and knowledge of those accounts; and the audit and
18
settlement of the accounts of all e. When the statute expressly
persons respecting funds or property provides, or is construed to the
received or held by them in an effect that it intended to operate
accountable capacity, as well as the as to actions pending before its
examination, audit, and settlement of enactment.
all debts and claims of any sort due f. Once appeal has been perfected.
from or owing to the Government or any g. When the law is curative.
of its subdivisions, agencies and Barrameda v. Rural Bank of
instrumentalities. The said jurisdiction Canaman Inc., G.R. No.
extends to all government-owned or 176260, November 24, 2010
controlled corporations, including their Indeed, the Court recognizes the
subsidiaries, and other self-governing doctrine on adherence of
boards, commissions, or agencies of the jurisdiction. Lucia, however, must be
Government, and as herein prescribed, reminded that such principle is not
including non governmental entities without exceptions. It is well to quote
subsidized by the government, those the ruling of the CA on this matter,
funded by donations through the thus:
government, those required to pay This Court is not unmindful nor unaware
levies or government share, and those of the doctrine on the adherence of
for which the government has put up a jurisdiction. However, the rule on
counterpart fund or those partly funded adherence of jurisdiction is not absolute
by the government. and has exceptions. One of the
exceptions is that when the change in
6. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction is curative in character
jurisdiction
Jurisdiction, once it attaches, cannot be 7. Objections to jurisdiction over
ousted by the happening of subsequent the subject matter
events even of such character which
should have prevented jurisdiction from Machado v. Gatdula, G.R. No.
attaching in the first instance. 156287, February 16, 2010
Exception: Lack of jurisdiction over the subject
When the change in jurisdiction is matter of the suit is yet another matter.
curative in character. Whenever it appears that the court has
Instances when a court may lose no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
jurisdiction even if it has been attached the action shall be dismissed. This
to it: defense may be interposed at any time,
a. When a subsequent law provides during appeal or even after final
a prohibition for the continued judgment. Such is understandable, as
exercise of jurisdiction. this kind of jurisdiction is conferred by
b. Where the law penalizing an act law and not within the courts, let alone
which is punishable is repealed by the parties, to themselves determine or
a subsequent law. conveniently set aside. In People v.
c. When accused is deprived of his Casiano, this Court, on the issue of
constitutional right such as where estoppel, held:
the court fails to provide counsel
for the accused who is unable to The operation of the principle of
obtain one and does not estoppel on the question of jurisdiction
intelligently waive his seemingly depends upon whether the
constitutional right. lower court actually had jurisdiction or
d. When the proceedings in the not. If it had no jurisdiction, but the
court acquiring jurisdiction is case was tried and decided upon
terminated abandoned or the theory that it had jurisdiction,
declared void. the parties are not barred, on
19
appeal, from assailing such appearance before the RTC that it is
jurisdiction, for the same must separate and distinct from Kukan, Inc.
exist as a matter of law, and may C. Jurisdiction over the issues
not be conferred by consent of the An expression used to direct the
parties or by estoppel However if the attention to whether the issue being
lower court had jurisdiction, and the tried and decided is within the issues
case was heard and decided upon a raised by the pleadings. Jurisdiction
given theory, such, for instance, as that over the subject matter is conferred by
the court had no jurisdiction, the party law while the jurisdiction over the
who induced it to adopt such theory will issues is conferred by the pleadings and
not be permitted, on appeal, to assume is conferred upon by the parties and
an inconsistent position that the lower may therefore be waived such as when
court had jurisdiction. Here, the an issue not raised in the pleadings is
principle of estoppel applies. The rule tried by implied consent.
that jurisdiction in conferred by law, and D. Jurisdiction over the res or
does not depend upon the will of the property in litigation
parties, has no bearing thereon. E. Jurisdiction of courts
1. Supreme Court
8. Effect of estoppel on objections Sec. 4 (2), Art. VIII, 1987
to jurisdiction Constitution
All cases involving the constitutionality
Kukan International Corp. v. of a treat, international or executive
Hon. Reyes, G.R. No. 182729, agreement, or law, which shall be heard
September 29, 2010 by the Supreme Court en banc, and all
In the instant case, KIC was not made a other cases which under the Rules of
party-defendant in Civil Case No. 99- Court are required to be heard en banc,
93173. Even if it is conceded that it including those involving the
raised affirmative defenses through its constitutionality, application, or
aforementioned pleadings, KIC never operation of presidential decrees
abandoned its challenge, however Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987
implicit, to the RTCs jurisdiction over its Constitution
person. The challenge was subsumed in The Supreme Court shall have the
KICs primary assertion that it was not following powers:
the same entity as Kukan, Inc. g. Exercise original jurisdiction over
Pertinently, in its Comment and cases affecting ambassadors,
Opposition to Plaintiffs Omnibus Motion other public ministers and
dated May 20, 2003, KIC entered its consuls, and over petitions for
special but not voluntary appearance certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
alleging therein that it was a different quo warranto and habeas corpus.
entity and has a separate legal h. Review, revise, reverse, modify,
personality from Kukan, Inc. And KIC or affirm on appeal or certiorari,
would consistently reiterate this as the law or the Rules of Court
assertion in all its pleadings, thus may provide, final judgments and
effectively resisting all along the RTCs orders of lower courts in:
jurisdiction of its person. It cannot be I. All cases in which the
overemphasized that KIC could not file constitutionality or validity
before the RTC a motion to dismiss and of any treaty, international
its attachments in Civil Case No. 99- or executive agreement,
93173, precisely because KIC was law, presidential decree,
neither impleaded nor served with proclamation, order,
summons. Consequently, KIC could only instruction, ordinance, or
assert and claim through its affidavits, regulation is in question.
comments, and motions filed by special II. All cases involving the
20
legality of any tax impost, Court en banc matters and cases. The
assessment, or toll, or any Court en banc shall act on the following
penalty imposed in relation matters and cases:
thereto.
III. All cases in which the (a) cases in which the constitutionality
jurisdiction of any lower or validity of any treaty, international or
court I in issue. executive agreement, law, executive
IV. All criminal cases in which order, presidential decree,
the penalty imposed is proclamation, order, instruction,
reclusion perpetua or ordinance, or regulation is in question;
higher.
V. All cases in which only an (b) criminal cases in which the appealed
error or question of law is decision imposes the death penalty or
involved. reclusion perpetua;
i. Assign temporarily judges of
lower courts to other stations as (c) cases raising novel questions of law;
public interest may require. Such
temporary assignment shall not (d) cases affecting ambassadors, other
exceed six months without the public ministers, and consuls;
consent of the judge concerned.
j. Order a change of venue or place (e) cases involving decisions,
of trial to avoid a miscarriage of resolutions, and orders of the Civil
justice. Service Commission, the Commission
k. Promulgate rules concerning the on Elections, and the Commission on
protection and enforcement of Audit;
constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all (f) cases where the penalty
courts, the admission to the recommended or imposed is the
practice of law, the integrated dismissal of a judge, the disbarment of
bar, and legal assistance to the a lawyer, the suspension of any of them
underprivileged. Such rules shall for a period of more than one year, or a
provide a simplified and fine exceeding forty thousand pesos;
inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall (g) cases covered by the preceding
be uniform for all courts of the paragraph and involving the
same grade, and shall not reinstatement in the judiciary of a
diminish, increase, or modify dismissed judge, the reinstatement of a
substantive rights. Rules of lawyer in the roll of attorneys, or the
procedure of special courts, and lifting of a judges suspension or a
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain lawyers suspension from the practice
effective unless disapproved by of law;
the Supreme Court.
l. Appoint all officials and (h) cases involving the discipline of a
employees of the judiciary in Member of the Court, or a Presiding
accordance with the civil Service Justice, or any Associate Justice of the
law. collegial appellate court;
(j) the findings of fact of the collegial (c) cases raising novel questions of
appellate courts are premised on the law;
supposed evidence, but are
contradicted by the evidence on record; (d) cases affecting ambassadors, other
and public ministers, and consuls;
(k) all other similar and exceptional (e) cases involving decisions,
cases warranting a review of the lower resolutions, and orders of the Civil
courts findings of fact. Service Commission, the Commission
on Elections, and the Commission on
Audit;
Rule 10, Sec. 2
Confidentiality of court sessions. Court (f) cases where the penalty
sessions are executive in character, recommended or imposed is the
with only the Members of the Court dismissal of a judge, the disbarment of
23
a lawyer, the suspension of any of
them for a period of more than one
year, or a fine exceeding forty
thousand pesos;
24