ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW REMEDIAL LAW DEPARTMENT

SYLLABUS: SCHOOL YEAR 2022-2023

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I

Covers Civil and Criminal Procedures
By: Henedino M. Brondial

CIVIL PROCEDURE
(As amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, effective May 1, 2020
And RA 11576, effective July 30, 2021)

I. JURISDICTION

Definition:Jurisdiction is the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a
case [Zamora v. CA, 262 Phil. 298, 304 (1990)]. Its concept was expanded to include
the authority of the court to execute its decisions. [Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice,
G.R. No. 132601 (1999)].

Principles of Jurisdiction:
1. GR: Any judgment, decision, final order rendered by a court without jurisdiction is
null and void
2. EXP: when there is jurisdictional estoppel [Tijam v. Sibonghanoy]
In concurrent jurisdiction
3. Principle of hierarchy of court
4. Transcendental importance
5. That the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts
6. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law, except that of the SC which is
conferred by the Constitution
Jurisdiction of the person over the parties
7. As to the person of the plaintiff, jurisdiction is acquired upon the filing of the
complaint/petition, and timely payment of the correct docket fees. In appeal, docket
fees are jurisdictional since failure to pay the same within the reglementary period
will result to the appealed decision to attain finality.
8. As to the person of the defendant, co-defendant and 3rd/4th/5th party defendant,
upon valid service of summons or voluntary appearance
9. over the person of the intervenor upon approval of the motion to leave to
intervene
10. Jurisdiction over the res, in order for the court to continue the proceeding it has to
acquire jurisdiction over the res in the absence of the jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant, in action strictly in personam.
11. Jurisdiction over the issues is determined by the allegations in the pleadings,
both in the complaint as well as the answer, which shall either admit or deny the
allegations.
12. In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional.
 A. Classes of Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction according to its nature: original and appellate
Original Appellate
Original jurisdiction is that exercised by Appellate jurisdiction is that exercised by a
a court or body in the first instance, as court or body over a case elevated to it by
for instance the jurisdiction of the MTC way of review or appeal. An example is the
over ejectment cases. jurisdiction by the Court of Appeals over cases
decided by the Regional Trial Court and
elevated to the Court of Appeals for review.
i.e. jurisdiction of MTC over ejectment i.e. jurisdiction of RTC over cases decided by
cases MTC
It is the authority of the court or other If a court or body takes the case for the
tribunals to take cognizance of a case second, or the third, or the fourth time (HB)
for the first time. (HB)

2 Classifications of Original Jurisdiction:

Exclusive Original Jurisdiction
If it is conferred solely and exclusively
upon one court, to the exclusion of all
others.
a case solely cognizable by a particular
court
small claims, original and exclusive of
lower court; unlawful detainer/forcible
entry, original and exclusive of lower
court; actions incapable of pecuniary
estimation, original and exclusive of the
RTC
Original Concurrent Jurisdiction
Cause of actions, over which, several
courts are given by law the jurisdiction
over.
when the authority is or maybe exercised
not just by one particular court but by
more than one
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto and habeas corpus it can be
exercised by the by SC, by CA, by
Sandiganbayan, CTA and even by the
RTC or by the Family Court

Whenever we are confronted with concurrent jurisdiction, immediately what comes to us

is the application of three very important principles. They are:
1. Principle of Hierarchy of court –
- GR: A direct resort to a higher court will not be allowed, unless the
remedy is first availed of in the lower court
- XPN: Transcendental importance
- Rationale: there are a lot of questions of issues and not just question of law
where the lowest court under concurrent jurisdiction is more proficient that the
appellate court. Special jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies.
2. Transcendental Importance
- An exception to the principle of the hierarchy of courts, exceptional and
compelling circumstances, such as cases of national security and interest
and with serious implications must be advanced to justify the availment of the
 extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus calling for
the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.

3. That the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts

GR: Any judgment, decision, final order, rendered by a court without jurisdiction
is null and void.
XPN: Jurisdictional estoppel

- Jurisdiction according to its object; corresponding principles

i. over the subject matter
ii. over the persons of the parties
iii. over the “res”
iv. over the issues
v. over the territory

Jurisdiction GR: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, and cannot
over the be altered, amend, extended, limited or conferred by the parties.
subject matter XPN: Jurisdiction of the SC is conferred by the Constitution –
Traditional – as provided for in Sec. 5 Article VIII of the Constitution.
Non-traditional – otherwise known as expanded/extended jurisdiction
under Sec. 1 Article VIII of the Constitution
XPN to the XPN: Jurisdictional Estoppel (Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs.
CA)

When does a court lose jurisdiction over the subject matter? It is only
1.) after the perfection of the appeal in due time; and
2.) after expiration of the period to appeal.

Before that, it has still jurisdiction. Refer to Sec. 9, Rule 41.

Jurisdiction Civil cases
over the Plaintiff - The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff
person of the upon filing of the complaint/petition and timely payment of the correct
parties docket fees
Defendant - The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, co-defendant and 3rd/4th/5th party defendant upon valid
service of summons or voluntary appearance, Rule 14.
Intervenor - The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
intervenor upon approval of the motion for leave to intervene,

Rule 19 Intervention:
Section 1. Who may intervene.
A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the
success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so
situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
 disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer
thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action.
The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay
or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and
whether or not the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a
separate proceeding. (Intervention is not a matter of right, and is subject
to the discretion of the court.)

Section 2. Time to intervene. – The motion to intervene may be filed at any

time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. A copy of the
pleading-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the
original parties.
Criminal cases
It does not have to acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff because the
party is the State or the People of the Philippines.

GR: No docket fees are required in criminal

XPN: If a claim for damages has been instituted with criminal case then a
docket fee is required for the claim for damages.
The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon lawful
arrest or voluntary surrender. Rule 113
Special proceeding cases
The court acquires jurisdiction over the case and over the petitioner upon
publication. The requirement of special services in a special proceeding is
not generally jurisdictional, as a general rule, they are only in compliance
with the due process clause of the Constitution.

Alday vs. FGU Insurance

Estoppel by laches arises from the negligence or omission to assert a right within a
reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either
has abandoned or declined to assert it; A party cannot be considered as estopped
from assailing the trial court’s jurisdiction over the other party’s counterclaim where such
issue was raised with the trial court itself · the body where the action is pending · even
before the presentation of any evidence by the parties and definitely, way before any
judgment could be rendered by the trial court.

GR: The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the action.
XPN: A party may be estopped from raising such questions if:
1. he has actively taken part in the very proceedings which he questions;
2. belatedly objects to the court’s jurisdiction in the event that the judgment or
order subsequently rendered is adverse to him. - Gonzaga v ca AS CITED IN
ALDAY
In this case, respondent actively took part in the proceedings before the Court of
Appeals by filing its appellee’s brief with the same. Its participation, when taken
together with its failure to object to the appellate court’s jurisdiction during the entire
duration of the proceedings before such court, demonstrates a willingness to abide by
the resolution of the case by such tribunal and accordingly, respondent is now most
decidedly estopped from objecting to the Court of Appeals’ assumption of jurisdiction
over petitioner’s appeal.

Compulsory Counterclaim

The basic issue for resolution in this case is whether or not the counterclaim of
petitioner is compulsory or permissive in nature.

A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of

justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence
constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require
for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction.

Criteria or Tests in Determining Whether a Counter-claim is Compulsory or

Permissive

“Compelling Test of Compulsoriness”; necessitates a logical relationship between the

claim and the counterclaim, that is, whether conducting separate trials of the
respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort
and time by the parties and the court.”

In Valencia v. Court of Appeals, this Court capsulized the criteria or tests that may be
used in determining whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, summarized
as follows:
1. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the
same? (Substantive right from which the cause of action arose)
2. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claim absent the
compulsory counterclaim rule? (Same parties, same issue)
3. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs claim as well as
defendant’s counter-claim? (Evidence)
4. Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? (Logical
relationship)

Rule on the Payment of Filing Fees. (NOT REQUIRED IN COMPULSORY CC,

REQUIRED IN PERMISSIVE CC)

There is no need for petitioner to pay docket fees for her compulsory
counterclaim. On the other hand, in order for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over
her permissive counterclaim, petitioner is bound to pay the prescribed docket fees. The
rule on the payment of filing fees has been laid down by the Court in the case of Sun
Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion. It is not simply the filing of the
complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket
fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the
action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the
docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no
case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. The same rule applies
to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall
not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid.
The court may allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case
beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate
pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment
awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for
determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the
judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy
to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.

The trial court should give the defendant a reasonable time, but in no case beyond
the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, to pay the filing fees for her
permissive counterclaim. The above mentioned ruling in Sun Insurance has been
reiterated in the recent case of Suson v. Court of Appeals. In Suson, the Court
explained that although the payment of the prescribed docket fees is a jurisdictional
requirement, its nonpayment does not result in the automatic dismissal of the case
provided the docket fees are paid within the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period. Coming now to the case at bar, it has not been alleged by
respondent and there is nothing in the records to show that petitioner has attempted to
evade the payment of the proper docket fees for her permissive counterclaim

WHEN TO FILE AN ANSWER

There is no need to file an answer to a permissive counterclaim until the

defendant shall have paid the prescribed docket fees for only then shall the court
acquire jurisdiction over such claim. Meanwhile, the compulsory counterclaim of
petitioner for damages based on the filing by respondent of an allegedly unfounded and
malicious suit need not be answered since it is inseparable from the claims of
respondent. If respondent were to answer the compulsory counterclaim of petitioner, it
would merely result in the former pleading the same facts raised in its complaint.

Jurisdiction over the Res

There are two sets of classification of actions:
Jurisdiction over Real Action Personal Action
the res the subject matter is real is one which is violative of
property personal rights
 Action In Rem Action In Personam
binds the whole world binds only the party involve

Real Action v. Personal Action

Real Action
It is an action affecting title to or
possession, or interest in real property.
[Sec. 1, Rule 4]
Venue: Real actions shall be commenced
and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real
property involved, or a portion thereof is
situated.
Personal Action
It refers to all other actions which are not
real actions. [Sec. 2, Rule 4]
All other actions may be commenced and
tried, at the plaintiff’s election:
Where the plaintiff, defendant or any of the
principal plaintiffs or principal defendants
resides.

In case of a non-resident defendant, where

he may be found.

Action in rem vs. Action in personam

Action in rem Action in personam Action quasi in rem
Definition Action against the thing One which seeks to Names a person as
or res itself, instead of enforce personal defendant, but its object
against the person rights and is to subject that person's
obligations interest in a property to a
brought against the corresponding lien or
person. obligation.
As to whom against the thing itself against a person against an individual,
directed instead of against the on the basis of his named as defendant, to
person personal liability subject his interest
therein to the obligation
or lien burdening the
property.
Jurisdiction NOT a prerequisite to NECESSARY for the NOT a prerequisite to
over the confer jurisdiction on the court to validly try confer jurisdiction on the
person court, provided that the and decide the case court, provided that the
latter has jurisdiction over which can be made latter has jurisdiction over
the res. through service of the res.
summons
Summons must Summons must
nevertheless be served to nevertheless be served to
observe due process observe due process
How Jurisdiction over the res is Jurisdiction is Jurisdiction over the res
jurisdiction acquired either:
is acquired (a) by the seizure of the
property under legal
process, whereby it is
brought into actual custody
of the law, or
(b) as a result of the
institution of legal
proceedings, in which the
power of the court is
recognized and made
effective.
acquired through: is acquired either(a) by
(a) service of the seizure of the
summons property under legal
(b) voluntary process, whereby it is
appearance brought into actual
custody of the law, or
(b) as a result of the
institution of legal
proceedings, in which the
power of the court is
recognized and made
effective. (Same with
action in rem)

Binding The decision is binding as Any judgment Judgments therein are

effect of against the whole world. therein is binding binding only upon the
decisions only upon the parties who joined in
parties properly the action.
impleaded.
Example Petition for adoption, Action for a sum of Attachment,
annulment of marriage, or money; action for -  foreclosure of
correction of entries in the damages mortgage,
birth certificate. -  Action for -  action for partition
-  Probate of a will declaration of nullity -  action for accounting
-  Land registration case of title and recovery
of ownership of real
property;
reconveyance;
action for ejectment;
action for specific
performance; action
for injunction.

Personal action may be in rem, a real action may be in personam, that is why don’t
confuse one from the other and don’t equate one from the other. Now I’m giving you a
basis for knowing jurisdiction over the res, because it is settled that the action strictly in
personam meaning to say binding the person in the case alone and not the whole world
requires the court to have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Even if it has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, strictly in personam.

If for one reason or the other the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant, can the case proceed in an exceptional way?
Yes, by converting action strictly in personam into an action quasi in rem.

How do you convert such action?

You convert such action by attaching the property of the defendant through the
issuance of writ of preliminary attachment under Rule 57. By so doing even if the court
failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant the case can still continue
provided the court was able to acquire jurisdiction over the res.

A files a case against B for sum of money.

What kind of action is that?

Strictly in personam, because B the defendant is the only one liable to pay A.

Jurisdiction over In civil cases, jurisdiction over the issues is determined by the
the issues allegations in the pleading. So, if not alleged in the pleadings,
the court does not acquire jurisdiction over such issue.

Note: Sec. 6 Rule 7, which now revolutionize pleadings.

Pleadings now constitute not only ultimate facts but
evidentiary matters. Nevertheless, the principle remains that
the issue in the case is determined by the allegations in the
pleadings.

Dati correctible pa yan pursuant to Sec. 5 of Rule 10,

amendment to conform to the evidence, nakita nyo ngayon wala
na yan sa Rule 10 tinanggal na yung amendment to conform to
the evidence because of Sec 6 of Rule 7. Contents constitutes
now parts of pleadings, they don’t only contain ultimate facts but
evidentiary matters.

In criminal cases, upon arraignment (Rule 116) – based on the

Constitution it is mandatory to inform the accused of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him.

ARTICLE III
Bill of Rights
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.
SECTION 14.
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to
be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and
to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
 witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding
the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the issues in

criminal cases?
If it is determined in the allegations in the pleadings you
correlate that with arraignment because arraignment is not only
for the purpose of complying with the Constitutional provision
that the accused must be inform of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him but he must also be informed in such a
way that the court will likewise acquire jurisdiction over such
issue. So arraignment is not only for the purpose of informing the
accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
it will also include, a means by which the court, acquires
jurisdiction over the issues of the case.

Remember that under your rules of evidence, even if there is

evidence but there was no allegations, the evidence is
inadmissible, because evidence is only supportive of the
allegations. Alam mo yan maraming innovation yan.
Unfortunately we are not guided yet by the jurisprudence on the
matter kasi bagong bago yan, 2021 lang effectivity nun. But can
already be asked in the bar although we are not guided by
jurisprudence. Mas maganda nga we are not guided by the
jurisprudence so you can answer according to the rules.

Jurisdiction over the territory

Jurisdiction over Venue is jurisdictional, applicable only in criminal cases.
the territory

Jurisdiction versus Venue

JURISDICTION
The authority to hear and determine a
case
A matter of substantive law. Not subject
to the acquiescence of the parties.
Establishes a relation between the
court and the subject matter
Fixed by law and cannot be conferred
by the parties
Ground for motu proprio dismissal
VENUE
The geographical place of the court exercising
jurisdiction
A matter of procedural law, hence, may be
made subject to the acquiescence of the
parties.
Establishes a relation between plaintiff and
defendant, or petitioner and respondent
May be conferred by the act or agreement of
the parties
Not a ground for a motu proprio dismissal
except in summary procedure
Requisites for venue agreement to be valid:
1. In writing; and
2. Executed by the parties before the filing of the action;
3. There must be exclusivity as to the selection of the venue

In the absence of restrictive words, the mere stipulation on the venue of an action,
however, is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venue.

In the absence of restrictive words (e.g. only solely, exclusively in this court, in no other
court save, particularly, nowhere else but/except), the stipulation should be deemed as
merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue. If the language
is restrictive, the suit may be filed only the place agreed upon by the parties.

When the stipulation as to venue in a passenger ticket of a vessel would be contrary to

public policy of making courts accessible to all who may have need of their service,
the stipulation is void and unenforceable. (Sweet Lines vs. Teves, G.R. No. 28324, May
19, 1972)

B. Elements of Jurisdiction: subject matter, parties, issues

1. Subject matter
o It is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong.
o It is a matter of substantive law and as such, it is conferred by law and is not
covered by the Rules of Court.
o Thus, it cannot be:
 Conferred by agreement of the parties
 Acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by ant act of the parties
 XPN: Tijam v. Sibonghanoy Case
o the SC barred a belated objection to jurisdiction that was raised by the
party when an adverse decision was rendered by the lower court
against it, and only 15 years after seeking affirmative relief from the
court and actively participating in all stages of the proceedings.

2.Parties
o Refers to the power of the court to make decisions that are binding on persons.
o Also called “jurisdiction in personam.”
o It is an element of due process that is essential in all actions, except in rem
or quasi in rem.
o Kinds:
 Over the plaintiff
 Over the defendant

3. Issues
 o It is the power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings
of the parties
o An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have
narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of
obtaining a decision.
o It is conferred and determined by:
 The pleadings of the plaintiff which present the facts that is the subject
matter of the complaint.
 The defendant’s specific denial of such allegations.
 In pre-trial, they narrow down the issues to be heard.

C. Jurisdiction of Regular Courts

1. Supreme Court

ARTICLE VIII
Judicial Department

(memorize)
SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or
the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international
or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may
require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the
consent of the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the
practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
 Whether the rule-making of SC encroaches the power of Congress?
No, it is provided in Constitution to promulgate rules. Sec. 5 par. 5
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil
Service Law.

SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power 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.

Note:

Villanueva vs. JBC, 755 SCRA 182 (2015)

View that the power of judicial review is part and parcel of the Court’s judicial
power and is a power inherent in all courts. The Court’s exercise of its traditional
jurisdiction is rooted in its power of judicial review which gives the Court the authority
to strike down acts of the legislative and/or executive, constitutional bodies or
administrative agencies that are contrary to the Constitution. The power of judicial
review is part and parcel of the Court’s judicial power and is a power inherent in all
courts.

Edcel Lagman vs. Pimentel III, 854 SCRA (2018)

In Lagman, We emphasized that this Court's jurisdiction under the third paragraph of
Section 18, Article VII is special and specific, different from those enumerated in
Sections 1 and 5 of Article VIII. It was further stressed therein that the standard of
review in a petition for certiorari is whether the respondent has committed any
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the
performance of his or her functions, whereas under Section 18, Article VII, the Court
is tasked to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the President's exercise of
emergency powers. Hence, the Court concluded that a petition for certiorari pursuant to
Section 1 or Section 5 of Article VIII is not the proper tool to review the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus.

At this point, there is a need to repeat the ruling in Lagman that "the purpose of
judicial review is not the determination of accuracy or veracity of the facts upon
which the President anchored his declaration of martial law or suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; rather, only the sufficiency of the factual
basis as to convince the President that there is probable cause that rebellion
exists." That same purpose applies to the present judicial review insofar as it would
determine the sufficiency of the factual basis as to convince the President and the
Congress that there is probable cause that rebellion persists.

The Court's power to review the extension of martial law is limited solely to the
determination of the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof. Section 1, Article VIII
of the Constitution pertains to the Court's judicial power to:
1. Settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and;
2. To determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.

The first part is to be known as the traditional concept of judicial power while the latter
part, an innovation of the 1987 Constitution, became known as the court's expanded
jurisdiction. Under its expanded jurisdiction, courts can now delve into acts of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government traditionally considered as political
if such act was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

1. SUPREME COURT
(Feria and Noche, pp.665-668)
(a) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
i. Original and Exclusive
Petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against:
1. Court of Appeals;
2. Commission on Elections;
3. Commission on Audit;
4. Court of Tax Appeals, en banc;
5. Sandiganbayan, and
6. Appellate Sharia’h Court

ii. Original and Concurrent

With the CA With the CA, SB With the CA and With the RTC
and RTC RTC
Petitions for the Petition for writ of Petitions for Actions affecting
issuance of writs of amparo. habeas corpus ambassadors,
CPM against: and quo warranto. other public
a. NLRC. [However, Petition for writ of ministers and
the petitions habeas data. Petitions for the consuls.
should be filed with issuance of writs
the CA based on Other agencies of certiorari, Note: Under R.A.
hierarchy of courts; and prohibition and 10660,
otherwise, they instrumentalities of mandamus against Sandiganbayan
shall be government in lower courts or has jurisdiction in
dismissed.] cases of grave bodies. criminal cases
b. CSC. abuse of discretion involving “officials
c. Quasi-Judicial (as provided by Petitions for the of the diplomatic
 Agencies. Constitution)
[However, the
petitions should be
filed with the CA.]
d. RTC and lower
courts.
Petitions for the
issuance of a writ of
Kalikasan.
What are the powers of the SC?
Review, reverse, modify, or affirm
What are the two ways to bring a case to the SC?
Appeal (Rule 45) or Certiorari
Certiorari as a mode of appeal
[Rule 45]
A continuation of the appellate process
over the original case
Seeks to review final judgment or final
orders
Raises only questions of law
(SC is not a trier of facts)
Filed within 15 days from notice of
judgment or final order appealed from, or
of the denial of petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration or new trial.
Extension of 30 days may be Granted for
justifiable reasons.
Does not require a prior motion for
reconsideration
Stays the judgment appealed from
Parties are the original parties with the
appealing party as the petitioner and the
adverse party as the respondent, without
issuance of writ of service occupying
continuing the position of
mandamus in consul and higher”
environmental
cases.
Certiorari as a special civil action
[Rule 65]
An original action and not a mode of
appeal
May be directed against interlocutory
order of the court or where no appeal
or plain or speedy remedy is available
in the ordinary course of law
Raises questions of jurisdiction, i.e.
whether a tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without jurisdiction
or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction
Filed not later than 60 days from notice of
judgment, order, or resolution sought to
be assailed.
Extension granted only under exceptional
cases (infra).
Motion for reconsideration is a condition
precedent, subject to exceptions
Does not stay the judgment or order
subject of the petition, unless enjoined
or restrained
The tribunal, board, or officer,
exercising judicial or quasi- judicial
functions is impleaded as respondent
 impleading the lower court or its judge
Review by the SC is discretionary
(only when the matter is of a
circumstance which has not been
ruled yet by the SC) and will be
granted only when there are special or
important reasons [Sec. 6, Rule 45]
If the order is sufficient in form and
substance, the RTC shall:
1. order respondents to comment, then2.
(a) hear the case or (b) require the
parties to file memoranda.
But the SC/CA may require a comment
before giving the petition due course

Rule 45 Rule 65
Mode of appeal Special civil action (Cannot be availed of
when appeal is available)
Corrects error of judgment (exercise of Corrects error of jurisdiction
jurisdiction
Raises pure question of law May allow questions of fact

(b) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Appeal by Notice of Appeal by Certiorari / / Petition for Review on (Rule 64) 30
Appeal Certiorari (Rule 45) days
(Automatic appeal Appeals from the: Decision, order
conviction from crimes 1. CA or ruling of:
punishable by reclusion 2. Sandiganbayan - on pure questions of law, Commission on
perpetue) except in cases where the penalty imposed Elections.
is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or Commission on
From the RTC or the SB death. Audit.
in all criminal cases 3. CTA
where the penalty 4. RTC - exercising original jurisdiction in the
imposed is reclusion following cases:
perpetua or higher,  Pure questions of law. If no question of
and those involving fact is involved and the cases involves:
other offenses which,  Constitutionality or validity of any
although not so treaty, international or executive
punished, arose out of agreement, law, presidential decree,
the same occurrence or proclamation, order, instruction,
which may have been ordinance or regulation in question;
committed by the  Legality of any tax, impost,
accused on the same assessment, or toll, or any penalty
occasion, as that giving imposed in relation thereto; or
rise to the more serious  Jurisdiction of lower courts is in issue.
offense, regardless of (Note: If, in addition to constitutional, tax, or
whether the accused jurisdictional questions, the cases mentioned in
are charged principals, (i), (ii) and (iii) above also involve questions of
accomplices or fact or mixed questions of fact and law, the
accessories, or whether aggrieved party shall appeal to the CA; and the
they have been tried final judgment or decision of the latter may be
jointly or separately. reviewed, revised, reversed, modified or affirmed
 by the SC on writ of certiorari)
By appeal, SC reviews
the questions of law All cases in which only errors or questions of
and of fact decided by law are involved.
the court a quo.

2. Courts of Appeals

2. COURT OF APPEALS
(Feria and Noche, pp.669-672)
(a) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
i. Original and Exclusive
Actions for annulment of judgments of the RTC on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and
lack of jurisdiction.
ii. Original and Concurrent
With the SC Petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and
(Hierarchy of mandamus against:
Courts) a. NLRC. [However, the petitions should be filed with the CA
based on hierarchy of courts; otherwise, they shall be
dismissed.]
b. CSC.
c. Quasi-Judicial Agencies. [However, the petitions should be
filed with the CA.]
d. RTC and lower courts.

Petitions for the issuance of a writ of Kalikasan.

With the SC, Petition for writ of amparo.
SB, and RTC Petition for writ of habeas data.
With the SC Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto.
and RTC Petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against lower courts or bodies.
Petitions for the issuance of writ of continuing mandamus in
environmental cases.
(b) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
i. Exclusive Appellate
Ordinary Appeals from:
Appeal by 1. RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, except in all
Notice of cases where only questions of law are raised or involved,
Appeal or which are appealable to the SC by petition for review on
Record on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.
Appeal 2. RTC on constitutional and jurisdictional questions which
involve questions of fact. Family Courts.
Appeal by An appeal may be taken to the CA whether the appeal involves
Petition for questions of fact, mixed questions of fact and law, or questions of
Review law, in the following cases:
 Regular
Appeals from RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Special
Appeals from CSC.
Appeals from Quasi-Judicial Agencies:
1. Securities and Exchange Commission
2. Office of the President
3. Land Registration Authority
4. Social Security Commission
5. Civil and Aeronautics Board
6. Intellectual Property Office
7. National Electrification Administration
8. Energy Regulatory Commission
9. National Telecommunications Commission
10. Department of Agrarian Reform under RA 6657
11. Government Service Insurance System
12. 12. Employees’ Compensation Commission
13. Insurance Commission
14. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
15. Board of Investments
16. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
17. Voluntary Arbitrators authorized by law
18. Ombudsman, in administrative disciplinary cases
19. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

From the judgments or final orders or resolutions of the CA, the

aggrieved party may appeal by certiorari to the SC as provided in
Rule 45.

Judgments and final orders of the CTA en banc are now appealable
to the SC through a petition for review under Rule 45, pursuant to
RA 9282.

3. Regional Trial Court

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
i. Original and Exclusive
CIVIL Cases Civil actions in which the subject of litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation

IMPORTANT: If the claim for damages is the main cause of action,

the amount thereof shall be considered in determining the
jurisdiction of the court.
NEW OLD
 RA 11576 increased
jurisdictional threshold to 2M
and 400k (real actions or those
involving title, possession or
interest in a real property) as of
June 30, 2021.
Cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
person or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial
functions. (COURT OF
GENERAL JURISDICTION)
Actions involving the contract of
marriage and marital relations.
Civil actions which involve the
title to, or possession of, REAL
property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the
property involved exceeds
P20K, or P50K if in Metro
Manila, except actions forcible
entry and unlawful detainer
which are
cognizable by the MeTC, MTC,
MCTC.

Civil actions and special Actions in admiralty and

proceedings falling within the maritime jurisdiction where the
exclusive original jurisdiction of demand or claim exceeds
a Juvenile and Domestic P300K, or P400K if in Metro
Relations Court and of the Manila.
Special Agrarian Courts as now
provided by law. Matters of probate, both testate
and intestate, where the gross
Other cases in which the value of the estate exceeds
demand, exclusive of interest, P300K, or P400K if in Metro
damages of whatever kind, Manila.
attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, and costs or the
value of the property in
controversy, exceeds P300K, or
P400K if in Metro Manila.

CRIMINAL Criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
Cases tribunal or body, such as the following:

Penalty provided by law exceeds 6 years imprisonment,

irrespective of fine.

Under (a) above not falling under the original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan where none of the principal accused are
occupying positions corresponding to salary grade “27” or
higher, or military and PNP officers occupying the rank of
superintendent or higher, or their equivalent.
 Only penalty provided by law is a fine exceeding P4K.

Violations of the:
RA 9165 or Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004
(specifically, those involving violence against women and
children as defined under Section 5).
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
Omnibus Election Code.

N.B.: Family Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over

criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below 18
years old, or when one or more of the victims is a minor at the time
of the commission of the offense. However, if the victim has
already died, such as in homicide cases, the regular courts
can have jurisdiction. (People v Dela Torre- Yadao,G.R. Nos.
162144-54, 2012)
Other Cases Actions for recognition and enforcement of an arbitration
agreement or for vacation, setting aside, correction or modification
of an arbitral award, and any application with a court for arbitration
assistance and supervision.

Actions for determination of just compensation to land under the

CARL.

R.A. 10660 (promulgated April 16, 2015):

The REGIONAL TRIAL COURT shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction where the information involving civil and criminal
cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A (1986):

Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A (1986):

Does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery;
or
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 (P1,000,000.00).

Note: Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, the

cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
under Section 4 of R.A. 10660 shall be tried in a judicial region
other than where the official holds office.
ii. Original and Concurrent
With the SC Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and
consuls
With the SC Issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
 and CA warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction which may be enforced in
any part of their respective regions. (CPMHQ)
Petition for the issuance of writ of continuing mandamus in
environmental cases.
With the SC, Petition for writ of amparo.
CA and SB Petition for writ of habeas data.
With the Claims not exceeding P100K. This is applicable if subject of the
Insurance action is incapable of pecuniary estimation; otherwise, jurisdiction
Commissioner is concurrent with the MeTC.
(b) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Cases decided by the MeTC, MTC, MTCC and MCTC in their respective territorial
Jurisdiction.
(c) SPECIAL JURISDICTION
The SC may designate certain branches of the RTC to handle exclusively criminal
cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform
cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies,
and/or such other special cases as the SC may determine in the interest of a speedy
and efficient administration of justice.; Intellectual Property

A. Intellectual Property Courts

SC-AO No. 113-95: Re: Designation of Special Courts For Intellectual Property Rights
(October 02, 1995)
In the interest of an efficient administration of justice and to ensure speedy disposition
of cases involving violation of Intellectual Property Rights, the following Branches of the
Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
presently presided over by their respective trial judges as herein below indicated, are
hereby specially designated to try and decide cases for violations of Intellectual
Property Rights such as, but riot limited to, violations of Art. 188 of the Revised Penal
Code (Substituting and Altering Trademarks, Trade Names, or Service Marks), Art. 189
of the Revised Penal Code (Unfair Competition, Fraudulent Registration of Trade Name,
Trademark or Service Mark, Fraudulent Designation of Origin, and False Description),
Presidential Degree No. 49 (Protection of Intellectual Property Rights), Presidential
Degree No. 87 (An Act Creating-the Videogram Regulatory Board), Republic Act No.
165 "as amended (The Patent Law), and Republic Act 166 as amended' (The
Trademark Law) committed within their respective territorial areas
RA 8293: Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines
Section 163. Jurisdiction of Court. - All actions under Sections 150, 155, 164, and 166
to 169 shall be brought before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under
existing laws.
-  Section 150 - License Contracts
-  Section 155 - Remedies for Infringement of registered mark
-  Section 164 - Notice of Filing Suit Given to the Director
-  Section 166 - Goods Bearing Infringing Marks or Trade Names
-  Section 167 - Collective Marks
-  Section 168 - Unfair Competition, Rights, Regulation and Remedies
 -  Section 169 - False Designations of Origin; False Description or
Representation. RA 166 Section 27. Jurisdiction of Court of First Instance. - All actions
under this Chapter and Chapters VI and VII hereof shall be brought before the proper
Court of First Instance.
AM No. 10-3-10-SC: 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights
Cases (Effectivity date: November 16, 2020) Rule 1, Sec 2 : These Rules shall be
observed by the RTC designated by the Supreme Court as Special Commercial Courts.
Rule 1, Sec 3: These Rules shall apply to all cases involving Intellectual Property
Rights. When the court determines that the civil or criminal action involved several
intertwined issues, it shall issue a special order that the regular procedure prescribed in
the Rules of Court shall apply, stating the reason therefor. Where applicable, the Rules
of Court shall apply suppletorily to proceedings under these Rules. Rule 2, Sec 1:
Scope: Rules 2 to 9 shall apply to all civil actions for violations of intellectual property
rights provided for in Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code, as
amended, including Repetition of Infringement of Patent (Section 84), Utility Model
(Section 108) and Industrial Design and Layout of Integrated Circuits (Section 119),
Trademark Infringement (Section 155 in relation to Section 170), Unfair Competition
(Section 168 in relation to Section 170), False Designations of Origin; False Description
or Representation (Section 169.1 in relation to Section 170), infringement of copyright,
moral rights, performers' rights, producers' rights, and broadcasting rights (Section 177,
193, 203, 208 and 211 in relation to Section 216), Infringement of Plant Variety
Protection under Republic Act No. 9168 or the Plant Variety Protection Act Section 47),
and other violations of intellectual property rights as may be defined by law.

B. Special Courts
SC may designate certain branches of RTC to try exclusively criminal cases, juvenile
and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases not falling within
the jurisdiction of any quasi-judicial body and other special cases in the interest of
justice.

4. Family Courts
FAMILY COURTS
(Feria and Noche, pp. 690-692)
ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is 15≤ x <18 years old, or where
one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense:
provided, that if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and
ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. The sentence,
however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to the Child and
Youth Welfare Code (PD 603).

Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter.

Petitions for adoption of children and revocation thereof.

Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those

relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living
together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of
conjugal partnership or gains

Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment.

Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of the Family Code of
the Philippines (E.O No. 209).

Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or neglected

children; petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the
suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases
cognizable under the Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD 603), Authorizing the
Ministry of Social Services and Development to Take Protective Custody of Child
Prostitutes and Sexually Exploited Children, and for Other Purposes (E.O. 56), and
other related laws.

Petitions for constitution of the family home.

Cases against minors cognizable under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2005.

Violations of Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and

Discrimination Act (RA 7610), as amended by RA 7658 and RA 9231.

Cases of domestic violence against:

Women – which are acts of gender-based violence that results, or are likely to
result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other
forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a
woman’s personhood, integrity, and freedom of movement; and
Children – which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to
their development.

If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject to

criminal proceedings and the corresponding penalties.

If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any
case pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court.

5. Metropolitan Trial Courts Municipal Trial Courts in cities

Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Courts

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT – MeTc, MTC and MCTC

(Feria and Noche, pp. 685-689)
 (a) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
i. Original and Exclusive
Civil Cases New Old
Civil actions and probate
proceedings, testate and Civil actions and probate
intestate, including the grant of proceedings, testate and
provisional remedies in proper intestate, including the grant of
cases, where the value of the provisional remedies in proper
personal property, estate, or cases, where the value of the
amount of the demand does not personal property, estate or
exceed Two million pesos amount of demand does NOT
(P2,000,000.00), exclusive of exceed P300K, or P400K if in
interest, damages of whatever Metro Manila, exclusive of
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation interest, damages of whatever
expenses, and costs, the kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
amount of which must be expenses, and costs, the
specifically alleged:  amount of which must be
specifically alleged. However,
Provided, That interest, interest, damages of whatever
damages of whatever kind, kind, attorney’s fees litigation
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be
expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination of
included in the determination of the filing fees.
the filing fees: 

Provided, further, That where Where there are several claims

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 totality of the
claims in all the causes of
action, irrespective of whether
the causes of action arose out
of the same or different
transactions;
Forcible entry and unlawful
detainer regardless of value of
property involved, with
jurisdiction to determine the
issue of ownership only to
resolve the issue of possession.
Civil actions which involve title Civil actions which involve title
to, or possession of, real to, or possession of, REAL
or causes of action 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 causes of
action irrespective of whether
the causes of action arose out
of the same or different
transactions.
Forcible entry and unlawful
detainer regardless of value of
property involved, with
jurisdiction to determine the
issue of ownership only to
resolve the issue of possession.
 property, or any interest therein property, or any interest therein
where the assessed value of the where the assessed value of the
property or any interest therein property or interest therein does
does not exceed Four hundred NOT exceed P20K, or P50K if in
thousand pesos (P400,000.00) Metro Manila, exclusive of
exclusive on interest, damages interest, damages of whatever
of whatever kind, attorney’s kind, attorney’s fees litigation
fees, litigation expenses and expenses, and costs. In cases
costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation
of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such
purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by
property shall be determined by the assessed value of the
the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
adjacent lots. Inclusion and exclusion of
voters.
Admiralty and maritime actions
where the demand or claim Admiralty and maritime cases
does not exceed Two million where the demand or claim
pesos (P2,000,000.00).” does NOT exceed P300K, or
P400K if in Metro Manila.
Criminal EXCEPT in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
Cases the RTC or SB –

Violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their

respective territorial jurisdiction.

Offenses punishable with imprisonment NOT exceeding 6 years

irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability
arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of
kind, nature, value or amount thereof.

Offenses under (2) above include those NOT falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the SB where none of the accused
is occupying positions corresponding to salary grade ‘27’ or higher.

Offenses involving damage to property through criminal

negligence.

In cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine of not

more than P4K.
(b) DELEGATED JURISDICTION
Cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does NOT exceed P100K,
such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the
respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax
 declaration of the real property. These cases are assigned and not automatically
delegated.

Appealable to the CA
(c) SPECIAL JURISDICTION
In the absence of all the RTC Judges in a province of city –
Hear and decide petitions for writ of habeas corpus.
Hear and decide applications for bail in criminal cases.
Criminal Traffic violations.
Cases Rental law violations.
Violations of city or municipal ordinances.
Violations of B.P. 22
(Bouncing Checks Law).
All other cases where penalty does NOT exceed 6 months and/or
fine of P1K

Distinguish Ordinary Civil Action vs. Revised Rules on Summary Procedure vs.
Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
Summary Procedure Small Claim
As to nature Civil and Criminal Civil
As to P200,000/ P100,000 P400,000
jurisdictional
amount
As to Allowed Not Allowed
Counsel’s
Assistance
As to Purpose To provide a speedy and To provide a speedier and
inexpensive disposition of cases inexpensive disposition of money
that are defined to be included in claims of small amounts
the cases for Summary
procedure
As to where 1. Metropolitan Trial Courts 1. Metropolitan Trial Courts
filed 2. Municipal Trial Courts in Cities 2. Municipal Trial Courts in Cities
3. Municipal Trial Courts 3. Municipal Trial Courts
4. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts 4. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
Pursuant to the amendments, the The following are the significant
civil cases covered by the Rule amendments made on the Rules
on Summary Procedure now on Small Claims:
consists of the following: 1. The threshold amount in
1. Forcible entry and small claims cases is now
unlawful detainer cases, One Million Pesos
regardless of the (PHP1,000,000.00),
amount to be recovered. regardless of whether the
Attorney’s fees, if case is filed within or
awarded, shall not exceed outside Metro Manila. This
One Hundred Thousand covers claims or demands
 Pesos (PHP100,000.00);
2. All civil actions, except
probate proceedings,
admiralty and maritime
actions and small claims
where the claim does not
exceed Two Million Pesos
(PHP2,000,000.00).
3. Complaints for damages
where the claims do not
exceed Two Million Pesos
(PHP2,000,000.00);
4. Cases for enforcement of
barangay amicable
settlement agreements
and arbitration award
where the money claim
exceeds One Million
Pesos
(PHP1,000,000.00),
provided that no execution
has been enforced within
six (6) months from the
settlement date or receipt
of award or the date when
the obligation becomes
due and demandable;
5. Cases solely for the
revival of judgment of any
first level court;  separate small claims
6. The civil aspect of
violations of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP
22), if no criminal action
has been instituted.  Pesos
7. With respect to criminal
cases, violation of BP 22
is explicitly included, and
the penalty threshold of all
other criminal cases is
increased to imprisonment
not exceeding one year,
or a fine not exceeding
Fifty Thousand Pesos
(PHP50,000.00), or both,
and a fine not exceeding
for money owed under
contracts of lease, loan
and other credit
accommodations,
services, and sale of
personal property.
2. Recovery of personal
property, unless it is made
subject of a compromise
agreement between the
parties, are excluded from
the operation of the new
Rules. Nevertheless, the
enforcement of barangay
amicable settlement
agreements and
arbitration awards where
the money claim does not
exceed One Million Pesos
(PHP1,000,000.00) are
included, provided that no
execution has been
enforced within six (6)
months from the
settlement date or receipt
of award or the date when
the obligation becomes
due and demandable.
3. Joinder of two or more
against a defendant is
allowed, provided that the
total amount claimed does
not exceed One Million
(PHP1,000,000.00).
4. If more than five (5) claims
are filed by one party
within the calendar year,
additional filing fee of Five
Hundred Pesos
(PHP500.00) shall be paid
for every claim filed after
the fifth (5th) claim and an
additional One Hundred
Pesos (PHP100.00) or a
 One Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos
(PHP150,000.00) for
offenses involving
damage to property
through criminal
negligence. If the
prescribed penalty
consists of imprisonment
and/or a fine, the
prescribed imprisonment
shall be the basis for
determining the applicable
procedure. Arraignment
and pre-trial shall be
scheduled and conducted
in accordance with
the Revised Guidelines
for Continuous Trial of
Criminal Cases.
In cases of appeal, any
judgment, final order, or final
resolution of the first level courts
on summary procedure may be
appealed to the appropriate
Regional Trial Court (RTC)
exercising jurisdiction over the
territory under Rule 40 for civil
cases and Rule 122 for criminal
cases. The judgment of the RTC
on the appeal shall be final,
executory, and unappealable.
total of Six Hundred
Pesos (PHP600.00) for
every claim filed after the
tenth (10th) claim and
another One Hundred
Pesos (PHP100.00) or a
total of Seven Hundred
Pesos (PHP700.00) for
every claim filed after the
fifteenth (15th) claim,
progressively and
cumulatively
5. Service of summons
through the plaintiff is
allowed if it is returned
unserved by the sheriff or
proper court officer, or if it
shall be served outside
the judicial region of the
court where the case is
pending. If the plaintiff
misrepresents that the
defendant was served, the
case shall be dismissed
with prejudice and the
plaintiff shall be declared
in indirect contempt and/
or be meted a fine of Five
Thousand Pesos
(PHP5,000.00).
6. If a case is dismissed
without prejudice for
failure to serve summons,
it may now be re-filed with
a fixed filing fee of Two
Thousand Pesos
(PHP2,000.00) within one
year from notice of
dismissal.
7. Any amount pleaded in
counterclaim in excess of
One Million Pesos
(PHP1,000,000.00) shall
be deemed waived.
8. The period to set the
hearing was increased to

Prohibited Will not apply to a civil case
Cases where the plaintiff's cause of
action is pleaded in the same
complaint with another cause of
action subject to the ordinary
sixty (60) calendar days in
small claims cases where
one of the defendants
reside or hold business
outside the judicial region
of the court. Otherwise,
the hearing shall be set
within thirty (30) calendar
days.
9. The hearing will still be
held in one (1) day, with
the judgment to be
rendered strictly within
twenty-four (24) hours
from its termination.
10. The Small Claims Forms
have also been updated
and improved for ease of
use, with translations in
Filipino.
The conduct of
videoconferencing hearings
using Microsoft Teams for both
summary proceedings and small
claims cases is allowed at any
stage of the proceedings. If
warranted, the first level courts
may also make use of alternative
platforms or instant messaging
applications with video call
features for their
videoconferencing hearings.
The new Rules shall take effect
on 11 April 2022 and shall apply
prospectively. Cases currently
pending before the first and
second level courts will remain
with and be decided by those
same courts, in accordance with
the applicable rules at the time of
their filing.
1. Criminal actions are excluded
such as cases for libel and
slander which grant the accused
the right to be heard and present
evidence. However, the civil
 procedure; nor to a criminal case
where the offense charged is
necessarily related to another
criminal case subject to the
ordinary procedure.
SALIENT POINTS
Summary Procedure
1) only applicable in the lower court
there is no the summary procedure
before RTC or Family Court. Don’t
get confused some lawyers would
say ah summary lang yan if it is RTC
he is talking loosely it is not really
summary, what the trial lawyers call
as summary before the RTC ang ibig
sabihin ex parte presentation of
evidence, but it is not covered under
summary procedure because
summary procedure applies only in
lower court.
2) There is no trial in summary
procedure, when we say trial but the
judgment in summary procedure is
still judgment of the merit don’t get
confused, not simply because there
was no trial, what we are talking trial
here is actual presentation of
evidence in court mas lalo na ngayon
it is even more pronounce because
evidence is already part of the
contents of the pleadings. So walang
trial dun, a good illustration is
unlawful detainer or forcible entry
under Rule 70, it is specifically
provided under 7691 that cases of
unlawful detainer or forcible entry
generally known as ejectment cases
are covered by the Rules on
Summary Procedure, walang trial
dyan, presentation only or submission
of position papers and thereafter
judgment must be rendered,
aspect of a claim for damages
may be heard as a small claim if
reserved or instituted separately
prior to the filing of the criminal
case.
2. civil cases which cannot be
filed as small claims regardless
of amount
Small Claim
Don’t confuse the small claims with
summary procedure, you may be
confronted of a problem that first thing
you need to decide is, is this covered by
summary procure or small claim.
1) Remember that summary procedure
applies in both civil and criminal
cases but small claims applies only
in civil cases, walang small claims
sa criminal cases.
2) It is only for sum of money, specific
performance can never fall under
small claims. It is only for sum of
money and the claim is always based
on a contract whether written or
unwritten, contract of loan - small
claims, contract of services – small
claims, contract of lease – kapag
money claim it may fall under small
claim, but the important thing you
should remember in small claim is the
ceiling of the claimable amount which
is P400,000.00 in excess it is not
anymore small claim. Pero dipende
yan ha don’t be confused with
consolidation, joinder of small claim
should not be confused of
consolidation under Rule 31, iba yan,
because there is also a joinder of
small claim. The joinder of small
claim is required that it must be the
same parties, plaintiff and defendant,
yan ang joinder dyan unlike the
joinder you studied in Rule 2 and
don’t confuse that with consolidation
 summary procedure no trial unlike in
small claims that the court may
conduct summary hearing pero yung
provision is “may” conduct summary
hearing, it is not mandatory.
3) The time, the prescriptive period is
much shorter than a regular
procedure, the period to file
answer is 10 days from valid
service of summon and the period
to submit it is 30 days, and the period
to render judgment from submission.
Take note that the mediation and
conciliation proceeding as well in
summary procedure, so even in
ejectment cases you are brought to
the Philippine Mediation Center for
possible amicable settlement. So that
changes the 30-30 days period
because before mediation and
conciliation proceeding is another 30
days extendible for another 30 day
although now with SC circular that is
no longer extendible unless for a very
compelling reason, I’m talking of non-
summary cases before the RTC
which are also brought before the
mediation and conciliation
proceeding.
4) There are prohibited pleading. So
be careful if you are confronted of a
case of unlawful detainer, ito malimit
ilabas sa bar, panglito, kapag
kinonfront ka ng ejectment case kung
minsan ibabased nila on not Rule 70
but on what based on Rent Control
Law, under the Rent Control Law,
there are also grounds there for
ejectment under the Rent Control
Law, you better look into the latest,
on the Rent Control Law, the last time
I checked nasa P10,000 pa lang, I
don’t know now, you better need to
check it kung magkano na yung
rental billing sa ngayon.
and severance, ibang klase din yun
3) Unang una titingnan nyo P400,000 ba
yan kung above P400,000.00 cannot
be anymore small case, kasi civil
lang ito so collection palagi, sum of
money.
4) While in summary lawyers are
allowed in small claims lawyers are
not allowed. So kapag presentation
pa lang ng problem nakalagay dun
plaintiff by counsel, cannot be small
claims anymore, ang confusing kasi
ngayon dinagdagan nila ang small
claims ngayon to P400,000.00 but
they did not increase the
P200,000.00 and P100,000.00 in
summary procedure.
So may option ngayon you can either
file summary procedure or small
claims, so there is an option on the
part of the plaintiff, but the court also
under the small claim rule the court
can also, hindi dismiss ha, walang
dismissal, archival or refer it back to
the executive judge for proper
disposition. Kapag dumating yan sa
excuetive judge ang gagawin ng
executive judge ay small claim ito
bakit nasa summary procedure, so
ano mangyayari ito ang walang
jurisprudence, if there is a lawyer, you
need to say the judge to say lawyer
disqualified ka kasi small claims ito,
wala tayong jurisprudence dyan. But
the judge should explain to the
parties that small claim is much better
than summary procedure. Because in
small claim remember the judgment if
we are in expeditious resolution,
small claim is much better than
summary procedure, because in
small claim from submission kelan ba
judgment, sa summary 30 days, dito
24 hours, within a day kaya
napakaganda ng small claims na yun.
Unfortunately, it is not often avail of.
 Another distinction are the terms used, in
small claims tingnan nyo agad ung
presentation of the problem kapag yung
nakalagay dyan complaint ay di small
claims yan, statement of claim walang
answer but response nakalagay dyan.

6. Sandiganbayan

SANDIGANBAYAN
(as amended by Section 4, R.A. 10660, promulgated April 16, 2015)
(a) EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, otherwise known as An Act
Declaring Forfeiture in favor of the State any Property Found to have been
Unlawfully Acquired by any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the
Proceedings therefor, 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:
1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as , of the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
b. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other
provincial department heads:
c. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;
d. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and
higher;
e. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of
higher rank;
f. Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent and
higher;
g. City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
h. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations.
2. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
3. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to
the provisions of the Constitution; and
4. All other national and local officials classified as under the Compensation and
 Position Classification Act of 1989.

Note: In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or

accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in
government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said
public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over them.

Note: In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding
to Salary Grade ‘27’ or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or
military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof
shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal
trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their
respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

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.

Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

Note: Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the
criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability
shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in, the
same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the
criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action,
and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal
action shall be recognized.

Note: Where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but judgment
therein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the
Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the
Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and
joint determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action shall
be deemed abandoned.

Petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or
that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2,
14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. Note that the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not
be exclusive of the Supreme Court.
(b) EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final
judgments, resolutions or orders of Regional Trial Courts whether in the exercise of
 their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as provided in R.A.
10660.

Note: The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the
implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter
promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall
apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases
elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court,
the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the
People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1,
2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

Hannah Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, 653 SCRA (2011)

REYES, J.:
A University of the Philippines (UP) Student Regent is a public officer; A public office is
the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period,
either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is
invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercise
by him for the benefit of the public. - Petitioner also contends that she is not a public
officer. She does not receive any salary or remuneration as a UP student regent.

It is not only the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. The court held that while the first part of Section 4(A) covers
only officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part specifically
includes other executive officials whose positions may not be of Salary Grade 27
and higher but who are by express provision of law placed under the jurisdiction
of the said court. Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as
she is placed there by express provision of law. Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No.
1606 explictly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents,
directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations.
Petitioner falls under this category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR
performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock
corporation By express mandate of law, petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as
contemplated by P.D. No. 1606.

Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan, 762 SCRA (2015)

PERALTA, J.:
Petitioner, not being an executive official with Salary Grade 27 or higher, neither
does he hold any position particularly enumerated in Section 4 (A) (1) (a) to (g) as
he Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 7, of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
Quezon City with Salary Grade 26 at the time of the commission of the crime,
does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
 De Lima vs. Guerrero, 843 SCRA (2017) (NEW PRIMARY
JURISDICTION)

Velasco, Jr., J.
The Court has held that an offense is deemed to be committed in relation to the
public office of the accused when that office is an element of the crime charged.
However, even if public office is not an element of the offense, the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan obtains when the relation between the crime and the office is
direct and not accidental such that, in the legal sense, the offense cannot exist
without the office.

Indirect Bribery; View that when it became apparent that the case involved any of the
crimes and offenses specified in Annex A of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),
which includes indirect bribery, it DOJ and the Office of the Ombudsman dated March
29, 2012 (MOA) which recognizes the primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in the
conduct of preliminary investigation the Department of Justice (DOJ) to already inform
the complainant to file the complaint directly with the Ombudsman. - Since the only
possible offense that may be leveled against Petitioner, based on the acts alleged in
the Information, is indirect bribery, which is exclusively cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, then the DOJ Panel of Prosecutors violated the Memorandum of
Agreement between theand inquest proceedings for crimes and offenses over which
the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, when it became apparent that
the case involved any of the crimes and offenses specified in Annex A of the MOA,
which includes indirect bribery, it behooved the DOJ to already inform the
complainant to file the complaint directly with the Ombudsman.

Preliminary Investigation; Jurisdiction; View that under Sections 2 and 4, Rule 112 of
the Rules of Court, the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors have the authority to
conduct preliminary investigations of criminal complaints filed with them for offenses
cognizable by the proper court within their respective territorial jurisdictions, including
those offenses that fall under the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Nevertheless, if the offense falls within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
the prosecutor shall, after investigation, transmit the records and their resolutions to
the Ombudsman or the latter’s deputy for appropriate action. - The fact that the
Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into the four
complaints does not preclude the panel from conducting any investigation of cases
against public officers involving violations of penal laws. In Honasan II v. The Panel of
Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice, 427 SCRA 46 (2004), the
Court ruled that accords between the Ombudsman and the DOJ, such as the MOA in
this case, are mere internal agreements between them. It was emphasized that under
Sections 2 and 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, DOJ prosecutors have the authority
to conduct preliminary investigations of criminal complaints filed with them for
offenses cognizable by the proper court within their respective territorial jurisdictions,
including those offenses that fall under the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
 Nevertheless, if the offense falls within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
the prosecutor shall, after investigation, transmit the records and their resolutions to
the Ombudsman or the latter’s deputy for appropriate action. Furthermore, the
prosecutor cannot dismiss the complaint without the prior written authority of the
Ombudsman or the latter’s deputy; nor can the prosecutor file an Information with the
Sandiganbayan without being deputized by, and without receiving prior written
authority from the Ombudsman or the latter’s deputy. Thus, after concluding its
investigation in this case, the panel should have transmitted the records and their
resolution to the Ombudsman for appropriate action. Considering that an Information
has already been filed before the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204,
this Court may order the quashal of the Information based on lack of jurisdiction over
the offense charged, pursuant to Section 3(b), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.

7. Court of Tax-Appeals

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

(a) EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION: by APPEAL
Decisions from the COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or
other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) or other laws administered by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue (BIR).

Inaction by the COMMISSIONER INTERNAL REVENUE

in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or
other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC
or other laws administered by the BIR, where the NIRC provides a specific period
of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial.

Decisions, orders or resolutions of REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their
original and appellate jurisdiction.

Decisions of the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

in cases involving liability for custom duties, fees or other money charges, seizure,
detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in
relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws
administered by the Bureau of Customs.

Decisions of the CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS

in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and
taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of
assessment appeals.
Decisions of the SECRETARY OF FINANCE
on customs cases elevated to him/her automatically for review from decisions of
the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government under
 Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Decisions of the SECRETARY OF
TRADE AND INDUSTRY in the case of non-agricultural product, commodity or
article; and
Decisions of the SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article involving dumping and
countervailing duties under Sections 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and
Customs Code and safeguard measures under the RA 8800, where either party
may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.
(b) CRIMINAL CASES
Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction
Criminal cases arising from violations of Over appeals from the judgments,
the: resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax
National Internal Revenue Code. cases originally decided by them, in their
Tariff and Customs Code. respective territorial jurisdiction.
Other laws administered by the BIR or Over petitions for review of the
the Bureau of Customs. judgments, resolutions or orders of the
RTC in the exercise of their appellate
Provided, however, that offenses or jurisdiction over tax cases originally
felonies mentioned in this paragraph decided the MeTC, MTC and MCTC in
where the principal amount of taxes and their respective jurisdiction.
fees, exclusive of charges and penalties,
claimed in less than P1M or where there
is no specified amount claimed shall be
tried by the regular courts and the
jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate.

Any provision of law or the Rules of Court

to the contrary notwithstanding, the
criminal action and the corresponding
civil action for the recovery of civil liability
for taxes and penalties shall be at all
times be simultaneously instituted with,
and jointly determined in the same
proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the
criminal action being deemed to
necessarily carry with it the filing of the
civil action, and no right to reserve the
filing of such civil action separately from
the criminal action will be recognized.
(C) TAX COLLECTION CASES
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction
Cases involving final and executory In tax collection cases:
assessment for taxes, fees, charges and Over appeals from the judgments,
penalties: Provided, however, that resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax
collection cases where the principal collection cases originally decided by
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of them, in their respective territorial
 charges and penalties, claimed is less jurisdiction.
than P1M shall be tried by the proper Over petitions for review of judgments,
MTC, MeTC and RTC. resolutions or orders of the RTC in the
exercise of their appellate jurisdiction
over tax collection cases originally
decided the MeTC, MTC and MCTC in
their respective jurisdiction.

City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo, February 4, 2014 (SPLIT

JURISDICTION)

PERALTA, J.:
On January 24, 2004, private respondents filed before the RTC of Pasay City the
complaint denominated as one for “Refund or Recovery of Illegally and/or
Erroneously–Collected Local Business Tax, Prohibition with Prayer to Issue TRO
and Writ of Preliminary Injunction

ISSUE: 
Whether the CTA has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing
an interlocutory order issued by the RTC in a local tax case.

HELD:
The CTA has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing an
interlocutory order issued by the RTC in a local tax case. In order for any
appellate court to effectively exercise its appellate jurisdiction, it must have the
authority to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari. In transferring exclusive
jurisdiction over appealed tax cases to the CTA, it can reasonably be assumed
that the law intended to transfer also such power as is deemed necessary, if not
indispensable, in aid of such appellate jurisdiction. There is no perceivable
reason why the transfer should only be considered as partial, not total.

Consistent with the above pronouncement, the Court has held as early as the
case of J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Jaramillo, et al. [118 Phil. 1022 (1963)] that “if a
case may be appealed to a particular court or judicial tribunal or body, then said
court or judicial tribunal or body has jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of
certiorari, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.” This principle was affirmed in De
Jesus v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 101630, August 24, 1992) where the Court
stated that “a court may issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
if said court has jurisdiction to review, by appeal or writ of error, the final orders
or decisions of the lower court.

The Supreme Court agrees with the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) that since
appellate jurisdiction over private respondents’ complaint for tax refund is vested in the
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), it follows that a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of
an interlocutory order issued in the said case should, likewise, be filed with the same
court. ·If this Court were to sustain petitioners’ contention that jurisdiction over their
certiorari petition lies with the CA, this Court would be confirming the exercise by two
judicial bodies, the CA and the CTA, of jurisdiction over basically the same subject
matter · precisely the split · jurisdiction situation which is anathema to the orderly
administration of justice. The Court cannot accept that such was the legislative motive,
especially considering that the law expressly confers on the CTA, the tribunal with the
specialized competence over tax and tariff matters, the role of judicial review over local
tax cases without mention of any other court that may exercise such power. Thus, the
Court agrees with the ruling of the CA that since appellate jurisdiction over private
respondents’ complaint for tax refund is vested in the CTA, it follows that a petition for
certiorari seeking nullification of an interlocutory order issued in the said case should,
likewise, be filed with the same court. To rule otherwise would lead to an absurd
situation where one court decides an appeal in the main case while another court rules
on an incident in the very same case.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The supervisory power or jurisdiction of the
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
should coexist with, and be a complement to, its appellate jurisdiction to review, by
appeal, the final orders and decisions of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), in order to
have complete supervision over the acts of the latter.·It would be somewhat incongruent
with the pronounced judicial abhorrence to split jurisdiction to conclude that the intention
of the law is to divide the authority over a local tax case filed with the RTC by giving to
the CA or this Court jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari against interlocutory orders of
the RTC but giving to the CTA the jurisdiction over the appeal from the decision of the
trial court in the same case. It is more in consonance with logic and legal soundness to
conclude that the grant of appellate jurisdiction to the CTA over tax cases filed in and
decided by the RTC carries with it the power to issue a writ of certiorari when necessary
in aid of such appellate jurisdiction. The supervisory power or jurisdiction of the CTA to
issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction should coexist with, and be a
complement to, its appellate jurisdiction to review, by appeal, the final orders and
decisions of the RTC, in order to have complete supervision over the acts of the latter.

CE Casecnan Water & Energy Co. vs. Prov. Of Nueva Ecija 759 CRA 180
Same issue and ruling with the Cuerdo case

8. Quasi-Judicial Tribunals (Sec. 1, Rule 43)

A quasi-judicial agency or body is an organ of government other than a court and

other than a legislature, which affects the rights of private parties though either
adjudication or rule-making. [United Coconut Planters Bank v. E. Ganzon, Inc., G.R.
No. 168859 (2009)]

ScopeAppeals from awards, judgments, final orders, or resolutions of or authorized by

any quasi- judicial agency (QJA) in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. [Sec. 1,
Rule 43]
ERRORS IN THE CODAL –REMOVE TITLE – COURT OF TAX APPEALS – EN
BANC NOW APPEALABLE TO THE SC VIA RULE 45.
REMOVE FROM SCOPE – CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS –
APPEALBALE TO THE CTA

Quasi-judicial agencies covered by Rule 43:

1. Civil Service Commission
2. Securities and Exchange Commission
3. Office of the President
4. Land Registration Authority
5. Social Security Commission
6. Civil Aeronautics Board
7. Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer
8. National Electrification Administration
9. Energy Regulatory Board
10. National Telecommunications Commission
11. Department of Agrarian Reform under RA 6657
12. GSIS
13. Employees Compensation Commission
14. Agricultural Inventions Board
15. Insurance Commission
16. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
17. Board of Investment
18. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and 19. Voluntary arbitrators
authorized by law
Note: Not an exclusive enumeration

Primary jurisdiction
- Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of anadministrative tribunal, especially where the question
demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the
special knowledge and experience of said administrative tribunal in
determining technical and intricate matters of fact.
- It is the jurisdiction of administrative agencies prior to regular courts by
reason of their expertise on the subject matter.
- Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction: remedy within the administrative machinery must
be resorted to give administrative officers every opportunity to decide a matter
within his jurisdiction. Such remedy must be exhausted first before the court’s
power of judicial review can be sought to allow the court to decide whether it
should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction, until after an administrative agency
has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the
proceedings before the court.

9. Sharia’h Courts: appellate, district, circuit

Shari’a courts were created under Art 137 of PD 1083 (February 4, 1977).
Shari’a District Courts
 Original and Exclusive Concurrent Original Appellate
All cases involving custody,
guardianship, legitimacy,
paternity and filiation arising
under the Code of Muslim
Personal Laws; With existing civil courts:
Petitions by Muslims for the
All cases involving disposition, constitution of a family All cases tried in the
distribution and settlement of the home, change of name and Shari’a Circuit Courts
estate of the deceased Muslims, commitment of an insane within their territorial
probate of wills, issuance of person to an asylum; jurisdiction.
letters of administration or Every case appealed to
appointment of administrators or All other personal and legal it on the basis of the
executors regardless of the actions not mentioned in evidence and records
nature or the aggregate value of paragraph 1(d), Sec. 143 of transmitted, as wekk as
the property; such memoranda, briefs
P.D. No. 1083, (no. 4 of
or oral arguments as the
above) wherein the parties
Petitions for the declaration of involved are Muslims except parties may submit.
absence and death and for the those for forcible entry and (Art. 144, PD 1083)
cancellation or correction of unlawful detainer, which ***Note: Art 145 od PD
entries in the Muslim Registries shall fall under the exclusive 1083 stated that the
mentioned in Title VI of the Book jurisdiction of the Municipal decisions of the Shari’a
Two of the Code; District Courts, whether
Circuit Court; and
on appeal from the
All actions arising from the Shari’a Circuit Court or
All special civil actions
customary contracts in which not, shall be FINAL.
for interpleader or
the parties are Muslims, if they Nothing herein contained
declaratory relief wherein,
have not specified which law shall affect the original
the parties are Muslims or
shall govern their relations, and; and appellate jurisdiction
the property involved
of the SC as provided by
belongs
All petitions for mandamus, the Constitution.
exclusively to Muslims. (P.D.
prohibition, injunction, certiorari,
No. 1083, Art. 143, par. 2)
habeas corpus, and all other
auxiliary writs and processes in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
(P.D. No. 1083, Sec. 143, par.
(1)).

Shari’a Circuit Courts

Exclusive Original
Offenses defined and punished under P.D. No. 1083;
All civil actions between parties who are Muslims or have been married in accordance
with P.D. No. 1083, relating to:
Marriage
Divorce
Betrothal or breach of contract to marry
Customary dower (mahr)
Disposition and distribution of property upon divorce
Maintenance and support and consolatory gifts (mut’s); and
Restitution of marital rights; and
Disputes relative to communal properties (P.D. No. 1083, Art. 155).

Lomondot vs. Balindong, 762 SCRA 494

PERALTA, J.:
A Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages with prayer for mandatory
injunction and TRO in the Shariah District Court (SDC).

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the SC has the jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari
coming from the SDC, considering that the Shariah Appelate Court has yet to be
organized

RULING:
No, it should be the CA who has jurisdiction, as held in the case of Tomawis v.
Balindong. Interestingly, the order of the CA was made on April, while the ruling
in the said case was promulgated in March.

Municipality of Tangkal vs. Balindong, 814 SCRA (2017)

JARDELEZA, J.:
A Complaint for Recovery of Possession in the SDC of Marawi.
In the SDC: Tangkal filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground of improper venue and
lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether or not a municipality having a Muslim mayor as to satisfy the

requirement of ―cases between Muslims‖ within the ambit of the SDC‘s jurisdiction

RULING: No, a municipality only has secular purposes and cannot have any
religion or affiliation. If it would be allowed, then the separation of church and state
will be violated.

Furthermore, to be considered as a Muslim, a person must testify to the oneness of God

and profess the prophethood of Muhammad, which obviously cannot be done by a
municipality.

The mayor and the municipality he represents are two separate entities, in the
same way the debt of the latter is not the debt of the former. Thus, that the
municipality CANNOT be deemed as a muslim, and only one of the parties is a
Muslim, and the other is not, the case cannot be deemed within the ambit of the SDC‘s
jurisdiction.
 10. Military Courts. Articles of War
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Mislang, 883 SCRA, Oct. 15, 2018
TIJAM, J.:
A complaint-affidavits for violation of the Articles of War, specifically for Grave
Misconduct, against the Commanding Officer of the 41st Infantry Batallion Mislang, then
Governor of Abra Vicente Valera (Valera), and Mario Durwin (Durwin) and Florencio
Baharin (Baharin) of the Military Intelligence Group were filed in the Ombudsman

Issue: Whether the Ombudsman may still try the case despite the GCM already ruling
on the same facts

Ruling: No, the Ombudsman has no authority to try the case, given the fact that a
concurrent court had already tried and ruled on the same set of facts and evidence.

In case of courts/administrative agencies having concurrent jurisdiction, the first

one who took cognizance of the case shall assume jurisdiction, to the exclusion
of the others.

The case in the GMC was earlier filed than of that of the Ombudsman. Further, the
records show that a letter was sent to the Ombudsman, as early as 2009, two (2) years
from the latter‘s decision on 2011. Thus, they could have desisted earlier but refused to
do so.

Ombudsman; Court-Martial; Jurisdiction; Administrative Cases; It is beyond dispute that

the Ombudsman (OMB) and the General Court Martial (GCM) of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines (AFP) have concurring or coordinate jurisdiction over administrative
disciplinary cases involving erring military personnel, particularly over violations of the
Articles of War that are service-connected. · On the question of jurisdiction, it is beyond
dispute that the Ombudsman and the General Court Martial of the AFP have
concurring or coordinate jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary cases
involving erring military personnel, particularly over violations of the Articles of
War that are service-connected. We briefly revisit the nature of court-martial
proceedings for context.

The Supreme Court (SC) had clarified that a court-martial is a court, and the
prosecution of an accused before it is a criminal and not an administrative case.
In discussing the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code to court-martial
proceedings insofar as those not provided in the Articles of War and the Manual for
Courts-Martial, this Court had clarified that a court-martial is a court, and the
prosecution of an accused before it is a criminal and not an administrative case.
Nonetheless, in threshing out the court-martial’s jurisdiction and the nature of offenses
committed by military personnel under the Articles of War, this Court also emphasized
its administrative disciplinary character.
 D. Discuss the concept, description and application of the following:
1. Delegated jurisdiction

Delegated jurisdiction

BP 129, Sec. 34 in relation to PD 1529, Sec. 2)

BP 129 SEC 34 - AN ACT REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY, APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts 32
may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or
contested lots the where the value of which does not exceed One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the
claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one, or from
the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their decisions in these cases
shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.
(as amended by R.A. No. 7691)

PD 1529 SEC 2 - AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO

REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. Judicial proceedings
for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be
based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.
Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original
registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, and over all
petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all
questions arising upon such applications or petitions. The court through its clerk of court
shall furnish the Land Registration Commission with two certified copies of all pleadings,
exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land
registration, with the exception of stenographic notes, within five days from the filing or
issuance thereof.

2. Special jurisdiction

BP 129, Sec. 35)

Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. – In the absence of all the Regional
Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge,
Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus
or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent
Regional Trial Judges sit.
Special jurisdiction
 What is special jurisdiction? Is the jurisdiction of the lower court enabling them to
take cognizance of the petitions for bail or petitions for habeas corpus in the
absence of RTC judges, not in the absence of RTC but RTC judges.

3. Limited jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of the court that can handle only specific subject matters like a
probate court {Agtarap vs Agatrap} or MTC handling unlawful detainer and forcible
entry cases.
Limited jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of the court, so walang specific kung anong court
yan, that can only solve certain issues outside of such issues the court cannot resolve it
because of its limited jurisdiction.

4. Primary jurisdiction
-  Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the
jurisdiction of anadministrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge and
experience of said administrative tribunal in determining technical and intricate matters
of fact.

-  It is the jurisdiction of administrative agencies prior to regular courts by reason of their
expertise on the subject matter.

-  Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction: remedy within the administrative machinery must be

resorted to give administrative officers every opportunity to decide a matter within
his jurisdiction. Such remedy must be exhausted first before the court’s power of
judicial review can be sought. Objective is to guide the court in determining whether it
should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has
determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceedings
before the court.

PRINCIPLE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION (EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION)

It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case,
which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. However, if the case
is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and
knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or
intricate questions of fact are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an
administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even
though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of the court. (Pimentel v. Senate
Committee as a Whole, G.R. No. 187714, March 8, 2011)

This precludes courts from resolving, in the first instance, controversies falling
under the jurisdiction of administrative agencies. Courts recognize that
administrative agencies are better equipped to settle factual issues within their
specific field of expertise because of their special skills and technical knowledge.
For this reason, a premature invocation of the court’s judicial power is often struck
down, unless it can be shown that the case falls under any of the applicable
exceptions. (Cabungcal v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 160367, December 18, 2009).

Justice Herrera emphasized that the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and failure to
exhaust administrative remedies are not synonymous and should be distinguished from
one another. In US v. Western Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 59 (1956), Justice Harlan explained
that exhaustion applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an
administrative agency alone; judicial interference is withheld until the administrative
process has ruled its course.

Primary jurisdiction on the other hand applies where a claim is originally cognizable
by the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the
resolution of issues which under a regulatory scheme have been placed within
the special competence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial
process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body
for its views.

In Tassy v. Brunswick, the Court held that the pertinent question to ask is whether
referral to the agency is necessary to promote uniformity and whether the agency’s
expertise would assist the court in resolving difficult factual issues. Simply put, the
primary jurisdiction doctrine asks whether an agency’s review of the facts will be
a material aid to the court ultimately charged with applying those facts to the law.

Unduran vs. Aberasturi, 823 SCRA (2017)

PERALTA, J.:
Resolution: In their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners maintain that it is the
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), not the regular courts, which has
jurisdiction over disputes and controversies involving ancestral domain of the
Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) and Indigenous Peoples (IPs) regardless of
the parties involved.
Petitioners argue that the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by
the allegations of the complaint, admits of exceptions and can be relaxed in view of the
special and unique circumstances obtaining this case, i.e., the actual issue, as shown
by their motion to dismiss, involves a conflicting claim over an ancestral domain.

ISSUE: Whether the NCIP's jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties are
ICCs/IPs, or primary and concurrent with regular courts, and/or original and exclusive to
the exclusion of said courts, on all matters involving the rights of ICCs/IPs.

HELD:
Primary jurisdiction is the power and authority vested by the Constitution or by statute
upon an administrative body to act upon a matter by virtue of its specific competence.
Given that the provisions of the enabling statute are the yardsticks by which the Court
would measure the quantum of quasi-judicial powers that an administrative agency may
exercise, as defined in the enabling act of such agency.

It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend on the
defenses raised by the defendant in the answer or a motion to dismiss ; otherwise,
the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant. Suffice it
also to state that the Court is unanimous in denying the petition for review on certiorari
on the ground that the CA correctly ruled that the subject matter of the original and
amended complaint based on the allegations therein is within the jurisdiction of the
RTC. The Court maintains that the jurisdiction of the NCIP under Section 66 of the IPRA
is limited to claims and disputes involving rights of IPs/ICCs where both parties belong
to the same ICC/IP group, but if such claims and disputes arise between or among
parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP group, the proper regular courts shall
have jurisdiction.

LBP vs. Dalauta, 835 SCRA (2017)

MENDOZA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeks to review, reverse and set
aside the Sept. 18, 2009 Decision of the CA-Cagayan de Oro (CA) in modifying the May
30, 2006 Decision of the RTC, Br 5, Butuan City, sitting as Special Agrarian Court
(SAC), in Civil Case – an action for determination of just compensation.

Issue:
Whether the final determination of just compensation is a judicial function.

Ruling:
Yes, the Court declares RTC, sitting as Special Agrarian Court, is original and
exclusive, not appellate; that the action to file judicial determination of just
compensation shall be ten (10) years from the time of the taking; and that at the time of
the filing of judicial determination, there should be no pending administrative action for
the determination of just compensation.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction tells us that courts cannot, and will not, resolve a
controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.

In agrarian reform cases, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR, more specifically, in
the DARAB. On the other hand, the SACs are the Regional Trial Courts expressly
granted by law with original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowners.

There may be situations where a landowner, who has a pending administrative case
before the DAR for determination of just compensation, still files a petition before the
SAC for the same objective. Such recourse is not strictly a case of forum shopping, the
administrative determination being not res judicata binding on the SAC. Nevertheless,
the practice should be discouraged. Everyone can only agree that simultaneous
hearings are a waste of time, energy and resources. To prevent such a messy situation,
a landowner should withdraw his case with the DAR before filing his petition before the
SAC and manifest the fact of withdrawal by alleging it in the petition itself. Failure to do
so, should be a ground for a motion to suspend judicial proceedings until the
administrative proceedings would be terminated. It is simply ludicrous to allow two
procedures to continue at the same time.

In both voluntary and compulsory acquisitions, wherein the landowner rejects the offer,
the DAR opens an account in the name of the landowner and conducts a summary
administrative proceeding. If the landowner disagrees with the valuation, the matter may
be brought to the RTC, acting as a special agrarian court. But as with the DAR-awarded
compensation, LBP's valuation of lands covered by CARL is considered only as an
initial determination, which is not conclusive, as it is the RTC, sitting as a Special
Agrarian Court, that should make the final determination of just compensation, taking
into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and the
applicable DAR regulations. xxx.28 [Emphases and underscoring supplied]

It would be well to emphasize that the taking of property under R.A. No. 6657 is an
exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State. The valuation of property or
determination of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is essentially
a judicial function which is vested with the courts and not with administrative
agencies. Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance of respondent's petition for
determination of just compensation. [Emphases and underscoring supplied]

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction:

The doctrine tells us that courts cannot, and will not, resolve a controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal,
especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.

In agrarian reform cases, primary jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian

Reform (DAR), more specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB) as provided for in Section 50 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 which
reads:
 SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.–– The DAR is hereby vested with
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation
of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). [Emphasis supplied] Meanwhile, Executive Order (E.O.) No.
229 also vested the DAR with (1) quasi-judicial powers to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters; and (2) jurisdiction over all matters involving
the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources.

The Special Agrarian Courts (SACs) are the Regional Trial Courts expressly granted by
law with original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners. Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657 provides: SEC. 57. Special
Jurisdiction.––The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the
prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all
proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act. The
Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special
jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision.

5. Equity jurisdiction
Regulus Dev. Inc. vs. De la Cruz, 781 SCRA

Brion, J.:

Equity Jurisdiction is the power of a court to issue an order even after the court has
lost jurisdiction only to prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure justice is serve.

ISSUE/s:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to order the levy, and assuming it has, what
jurisdiction is being exercised

RULING:
Yes, the RTC has jurisdiction to order the levy, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction.
Equity jurisdiction is exercised in the absence of a law, and in the spirit of
fairness and justice. In cases where the law cannot adapt to special circumstances,
the court may resort to such.

It is NOT an appellate exercise, considering that the original case for ejectment has long
been dismissed. The order is merely to ensure restitution to RDI, to provide it with what
it rightfully owns.

Therefore, that the assailed orders (levy) originated in the RTC, the execution should be
sought from it.
“Appellate Jurisdiction” and “Equity Jurisdiction,” Distinguished. · The appellate
jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law. The appellate court acquires jurisdiction
over the subject matter and parties when an appeal is perfected.

On the other hand, equity jurisdiction aims to provide complete justice in cases
where a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special
circumstances of a case because of a resulting legal inflexibility when the law is
applied to a given situation. The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction,
among others, is to prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution. The RTC
orders which allowed the withdrawal of the deposited funds for the use and occupation
of the subject units were issued pursuant to the RTC’s equity jurisdiction, as the CA
held in the petition docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 81277. The RTC’s equity jurisdiction
is separate and distinct from its appellate jurisdiction on the ejectment case. The RTC
could not have issued its orders in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction since there
was nothing more to execute on the dismissed ejectment case. As the RTC orders
explained, the dismissal of the ejectment case effectively and completely blotted
out and cancelled the complaint. Hence, the RTC orders were clearly issued in the
exercise of the RTC’s equity jurisdiction, not on the basis of its appellate
jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction; Execution of Judgments; Execution shall be applied for in the court of

origin, in accordance with Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Execution shall be
applied for in the court of origin, in accordance with Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court. The court of origin with respect to the assailed RTC orders is the court which
issued these orders. The RTC is the court with jurisdiction to order the execution of the
issued RTC orders. Hence, the petitioner correctly moved for the issuance of the writ of
execution and levy of the respondent’s real property before the RTC as the court of
origin.

6. Residual jurisdiction

⮚ Don’t confuse that residual jurisdiction, illustrating it through Sec. 9 of Rule 41,
provides for two issues, perfection of appeal and expiration of the period to appeal.
Under this is the word “and” because the court does not loss jurisdiction over the
case upon perfection of the appeal but rather upon expiration of period to appeal.
So if there are multiple defendants and who might receive copies of the judgment in
different dates, I illustrated to you last meeting, the last day to appeal is basis or the
determinant of the loss of jurisdiction. Residual jurisdiction start upon the
expiration of the period to appeal. Babalikan ko yan sa Rule 41 so sana kaya nyo
na idiscuss, specifically Sec. 8 Rule 40 and 9 of Rule 41.

Dev. Bank of the Phil. Vs. Carpio, 816 SCRA (2017)

o Requisites: trial, judgment, appeal

Mendoza, J.:
Abad et al. filed for delivery of certificates of title with a prayer for the issuance of a writ
of seizure in the RTC against DBP and Guarantee Fund for Small and Medium
Enterprise (GSFME) as Abad et al.‘s guarantor, by virtue of a loan agreement entered
into by Abad et al. and DBP.

In the RTC:
DBP filed a motion to dismiss and quash writ of seizure on the ground of improper
venue. It was supplemented to attach a delivery receipt of seizure of the 228 certificates
of title by the Sheriff.
Eventually, the RTC granted DBP‘s motion and dismissed the case on the ground of
improper venue.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the RTC has residual jurisdiction considering that the case
was dismissed due to improper venue (Dismissed on procedural grounds)

RULING:
No. In this case, there is no trial in the merits considering that the case was
dismissed due to improper venue, which is a dismissal without prejudice. As a
dismissal without prejudice, it CANNOT be the subject of an appeal, and does not
bar re-filing of the case.

Hence, the elements of trial in the merits and an appeal perfected cannot be had in this
case as obviously it cannot be attained. (Appeal cannot be had since the case was not
ruled on merits, and can simply be refiled).

Residual jurisdiction refers to the authority of the trial court to issue orders for the
protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any
matter litigated by the appeal; to approve compromises; to permit appeals by indigent
litigants; to order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2, Rule 39; and
to allow the withdrawal of the appeal, provided these are done prior to the transmittal of
the original record or the record on appeal, even if the appeal has already been
perfected or despite the approval of the record on appeal or in case of a petition for
review under Rule 42, before the Court of Appeals (CA) gives due course to the petition.

The “residual jurisdiction” of the trial court is available at a stage in which the
court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject
matter involved in the appeal. This stage is reached upon the perfection of the
appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the
transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the
trial court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to issue protective orders,
approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending
appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.

Before the trial court can be said to have residual jurisdiction over a case:
1. a trial on the merits must have been conducted;
2. the court rendered judgment; and
3. the aggrieved party appealed therefrom.

Before the trial court can be said to have residual jurisdiction over a case, a trial on the
merits must have been conducted; the court rendered judgment; and the aggrieved
party appealed therefrom. In this case, there was no trial on the merits as the case was
dismissed due to improper venue and respondents could not have appealed the order
of dismissal as the same was a dismissal, without prejudice. Section 1(h), Rule 41 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure states that no appeal may be taken from an order
dismissing an action without prejudice, remedy is to file for an interlocutory motion.
Indeed, there is no residual jurisdiction to speak of where no appeal has even
been filed. In Strongworld Construction Corporation, et al. v. Hon. Perello, et al., 496
SCRA 700 (2006), the Court elucidated on the difference between a dismissal with
prejudice and one without prejudice: We distinguish a dismissal with prejudice from a
dismissal without prejudice. The former disallows and bars the refiling of the complaint;
whereas, the same cannot be said of a dismissal without prejudice. Likewise, where the
law permits, a dismissal with prejudice is subject to the right of appeal. x x x

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (DBP), petitioner, vs. HON.

EMMANUEL C. CARPIO, et al., respondentsGR 195450 1 February 2017Petition for
review on Certiorari
Mendoza, J.:
―Before the trial court can be said to have residual jurisdiction over a case;
1. a trial on the merits must have been conducted; 2. the court rendered judgment; and
3. the aggrieved party appealed therefrom.”

The "residual jurisdiction" of the trial court is available at a stage in which the court is
normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in
the appeal. This stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or
upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original
records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-
called residual jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit
appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal
of the appeal.
"RESIDUAL JURISDICTION - refers to the authority of the trial court to issue orders for
the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any
matter litigated by the appeal; to approve compromises; to permit appeals by indigent
litigants; to order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section 2, Rule 39; and
to allow the withdrawal of the appeal, provided these are done prior to the transmittal of
the original record or the record on appeal, even if the appeal has already been
perfected or despite the approval of the record on appeal or in case of a petition for
review under Rule 42, before the CA gives due course to the petition

7. Epistolary jurisdiction
What does "epistolary jurisdiction" mean?
It is the power and authority of the court to hear, try, and decide a case arising from a
letter petition introduced by a third person, rather than the aggrieved party, for the
protection of public interest, pursuant to the concept of Judicial Activism (public
interest litigation).

This is in connection with PIL in Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. As per this doctrine, many technical rules of procedure have been
relaxed; the burden of the individual in fighting the litigation is reduced by various
beneficial principles. Acting on letters written by or on behalf of the oppressed people is
a strategy adopted by the Supreme Court for facilitating access to justice. This is known
as ‘epistolary jurisdiction.’

The term epistolary jurisdiction is a misnomer laid down in the Resident Marine Mammal
vs. Reyes because there is no such thing as epistolary jurisdiction, which was asked in
the last bar examination, the question is can dolphins be parties apparently reminding
the students whether they have read the case of Resident Marine Mammal vs. Reyes,

Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes, 756 SCRA (2015)

Leonardo – De Castro, J.

This case arose when DOE and Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. Ltd. (JAPEX) entered
into an agreement for the exploration, development and production of petroleum
resources at the offshore of Tanon Strait. Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals
allegedly bring their case in their personal capacity, alleging that they stand to benefit or
be injured from the judgment on the issues. The human petitioners implead themselves
in a representative capacity "as legal guardians of the lesser life-forms and as
responsible stewards of God's Creations," using Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. as basis for
their claim in asserting their right to enforce international and domestic environmental
laws enacted for their benefit under the concept of stipulation pour autrui. As
representatives, the human petitioners assert that they have the obligation to build
awareness among the affected residents of Tañon Strait as well as to protect the
environment, especially in light of the government's failure, as primary steward, to do its
duty under the doctrine of public trust.

Resident Marine Mammals and the human petitioners also assert that through this case,
this court will have the opportunity to lower the threshold for locus standi as an exercise
of "epistolary jurisdiction."

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners have locus standi to file the instant petition

RULING: In our jurisdiction, persons and entities are recognized both in law and the
Rules of Court as having standing to sue and, therefore, may be properly represented
as real parties in interest. The same cannot be said about animals.
The issue of whether or not animals or even inanimate objects should be given legal
standing in actions before courts of law is not new in the field of animal rights and
environmental law. Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards cited the 1972
United States case Sierra Club v. Rogers C.B. Morton, 49 wherein Justice William O.
Douglas, dissenting to the conventional thought on legal standing, opined: The critical
question of "standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a
federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or
federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or
invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. . . . .
Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a
fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole — a creature of
ecclesiastical law — is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases.
The ordinary corporation is a "person" for purposes of the adjudicatory processes,
whether it represents proprietary, spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes. So it should
be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges,
groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern
technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it
sustains or nourishes — fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear,
and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its
sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that
is part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water —
whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger — must be able to speak
for the values which the river represents and which are threatened with destruction. 50
(Citations omitted.)

8. Split jurisdiction

City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo (2014) (SPLIT JURISDICTION)

The Supreme Court agrees with the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) that since
appellate jurisdiction over private respondents’ complaint for tax refund is vested in the
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), it follows that a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of
an interlocutory order issued in the said case should, likewise, be filed with the same
court. ·If this Court were to sustain petitioners’ contention that jurisdiction over their
certiorari petition lies with the CA, this Court would be confirming the exercise by two
judicial bodies, the CA and the CTA, of jurisdiction over basically the same subject
matter · precisely the split · jurisdiction situation which is anathema to the orderly
administration of justice. The Court cannot accept that such was the legislative motive,
especially considering that the law expressly confers on the CTA, the tribunal with the
specialized competence over tax and tariff matters, the role of judicial review over local
tax cases without mention of any other court that may exercise such power. Thus, the
Court agrees with the ruling of the CA that since appellate jurisdiction over private
respondents’ complaint for tax refund is vested in the CTA, it follows that a petition for
certiorari seeking nullification of an interlocutory order issued in the said case should,
likewise, be filed with the same court. To rule otherwise would lead to an absurd
situation where one court decides an appeal in the main case while another court rules
on an incident in the very same case.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The supervisory power or jurisdiction of the
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
should coexist with, and be a complement to, its appellate jurisdiction to review, by
appeal, the final orders and decisions of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), in order to
have complete supervision over the acts of the latter.·It would be somewhat incongruent
with the pronounced judicial abhorrence to split jurisdiction to conclude that the intention
of the law is to divide the authority over a local tax case filed with the RTC by giving to
the CA or this Court jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari against interlocutory orders of
the RTC but giving to the CTA the jurisdiction over the appeal from the decision of the
trial court in the same case. It is more in consonance with logic and legal soundness to
conclude that the grant of appellate jurisdiction to the CTA over tax cases filed in and
decided by the RTC carries with it the power to issue a writ of certiorari when necessary
in aid of such appellate jurisdiction. The supervisory power or jurisdiction of the CTA to
issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction should coexist with, and be a
complement to, its appellate jurisdiction to review, by appeal, the final orders and
decisions of the RTC, in order to have complete supervision over the acts of the latter.

9. Expanded/Extended jurisdiction
nd
(Sec. 1, 2 par. of Art. VIII of the Constitution) SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be
vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power 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.
The Court's expanded jurisdiction, social rights, and the Court's constitutional rule-
making power under the 1987 Constitution
With the 1987 Philippine Constitution came significant developments in terms of the
Court's judicial and rule-making powers.
First, judicial power is no longer confined to its traditional ambit of settling actual
controversies involving rights that were legally demandable and enforceable.
The second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that
judicial power also includes the duty of the courts "x x x 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." In Araullo v. Aquino III,
former Associate (now Chief) Justice Bersamin eruditely explained:
The Constitution states that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice not
only "to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable" but also "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." It has thereby expanded the concept of judicial
power, which up to then was confined to its traditional ambit of settling actual
controversies involving rights that were legally demandable and enforceable.
With respect to the Court, however, the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are
necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the writ of certiorari or prohibition may be
issued to correct errors of jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal, corporation,
board or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions but also to set
right, undo and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Government, even if the
latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. {GIOS-SAMAR,
INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON GERARDO M. MALINAO,
PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
AND CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENTS.DECISION. JARDELEZA, J.:

Villanueva vs. JBC, 755 SCRA 182 (2015)

Constitutional Law; Judicial Review; View that the power of judicial review is part and
parcel of the Court’s judicial power and is a power inherent in all courts.· The Court’s
exercise of its traditional jurisdiction is rooted in its power of judicial review which gives
the Court the authority to strike down acts of the legislative and/or executive,
constitutional bodies or administrative agencies that are contrary to the Constitution.
The power of judicial review is part and parcel of the Court’s judicial power and is a
power inherent in all courts.

Edcel Lagman vs. Pimentel III, 854 SCRA (2018)

Tijam, J:

These are consolidated petitions assailing the constitutionality of the extension of

the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in
the entire Mindanao for one year from January 1 to December 31, 2018.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners may invoke the expanded (certiorari) jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution in seeking review of the
extension of Proclamation No. 216.

Ruling:
The Court reiterated their earlier ruling in Lagman case where they emphasized that the
Court’s jurisdiction under the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII is special and
specific, different from those enumerated in Sections 1 and 5 of Article VIII. It was
further stressed therein that the standard of review in a petition for certiorari is whether
the respondent has committed any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in the performance of his or her functions, whereas under Section
18, Article VII, the Court is tasked to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
President’s exercise of emergency powers.

Hence, the Court concluded that a petition for certiorari pursuant to Section 1 or Section
5 of Article VIII is not the proper tool to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.

The Court added that to apply the standard of review in a petition for certiorari will
emasculate the Court’s constitutional task under Section 18, Article VII, which was
precisely meant to provide an additional safeguard against possible martial law abuse
and limit the extent of the powers of the Commander-in-Chief.

Finally, the Court held that a certiorari petition invoking the Court’s expanded jurisdiction
is not the proper remedy to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the Congress’
extension of the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ.

In Lagman, We emphasized that this Court's jurisdiction under the third paragraph of
Section 18, Article VII is special and specific, different from those enumerated in
Sections 1 93 and 5 94 of Article VIII. It was further stressed therein that the standard of
review in a petition for certiorari is whether the respondent has committed any grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the performance of his
or her functions, whereas under Section 18, Article VII, the Court is tasked to review the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the President's exercise of emergency powers. Hence,
the Court concluded that a petition for certiorari pursuant to Section 1 or Section 5 of
Article VIII is not the proper tool to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.

At this point, there is a need to repeat the ruling in Lagman that "the purpose of judicial
review is not the determination of accuracy or veracity of the facts upon which the
President anchored his declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus; rather, only the sufficiency of the factual basis as to convince the
President that there is probable cause that rebellion exists." That same purpose applies
to the present judicial review insofar as it would determine the sufficiency of the factual
basis as to convince the President and the Congress that there is probable cause that
rebellion persists.

The Court's power to review the extension of martial law is limited solely to the
determination of the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof. Section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution pertains to the Court's judicial power to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The first part is to be
known as the traditional concept of judicial power while the latter part, an innovation of
the 1987 Constitution, became known as the court's expanded jurisdiction. Under its
expanded jurisdiction, courts can now delve into acts of any branch or instrumentality of
the Government traditionally considered as political if such act was tainted with grave
abuse of discretion.

References:
 1. Section 5, Article VIII, 1986 Constitution
2. Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
3. B.P. Blg. 129
4. RA 7691 as amended by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC
5. RA 11576 (approved, July 30, 2021)
6. RA 8369 (Family Courts Act)
7. SC-AO No. 113-95- Intellectual Property Courts
8. PD 1486; 1606 (Sandiganbayan)
9. RA 7975; 8249; 10660 (Sandiganbayan)
10. RA 9282 (Court of Tax Appeals)
11. RA 9054 (Sharia’h Courts)
12. RA 11054 (Bangsamoro Basic Law, July 2018)
13. A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC (continuous trial of criminal cases)

Other Cases On: Jurisdictional estoppel

1. Duero vs CA – 373 SCRA 11

QUISUMBING, J.:
While participation in all stages of a case before the trial court, including invocation of its
authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively bars a party by estoppel from
challenging the court’s jurisdiction, the Court notes that estoppel has become an
equitable defense that is both substantive and remedial and its successful invocation
can bar a right and not merely its equitable enforcement;

On June 16, 1995, petitioner filed before the RTC a complaint for Recovery of
Possession and Ownership with Damages and Attorney's Fees against private
respondent and two others, namely, Apolinario and Inocencio Ruena. Petitioner and the
Ruenas executed a compromise agreement, which became the trial court's basis for a
partial judgment rendered on January 12, 1996.

On June 10, 1996, private respondent filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging that he has
been occupying the land as a tenant of Artemio Laurente, Sr., since 1958. He explained
that he turned over the complaint and summons to Laurente in the honest belief that as
landlord, the latter had a better right to the land and was responsible to defend any
adverse claim on it. However, the trial court denied the motion for new trial.

Private respondent then filed before the RTC a Petition for Relief from Judgment,
reiterating the same allegation in his Motion for New Trial. The RTC again denied the
Petition. Private respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration in which he alleged that
the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case since the value of the land is only P5,240,
which is within the jurisdiction of the MTC. However, the RTC denied the MR. Private
respondent filed with the Court of Appeals, a petition for certiorari which the latter
granted."

Issue:
Whether the private respondent Eradel is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of
RTC after he has successfully sought affirmative relief therefrom"

Ruling:
No. For estoppel to apply, the action giving rise thereto must be unequivocal and
intentional because, if misapplied, estoppel may become a tool of injustice. Private
respondent, an unschooled farmer, in the mistaken belief that since he was merely a
tenant of the late Artemio Laurente Sr., his landlord, gave the summons to a Hipolito
Laurente, one of the surviving heirs of Artemio Sr., who did not do anything about the
summons. For failure to answer the complaint, private respondent was declared in
default. He then filed a Motion for New Trial in the same court, but such was denied.
He filed before the RTC a Motion for Relief from Judgment. Again, the same court
denied his motion, hence he moved for reconsideration of the denial. In his Motion for
Reconsideration, he raised for the first time the RTC's lack of jurisdiction. This motion
was again denied. Note that private respondent raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction,
not when the case was already on appeal, but when the case, was still before the RTC
that ruled him in default, denied his motion for new trial as well as for relief from
judgment, and denied likewise his two motions for reconsideration
The fundamental rule is that, the lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action cannot
be waived by the parties, or even cured by their silence, acquiescence or even by their
express consent. Further, a party may assail the jurisdiction of the court over the action
at any stage of the proceedings and even on appeal. The appellate court did not err in
saying that the RTC should have declared itself barren of jurisdiction over the action
Citing Javier v CA, the Court reiterated: Under the rules, it is the duty of the court to
dismiss an action 'whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter.' (Sec. 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court)
Thus, the ruling of the CA is affirmed. The decision of the RTC and its Order that private
respondent turn over the disputed land to petitioner, and the Writ of Execution it issued,
are annulled and set aside."

Rule on Estoppel: While participation in all stages of a case before the trial court,
including invocation of its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively bars a party
by estoppel from challenging the courts jurisdiction, we note that estoppel has become
an equitable defense that is both substantive and remedial and its successful invocation
can bar a right and not merely its equitable enforcement.
Hence, estoppel ought to be applied with caution. For estoppel to apply, the action
giving rise thereto must be unequivocal and intentional because, if misapplied, estoppel
may become a tool of injustice.

2. Gonzaga vs CA - 394 SCRA 472

CORONA, J.:
Accordingly, in Spouses Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals, 394 SCRA 472 (2002), the issue
for consideration was the authority of the regional trial court to hear and decide an
action for reformation of contract and damages involving a subdivision lot, it being
argued therein that jurisdiction is vested in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
pursuant to PD 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree). In
Lee v. Presiding Judge, MTC, Legaspi City, 145 SCRA 408 (1986), petitioners argued
that the respondent municipal trial court had no jurisdiction over the complaint for
ejectment because the issue of ownership was raised in the pleadings, the Supreme
Court barred the attack on the jurisdiction of the respective courts concerned over the
subject matter of the case based on estoppel by laches, declaring that parties cannot be
allowed to belatedly adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of a court
to which they submitted their cause voluntarily.

3. Manila Bankers vs. Ng Kok Wei, 418 SCRA

Gutierrez, J.

FACTS: Plaintiff Manila Banker Life Insurance Corporation entered into a contract to
sale of a Condominium unit at Valle Verde Terraces with respondent, Eddy Ng Kok wei.
Complete payment was made by respondent, and subsequently a Contract to sell in in
favor of Ng Kok Wei was executed by plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to perform its obligation to
deliver the condominium unit, upon demand of respondent hence the latter filed with
the RTC of Makati City a complaint for specific performance and damages. During
the pendency of the case, the respondent receives the condominium unit, hence the
case was only for damages. Regional Trial Court, rendered a decision in favor of
respondent and order plaintiff to pay for damages. Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Court
of Appeals, which the CA affirmed in toto the trial court decision.

Plaintiff then filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, contending
that the trial court has no jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether or not the plaintiff is estopped to assail the jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court?

HELD:
Yes. Petitioner’s active participation in the proceedings estopped it from assailing such
lack of it. It is an undesirable practice of a party participating in the proceedings and
submitting its case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and
attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse.

Here, petitioner failed to raise the question of jurisdiction before the trial court and the
Appellate Court. In effect, petitioner confirmed and ratified the trial court’s jurisdiction
over this case. Certainly, it is now in estoppel and can no longer question the trial
court’s jurisdiction.

4. Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. CA, 699 SCRA

FACTS: In this case, petitioner called the Court’s attention to the fact that respondent’s
motion to dismiss questioning the trial court’s jurisdiction was filed more than six years
after her amended answer was filed. According to petitioner, respondent had several
opportunities, at various stages of the proceedings, to assail the trial court’s jurisdiction
but never did so for six straight years. Citing the doctrine laid down in another case,
petitioner claimed that respondent’s failure to raise the question of jurisdiction at an
earlier stage bars her from later questioning it, especially since she actively participated
in the proceedings conducted by the trial court.

Petitioner’s argument is misplaced, in that, it failed to consider that the concept

of jurisdiction has several aspects, namely: (1) jurisdiction over the subject
matter; (2) jurisdiction over the parties; (3) jurisdiction over the issues of the
case; and (4) in cases involving property, jurisdiction over the res or the thing
which is the subject of the litigation.

The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a result of
estoppel by laches is jurisdiction over the subject matter. Thus, in the case relied upon
by petitioner, the issue involved was the authority of the then Court of First Instance to
hear a case for the collection of a sum of money in the amount of 1,908 pesos which
amount was, at that time, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal
courts. The jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter of the case was likewise
the issue in subsequent cases citing that ruling.

For example, in Spouses Gonzaga versus Court of Appeals, the issue for consideration
was the authority of the regional trial court to hear and decide an action for reformation
of contract and damages involving a subdivision lot, it being argued therein that
jurisdiction is vested in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board pursuant to the
Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree. Another example is the case
of Lee versus Presiding Judge. In that case, petitioners argued that the respondent
municipal trial court had no jurisdiction over the complaint for ejectment because the
issue of ownership was raised in the pleadings. Finally, in People versus Casuga,
accused-appellant claimed that the crime of grave slander, of which she was charged,
falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of municipal courts or city courts and the then
courts of first instance, and that the judgment of the court of first instance, to which she
had appealed the municipal court's conviction, should be deemed null and void for want
of jurisdiction as her appeal should have been filed with the Court of Appeals or the
Supreme Court.
In all of these cases, the Supreme Court barred the attack on the jurisdiction of the
respective courts concerned over the subject matter of the case based on estoppel by
laches, declaring that parties cannot be allowed to belatedly adopt an inconsistent
posture by attacking the jurisdiction of a court to which they submitted their cause
voluntarily.

Here, what respondent was questioning in her motion to dismiss before the trial court
was that court’s jurisdiction over the person of defendant. Thus, the principle of estoppel
by laches finds no application in this case. Instead, the principles relating to jurisdiction
over the person of the parties are pertinent herein.

The Rules of Court provide in Rule 9, Section 1 and Rule 15, Section 8 that defenses
and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior
judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim. Also, subject to
the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or
proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included
shall be deemed waived.

Based on the foregoing citations, the "objection on jurisdictional grounds which is not
waived even if not alleged in a motion to dismiss or the answer is lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter.” Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised
anytime, even for the first time on appeal, since jurisdictional issues cannot be waived.
This is subject, however, to the principle of estoppel by laches.

Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not one
of those defenses which are not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule 9, such
defense must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to
prevent a waiver of the defense. If the objection is not raised either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer, the objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff
or the defendant is deemed waived by virtue of the first sentence of Section 1 of Rule 9
of the Rules of Court.

The Court of Appeals, in this case, therefore, erred when it made a sweeping
pronouncement in its questioned decision, stating that any issue on jurisdiction may be
raised at any stage of the proceeding, even for the first time on appeal and that,
therefore, respondent timely raised the issue in her motion to dismiss and is,
consequently, not estopped from raising the question of jurisdiction. As the question of
jurisdiction involved here is that over the person of the defendant, the same is deemed
waived if not raised in the answer or a motion to dismiss. In any case, respondent
cannot claim the defense since "lack of jurisdiction over the person, being subject to
waiver, is a personal defense which can only be asserted by the party who can thereby
waive it by silence."
XXXX
The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a result of
estoppel by laches is jurisdiction over the subject matter.―The aspect of jurisdiction
which may be barred from being assailed as a result of estoppel by laches is jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not one
of those defenses which are not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule 9, such
defense must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to
prevent a waiver of the defense. If the objection is not raised either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer, the objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff
or the defendant is deemed waived by virtue of the first sentence of the above-quoted
Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.
Where the defendant is neither a natural nor a juridical person or an entity authorized by
law, the complaint may be dismissed on the ground that the pleading asserting the
claim states no cause of action or for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to
Section 1(g) of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, because a complaint cannot possibly
state a cause of action against one who cannot be a party to a civil action. Since the
proper course of action against the wrongful inclusion of Manuel as party- defendant is
the dismissal of the case as against him, thus did the trial court err when it ordered the
substitution of Manuel by his heirs.
Substitution is proper only where the party to be substituted died during the pendency of
the case, as expressly provided for by Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court.―Substitution is proper only where the party to be substituted died during the
pendency of the case, as expressly provided for by Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court, which states: Death of party; duty of counsel.
Here, since Manuel was already dead at the time of the filing of the complaint, the court
never acquired jurisdiction over his person and, in effect, there was no party to be
substituted.

Hierarchy of Courts
5. Agan vs. Piatco, 420 SCRA

Puno, J.
Hierarchy of Courts; Where a controversy involves significant legal questions and the
facts necessary to resolve such legal questions are well established and, hence, need
not be determined by a trial court, the Supreme Court may assume jurisdiction over
such controversy. · Respondent PIATCO further alleges that this Court is without
jurisdiction to review the instant cases as factual issues are involved which this Court is
ill-equipped to resolve. Moreover, PIATCO alleges that submission of this controversy to
this Court at the first instance is a violation of the rule on hierarchy of courts. They
contend that trial courts have concurrent jurisdiction with this Court with respect to a
special civil action for prohibition and hence, following the rule on hierarchy of courts,
resort must first be had before the trial courts. After a thorough study and careful
evaluation of the issues involved, this Court is of the view that the crux of the instant
controversy involves significant legal questions. The facts necessary to resolve these
legal questions are well established and, hence, need not be determined by a trial court.

Same; Same; Same; The rule on hierarchy of courts may be relaxed when the redress
desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and
compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the
exercise of the Supreme Court’s primary jurisdiction. · The rule on hierarchy of courts
will not also prevent this Court from assuming jurisdiction over the cases at bar. The
said rule may be relaxed when the redress desired cannot be obtained in the
appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment
of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of this Court’s primary jurisdiction. It is
easy to discern that exceptional circumstances exist in the cases at bar that call for the
relaxation of the rule. Both petitioners and respondents agree that these cases are of
transcendental importance as they involve the construction and operation of the
country’s premier international airport. Moreover, the crucial issues submitted for
resolution are of first impression and they entail the proper legal interpretation of
key provisions of the Constitution, the BOT Law and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations. Thus, considering the nature of the controversy before the Court,
procedural bars may be lowered to give way for the speedy disposition of the
instant cases.

The constitutional prohibition against the exclusivity of a franchise applies to the

franchise for the operation of NAIA Terminal III. · While Section 2.02 of the ARCA
spoke of granting to Piatco “a franchise to operate and maintain the Terminal Complex,”
Section 3.02(a) of the same ARCA granted to Piatco, for the entire term of the
concession agreement, “the exclusive right to operate a commercial international
passenger terminal within the Island of Luzon” with the exception of those three
terminals already existing at the time of execution of the ARCA. Section 11 of Article XII
of the Constitution prohibits the grant of a “franchise, certificate, or any other form of
authorization for the operation of a public utility” that is “exclusive in character.” In its
Opinion No. 078, Series of 1995, the Department of Justice held that „the NAIA
Terminal III which x x x is a “terminal for public use’ is a public utility.” Consequently, the
constitutional prohibition against the exclusivity of a franchise applies to the franchise
for the operation of NAIA Terminal III as well.

Unjust Enrichment; The government should pay for reasonable expenses incurred in
the construction of the NAIA Terminal III, otherwise it will be unjustly enriching itself at
the expense of Piatco and, in particular, its finders, contractors and investors · both
local and foreign. · Should government pay at all for reasonable expenses incurred in
the construction of the Terminal? Indeed it should, otherwise it will be unjustly enriching
itself at the expense of Piatco and, in particular, its funders, contractors and investors ·
both local and foreign. After all, there is no question that the State needs and will make
use of Terminal III, it being part and parcel of the critical infrastructure and
transportation related programs of government. In Melchor v. Commission on Audit, this
Court held that even if the contract therein was void, the principle of payment by
quantum meruit was found applicable, and the contractor was allowed to recover the
reasonable value of the thing or services rendered (regardless of any agreement as to
the supposed value), in order to avoid unjust enrichment on the part of government. The
principle of quantum meruit was likewise applied in Eslao v. Commission on Audit,
because to deny payment for a building almost completed and already occupied would
be to permit government to unjustly enrich itself at the expense of the contractor. The
same principle was applied in Republic v. Court of Appeals.

ISSUE: Whether the supreme court had jurisdiction over the case.

RULING: Yes, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case. PIATCO contended
that, following the hierarchy of courts, the Supreme Court did both have jurisdiction over
the case. The Supreme Court regards that the current controversy involves significant
legal questions the the Court has jurisdiction over.
The rule on hierarchy of courts will not also prevent the Supreme Court from assuming
jurisdiction over the cases at bar. The said rule may be relaxed when the redress
desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and
compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the
exercise of this Court's primary jurisdiction.

6. Liga Ng Mga Barangay vs. Atienza, 420 SCRA

Davide, Jr., C.J.

Even granting arguendo that the present petition is ripe for the extraordinary writ of
certiorari, there is here a clear disregard of the hierarchy of courts. Special and
important reason or exceptional and compelling circumstance still needs to be adduced
by the petitioner or the intervenor why direct recourse to SC should be allowed.

ISSUE: Whether the hierarchy of courts observed by the petitioner

RULING:
The SC ruled that the action, in its essence, seeks to declare the
unconstitutionality/illegality of the ordinance. Thus it partakes of an action for
declaratory relief of which the SC has only appellate and not original jurisdiction.

Rule on Hierarchy of Courts. The concurrence of jurisdiction is not to be taken, as

according to parties seeking any of the writs, an absolute unrestrained freedom of
choice of the court to which the application therefore will be directed. There is after all a
hierarchy of courts. The hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also
serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the
extraordinary writs. A becoming regard of that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates
that petitions for issuance of extraordinary writs against the first level (inferior) courts
should be filed with RTC, and those against the latter, with the CA. A direct invocation of
the SC’s original jurisdiction to issue the writs should be allowed only when there are
special and important reasons therefore, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.

This is an established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands

upon the Court’s time and attention, which are better devoted to those matters within its
exclusive jurisdiction, and to prvent further overcrowding of the Court’s docket.

7. St. Mary Crusade Fndtn vs. Riel, 745 SCRA

8. Intramuros Administration vs. Offshore Construction And Development
Co., 857 SCRA (2017)
9. Bureau of Customs vs. Gallegos, 857 SCRA 57 (2017)

Residual Prerogatives
10. Katon vs. Palanca, 437 SCRA 565

Petitioner prays for the reconveyance of the whole island in his favor.
ISSUE: Whether it is correct for the CA to invoke its alleged residual prerogative under
Sec. 1, Rule 9 in resolving the petition on an issue not raised in the petition

RULING: "YES. Petitioner has confused what the CA adverted to as its residual
prerogatives under Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court with the residual
jurisdiction of trial courts over cases appealed to the CA.

Under Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, defenses and objections not pleaded
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except when (1) lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) litis pendentia, (3) res judicata and (4)
prescription are evident from the pleadings or the evidence on record. In the four
excepted instances, the court shall motu proprio dismiss the claim or action. xxx On the
other hand, residual jurisdiction is embodied in Section 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court, xxx The residual jurisdiction of trial courts is available at a stage in which the
court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter
involved in the appeal. This stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the
parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the
original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its
so-called residual jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit
appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal
of the appeal.

The CA’s motu proprio dismissal of petitioners Complaint could not have been based,
therefore, on residual jurisdiction under Rule 41. Undeniably, such order of dismissal
was not one for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties, pending the
disposition of the case on appeal. What the CA referred to as residual prerogatives
were the general residual powers of the courts to dismiss an action motu proprio upon
the grounds mentioned in Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court and under authority
of Section 2 of Rule 1 of the same rules."

Concurrent Jurisdiction:
11. Pat-og vs. CSC, 697 SCRA (2013)
Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same parties or subject
matter at the same time by two or more separate tribunals. When the law bestows upon
a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters,
it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that another
body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have
concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. Where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several
tribunals, the body that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction
to the exclusion of the others.

Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation: First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. vs.
Phil Bank of Communications, June 19, 2018, Justice Leonen, en banc (note: for class
discussion)
Section 19(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, provides Regional Trial Courts
with exclusive, original jurisdiction over “all civil actions in which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.” Lapitan v. Scandia, 24 SCRA 479
(1968), instructed that to determine whether the subject matter of an action is incapable
of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought must first be
established. This finds support in this Court’s repeated pronouncement that jurisdiction
over the subject matter is determined by examining the material allegations of the
complaint and the relief sought.
Whatever confusion there might have been regarding the nature of actions for nullity of
contracts or legality of conveyances, which would also involve recovery of sum of
money or real property, was directly addressed by Lu v. Lu Ym, 563 SCRA 254 (2008).
Lu underscored that “where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover
a sum of money, the money claim being only incidental to or merely a consequence of,
the principal relief sought, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation.” This finds
support in numerous decisions where this Court proclaimed that the test to determine
whether an action is capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation is to ascertain the
nature of the principal action or relief sought. Thus, if the principal relief sought is the
recovery of a sum of money or real property, then the action is capable of pecuniary
estimation. However, if the principal relief sought is not for the recovery of money or real
property and the money claim is only a consequence of the principal relief, then the
action is incapable of pecuniary estimation.