Reviewer in Jurisdiction Remedial Law

JURISDICTION REVIEWER
Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.
CASE TITLE CONCEPTS

JUDICIAL POWER
MEANING and JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY
BELGICA 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 which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there 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. HREP
ESSENTIAL 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 not in 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 judiciary in 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 Concepts
1. Judicial Power
POLITICAL 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 such suspension is to be annulled if no
legal ground could be established. Thus, SUCH ACTION IS ALREADY CONSIDERED
JUSTICIABLE TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURTS.
Sterling v. Constantin:
when there is substantial showing that the exertion of state power has overridden private
rightsthe subject is necessarily one of judicial inquiry.
VINUYA vs. EXEC. ISSUE:
SECRETARY W/N the Exec. Dept. committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing petitioners claim for official
apology of Japan?
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 entered into 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. GLORIA ISSUE:
ARROYO
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?

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 COURT IN ITS FINAL RAMPANT.
A. Definitions and Concepts
2. Courts and Judges; Definitions
COURT OF LAW AND COURT OF EQUITY DISTINGUISHED
TING 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 and not even an implied trust can be permitted to
arise considerations. Save the exception provided in cases in hereditary succession, Respondents
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 court of 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. Involves a labor case where the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of merit which was sustained
TAGYAMON by the NLRC on the grounds of laches. Respondents appealed to the CA, the appellate court reversed
NLRCs decision because the principle 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 be invoked 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 has cognizance 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- 1.) The case involves E.O. No. 12 issued by PGMA creating the Phil. Anti-Graft Commission which
IAD was later on abolished by E.O 13 by PNoy, creating ODESLA-Investigative and Adjudicatory
Division.
2.) BIRAOGO v. PHIL.
TRUTH COMMISSION 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 PGMAs administration.
**SAME ISSUE AND RULING WITH PICHAY V ODESLA.

1.) SIMON 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
2.) CARIO v. 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 Cario
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 Petitioners 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 FRAUD and 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 cause

Exercise 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- RULING:
MANZO Respondents alleged loss of remedies attributable to their former counsels late filing of their
motion and that they only hired a new counsel after the formers 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 not vest 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 to adjudicate 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. MANGOTARA
BIACO 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 persons 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.
1
JURISDICTION OVER RES IS ACQUIRED THRU:
Seizure of property under legal process and brought to actual custody of the law;
Result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the 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, in excluding the defendant
from any property located in the Philippines; and,
4. When the defendants property has been attached within the Philippines.
ESSENCE OF ADJUDICATORY POWERS

Case involves an injunction suit against NAPACOR regarding Caliraya Hyrdoelectric Power Plant and
SPS FERRER v. PUHAWAN 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; EXCEPTION

VDA. DE BALLESTEROS v. RURAL The Court recognizes the doctrine on adherence of jurisdiction. However, such principle is not without
BANK OF CANAMAN 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 Venue

1.) 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 environmental laws.
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
5. 1. An agency neglects the performance of an act or unlawfully excludes
another from enjoying a right
6. 2. The act to be performed by the govt agency is specifically enjoined by law
7. 3. Such duty results from an office/duty in connection with enforcement of an
environmental law/rule
8. 4. There is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law.
9.
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
accessibility to 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 administration of 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 dismiss it 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 not
1. 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 a cause 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 public officer 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 CSCs 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 a measure

intended to enable the disciplining authority to investigate charges against
respondent by preventing the latter from intimidating or 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 the government service, whether career or non-
career.
In this case, Respondent, a state university president with a fixed term of 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 pertaining to 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 not lie 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 ACTIONS

STO. 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 THEIR RIGHT 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 LAWS 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 uphold its 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).

r
Petitioner contends that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case since his 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 that the 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 CASESthe 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 CASESTHIS 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 locations where the pepcoalition website is likewise accessed or capable of being
accessed.
UNION BANK OF THE PHILS vs. Facts:

PEOPLE 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 is sworn) 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 the document 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 criminal actions:
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 only encompasses 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 Facts:
AUCTIONEERS vs. PARAYNO, JR. 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 commissioner at 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/CONSENT

HEIRS OF SANTIAGO NISPERAS IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:
vs. NISPERAS-DISCUSIN
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 court otherwise 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 is fairly 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 assetsdetermined as shall
hereinafter be discussed as prima facie ill-gottenfalls 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 DARABs 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 CATHOLIC IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

ARCHBISHOP 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 abuse of 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 is that 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 SECs 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 ROSARIO IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:
vs. 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/JURISDICTION
BAGUIO MARKET VENDORS vs. IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:
HON. CABATO-CORTES
Whether or not petitioners application for extrajudicial foreclosure is exempt 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 Courts
institutional independence, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practive and procedure is
now the Courts 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 and orderly administration
of justice; by specifying proper venue where such cases may be filed and heard.
Castillos 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 writing
2. 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 mentioned requirements
That respondent sought judicial intervention of the RTC before even duly
completing the protest process.
Considering that the Respondents petition in RTC Manila, the court could not have lawfully
acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 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 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 PLAINTIFFS UPON FILING OF THE

COMPLAINT, AND TO BE BOUND BY A DECISION, A PARTY SHOULD FIRST BE
SUBJECTED TO THE COURTS JURISDICTION.
Since the court has no jurisdiction over the complaint and respondent, petitioner is not estopped
from challenging the trial courts 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 JURISDICTION
PEOPLE 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/PETITIONER
MACASAET 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 long as it acquires jurisdiction over the res
that is the subject matter of the action. The purpose of summons in such action is not the
acquisition of 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 FILED
PALMIANO-SALVADOR V. What is the effect of a complaint filed by one who has not proven his authority to
ANGELES 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 the
complaint 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 by a 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/RESPONDENT

OPTIMA 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 defendants 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
latters 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 defendants voluntary appearance in court.
When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the courts 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.
A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based
1.) RAPID CITY REALTY v. on the ground of invalid service of summons is not deemed to have submitted himself to the
SPOUSES VILLA; jurisdiction of the court.
2.) EUROPA v. HUNTERS It is settled that if there is no valid service of summons, the court can still acquire
GARMENTS MFG. jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by virtue of the latters 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 courts jurisdiction.
A party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the courts 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 herein petitioner. 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 never been able to enter
the Philippines.
HOW JURISDICTION OVER A DEFENDANT OUTSIDE OF THE PHILIPPINES IS ACQUIRED
MACASAET 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 of the non-resident defendant is not essential.
JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT ACQUIRED BY SUMMON NOT BY MERE INFORMATION ACQUIRED BY
DEFENDANT
CRISOLOGO v. OMELIO Judge Omelios (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 very elementary, that non-observance and lack of knowledge on them
constitute gross 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.
RESPONDENTS ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE CASE = ESTOPPEL
MAXICARE 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 upon by 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 of jurisdiction
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
partys 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. DE "While it is true that jurisdiction may be raised at any time, "this rule presupposes that estoppel
BELEN has not supervened." In the instant case, respondent actively participated in all stages of the
proceedings before the trial court and invoked its authority by asking for an affirmative relief.
Clearly, respondent is estopped from challenging the trial courts 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 courts 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 reform cases under E.O. No. 229 and E.O. No. 129-A.
In this case, the CA emphasized that the DARABs 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 the DARABs jurisdiction.
Not every sale or transfer of agricultural land would warrant DARABs exercise of its jurisdiction.
The law is specific that the property must be 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 any or 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 DARs 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 into the 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 landowners and 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 The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its determination
KING 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 proceedings

PADLAN 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 plaintiffs 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 of the 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 of registration
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 RTCs 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 the case 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 institute the
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 CRIME NOT 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 complainants 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 agree with such decision.
The Court said that, a judgement, to be considered res judicata, must be binding, 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 dispose of the case on
the merits, IT MUST ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER 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 DEFENDANT

MEDICAL 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 RTCs
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 PUBLIC
2. between the corporation, partnership or association and THE STATE
3. between the corporation, partnership or association and ITS STOCKHOLDERS, OFFICERS
4. 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 Commercial Court has jurisdiction over the case.
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT
MASLAG v. MONZON
1.) Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides for the dismissal of an improper
appeal:
An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of 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 filing a Petition for Review with
the CA.

Reviewer in Jurisdiction Remedial Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reviewer in Jurisdiction Remedial Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JURISDICTION REVIEWER

Idea, Dennie Vieve DP.

CASE TITLE CONCEPTS

(a) there must be an actual case or controversy;

Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution

Exception to the mootness rule:

- There is a grave violation of the Constitution;

3.) Case be filed at the earliest opportunity

- When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

The Court held NO.

WHAT IS A POLITICAL QUESTION?

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

The Court held Yes.

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

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

Issue: W/N Respondents are guilty of laches?

LACHES - defined as th failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of

COURT OF JUSTICE and QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES DISTINGUISHED

SPECIAL means designed for particular purpose

FACT FINDING IS NOT ADJUDICATION AND CANNOT BE LICENSED TO A

**SAME ISSUE AND RULING WITH PICHAY V ODESLA.

**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:

JURISDICTION is different from the EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION:

Jurisdiction means the authority to decide a cause

LACK OF JURISDICTION absence of or no jurisdiction, that the court could not

1.) ORDINARY APPEAL OR APPEAL BY WRIT OF ERROR (judgment was rendered in a

When does a question of law arises?

When there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts.

When does a question of fact arises?

FOUR INSTANCES WHEN EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS PROPER:

ESSENCE OF ADJUDICATORY POWERS

ADHERENCE TO JURISDICTION; EXCEPTION

JURISDICTION CONTRADISTINGUISHED FROM VENUE

Jurisdiction and Venue

Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

CONCEPT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS:

FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS...

NO APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN FROM:

- PRIMARY JURISDICTION to investigate any act or omission of a public officer or

- CONCURRENT JURISDICTION any act or omission of a public officer or employee

There are two kinds of preventive suspension of government employees charged

(1) preventive suspension pending investigation; and

Preventive suspension pending investigation is not a penalty. It is a measure

- In this case, Petitioners, defendants in a case, invokes that:

- On the other hand, Respondents, therein plaintiffs invokes the negative.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION ON CRIMINAL ACTIONS

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

Moreover, the JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OVER CRIMINAL CASES IS

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL IN CRIMINAL CASESTHIS PRINCIPLE ACQUIRES

UNION BANK OF THE PHILS vs. Facts:

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

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

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

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON acquired by his/her voluntary submission to the

Whether or not Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over the case?

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS RE TOPIC:

JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY LAW NOT BY THE PARTIES NOR BY THEIR AGREEMENT/CONSENT

1.) The parties has landowner and tenant relationship;