Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Brondial Case Doctrines
Brondial Case Doctrines
PIATCO
The interpretation of contracts and the determination
ERISTINGCOL V. CA Hlurb jurisdiction of whether their provisions violate our laws or
Gen. Rule: objection over a case may be varied at any contravene any public policy is a legal issue which the
stage of the proceedings, as lack of jurisdiction affects court may properly act upon;
the very authority of the court to take cognizance of a The SC did not violate the hierarchy of courts;
case; however, the surety is barred from laches for The rule on hierarchy of courts in cases falling within
questioning the jurisdiction 15 years after the action has the concurrent jurisdiction of the trial courts and
commenced appellate courts generally applies to cases invoking
warring factual allegations. For this reasons, litigants are
DUERO V. CA Tijam update required to repair to the trial courts at the first instance
Principle of estoppels cannot be invoked upon because to determine the truth or falsity of those contending
the jurisdiction of the court may be invoked at any time allegations on the basis of the evidence of the parties.
and at any stage of the action Cases which depend on disputed facts for decision
cannot be brought immediately before appellate courts
GONZAGA V. CA Tijam update as they are not trier of facts;
The action of the Gonzaga spouses were barred the When cases brought before the appellate courts do not
principle of estoppels because in the proceedings invoke factual but legal questions, a strict application of
before the trial court, petitioners vigorously asserted the rule of courts is not necessary;
this cause form the start to finish. It was only when the The case at bar merely concern with the construction of
trial court rendered an unfavorable decision and they the Constitution, interpretation of Bill of Rights law and
raise the issue of jurisdiction. Hence, the petitioner its implementing rules and regulations on undisputed
effectively waived their right to question the court’s contractual provisions and government actions, and as
jurisdiction over the case they themselves filed. the cases concern public interest, the SC takes prmary
“While an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction over them. Transcendental importance. The
jurisdiction is a total nullity, and may be assailed at any suggested remand of the case at bar to the trial court
stage, ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in the proceedings in the will stay away from this policy.
court which rendered the order or decision will bar such
party from attacking its jurisdiction. LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY V. ATIENZA
Hierarchy of courts must be respected
ESCOBAL V. GARCHITORENA
The Presiding Justice of the SB acted in accordance with SERRANA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
law when he ordered the remand of the case to the RTC Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Serrana being a
(the court of origin); student regent of UP
Jurisdictional requirement must be alleged in the
Information. Such jurisdiction of the court acquired at AMBIL JR. V. SANDIGANBAYAN
the inception of the case continues until the case is Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Ambil (Provincial
terminated; Governor) and Apelada (provincial warden) for
The RTC has jurisdiction over the case because the facts detaining Mayor Adalim in Ambil‘s house. Both
showing the intimate relation between the Office of the government officials has no authority because such
offender and the discharge of the official duties are not authority is vested to the courts.
alleged in the information;
Under the law, even if the offender committed the GARCIA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
crime charged in relation to his office but occupies a Violations of RA 1379 (Forfeiture of property unlawfully
position corresponding to the grade salary below 27 the acquired by any public officer) are placed under the
RTC or MTC as the case may be, shall have the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, even though the
jurisdiction over the case. In the case, the petitioner is a proceeding is civil in nature, since the forfeiture of the
Police Senior Inspector with a grade salary of 23. illegally acquired property amounts to a penalty.
The court as well considered that Garcia in such
ASIA’S EMERGING DRAGON V. DOTC forfeiture proceeding is a public officer/employee and
Elements of res judicata can be rightfully set aside in the violation of the said law was committed during his
favor of substantial justice. incumbency as gov’t officer/employee and in relation
top his office. Hence, Garcia should therefore abandon
BPI V. CALANZA
To be considered contemptuous, an act must be clearly
contrary to or prohibited by the order of the court or
tribunal. A person cannot for disobedience be punished
for contempt unless the act which is forbidden or
required to be done is clearly and exactly defined so
that there can be no reasonable doubt or uncertainty as
to what specific act or thing is forbidden or required.