JURISDICTION MIDTERM REVIEWER

Manallo, C. G.

PART ONE : GENERAL PRINCIPLES

DEFINITION OF JURISDICTION

 The power and authority of the court or tribunal to HEAR, TRY and DETERMINE
a cause or right and adjudicate on the case.
 The power or capacity given by law to a court or tribunal to ENTERTAIN, HEAR,
TRY and DETERMINE litigations.
 The power of the court over the subject matter, res or property in dispute, and to
render judgment thereon
 THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE COURT TO HEAR, TRY AND DECIDE
A CASE.

***********************************

ALLOCATION OF JURISDICTION

CONGRESS – has the authority and power to legislate on the matters of jurisdiction of
various courts (vested by the Constitution)

 DEFINES, PRESCRIBE AND ALLOCATES the jurisdiction of tribunals with

adjudicatory authority
 Cannot be delegated to another office or agency of the Government
 Rules of Court does NOT vest or define jurisdiction BELOW the Supreme Court

JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNALS WITH ADJUDICATORY POWER (as conferred by

the Consti / Law) -

1. CANNOT be granted by AGREEMENT, CONSENT or SILENCE of the parties

2. CANNOT be ACQUIRED, WAIVED, DIMINISHED BY THE ACT OR OMISSION
OF THE PARTIES
3. CANNOT be CONFERRED by the ACQUIESENCE of the Court or its unilateral
assumption of of jurisdiction or administrative policy

 Proceedings or decisions made by a court WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS

LEGALLY VOID (even if the Court believed in good faith that it has jurisdiction)
 Jurisdiction is a LEGISLATIVE PREROGATIVE
 A decision rendered by the court devoid of jurisdiction is subject to collateral attack
if it appears on the records

****************************

ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION

DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION – (aka Continuity of Jurisdiction) ->

Once a court acquires jurisdiction, it cannot be ousted by subsequent events even if such
events could have prevented jurisdiction at the first instance.

 The court retains jurisdiction until it finally disposes the case

 Not affected by subsequent legislative enactment
 Not lost by subsequent acts of the plaintiff
 Continues until case is terminated
 Not affected by pleas or theories of the defendant in his answer or motion to
dismiss
“ONCE JURISDICTION IS VESTED, JURISDICTION REMAINS WITH THE ORIGINAL
COURT UP TO THE END OF LITIGATION”
EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION

 Where there is an expressed provision in the statute

 Where the statute is clearly intended to apply to specific cases pending before its
enactment (Example: Where special courts are created vested with exclusive
jurisdiction over drug related cases)

IMPORTANT!!

The Original Court (although it has the jurisdiction by the time the action was filed
LOSES ITS JURISDICTION WHEN - - -> UPON THE ENACTMENT OF A NEW LAW
CONFERRING THE JURISDICTION TO ANOTHER TRIBUNAL – meaning: where there
is a subsequent statute expressly providing or its construed to that effect that is applicable
to operate the actions before its enactment.

*****************************************************************

TEST OF JURISDICTION

 Whether the Court has power to enter into an inquiry

(NOT Whether the decision is right or wrong)
 Does not require an inquiry into the rightness or wrongness of the decision
“IF THE LAW GAVE THE COURT SUCH AUTHORITY TO TAKE COGNIZANCE
ON A CASE, THEN IT HAS JURISDICTION REQUIRED FOR THE VALIDITY OF
ITS JURISDICTION, OTHERWISE IT HAS NO JURISDICTION.”

****************************************************************

FACTORS DETERMINING JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

 determined by the Constitution and by the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action
 further determined by the allegation of the complaint and the character of the relief
prayed for therein, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or
some of the claims and relief sought therein

JURISDICTION OVER ACTIONS INVOLVING TITLE OR POSSESSION OF REAL

PROPERTY
 determined by the assessed value

WHO HAS JURISDICTION IF:

 Assessed Value (not exceeding 20,000) – Municipal Trial Court / Metropolitan
Trial Court (NCR)
 Assessed Value (not exceeding 50,000) – Regional Trial Court

TOTALITY RULE – When there are several claims or causes of action between the same
or different parties, embodies in the same complaint, the amount of demand shall
be the totality of the amount of claims in all causes of action, whether the cause of
action arose from out of the same or different transaction
NOTE: It’s the DUTY OF THE COURTS to consider the question of jurisdiction before
they look into other matters involved in the case, even though such question is NOT
RAISED by any of the parties
 JURISDICTION VS. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction – refers to the POWER AND AUTHORITY of the court, conferred and
determined by law to hear, try and decide a case

 ISSUE: Court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction

 REMEDY OF THE AGGRIEVED PARTY: File a petition for certiorari on the ground
that the respondents court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse
of discretion

********************************************

Exercise of Jurisdiction – refers to the PERFORMANCE by the person duly appointed

and vested with power to carry out the functions of the Court

 ISSUE: Lower court acting within the scope of jurisdiction but erred in applying the
law or jurisprudence or in appreciating the facts and evidence
 REMEDY OF THE AGGRIEVED PARTY: File an appeal

*********************************************

EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION VS ERROR IN JUDGMENT

EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION: Decision or resolution by Court on all questions arising

in the case

ERROR IN JUDGMENT: Error committed in the decision or resolution which may be

corrected by appeal

***********************************************

DISTINGUISHING ERROR IN JURISDICTION VS. ERROR IN JUDGMENT

Error in Jurisdiction

1. Where the act complained of was issued by the Court without or in excess of
jurisdiction
2. Occurs when the court exercises a function not conferred upon it by law
3. Occurs when the court or tribunal, in the course of proceedings, acted beyond the
limits of jurisdiction (although it initially has jurisdiction)
4. Correctible by Writ of Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
5. Total absence of jurisdiction is an ABSOLUTE NULLITY

Error in Judgment

1. Presupposes that the court was vested with jurisdiction and acted within its
jurisdiction BUT in the process of exercising jurisdiction, it errs in its appreciation
and evaluation of facts and evidence thereby leading it to erroneous judgment
2. Correctible by Appeal
3. Not necessarily void
4. Error in Judgment is not necessarily void
 LACK OF JURISDICTION VS. EXCESS OF JURISDICTION

 LACK OF JURISDICTION – When the court or tribunal is NOT VESTED by law

with authority power to take cognizance of a case FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING but proceeds to act on such case

 EXCESS OF JURISDICTION – Presupposes that AT THE BEGINNING THE

COURT HAS JURISDICTION over the case BUT IN THE EXERCISE of its
jurisdiction, it acted beyond the limits of its authority

***************************************

JURISDICTION VS. VENUE

JURISDICTION
1. Refers to the AUTHORITY to hear and try and adjudicate on a case
2. Determined by SUBSTANTIVE LAW
3. Establishes RELATION BETWEEN THE COURT and THE SUBJECT MATTER
4. Fixed by LAW and CANNOT BE CONFERRED by the ACTS AND AGREEMENT
of the parties

VENUE
1. Refers to the PLACE where the case is to be heard and tried
2. Subject of the PROCEDURAL LAW
3. Establishes RELATION BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT
4. MAY BE CONFERRED by the ACTS and AGREEMENT of the parties

IMPORTANT!
IN CRIMINAL CASES – Venue is an ELEMENT OF JURISDICTION. A criminal action
can be instituted ONLY IN THE COURT which has TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION over
WHERE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED

**************************************

COURT OF LAW VS. COURT OF EQUITY

Court of Law – signifies that if there is a specific law which clearly covers or governs the
issues raised in a case, the court has no option but to APPLY such controlling law in
resolving the issue. The Court has NO DISCRETION to ignore or disregard the clearly
applicable statute to the case

Court of Equity – denotes the AUTHORITY of THE COURT to resolve issues presented
in a case IN ACCORDANCE with the accepted precepts of FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE,
when there is no clear and positive law applicable to resolve the issue, or when the
law is ambiguous or of doubtful application

“NO JUDGE SHALL DECLINE TO RENDER JUDGMENT BY REASON OF SILENCE,

OBSCURITY OR INSUFFICIENCY OF THE LAW”

 WHAT TO DO IF?
Procedure to be followed in the exercise of court’s jurisdiction AS CONFERRED BY
LAW Not specifically pointed out in the law or in the Rules of Court

 ANSWER: May adopt any suitable process or mode of proceeding which appears
conformable with the spirit of the LAW, FAIRNESS and JUSTICE
 COURT OF JUSTICE VS. QUASI JUDICIAL ENTITIES

Court of Justice

1. Where judicial power (the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable / duty of the court
to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction on the part of any agency or instrumentality of the government) is
vested
2. Consists of one Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by
law

Quasi-Judicial Entities

 Administrative bodies vested with adjudicatory power

***********************************

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

a.k.a. Doctrine of Prior Resort

 Power and authority vested by the Constitution or by Statute, upon an

ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, TO ACT upon matters by virtue of its specific
competence
 Courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is
within the jurisdiction of the ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
 When the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring the special knowledge, experiences, and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine the technical intricate matters of fact,
UNIFORMITY of RULING is essential to comply with the purposes of the
regulatory statute administered
 Does NOT WARRANT a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a
controversy over the jurisdiction initially lodged to an administrative body of
SPECIAL COMPETENCE

*******************************************

PRIMARY JURISDICTION VS. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Doctrine of Administrative Remedies

 Courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and
discharge of responsibilities within the specified areas of their respective
competence
 Requires that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the
court, he or she should first avail all the means of administrative processes
afforded to him or her in the resolution of the controversy falling under the
jurisdiction and expertise of the administrative authorities

Rationale behind Doctrine of Administrative Exhaustion

 (For reasons of LAW, COMITY and CONVENIENCE) - COURTS SHOULD NOT

ENTERTAIN suits UNLESS the available ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES HAVE
FIRST BEEN RESORTED TO and the proper authorities who are competent to
act upon the matter complained of have been GIVEN THE APPROPRIATE
OPPORTUNITY to act and correct their alleged error (if any) committed in the
administrative forum
 FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING JURISDICTION

1. CONSTITUTION and the LAW at the time the case is instituted

2. VALUE OF THE THING involved or the AMOUNT OF CLAIM
3. NATURE of ACTION
4. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT and the RELIEF prayed for
5. WHERE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED AND THE PENALTY which may be
imposed to the accused if found guilty (FOR CRIMINAL CASES)

***********************************************************

CLASSIFICATION OF JURISDICTION
Memory Aid: G-Spec-Or-Appel-Exorig-Con

1. General – refers to the power to adjudicate on all controversies EXCEPT those

EXPRESSLY WITHHELD from the plenary powers of the court
2. Special (a.k.a Limited Jurisdiction) – RESTRICTS the court’s jurisdiction ONLY to
a SPECIFIC CASE, and subject to limitations provided by law

3. Original – refers to power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a case

instituted for judicial action, FOR THE FIRST TIME, under conditions provided by
law, as contra-distinguish to….(see appellate)

4. Appellate –
 (as contra-distinguished to Original) - refers to the authority of a COURT OF
HIGHER RANK to RE-EXAMINE the FINAL ORDER or judgment of a LOWER
COURT which tried the case which is now elevated for judicial review to the Court
of Higher Rank
 Refers to the court which has the power or authority to REVIEW ON APPEAL
the decisions or orders of lower rank courts. Appellate Court may AFFIRM,
MODIFY, or REVERSE the appealed decision of the lower court.

5. Exclusive Original – refers to the power to adjudicate a case or proceeding to

the exclusion of all others

6. Concurrent – (aka Confluent or Coordinate Jurisdiction) – POWER CONFERRED

TO DIFFERENT COURTS, whether of the same or different territories