JURISDICTION
A.
Over the parties
1.
How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by his filing of the
complaint or petition and the payment of correct docket fee. By doing so, he
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
2.
How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
·
In civil cases,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be acquired either by service
of summons or by the defendant’s voluntary appearance in court and submission
to its authority. (Optima Realty
Corporation v. Hertz Phil., Exclusive, Inc., G.R. No. 183035,
·
In an action in
personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the
court to validly try and decide the case. (Afdal
& Afdal v. Carlos, G.R. No. 173379, December 1, 2010)
B.
Over the subject matter
1.
How jurisdiction is conferred and determined
·
Jurisdiction is a
matter of substantive law because it is conferred by law. This jurisdiction
which is a matter of substantive law should be construed to refer only to
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Jurisdiction over the parties, the issues
and the res are matters of procedure. The test of jurisdiction is whether the
court has the power to enter into the inquiry and not whether the decision is
right or wrong.
·
It is an
elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the
complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all
or some of the claims asserted therein. As a necessary consequence, the
jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in
the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of
jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant. What determines
the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing
from the allegations in the complaint. The averments in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought are the matters to be consulted. (Fe V. Rapsing, et al. v. Hon. Judge Maximino
R. Ables, et al., G.R. No. 171855, October 15, 2012)
· It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. It is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law. It cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties, or acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Well to emphasize, it is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in character. (Mendoza v. Germino & Germino, G.R. No. 165676, November 22, 2010)
2.
Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter
GR: The prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter
may be raised at any stage of the proceedings and even for the first time on
appeal.
XPN:
(1)
Estoppel by
laches
(2)
One cannot
question the jurisdiction which he invoked, not because the decision is valid
and conclusive as an adjudication, but because it cannot be tolerated by reason
of public policy
(3) A party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief against his opponents cannot repudiate or question the same after failing to obtain such relief
3.
Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
GR: A court's jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal for the same is conferred by law, and lack of it
affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render
judgment on the action. It applies even if the issue on jurisdiction was raised
for the first time on appeal or even after final judgment.
XPN: A party may be barred by laches from invoking the lack of
jurisdiction at a late hour for the purpose of annulling everything done in the
case with the active participation of said party invoking the plea. A party
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against
his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief repudiate or
question that same jurisdiction
4.
Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of judgment
|
ERROR OF JURISDICTION |
ERROR OF JUDGMENT |
|
An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was
issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction. It occurs when the
court exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law, or when the
court or tribunal although with jurisdiction, acts in excess of its
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction. |
An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the
exercise of its jurisdiction. As long as the court acts within its
jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion
will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment. Errors of judgment
include errors of procedure or mistakes in the court‘s findings. |
|
correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari |
correctible by appeal |
|
Renders a judgment void or at least
voidable |
Does not make the court’s decision
void |
C.
OVER THE ISSUES
Jurisdiction over the issues may also be determined and conferred
by stipulation of the parties as when in the pre-trial, the parties enter into
stipulations of facts and documents or enter into agreement simplifying the
issues of the case.
It may also be conferred by waiver or failure to object to the
presentation of evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings. Here the
parties try with their express or implied consent issues not raised by the
pleadings. The issues tried shall be treated in all respects as if they had
been raised in the pleadings.
D.
Over the res or property in litigation
Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court‘s jurisdiction over
the thing or the property which is the subject of the action. Jurisdiction over
the res may be acquired by the court by placing the property of thing under its
custody (custodia legis). It may also be acquired by the court through
statutory authority conferring upon it the power to deal with the property or
thing within the court‘s territorial jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired by the seizure of the thing
under legal process whereby it is brought into actual custody of law, or it may
result from the institution of a legal proceeding wherein the power of the
court over the thing is recognized and made effective.
E.
Jurisdiction of Courts
1.
Supreme Court
ORIGINAL AND
EXLCUSIVE JURISDICTION
(1)
Petitions for the
issuance of the writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the CA,
COMELEC, COA, Sandiganbayan, and CTA
(2)
Declaratory
relief only when there is a question of constitutionality, like treaties or law
CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION WITH THE RTC
(1)
Cases affecting
ambassadors
CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION WITH THE RTC AND CA
(1)
To issue writs of
habeas corpus, habeas data, amparo, quo warranto, certiorari, mandamus,
prohibition against lower courts
CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION WITH THE CA
(1)
Petitions for the
issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the NLRC,
CSC, RTC
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
(1)
Petitions for
review on certiorari from cases from the RTC exercising original jurisdiction on
pure questions of law
(2)
Cases from the
CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA
2.
Court of Appeals
ORIGINAL AND
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
(1)
Petitions to
annul judgments of the RTC based on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction
CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION WITH THE RTC AND SC
(1)
Issues of writs
of habeas corpus, habeas data, writ of amparo, quo warranto, certiorari,
mandamus, prohibition against lower courts
CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION WITH THE SC
(1)
Petitions for
issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the NLRC,
CSC, RTC
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
(1)
Cases decided by
the RTC and quasi-judicial agencies
(2)
Cases decided by
the MTC on cadastral and land registration cases
3.
Sandiganbayan
(1)
Violations of
Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the AntiGraft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII,
Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are
officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a
permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the
offense:
A.
Officials of the
executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
(a)
Provincial
governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and
provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department
heads;
(b)
City mayors,
vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other city department heads;
(c)
Officials of the
diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
(d)
Philippine army
and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;
(e)
Officers of the
Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director
and those holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher;
(f)
City and
provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in
the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g)
Presidents,
directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations
B.
Members of
Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
C.
Members of the
judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
D.
Chairmen and
members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions
of the Constitution; and
E.
All other
national and local officials classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
(2)
Other offenses or
felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public
officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in relation
to their office.
(3)
Civil and
criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1,
2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction where the information:
(a)
does not allege
any damage to the government or any bribery; or
(b)
alleges damage to
the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions
or acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos.
(4)
Bribery (Chapter
II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II, RPC) where one or more of the principal accused
are occupying the following positions in the government, whether in permanent,
acting or interim capacity at the time of the commission of the offense:
A.
Officials of the
executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989
B.
Members of
Congress and officials thereof classified as G-27 and up under RA 6758
C.
Members of the
Judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution
D.
Chairmen and
Members of the Constitutional Commissions without prejudice to the provisions
of the Constitution
E. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under RA 6758
4.
Regional Trial Courts
ORIGINAL AND
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
(1)
Actions incapable
of pecuniary estimation
a.
Where the action
cannot be measured in money. This depends on the nature of the action.
b.
Where the basic
issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the
money claim is only incidental or a consequence of the principal relief sought,
the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
(2)
Real actions
a.
Actions
involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed
value of the property involved exceeds 2,000,000 pesos
b.
Assessed value is
the worth or value of property established by taxing authorities on the basis
of which the tax rate is applied.
c.
XPN: actions for
forcible entry and unlawful detainer irrespective of the amount of damages and
unpaid rentals sought to be recovered
(3)
Actions in
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
a.
Where the demand
or claim exceeds 2,000,000 pesos
(4)
Matters of
probate, both testate and intestate
a.
Where the gross
value of the estate exceeds 2,000,000 pesos
(5)
Actions involving
the contract of marriage and marital relations
a.
Such as support,
annulment, nullity of marriage
b.
Courts will act
as Family Courts with special jurisdiction
(6)
All cases not
within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person, or body
exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person, or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions
(7)
All civil actions
and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and the Court of Agrarian Relations as
provided by law
(8)
Other cases in
which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in
controversy exceeds 2,000,000 pesos
ORIGINAL AND
CONCURRENT JURISDICITION WITH SC AND CA
(1)
Issues of writs
of habeas corpus, habeas data, writ of amparo, quo warranto, certiorari,
mandamus, prohibition against lower courts
a.
The rule of
hierarchy of courts applies
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
(1) Cases decided by the MTC, MeTC, or MTCC
5.
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, Municipal Circuit Trial Court
ORIGINAL AND
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
(1)
Real Actions
a.
Actions involving
title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the
assessed value of the property involved does not exceed 2,000,000 pesos
(2)
Actions in
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
a.
Where the demand
or claim does not exceed 2,000,000 pesos
(3)
Matters of
probate, both testate and intestate
a.
Where the gross
value of the estate does not exceed 2,000,000 pesos
(4)
Cases in which
the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy does
not exceed 2,000,000 pesos
(5) Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages and unpaid rentals sought to be recovered
6.
Shari’a Court
(1) Article 143 of the Muslim Code would reveal that Sharia courts have jurisdiction over real actions when the parties are both Muslims. The fact that the Shari’a courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the regular courts in cases of actions involving real property means that jurisdiction may only be exercised by the said courts when the action involves parties who are both Muslims. In cases where one of the parties is a non-Muslim, the Shari’a Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over it. It would immediately divest the Shari’a court jurisdiction over the subject matter.
F.
Rules on Expedited Procedure
(A) Civil Cases
1. Summary Procedure Cases
(a) Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, regardless of the amount
of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered. Where attorney's fees are
awarded, the same shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).
(b) All civil actions, except probate proceedings, admiralty and
maritime actions, and small claims cases falling under Rule IV hereof, where
the total amount of the plaintiff's claim does not exceed Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00),
exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs.
(c) Complaints for damages where the claim does not exceed Two
Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.
(d) Cases for enforcement of barangay amicable settlement
agreements and arbitration awards where the money claim exceeds One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.OO), provided that no execution has been enforced by the barangay
within six (6) months from the date of the settlement or date of receipt of the
award or from the date the obligation stipulated or adjudged in the arbitration
award becomes due and demandable, pursuant to Section 417, Chapter VII of
Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government Code of 1991.
(e) Cases solely for the revival of judgment of any Metropolitan
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, pursuant to Rule 39, Section 6 of the Rules of
Court.
(f) The civil aspect of a violation of Batas Pambansa BIg. 22 (The
Bouncing Checks Law), if no criminal action has been instituted therefor.
2. Small Claims Cases where the claim does not exceed One Million
Pesos (P1,OOO,OOO.OO) exclusive of interest and costs
·
A "small clam"
is an action that is purely civil in nature where the claim or relief raised by
the plaintiff is solely for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money. It
excludes actions seeking other claims or reliefs aside from payment or
reimbursement of a sum of money and those coupled with provisional remedies.
·
The claim or
demand may be:
(a) For money owed under any of the following:
1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan and other credit accommodations;
3. Contract of Services; or
4. Contract of Sale of personal
property, excluding the recovery of the personal property, unless it is made
the subject of a compromise agreement between the parties.
(b) The enforcement of barangay amicable
settlement agreements and arbitration awards, where the money claim does not
exceed P1OOO,OOO.OO, provided that no execution has been enforced by the barangay
within 6 months from the date of the settlement or date of receipt of the award
or from the date the obligation stipulated or adjudged in the arbitration award
becomes due and demandable, pursuant to Section 417, Chapter VII of Republic
Act No. 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government Code of 1991
(B) Criminal Cases
1. Violations of
traffic laws, rules and regulations;
2. Violations of the
rental law;
3. Violations of
municipal or city ordinances;
4. Violations of BP 22;
and
5. All other criminal
cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is
imprisonment not exceeding 1 year, or a fine not exceeding P5O,OOO.OO, or both,
regardless of other
imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil
liability arising therefrom. In offenses involving damage to property through
criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, where the
imposable fine does not P150,OOO.OO
G.
Barangay Conciliation
The Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring
together the parties actually residing in the same municipality or city for
amicable settlement of all disputes except:
(a)
Where one party
is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
(b)
Where one party
is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of
his official functions;
(c)
Offenses
punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding P5,000;
(d)
Offenses where
there is no private offended party;
(e)
Where the dispute
involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless
the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by
an appropriate lupon;
(f)
Disputes
involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or
municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the
parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon;
(g)
Such other
classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of
justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice
(h)
Any complaint by
or against corporations, partnerships, or juridical entities. The reason is
that only individuals shall be parties to barangay conciliation proceedings
either as complainants or respondents;
(i)
Disputes where
urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or
further continued, specifically:
1.
A criminal case
where the accused is under police custody or detention
2.
A petition for
habeas corpus by a person illegally detained or deprived of his liberty or one
acting in his behalf
3.
Actions coupled
with provisional remedies, such as preliminary injunction, attachment, replevin
and support pendente lite
4.
Where the action
may be barred by statute of limitations
(j)
Labor disputes or
controversies arising from employer-employee relationship;
(k)
Where the dispute
arises from the CARL;
(l)
Actions to annul
judgment upon a compromise which can be directly filed in court
H.
Totality Rule
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 (Sec.
5, Rule 2, Rules on Civil Procedure)
Where there are several claims or causes of actions between the
same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the
demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the claims of action,
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions (Sec. 33[1], BP 129).
Comments
Post a Comment