SAMSON v DAWAY
take cognizance of petitions for HC?
I: which court has jurisdiction over cases for
violations of intellectual property rights?
R: the RTC. RA 8293 and RA 166 are special
laws conferring jurisdiction over violations of
intellectual property rights to the RTC, while
RA 7691, expanding the jurisdiction of the
MTC, is a general law. Hence, jurisdiction
over cases for unfair competition is lodged in
the RTC even if the penalty is imprisonment
for less than six years and a fine ranging from
50,000 to 200,000.
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A WIRT OF HABEAS CORPUS
I: did the passage of RA 8369 revoke the
power of the CA to take cognizance of
petitions for habeas corpus, when it vested
such power “only” to family courts?
R: no, to follow such reasoning would result
to iniquitous situations, whereby individuals
would be left without legal recourse in
obtaining custody of their children if the
latter are moved from one place to another,
as they cannot seek redress from the family
courts whose writs are enforceable only
within their territorial jurisdiction.
I: who then has the juris to issue writs of HC?
R: family courts have concurrent jurisdiction
with the CA and the SC in petitions for
habeas corpus where the custody of minors
is at issue.
MADRINAN v MADRINAN
I: did RA 8369 repeal the power of the CA to
R: no. a careful reading of the law reveals that
family courts are vested with exclusive
jurisdiction in custody cases, not habeas
corpus cases; writs of HC which may be
issued exclusively by the family courts
pertain only to the ancillary remedy which
may be availed of in conjunction with
petition for custody of minors.
Garcia v Drilon
I: whether or not family courts have
jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of
a statute.
R: yes. Family courts, as special courts, are of
the same level as RTC. In spite of the
designation of an RTC as a family court, the
RTC still remains to be a court of general
jurisdiction with authority to pass upon all
cases, including the power of judicial review
or the power to declare the constitutionality
of a law, treaty, international or exec
agreement, presidential order, instruction,
oridnance, etc.
PEPSI COLA DISTRIBUTORS OF THE PHILS v
GAL-LANG
I: what is the extent of the jurisdiction of the
labor arbiters?
R: all cases where there is a reasonable causal
connection between the claim asserted and
the employer-employee relationship; absent
such a link, the complaint is cognizable by
the regular courts of justice in the exercise of
their civil and crim jurisdiction. In other
words, the labor arbiters only have
competence to resolve matters wherein the
applicable law is the Labor Code, but not the
RPC.
TOLOSA v NLRC
I: what is the jurisdiction of the NLRC?
R: disputes arising from employer-employee
relationships, whereby the principal relief
sought therein may only be granted by
reference to the Labor Code, other labor
statutes, or their collective bargaining
agreement.
EVIOTA v CA
I: is every dispute between employers and its
employees a labor dispute and is thus
cognizable by the labor arbiter?
R: no, actions between employers and
employees where the employer-employee
relationship is merely incidental and the
cause of action precedes from a different
source of obligation is within the jurisdiction
of the regular courts.
PIONEER CONCRETE PHILIPINES v TODARO
Concept: where there is no employer-
employee relationship, or no relief by
reference to the Labor Code is sought, but a
breach of contractual obligation is claimed,
the regular courts have jurisdiction, as an
action for breach of contractual obligation is
intrinsically a civil dispute.
MATING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL
CORP v COROS
I: what is the difference between cases
regarding termination of an employee and
termination of a corporate officer?
R: jurisdiction over the first lies with the
NLRC, while the second, in the SEC (in the
RTC, as amended by law), since in the latter
case, it is considered as an intra-corporate
dispute.
I: how does one know the corporate
officers/positions in a corporation?
R: by reference to the Corporation Code and
the by-laws of the corporation.
LOCSIN v NISSAN
I: who are the corporate officers by virtue of
the corporation code?
R: the President, treasurer, secretary and all
other officers provided as such in the by-
laws.
Concept: a corporate officer’s dismissal is
always an intra-corporate controversy.
GAYOSO v TWENTY-TWO REALTY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
I: does the MTC have jurisdiction over issues
of ownership?
R: yes, provided that the same is a requisite
to the resolution of cases involving
possession, which is cognizable by the same
court (the question of ownership shall only
be resolved to determine the issue of
possession)
BPI v ALS MANAGEMENT AND DEVT CORP that the lower court had jurisdiction. Here,
the principle of estoppel applies.
I: does the rule that questions of jurisdiction
may be raised for the first time on appeal
admit of any exceptions?
ERISTINGCOL v CA
R: yes, estoppel may bar a party from raising
I: is caption determinative of the cause of
the same issue, as when the party proceeded
action, and consequently, jurisdiction?
with the trial and only after unfavorable
judgment did it raise the issue of jurisdiction; R: no. cause of action and jurisdiction is
the court frowns upon the undesirable determined by the allegations in the
practice of submitting one’s case for decision complaint, and is not affected by the theories
and then accepting the decision only when of the defendant
favorable, and attacking it for lack of
Concept: Tijam is again, an exception to the
jurisdiction if it is not. Laches may also bar a
rule, and application of it requires that the
party from raising jurisdiction (not merely a
factual milieu surrounding the case be
matter of time but is a question of inequity
substantially the same as of Tijam.
or unfairness in permitting a right or claim to
be enforced or asserted).

MEDINA INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY

METROMEDIA TIMES CORP v PASTORIN
Concept: Tijam is not the general rule when
it comes to estoppel in terms of jurisdiction,
but is the exception.
Concept: the operation of estoppel in
jurisdiction depends on whether the latter
actually had jurisdiction or not. If it had no
jurisdiction, but the case was tried and
decided upon the theory that it had
jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on
appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for
the same must exist as a matter of law, and
may not be conferred by consent of the
parties or by estoppel. However, if the lower
court had jurisdiction, and the case was
heard and decided upon a given theory,
such, for instance, as that the court had no
jurisdiction, the party who induced it to
adopt such theory will not be permitted, on
appeal, to assume an inconsistent position
CORPORATION v CA
Concept: remedial statutes do not create or
take away vested rights, and thus, no right
can be violated; its retroactivity is limited to
its application to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of its passage.
HEIRS OS SPOUSES JULIAN DELA CRUZ v
HEIRS OF FLORENTINO QUINTOS
I: limitations as to the liberal construction of
the rules of procedure.
R: the same is inapplicable when there is
inexcusable negligence in the part of the
party seeking to invoke liberal construction;
rules of procedure are meant for the orderly
administration of justice; equity is only
available in the absence of and not as a
substitute for law.
DECENA v PIQUERO
I: limitations on the applicability of the
provisions of joinder of a cause of action
R: it cannot apply when there is only one
cause of action, as when the other “cause of
action” is merely incidental to the first, and is
not separate nor independent therefrom.
PEREZ v HERMANO
I: what are the requisites of a valid joinder of
causes of action?
R: (a) The party joining the causes of action
shall comply with the rules on joinder of
parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil
actions or actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between
the same parties but pertain to different
venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be
allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided
one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies
therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of
action are principally for recovery of money,
the aggregate amount claimed shall be the
test of jurisdiction.
(literal application lang nung requisites itong
case na ito)
Alba v CA
I: difference between actions in rem and
quasi in rem, and actions in personam, when
it comes to acquisition of jurisdiction over
the case by the courts.
R: in actions in rem and quasi in rem, the
petition is directed against the thing itself,
and thus jurisdiction over the defendant is
not a requisite, unlike in actions in personam.
I: how is jurisdiction over the res acquired?
R: by seizure of the res under legal process,
whereby it is brought under actual custody of
the law, or by institution of legal
proceedings.
I: what is the purpose of summons in actions
in rem?
R: to satisfy the requirements of due process.
NM Rothschild and Sons v Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Company
Concept: lack of cause of action, estoppel
and in pari delicto claims are not grounds for
a motion to dismiss; they relate to the validity
of the cause of action and must be threshed
out during the trial.
I: exception to the rule that a motion to
dismiss admits hypothetically all allegations
in the complaint
R: when the allegations refer to mere
conclusions of law.
Merrill lynch Futures, Inc v CA
General rule: a corporation transacting in the
PH without legal license to do so cannot
institute actions before domestic courts.
Exception: when the party so transacting with
the corporation is barred by estoppel (eg
when the party had acknowledged the the latter as the former’s agent falls within
corporation by entering into a contract with the ambit of “doing business” in the PH
it); this is to prevent a person contracting
with a corporation from later taking
advantage over the latter’s non-compliance LITONJUA GROUP OF COMPANIES V VIGAN
with the statutes, especially when such
I: won a group of companies may be
person had benefited from such contract.
impleaded as a defendant in an action.

R; yes, provided that the group of companies

COMMUNICATION MATERIALS AND
DESIGN INC v CA
I: is there a hard and fast (he he) rule in
determining won a corporation is “doing
business” in the PH?
R: none. It must be decided on a case to case
basis. But a helpful distinction would be that
is must not be a single or isolated transaction
or merely occasional, incidental or casual; but
when such single transaction indicates intent
to do other business in the PH, such
constitutes “doing business” in the PH
Concept: one who has dealt with a
corporation as a corporate entity is stopped
from denying its corporate existence and
capacity.
has a juridical personality separate and
distinct from that of the individual
companies comprising it, and is legally
recognized under domestic laws; as a rule,
only natural or juridical persons may be
parties to a civil action and every action must
be prosecuted and defended in the name of
the real parties in interest.
IMSON v CA
General rule: dismissal of a case against one
indispensable party thereto operates as a
dismissal against all parties
Elements for application of the rule: there
must be a common cause of action and all
the defendants are indispensable parties.

It does not apply when the causes of action

HAHN V CA arose from different bases, as in a case where
the cause of action of one is dependent upon
Concept: the courts may acquire jurisdiction
a contract and another dependent upon a
over a corporation doing business in the PH
quasi-delict.
by service of summons through the DTI.

Concept: “doing business” does not include

appointing a representative or distributor in SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS, INC v CA
the PH which transacts under his own name
I: won a mortgagor must be impleaded in a
and for his own account; the fact that a
case where the chattel mortgagee seeks to
foreign corporation has complete control
recover possession of the encumbered
over the representative so as to constitute
property.
R: yes, as the case is primarily a case for
replevin seeking to enforce foreclosure of the
mortgage. The elements of foreclosure are:
(1) existence of the mortgage; and (2) default
of the mortgagor. The mortgagor then is a
party without which the judgment of the
court cannot attain finality.
A petition for certiorari is not part of the
proceedings before the trial court, but an
original and independent action seeking to
annul the decisions of the lower court; it is in
actuality a case not between the petitioner
and defendant, but between the petitioner
and the judge the decision of whom is
sought to be annulled.

PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC V

STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY

I: how to determine whether or not there can

be a valid permissive joinder of parties
(elements)

R: Permissive joinder of parties requires that:

(a) the right to relief arises out of the same
transaction or series of transactions; (b) there
is a question of law or fact common to all the
plaintiffs or defendants; and (c) such joinder
is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions
of the Rules on jurisdiction and venue.

Another test, regarding unity of cause of

action, is that it must be ascertained whether
the same evidence which is necessary to
sustain the second cause of action would
have been sufficient to authorize a recovery
in the first.

SIOK PING TANG v SUBIC BAY DISRIBUTION,

INC

I: won banks are indispensable parties in a

case of petition for certiorari.

R: no. in determining the same, factual

circumstances could be considered, such as
the agreement of the banks to abide by the
decision of the court and its lack of action
when the petition was initiated.