By: Group 3

I. HISTORY OF THE
SUPREME COURT
• May 5, 1583 – Royal Audiencia a collegial body serves as the highest
tribunal. Then became as Audiencia Territorial de Manila with two
branches, Civil and Criminal.

• July 4, 1861 – Converted by a Royal Decree to a purely judicial body but its
decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Spain sitting in
Madrid.

• 1898 – Manila fell to American forces and Gen. Wesley Merritt

established military government, suspended criminal jurisdiction of the
Audiencias and organized military commissions or court martial and
provost courts.

• May 29, 1899 – Gen. Elwell S. Otis re-established the Audiencia and
giving it jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases.
• June 11, 1901 – Second Philippine Commission issued Act 136 otherwise
known as the Judiciary Law marks the birth of the Supreme Court.

• Judiciary Law – Judicial power in the Philippine Islands was vested in the
Supreme Court, Courts of First Instance and Justice of the Peace Courts.

• May 4, 1945 – Membership in the Supreme Court increased to 11. A chief

justice and ten associate justices, who sat en banc or in two divisions.

• 1973 Constitution – Membership was increased to 15, who sat en banc or

in two divisions.

• 1987 Constitution – Supreme Court may sit en banc or in three division of

five members each.
• One of the three branches of government.

• Consists of four levels:

• Municipal Trial Courts
• Regional Trial Courts
• Court of Appeals
• Supreme Court

• Independent from Executive and Legislative branches.

• Members are selected from a list of nominees submitted by Philippine

Judicial and Bar Council.

• Only natural-born citizens may hold a position.

• May hold office, during good behavior, until the age of 70.
• Centered on the existence of three distinct functions of government.

• Conviction that the functions should be kept apart in order to prevent the
centralization of too much power.

• An organ of the government, belonging to the judicial department, whose

function is the application of laws to controversies brought before it and
the public administration of justice. (Black’s Law Dictionary)
• The Judiciary is composed of courts organized into four levels.
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC),
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
(MCTC) comprise the first level of the judiciary. The Regional Trial Courts
(RTC) occupy the second level while the Court of Appeals (CA) and the
Supreme Court (SC) occupy the third and fourth levels, respectively.

• The Supreme Court is the top of the judicial ladder. It is often call the
“Court of Last Resort” since decisions and resolutions issued by it with
finality may no longer be appealed.
• The Supreme Court heads the judicial branch of government, has
supervisory power over all trial courts, the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayand and the Court of Tax Appeals.

• The Department of Justice (DOJ) is a department under the executive

branch, has supervisory power over all prosecutors and public defenders,
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Bureau of Immigration, Board
of Pardons and Parole, and Bureau of Corrections (BuCor). It shares
supervisory power with the Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG) over the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
(BJMP).
• The Bench, which originally indicates the seat of judges, came to denote
the body of judges taken collectively.

• The Bar refers to the aggregate of lawyers whose names are included in
the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.

• Refers to the philosophy of law, or the science which treats of the

principles of positive law and legal relations. As such, it refers to the
aggregate of decisions issued the Supreme Court which now form part of
the legal doctrines of the land.
• Judges are the presiding officers of the lower trial courts, and these
include the Municipal and City Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the
Shari’a Courts.

• Justices are the judicial officers of the Court of Appeals, the

Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the
Philippines.

• The Philippines follows the civil systems where there is no jury trial
unlike in the common law countries like the US and the UK.

• In the adversary procedure of the common law, arguments are addressed

orally to the court, and the evidence is directly presented to it or to the
jury.
 Supreme Court

Sandiganbayan Court of Appeals Court of Tax COA

Appeals COMELEC

Regional Trial Quasi-Judicial

Courts Bodies

Municipal Trial Courts

• If the court covers only one (1) municipality, it is called Municipal Trial
Court (MTC), and if the court covers two (2) or more municipalities, it is
called Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC).

• In Metro Manila, the equivalents of MTC are called Metropolitan Trial

Courts (Metro TC), and in the cities outside Metro Manila, the courts are
called Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC).
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) – one court in one municipality

Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) – one court in two of more

municipalities

Metropolitan Trial Court (MetroTC) – municipal courts in Metro

Manila

Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) – courts in cities outside

Metro Manila
• Formerly known as the Court of First Instance (CFI).

• Where decided cases coming from the MTC, MCTC, MTCC

and MetroTC are appealed.

• Exercise exclusive and original jurisdiction in all criminal

cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now falling under the
exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
• Has jurisdiction on provinces in Mindanao where the Muslim Code on
Personal Laws is enforced.

• Shari’a District Courts are equivalent in rank to the Regional Trial Courts.

• Shari’a Circuit Courts in the municipalities are equivalent in rank to the

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
• Has the exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the decisions of
the Commissioner of Inter Revenue and the Commissioner of Customs, on
certain matters.

• Composed of Presiding Justice and five (5) Associate Judges.

• Has the original and appellate jurisdictions over civil and criminal tax cases,
and matter involving criminal violation and collection of revenues under
the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and Tariff and Customs Code
(TCC).

• Has jurisdiction over cases involving local and real property taxes.
• Is a “graft court” which has exclusive jurisdiction over violations of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), as amended, the
Unexplained Wealth Act (RA 1379) and other offenses or felonies
committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office,
including employees of GOCCs.

• Has exclusive jurisdiction in all cases where the penalty prescribed by law
is more than six (6) years imprisonment or a fine of P6,000.00 and also
appellate jurisdiction over decisions of MTCs and RTCs in cases of the
same nature.

• Composed of a Presiding Justice and fourteen (14) associate justices,

divided into 5 divisions, with 5 justices for each division.
• Formerly the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC).

• Appeals on the decisions of the RTC, quasi-judicial agencies, board of

commissions are generally brought to the CA.

• Has one (1) Presiding Justice and fifty (50) Associate Justices distributed
into 17 divisions, with 3 justices for each division.

• Reviews not only the decisions and orders of the RTCs nationwide, as well
as the awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of, or authorized by
21 Quasi-Judicial Agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, plus the
National Amnesty Commissions and the Office of the Ombudsman.
• The highest court of the land.

• Composed of Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices.

• May sit en banc or at its discretion, in divisions of 3, 5, 7 members.

• Supreme Court – must be resolved within 24 months from the date of
submission.

• All lower collegiate courts – must be resolved with 12 months from the
date of submission.

• All other lower courts – within 3 months from date of submission.

 The Supreme Court of the Philippines is the progeny of the tribunal
established by Act No. 136 of the Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901.
There is no umbilical cord joining the Supreme Court to the Real Audiencia
de Manila set up by the Spaniards or the Audiencia Territorial de Manila
constituted by Major General Elwell Otis. These audiencias, however, serve
as backdrops and proper perspectives in retelling the history of the present
Supreme Court.
 When the Spanish colonizers first arrived in the Philippine archipelago,
they found the indigenous Filipinos without any written laws. Mainly, the
laws enforced were derived from customs, usages and tradition. These laws
were believed to be God-given and were orally transmitted from generation
to generation.

A remarkable feature of these customs and traditions was that they

were found to be very similar to one another notwithstanding that they
were observed in widely dispersed islands of the archipelago. There were
no judges and lawyers who were trained formally in the law, although there
were elders who devoted time to the study of the customs, usages and
traditions of their tribes to qualify them as consultants or advisers on these
matters.
 The unit of government of the indigenous Filipinos was the barangay,
which was a family-based community of 30 to 100 families, occupying a pook
(“locality” or “area”) Headed by a chieftain called a datu who exercised all
functions of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—a barangay
was not only a political but also a social and economic organization. In the
exercise of his judicial authority, the datu acted as a judge (hukom) in settling
disputes and deciding cases in his barangay.
 During the early Spanish occupation, King Philip II established the Real
Audiencia de Manila which was given not only judicial but legislative, executive,
advisory, and administrative functions as well. Composed of the incumbent
governor general as the presidente (presiding officer), four oidores (equivalent
to associate justices), an asesor (legal adviser), an alguacil mayor (chief
constable), among other officials, the Real Audiencia de Manila was both a trial
and appellate court. It had exclusive original, concurrent original and exclusive
appellate jurisdictions.
 Initially, the Audiencia was given a non-judicial role in the
colonial administration, to deal with unforeseen problems within
the territory that arose from time to time—it was given the power
to supervise certain phases of ecclesiastical affairs as well as
regulatory functions, such as fixing of prices at which merchants
could sell their commodities. Likewise, the Audiencia had executive
functions, like the allotment of lands to the settlers of newly
established pueblos. However, by 1861, the Audiencia had ceased to
perform these executive and administrative functions and had been
restricted to the administration of justice.

When the Audiencia Territorial de Cebu was established in

1886, the name of the Real Audiencia de Manila was changed to
Audiencia Territorial de Manila.
 As expected, the subsequent occupation by the Americans of the
Philippine Islands in the late 1890s after Spain’s defeat in the Spanish-
American War paved the way for considerable changes in the control,
disposition, and governance of the Islands.

The judicial system established during the regime of the military

government functioned as an instrument of the executive—not of the
judiciary—as an independent and separate branch of government.

Secretary of State John Hay, on May 12, 1899, proposed a plan for a
colonial government of the Philippine Islands which would give Filipinos the
largest measure of self-government. The plan contemplated an independent
judiciary manned by judges chosen from qualified locals and Americans.
 On May 29, 1899, General Elwell Stephen Otis, Military Governor for the
Philippines, issued General Order No. 20, reestablishing the Audiencia Teritorial
de Manila which was to apply Spanish laws and jurisprudence recognized by the
American military governor as continuing in force.

The Audiencia was composed of a presiding officer and eight members

organized into two divisions: the sala de lo civil or the civil branch, and the sala
de lo criminal or the criminal branch.

It was General Otis himself who personally selected the first appointees to
the Audiencia. Cayetano L. Arellano was appointed President (equivalent to
Chief Justice) of the Court, with Manuel Araullo as president of the sala de lo civil
and Raymundo Melliza as president of the salo de lo criminal. Gregorio Araneta
and Lt. Col. E.H. Crowder were appointed associate justices of the civil branch
while Ambrosio Rianzares, Julio Llorente, Major R.W. Young and Captain W.E.
Brikhimer were designated associate justices of the criminal branch. Thus, the
reestablished Audiencia became the first agency of the new insular government
where Filipinos were appointed side by side with Americans.
 On June 11, 1901, the Second Philippine Commission passed Act No.
136 entitled “An Act Providing for the Organization of Courts in the
Philippine Islands” formally establishing the Supreme Court of the
Philippine Islands and creating Courts of First Instance and Justices of the
Peace Courts throughout the land. The judicial organization established by
the Act was conceived by the American lawyers in the Philippine
Commission and was patterned in its basic structures after similar
organizations in the United States.

The Supreme Court created under the Act was composed of a Chief
Justice and six Judges. Five members of the Court could form a quorum, and
the concurrence of at least four members was necessary to pronounce a
judgment.
 Act No. 136 abolished the Audiencia established under General Order
No. 20 and declared that the Supreme Court created by the Act be
substituted in its place. This effectively severed any nexus between the
present Supreme Court and the Audiencia.

The Anglo-American legal system under which the Supreme Court of

the Philippine Islands was expected to operate was entirely different from
the old Spanish system that Filipinos were familiar with. Adjustments had
to be made; hence, the decisions of the Supreme Court during its early
years reflected a blend of both the Anglo-American and Spanish systems.
The jurisprudence was a gentle transition from the old order to the new.
 Following the ratification of the 1935 Philippine Constitution in a
plebiscite, the principle of separation of powers was adopted not by express
and specific provision to that effect, but by actual division of powers of the
government—executive, legislative, and judicial—in different articles
thereof.

As in the United States, the judicial power was vested by the 1935
Constitution “in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be
established by law.” It devolved on the Judiciary to determine whether the
acts of the other two departments were in harmony with the fundamental
law.

The Court during the Commonwealth was composed of “a Chief Justice and
ten Associate Justices, and may sit en banc or in two divisions, unless
otherwise provided by law.”
 After the Japanese occupation during the Second World
War and the subsequent independence from the United
States, Republic Act No. 296 or the Judiciary Act of 1948
was enacted. This law grouped together the cases over
which the Supreme Court could exercise exclusive
jurisdiction to review on appeal, certiorari or writ of error.
 The declaration of Martial Law through Proclamation No. 1081 by former
President Ferdinand E, Marcos in 1972 brought about the transition from the 1935
Constitution to the 1973 Constitution. This transition had implications on the
Court’s composition and functions.

This period brought in many legal issues of transcendental importance and

consequence. Among these were the legality of the ratification of a new
Constitution, the assumption of the totality of government authority by President
Marcos, the power to review the factual basis for a declaration of Martial Law by the
Chief Executive. Writ large also during this period was the relationship between the
Court and the Chief Executive who, under Amendment No. 6 to the 1973
Constitution, had assumed legislative powers even while an elected legislative body
continued to function.

The 1973 Constitution increased the number of the members of the Supreme
Court from 11 to 15, with a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices. The Justices of
the Court were appointed by the President alone, without the consent, approval, or
recommendation of any other body or officials.
 Shortly after assuming office as the seventh President of the Republic of
the Philippines after the successful People Power Revolution, then President
Corazon C. Aquino declared the existence of a revolutionary government under
Proclamation No. 1 dated February 25, 1986. Among the more significant
portions of this Proclamation was an instruction for “all appointive officials to
submit their courtesy resignations beginning with the members of the
Supreme Court.” The call was unprecedented, considering the separation of
powers that the previous Constitutions had always ordained, but
understandable considering the revolutionary nature of the post-People Power
government. Heeding the call, the members of the Judiciary—from the
Supreme Court to the Municipal Circuit Courts—placed their offices at the
disposal of the President and submitted their resignations. President Corazon
C. Aquino proceeded to reorganize the entire Court, appointing all 15
members.
 On March 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino, through Proclamation
No. 3, also abolished the 1973 Constitution and put in place a Provisional
“Freedom” Constitution. Under Article I, section 2 of the Freedom
Constitution, the provisions of the 1973 Constitution on the judiciary
were adopted insofar as they were not inconsistent with Proclamation No.
3.

Article V of Proclamation No. 3 provided for the convening of a

Constitutional Commission composed of fifty appointive members to draft
a new constitution; this would be implemented by Proclamation No. 9.
The output of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 was submitted to
the people for ratification, under Filipino people then ratified the
Constitution submitted to them by the Constitutional Commission on
February 2, 1987.
 As in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the 1987 Constitution provides that
“[t]he judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
courts as may be established by law.” (Art. VII, Sec. 1). The exercise of judicial
power is shared by the Supreme Court with all the courts below it, but it is only
the Supreme Court’s decisions that are vested with precedential value or
doctrinal authority, as its interpretations of the Constitution and the laws are
final and beyond review by any other branch of government.

Unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, however, the 1987 Constitution
defines the concept of judicial power. Under paragraph 2 of Section 1, Article VIII,
“judicial power” includes not only the “duty of the courts of justice 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.” This latter provision dilutes the effectivity of
the “political question” doctrine which places specific questions best submitted
to the political wisdom of the people beyond the review of the courts.
 Building on previous experiences under former Constitutions, the 1987
Constitution provides for specific safeguards to ensure the independence of
the Judiciary. These are found in the following provisions:
• The grant to the Judiciary of fiscal autonomy. “Appropriations for the Judiciary
may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the
previous year, and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly
released.” (Art. VIII, Sec. 3).
• The grant to the Chief Justice of authority to augment any item in the general
appropriation law for the Judiciary from savings in other items of said
appropriation as authorized by law. (Art. VI, Sec. 25[5])
• The removal from Congress of the power to deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 of Article VIII.
• The grant to the Court of the power to appoint all officials and employees of
the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law (Art. VIII, Sec. 5 [6])
• The removal from the Commission of Appointments of the power to confirm
appointments of justices and judges (Art. VIII, Sec. 8)
• The removal from Congress of the power to reduce the compensation or
salaries of the Justices and judges during their continuance in office. (Art. VIII,
Sec. 10)
• The prohibition against the removal of judges through legislative
reorganization by providing that “(n)o law shall be passed reorganizing
the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members.
(Art. VIII, Sec. 2)
• The grant of sole authority to the Supreme Court to order the temporary
detail of judges. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[3])
• The grant of sole authority to the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of
procedure for the courts. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5])
• The prohibition against designating members of the Judiciary to any
agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function. (Art. VIII,
Sec. 12)
• The grant of administrative supervision over the lower courts and its
personnel in the Supreme Court. (Art. VIII, Sec. 6)
 The Supreme Court under the present Constitution is composed of a
Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices.

The members of the Court are appointed by the President from a list
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council of at least three nominees for every
vacancy. This new process is intended to “de-politicize” the courts of justice,
ensure the choice of competent judges, and fill existing vacancies without
undue delay.

Sources:
• The Philippine Judiciary Foundation, 2011. The History of the Supreme Court. Supreme
Court of the Philippines, Manila
• The 1935 Constitution
• The 1973 Constitution
• The 1986 Freedom Constitution
• The 1987 Constitution
II. THE PRESENT
JUDICIAL
SYSTEM
 Under the 1973 constitution, the Supreme Court, composed of a chief justice
and 14 associate justices, was the highest judicial body of the state, with
supervisory authority over the lower courts. The entire court system was
revamped in 1981, with the creation of new regional courts of trials and of
appeals. Justices at all levels were appointed by the president. Philippine courts
functioned without juries. Delays in criminal cases were common, and detention
periods in national security cases were long. Security cases arising during the
period of martial law (1972–81) were tried in military courts. The 1987
constitution restored the system to what it had been in 1973. Despite the
reinstitution of many procedural safeguards and guarantees, the slow pace of
justice continues to be a major problem. Currently, the national court system
consists of four levels: local and regional trial courts; a national Court of Appeals
divided into 17 divisions; the 15-member Supreme Court; and an informal local
system for arbitrating or mediating certain disputes outside the formal court
system. A Shari'ah (Islamic law) court system, with jurisdiction over domestic
and contractual relations among Muslim citizens, operates in some Mindanao
provinces. Supreme Court justices may hold office on good behavior, until the
age of 70. The constitution calls for an independent judiciary and
defendants in criminal cases are afforded the right to counsel. The legal
system is based on both civil and common law. It is especially influenced by
Spanish and Anglo-American laws. The Philippines accepts the compulsory
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. An informal local system
for arbitrating or mediating certain problems operates outside the formal
court system. There is no jury system. Defendants enjoy a presumption of
innocence and have the right to confront witnesses, to present evidence and
to appeal.
III. THE COURTS
OF LIMITED
JURISDICTION
• Limited Jurisdiction
• Also called Special Jurisdiction.
• The power of a court to hear only certain types of cases, or those in
which the amount in controversy is below a certain sum or that is
subject to exceptions.
• Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
• Found at the front lines of the judicial system.
• These are called the first level courts established in each city and
municipality.
• They have jurisdiction limited to civil suits involving relatively smaller
amounts of money and minor violations of the criminal law.
• These are tribunals in which most of the controversies that occur in a
community are heard and, at least provisionally, decided.
• It is vital that in this level, justice be administered fairly and with
dignity. Otherwise, the common people will lose confidence on the
judiciary.
• Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC) – Referred to as the Municipal
Trial Courts in the towns and cities in the Metropolitan Manila are
as distinguished from the other political subdivisions of the
Philippines.

• Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC) – Referred to as the

equivalent of the Municipal Trial Courts in cities outside
Metropolitan Manila.

• Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) – Cover only one municipality.

• Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) – Cover two or more

municipalities.
 • JURISDICTION
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sections 33 and 35, expanded by special
laws, namely Republic Act Nos. 9276, 9252, 9305, 9306, and 9308.

• RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)

• Approved by the Supreme Court on September 9, 2008 and took effect
on October 1, 2008
• Designated 44 First level Courts to hear small claims cases
• Amended by the Court En Banc empowering all First Level Courts in
the country, except Shari’a Courts, to hear small claims cases.

Sources:
• Legal Research and Citations of the Philippines by Milagros Santos-Ong (pages 49-51)
• Legal Research by Rufus Rodriguez (page 161)
• http://chanrobles.com/municipaltrialcourtsofthephilippines.htm#.XVIN1955Ki70
• http://chanrobles.com/metropolitantrialcourtsinthephilippines.htm#.XVIOFd5Ki70
IV. THE COURTS
OF GENERAL
JURISDICTION
 Involves an amount of money or a potential criminal sentence,
beyond the jurisdiction of MTC and MCTC.

One that can hear different type of cases like a tort case, a
contract law case, or any number of other related cases.

• Regional Trial Court – Also known as Second Level Courts, is the

highest regular trial courts in the Philippines, it was formerly
called as the Court of First Instance since the Spanish era. It
continued throughout its colonization under Spanish and
Americans After the independence from the United
States, Republic Act No. 296 or Judiciary Act of 1948 was
enacted to reinforce its jurisdictional powers of the Court of
First Instance. The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, which
reorganized the lower and intermediate courts in the country,
included the change of Court of First Instance to Regional Trial
Court.
• CIVIL
• In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation;
• In all 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 twenty thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) or, for
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds fifty thousand
pesos (₱50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful
detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is
conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
• In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand
or claim exceeds one hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) or, in
Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds two hundred
thousand pesos (₱200,000.00).
• In all matters of probate, testate and intestate, chocolate where the
gross value of the estate exceeds one hundred thousand pesos
(₱100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such
gross value exceeds two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000.00).
• CRIMINAL
• Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and
concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be
exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter. RTC Criminal Courts
typically try cases of serious crimes like murder and robbery, as
opposed to petty crimes, which reduce the burden of court cases.

• Original and Special Jurisdiction

Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:

• In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in
any part of their respective regions.
• In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and
consuls.
The Supreme Court may designate certain branches of the Regional Trial
Courts 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 Supreme Court may determine in the interest
of a speedy and efficient administration of justice.

• Appeals from lower courts

Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions.
Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the
proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or
briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional
Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall
be appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals which may
give it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the
lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a
reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be
reviewed.
• Shari’a Courts under the Muslim Code – The creation of Sharia courts
through Presidential Decree (PD) 1083 was significant. Otherwise known
as Code of Muslim Personal Laws, PD 1083 was a significant recognition
that Muslim Personal Laws, as the legal system of the Muslims in the
country, is part of the law of the land that seeks to make Islamic
institutions more effective. The Supreme Court has defined the Sharia
court as one with limited and special jurisdiction to hear and decide cases
and administer justice for the country’s Muslims. Article 307 of the Code
provides for the establishment of Sharia district courts and Sharia circuit
courts as part of the judicial system. There are a total of 51 Sharia district
courts distributed in various parts of Mindanao, six of these courts are in
Sulu; eight in the province of Tawi-Tawi; 10 in the provinces of Basilan,
Zamboanga del Sur and the cities of Dipolog, Pagadian and Zamboanga;
12 in the provinces of Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur and the cities of
Iligan and Marawi; and 15 in the provinces of Maguindanao, North
Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat and the city of Cotabato.

Sources:
• http://businessmirror.com.ph/2017/06/11/sharia-courts-then-and-now/
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Trial_Court
• Legal Research by Rufus Rodriguez (pages 161-162)
V. APPELLATE
COURTS
 HISTORY
• Commonwealth Act No. 3
• Promulgated on December 31, 1935
• Created The Court of Appeals on February 1, 1936
• Started with eleven (11) Judges with Pedro Concepcion as the first
Presiding Judge.

• Commonwealth Act No. 259

• April 7, 1938
• Appellate Judges were named Justices
• The composition of the Court of Appeals was increased to fifteen (15)
Justices.
• Executive Order No. 4 (1942)
• Issued by the Executive Commission on February 5, 1942
• Increasing the number of justices to seventeen (17)

• 1944
• It was regionalized into five (5) Districts – Court of Appeals for Northern,
Central and Southern Luzon; For Manila and for Visayas and Mindanao

• E.O. 37
• Issued by President Sergio Osmeña Sr. in 1945
• Abolished the Court of Appeals

• R.A. 52
• Sponsored by Sen. Vicente Francisco on October 4, 1946
• The Court was recreated consisting of a presiding justice and fourteen (14)
associate justices
• Marceliano Montemayor was the first post-war presiding justice
• The first post-war legislation on the judiciary was R.A. No. 926 , otherwise
known as The Judiciary Act of 1948
• R.A. 1605
• The composition of the Court was increased to eighteen (18)

• R.A. 5204
• June 16, 1968
• Increased to twenty-four (24) justices

• 1973
• Increased to thirty-six (36)

• 1978
• Increased to forty-five (45)

• E.O. 864
• Renamed Court of Appeals to Intermediate Appellate Court and its
membership Enlarged to fifty (50) associate justices and a presiding
justice.
• E.O. 33
• Issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on July 28, 1986
• Restored the name Court of Appeals with a Presiding Justice and fifty
(50) Associate Justices

• R.A. No. 8246

• December 30, 1996
• Created six (6) more divisions in the Court from seventeen (17) to
twenty-three (23) and increasing its membership from fifty-one (51)
to sixty-nine (69) justices.

First seventeen (17) divisions were to be stationed in Manila for cases

coming from the:
 1st to the 5th Judicial Regions

The First Judicial Region, consisting of the provinces of Abra, Benguet,

Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, La Union, Mountain Province, and Pangasinan, and
cities of Baguio, Dagupan, Laog and San Carlos;
The Second Judicial Region, consisting of the provinces of Batanes, Cagayan,
Ifugao, Kalinga-Apayao, Nueva Viscaya, and Quirino;

The Third Judicial Region, consisting of the provinces of Bataan, Bulacan

(except the municipality of valenzuela), Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac, and
Zambales, and the cities of Angeles, Cabanatuan, Olongapo, Palayan and San
Jose;

The National Capital Judicial Region, consisting of the cities of Manila,

Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan and Mandaluyong, and the municipalities of
Navotas, Malabon, San Juan, Makati, Pasig, Pateros, Taguig, Marikina,
Parañaque, Las Piñas, Muntinlupa, and Valenzuela;

The Fourth Judicial Region, consisting of the provinces of Batangas, Cavite,

Laguna, Marinduque, Mindoro Occidental, Mindoro Oriental, Palawan,
Quezon, Rizal (except the cities and municipalities embraced within the
National Capital Judicial Region, Romblon, and Aurora, and the cities of
Batangas, Cavite, Lipa, Lucena, Puerto Princesa, San Pablo, Tagaytay, and
Trece Martires;
The Fifth Judicial Region, consisting of the provinces of Albay, Camarines Sur,
Camarines Norte, Catanduanes, Masbate, and Sorsogon, and the cities of
Legaspi, Naga and Iriga;
18th to 20th divisions in Cebu City for cases coming from the 6th and 8th
Judicial Regions

The Sixth Judicial Region, consisting of the provinces of Aklan, Antique, Capiz,
Iloilo, La Calota, Roxas, San Carlos, and Silay, and the subprovince of
Guimaras;

The Seventh Judicial Region, consisting of the provinces of Bohol, Cebu,

Negros Oriental, and Siquijor, and the cities of Bais, Canlaon, Cebu, Danao,
Dumaguete, Lapu-lapu, Mandaue, Tagbilaran, and Toledo;

The Eighth Judicial Region, consisting of the provinces or Eastern Samar,

Leyte, Northern, Samar, Southern Leyte, Ormoc, and Tacloban:
21st to 23rd divisions in Cagayan de Oro for cases from the 9th to 12th
Judicial Regions
The Ninth Judicial Region, consisting of the provinces of Basilan, Sulu, Tawi-
Tawi, Zamboanga del Sur, and the cities of Dapitan, Dipolog, Pagadian, and
Zamboanga;

The Tenth Judicial Region, consisting of the provinces of Agusan del Norte,
Agusan del Sur, Bukidnon, Camiguin, Misamis Occidental, Misamis Oriental,
and Surigao del Norte, and the cities of Butuan, Cagayan de Oro, Gingoog,
Ozamis, Oroquieta, Surigao, and Tangub;

The Eleventh Judicial Region, consistingnof the provinces of Davao del

Norte, Davao Oriental, Davao del Sur, South Cotabato, and Surigao del Sur,
and the cities of Davao, and General Santos; and

The Twelfth Judicial Region, consisting of the provinces of Lanao del Norte,
Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, North Cotabato, and Sultan Kudarat, and the
cities of Cotabato, Iligan, and Marawi.

• December 3, 2018
• For the first time since its inception in 1936, the Court of Appeals, led
by Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza, held its en banc session outside
Manila in Davao City’s Ateneo de Davao University Auditorium
• Its principal mandate is to exercise appellate jurisdiction on all cases not falling
within the Original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

• It also exercises original jurisdiction on the issuance of writs of mandamus,

prohibition, Injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus and all other writs whether or
not in aid of its appellate Jurisdiction

• As per Republic Act. No. 7902 of February 23, 1995, the appellate jurisdiction
was expanded to include review of decisions, resolutions, awards or orders of
the Securities and Exchange Commissions, Social Security System, Employees
Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission

• The Court of Appeals reviews decisions and final orders of all the Regional Trial
Courts, decisions and resolutions in administrative cases of the Ombudsman,
the Department of Justice, and other agencies exercising quasi-judicial
functions, including the Office of the President. The decisions and resolutions of
the National Labor Relations Commission are now initially reviewable by the
Court of Appeals, instead of direct recourse to the Supreme Court, via petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65 (St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC., 295 SCRA 414).
• On July 7, 2004, the Supreme Court, in People v. Efren Mateo (433 SCRA 640),
allowed the Court of Appeals to conduct an intermediate review before the case
elevated to the Supreme Court in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua, life Imprisonment or death.

• On December 15, 2005, the Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC
promulgating the Rules of procedure in Anti- Money Laundering cases under
R.A. No. 9160 as amended, Wherein the Court of Appeals was granted
jurisdiction over petitions for freeze orders on any monetary instrument,
property or proceeds involving an unlawful activity under the said Republic
Act. On October 24, 2007, the Court of Appeals was also granted jurisdiction
over petitions for Writs of Amparo, pursuant to A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC.Likewise, it
was granted jurisdiction over petitions for Writ of Habeas Data, pursuant to
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC.
• Republic Act No. 9372 otherwise known as the
Human Security act of 2007, the Chief Justice Issued
Administrative Order No. 118-2007, designating the
first, second and third divisions of The Court of
Appeals to handle cases involving the crimes of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit Terrorism and all
other matters incident to the said crimes emanating
from the Metropolitan Manila and Luzon. For those
emanating from Visayas, all divisions of the Court of
Appeals Stationed in Cebu are designated to handle
these cases while the Court of Appeals stationed In
Cagayan De Oro will handle cases from Mindanao.
• Vision
• A court which acts swiftly and fairly in the administration of justice at
all times.

• Mission
• 1. To streamline the court adjudicative processes to ensure the delivery
of justice real-time by eliminating unnecessary time lags (waiting
time) in the completion and decision stages of cases.

• 2. To guarantee transparency and accountability in both adjudicative

and administrative processes. Through appropriate information,
education and communication strategies that will involve the public
and enhance trust and confidence in the court and its system.

• 3. To institutionalize a capacity building program that will utilize the

highest metrics for ethical and professional evaluation and assessment,
and continuing knowledge and skills development and enhancement.
 HISTORY
The creation of the Sandiganbayan was originally provided for by Article
XIII of the 1973 Constitution:
“SEC. 5. The National Assembly shall create a special court, to be known as
Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving
graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and
employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in
relation to their office as may be determined by law.”

In obedience to this mandate, the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos,

exercising the emergency legislative power granted him under
Amendment No. 6 of the 1976 Amendments to the 1973 Constitution,
issued on June 11, 1978, Presidential Decree No. 1486 creating the
Sandiganbayan and putting it on the same level as what were then known
as the Courts of First Instance, now the Regional Trial Courts. Shortly
thereafter, however, the Sandiganbayan was elevated to the level of the
Court of Appeals by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1606 issued on
December 10, 1978.
At the start of its operation on February 12, 1979, the Sandiganbayan had
only one Division, composed of the Presiding Justice, Hon. Manuel R.
Pamaran, and two Associate Justices, Hon. Bernardo P. Fernandez and Hon.
Romeo M. Escareal, and a skeleton force of fifteen (15). The start of the third
year of the Court's operation in 1981 was marked by the activation of the
Second Division. The appointment of three more Justices of the Third Division
in August 4, 1982 completed the full membership of the Court.

The historic EDSA Revolution of February 1986 that signaled the beginning of
a new dispensation, caused substantial changes in the entire government
machinery, including the judiciary. However, both the 'Freedom Constitution'
and the new Constitution have seen fit to maintain the Sandiganbayan as
one of the principal instruments of public accountability. In furtherance of
this, its jurisdiction has been broadened to include the so-called 'ill-gotten
wealth' cases investigated by the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) through Executive Orders No. 14 and No. 14-A. In the
reorganization program of the new government, the resignation of some of
the members of the Court was accepted leading to the appointment of a new
Presiding Justice in the person of Hon. Francis E. Garchitorena.
To further strengthen the functional and structural organization of the
Sandiganbayan, several amendments have been introduced to the original
law creating it, the latest of which are Republic Acts No. 7975 and No. 8249.
Under these new laws, the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is now confined
to cases involving public officials occupying positions classified as salary
grade 27 and higher. As restructured, the Sandiganbayan is presently
composed of a Presiding Justice and fourteen (14) Associate Justices who sit
in five (5) Divisions of three Justices each in the trial and determination of
cases.
The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is perhaps one of the most often
amended provision from the 1973 Constitution to RA 8249 of 1997. Before
RA 8249, jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan was determined on the basis of
the penalty imposable on the offense charged. Then, it was amended such
that regardless of the penalty, so long as the offense charged was committed
by a public officer, the Sandiganbayan was vested with jurisdiction. Under
RA 8249, to determine whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, lawyers
must look into two (2) criteria, namely:

The nature of the offense and The salary grade of the public official.

Thus, Sec.4 of RA 8249 provides that the Sandiganbayan shall have

original exclusive jurisdiction over:

I.) Violations of RA 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Law);

II.) RA 1379 (Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Wealth);
III.) Crimes by public officers or employees embraced in Ch. II, Sec.2 Title VII, Bk.
II of the RPC (Crimes committed by Public Officers) namely:

a) Direct Bribery under Art. 210 as amended by BP 871, May 29, 1985;
b) Indirect Bribery under Art. 211 as amended by BP 871, May 29, 1985;
c) Qualified Bribery under Art. 211-A as amended by RA 7659, Dec. 13,
1993;
d) Corruption of public officials under Art. 212

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 Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation
and Position Classification Act of 1989 Republic Act No. 6758) specifically
including:
a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other
provincial department heads;
b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panglungsod,
city treasurers, assessors, engineers and other department heads;
c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul
and higher;
d) Philippine Army and Air force colonels, naval captains and all officers
of higher rank;
e) Officers of the PNP while occupying the position of Provincial
Director and those holding the rank of Senior Superintendent or
higher;
f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants; officials and the
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor ;
g) President, 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 Grade 27 and
up under the Compensation and Classification Act of 1989;
3) Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provision of the
Constitution;
4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without
prejudice to the provision of the Constitution;
5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

IV.) Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other

crimes committed in relation to their office by the public officials and
employees mentioned above;

V.) Civil and Criminal Cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO 1, 2,
14 & 14-A issued in 1986

VI.) Petitions for issuance of Writ of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,

habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs and processes in aid
of its appellate jurisdiction; Provided, jurisdiction is not exclusive of the
Supreme Court
VII.) Petitions for Quo Warranto arising or that may arise in cases filed or
that may be filed under EO 1, 2, 14 & 14- A

VIII.) OTHERS provided the accused belongs to SG 27 or higher:

a.) Violation of RA 6713 - Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
b.) Violation of RA 7080 - THE PLUNDER LAW
c.) Violation of RA 7659 - The Heinous Crime Law
d.) RA 9160 - Violation of The Anti-Money Laundering Law when
committed by a public officer
e.) PD 46 referred to as the gift-giving decree which makes it punishable
for any official or employee to receive directly or indirectly and for
the private person to give or offer to give any gift, present or other
valuable thing on any occasion including Christmas, when such gift,
present or valuable thing is given by reason of his official position,
regardless of whether or not the same is for past favors or the giver
hopes or expects to receive a favor or better treatment in the future
from the public official or employee concerned in the discharge of
his official functions. Included within the prohibition is the throwing
of parties or entertainment in honor of the official or employee or
his immediate relatives.
 f.) PD 749 which grants immunity from prosecution to any person who
voluntarily gives information about any violation of Art.210, 211 or
212 of the RPC, RA 3019, Sec.345 of the NIRC, Sec. 3604 of the
Customs and Tariff Code and other provisions of the said Codes
penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the public officials
concerned and other laws, rules and regulations penalizing graft,
corruption and other forms of official abuse and who willingly
testifies against the public official or employee subject to certain
conditions.

It should be noted that private individuals can be sued in cases before the
Sandiganbayan if they are alleged to be in conspiracy with the public officer.

The Sandiganbayan is vested with Appellate Jurisdiction over final

judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC whether in the exercise of their
original or appellate jurisdiction over crimes and civil cases falling within
the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but which were
committed by public officers below Salary Grade 27.
• Vision
• We envision a judicial institution that the Filipino people can rely on to
uphold the highest norms of official conduct towards the attainment of
a graft-free country.

• Mission
• A special court that gives life to the constitutional mandate that public
office is a public trust by exacting public accountability through a fair
and expeditious adjudication process.

• Core Values
• Honor. Integrity. Accountablity.
 DATE OF DATE OF DATE OF
NAME POSITION
APPOINTMENT BIRTH RETIREMENT

Hon. AMPARO M. CABOTAJE-TANG Chairperson

October 7, 2013 November 8, 1954 November 8, 2024
Presiding Justice Third Division

Hon. EFREN N. DE LA CRUZ Chairperson

October 10, 2003 June 18, 1954 June 18, 2024
Associate Justice First Division

Hon. ALEX L. QUIROZ Chairperson

December 5, 2008 May 27, 1957 May 27, 2027
Associate Justice Fourth Division

Hon. RAFAEL R. LAGOS Chairperson

December 9, 2010 December 22, 1954 December 22, 2024
Associate Justice Fifth Division

Hon. OSCAR C. HERRERA, JR. Chairperson

April 26, 2011 May 23, 1954 May 23, 2024
Associate Justice Second Division

Hon. MA. THERESA DOLORES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTA Chairperson

June 20, 2014 March 17, 1967 March 17, 2037
Associate Justice Seventh Division

Hon. SARAH JANE T. FERNANDEZ Chairperson

May 11, 2015 May 14, 1969 May 14, 2039
Associate Justice Sixth Division

Hon. MICHAEL FREDERICK L. MUSNGI Senior Member

January 20, 2016 April 14, 1965 April 14, 2035
Associate Justice Second Division

Hon. REYNALDO P. CRUZ Senior Member

January 20, 2016 July 8, 1955 July 8, 2025
Associate Justice Fourth Division

Hon. GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONG Senior Member

January 20, 2016 August 6, 1967 August 6, 2037
Associate Justice First Division

Hon. MARIA THERESA V. MENDOZA-ARCEGA Senior Member

January 20, 2016 December 18, 1965 December 18, 2035
Associate Justice Fifth Division

Hon. KARL B. MIRANDA Senior Member

January 20, 2016 October 9, 1957 October 9, 2027
Associate Justice Sixth Division

Hon. ZALDY V. TRESPESES Senior Member

January 20, 2016 December 30, 1972 December 30, 2042
Associate Justice Seventh Division

Hon. BERNELITO R. FERNANDEZ Senior Member

October 28, 2016 June 9, 1955 June 9, 2025
Associate Justice Third Division

Hon. LORIFEL LACAP PAHIMNA Junior Member

March 1, 2017 February 10, 1961 February 10, 2031
Associate Justice Second Division

Hon. EDGARDO M. CALDONA Junior Member

March 10, 2017 February 12, 1970 February 12, 2040
Associate Justice First Division

Hon. BAYANI H. JACINTO Junior Member

May 29, 2017 April 30, 1969 April 30, 2039
Associate Justice Fourth Division

Hon. MARYANN E. CORPUS-MAÑALAC Junior Member

December 8, 2017 July 27, 1966 July 27, 2036
Associate Justice Fifth Division

Hon. KEVIN NARCE B. VIVERO Junior Member

November 28, 2017 January 2, 1960 January 2, 2030
Associate Justice Sixth Division

Hon. GEORGINA D. HIDALGO Junior Member

January 18, 2018 April 14, 1964 April 14, 2034
Associate Justice Seventh Division

Hon. RONALD B. MORENO Junior Member

June 8, 2018 June 23, 1970 June 23, 2040
Associate Justice Third Division
• NOTE: * Also appointed as Presiding Justice
NAME DATE APPOINTED
1. MANUEL R. PAMARAN* DECEMBER 1, 1978
2. BERNARDO P. FERNANDEZ DECEMBER 10, 1978
3. ROMEO M. ESCAREAL DECEMBER 10, 1978
4. BUENAVENTURA J. GUERRERO DECEMBER 8, 1980
5. CONRADO R. MOLINA DECEMBER 8, 1980
6. MOISES C. KALLOS DECEMBER 8, 1980
7. RAMON V. JABSON NOVEMBER 20, 1981
8. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION AUGUST 4, 1982
9. FIDEL P. PURISIMA AUGUST 4, 1982
10. ROMULO S. QUIMBO AUGUST 4, 1982
11. AUGUSTO M. AMORES OCTOBER 7, 1984
12. AMANTE Q. ALCONCEL OCTOBER 7, 1984
13. BIENVENIDO C. VERA CRUZ OCTOBER 7, 1984
14. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA* APRIL 18, 1986
15. REGINO C. HERMOSISIMA, JR. MAY 16, 1986
16. JOSE S. BALAJADIA MAY 30, 1986
17. LUCIANO A. JOSON MAY 21, 1986
18. CIPRIANO A. DEL ROSARIO MAY 22, 1986
19. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE DECEMBER 2, 1988
20. SABINO R. DE LEON, JR. MARCH 13, 1990

21. NARCISO T. ATIENZA SEPTEMBER 14, 1992

MAY 10, 1993

22. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO*
FEBRUARY 26, 2003*

23. ROBERTO M. LAGMAN NOVEMBER 28, 1994

 MARCH 11, 1996
25. EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL*
SEPTEMBER 17, 2010*

26. LEONARDO I. CRUZ MARCH 11, 1996

SEPTEMBER 8, 1997
27. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO*
DECEMBER 15, 2004*

28. ANACLETO D. BADOY, JR. SEPTEMBER 8, 1997

29. GERMAN G. LEE, JR. SEPTEMBER 8, 1997

30. GODOFREDO L. LEGASPI SEPTEMBER 8, 1997

31. NARCISO S. NARIO SEPTEMBER 8, 1997

32. CATALINO R. CASTAÑEDA, JR. SEPTEMBER 8, 1997

33. GREGORY S. ONG OCTOBER 5, 1998

34. RICARDO M. ILARDE OCTOBER 7, 1998

35. RODOLFO G. PALATTAO OCTOBER 9, 1998

36. ALFREDO J. GUSTILO OCTOBER 5, 1998

OCTOBER 19, 1998

37. MA. CRISTINA CORTEZ-ESTRADA*

JULY 2, 2009*

38. RAOUL V. VICTORINO JANUARY 31, 2000

39. NICODEMO T. FERRER JANUARY 31, 2000

OCTOBER 2, 2001
40. FRANCISCO H. VILLARUZ, JR.*
OCTOBER 5, 2011

JUNE 14, 2002

41. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA*

MARCH 28, 2008*

JANUARY 21, 2003

42. NORBERTO Y. GERALDEZ*

FEBRUARY 28, 2010*

43. ROLAND B. JURADO OCTOBER 3, 2003

44. EFREN N. DELA CRUZ OCTOBER 10, 2003

45. TERESITA V. DIAZ-BALDOS OCTOBER 17, 2003

46. JOSE R. HERNANDEZ MARCH 9, 2004

47. RODOLFO A. PONFERRADA AUGUST 23, 2004

48. ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO OCTOBER 15, 2005

49. SAMUEL R. MARTIRES OCTOBER 15, 2005

50. NAPOLEON E. INOTURAN APRIL 4, 2008

51. ALEX L. QUIROZ DECEMBER 5, 2008

52. MARIA CRISTINA J. CORNEJO MARCH 1, 2010

53. RAFAEL R. LAGOS DECEMBER 9, 2010

54. OSCAR C. HERRERA, JR. APRIL 26, 2011

JUNE 11, 2012

55. AMPARO M. CABOTAJE-TANG*
OCTOBER 1, 2013*

56. MA. THERESA DOLORES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTA JUNE 20, 2014

57. SARAH JANE T. FERNANDEZ MAY 5, 2015

58. MICHAEL FREDERICK L. MUSNGI JANUARY 20, 2016

59. REYNALDO P. CRUZ JANUARY 20 2016

60. GERALDINE FAITH A. ECONG JANUARY 20, 2016

61. MARIA THERESA V. MENDOZA-ARCEGA JANUARY 20, 2016

62. KARL B. MIRANDA JANUARY 20, 2016

63. ZALDY V. TRESPESES JANUARY 20 2016

64. BERNELITO R. FERNANDEZ OCTOBER 28, 2016

65. LORIFEL L. PAHIMNA MARCH 1, 2017

66. EDGARDO M. CALDONA MARCH 10, 2017

67. BAYANI H. JACINTO MAY 29, 2017

68. MARYANN E. CORPUS-MAÑALAC DECEMBER 8, 2017

69. KEVIN NARCE B. VIVERO NOVEMBER 28, 2017

70. GEORGINA D. HIDALGO JANUARY 18, 2018

71. RONALD B. MORENO June 8, 2018

 Creation, Elevation and Expansion
Act No. 1125 (R.A. 1125). Considering its limited jurisdiction then, it had
only three (3) Judges, which at present is equivalent to one (1) Division.

With the passage of Republic Act Number 9282 (R.A. 9282) on April 23,
2004, the CTA became an appellate Court, equal in rank to the Court of
Appeals. The composition of the Court increased to six (6) Justices with one
(1) Presiding Justice and five (5) Associate Justices.

It shall sit En Banc, or in two (2) Divisions with three (3) Justices each. A
decision of a division of the CTA may be appealed to the CTA En Banc, and
the latter's decision may further be appealed by verified petition for
certiorari to the Supreme Court.
However, Republic Act Number 9503 was enacted on June 12, 2008 and
took effect on July 5, 2008. This further enlarged the organizational
structure of the CTA by creating a Third Division and providing for three
(3) additional Justices. Hence, the CTA is now composed of one (1)
Presiding Justice and eight (8) Associate Justices. The CTA may sit en
banc or in three (3) divisions with each division consisting of three (3)
Justices. The CTA, as one of the Courts comprising the Philippine
Judiciary, is under the supervision of the Supreme Court.
Through the enactment of Republic Act No. 9282, the jurisdiction of the CTA
has been expanded to include not only civil tax cases but also cases that are
criminal in nature, as well as local tax cases, property taxes and final
collection of taxes.

Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 1125 and other laws prior to
R.A. 9282, the Court of Tax Appeals retains exclusive appellate jurisdiction
to review by appeal, the following:

1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving

disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising
under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law
administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
2. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for
customs duties, fees or other money charges; seizure, detention or release of
property affected; fines, forfeitures or other penalties imposed in relation
thereto; or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other law or
part of law administered by the Bureau of Customs [Rep. Act. No. 1125,
(1954), Sec. 7];

3. In automatic review cases where such decisions of the Commission of

Customs favorable to the taxpayer is elevated to the Secretary of Finance
(Sec. 2315, TCC); and

4. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of non-

agricultural product, commodity or article, or the Secretary of Agriculture,
in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, in connection with
the imposition of the Anti-Dumping Duty, Countervailing and Safeguard
Duty [Republic Act Nos. 8751 and 8752, (1999) Sec. 301 (a) and (p), and
Republic Act 8800].
Under Republic Act Number 9282, the CTA's original appellate jurisdiction
was expanded to include the following:

1. Criminal cases involving violations of the National Internal Revenue

Code and the Tariff and Customs Code;
2. Decisions of the Regional Trial Courts (RTC) in local tax cases;
3. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) in
cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property; and
4. Collection of internal revenue taxes and customs duties the
assessment of which have already become final.
• Vision
• A specialized tax court that is impartial, competent, transparent, and
worthy of public trust and confidence, ensuring faithful compliance
with tax laws.

• Mission
• To achieve its vision, the Court is guided by the following principles:
Fair and speedy collection of taxes by the Government;
• Adequate judicial remedies to taxpayers against unreasonable/unjust
tax assessments and refund of excessive/erroneous taxes collected;
• Proper interpretation of tax statutes;
• Adherence to the independence of the judiciary; and
• Utmost deference for public trust and confidence in the judiciary.
The organizational set-up of the CTA is made up of the Office of the
Presiding Justice, Offices of the Associate Justices, Office of the Clerks of
Court, the Legal and Technical Services Office, and the Office of
Administrative and Finance Services.

The Presiding Justice is the Head of the Court. He has the same salary grade
and enjoys the same privileges as that of the Presiding Justice of the Court of
Appeals. He exercises managerial and administrative supervision over all
the heads of offices and oversees the Court's operations.

Assisting the Presiding Justice in his adjudicative and administrative

functions are eight (8) Associate Justices, who have the same salary grade
and enjoy the same privileges as those of the Associate Justices of the Court
of Appeals.
Hon. Roman G. Del Rosario was appointed
on March 13, 2013 as the Presiding Justice
of the Court of Tax Appeals.
Sources:
• Santos-Ong, Milagros. Legal Research and Citations of the Philippines.Second
Edition.Manila:Rex Bookstore (2013,2018) page 40-47.
• Rodriguez, Rufus. Legal Research. Manila:Rex Bookstore (2002) page 162-163
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Appeals_of_the_Philippines
• http://ca2.judiciary//.gov.ph/caws-war/
• http://cta.judiciary.gov.ph/
• http://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/aboutsb.html
VI. THE COURT OF
LAST RESORT
 THE PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
II. THE POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
III. HOW THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES CASES
IV. THE INTERNAL RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT
V. SUPREME COURT ISSUANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
VI. THE JUDICIAL BAR COUNCIL (JBC)
VII. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OCA)
VIII. THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (PHILJA)
IX. THE PHILIPPINE MEDIATION CENTER (PMC)
X. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (MCLE)
• The Supreme Court determines with finality what the law is and should
be.

• Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution

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

• located in Manila

• consists of one Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices who will serve until
the age of 70
• The current Chief Justice and Associate Justices:

• Chief Justice Lucas P. Bersamin

• Justice Antonio T. Carpio
• Justice Diosdado M. Peralta
• Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe
• Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen
• Justice Francis H. Jardeleza
• Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
• Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr.
• Justice Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo
• Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
• Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando
• Justice Rosmari D. Carandang
• Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier
• Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting
• Justice Rodil V. Zalameda
• has the power to review on appeal or certiorari final judgments and
orders of lower courts

• has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,

mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
• The Supreme Court justices decide cases in three divisions of five
members or, in certain cases, in an en banc session.
• En banc - a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a
court rather than by a panel of judges selected from them.

• The Supreme Court decides cases in en banc when the issue is about:
• constitutionality of:
• treaty
• international or executive agreement
• law
• constitutionality, application, or operation of:
• proclamations
• orders
• instructions
• ordinances
• other regulations

• all other cases which the Rules of Court require an en banc session

• a case being heard by a Supreme Court division which failed to obtain

the concurrence of the majority
• Purpose
• governs the internal operations of the Court
• serves as a guide to the exercise of the Court’s judicial and
administrative functions

• promulgated by the Supreme Court

• The Internal Rules provides that cases may be heard on oral arguments
upon defined issues. Constitutionality of laws, treaties, and other
agreements are defined issues.
• Oral Arguments
• Procedure (Section 3, Rule 10 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme
Court)

The Court may hear any cases on oral agreement upon defined
issues. The petitioner shall argue first, followed by the respondent
and the amicus curiae, if any. Rebuttal arguments may be allowed
by the Chief Justice or the Chairperson. If necessary, the Court may
invite amicus curiae.

Some oral arguments lasted past midnight.

• Examples of issues that went through oral arguments based on the
Internal Rules of the Supreme Court:

• RH Law (Republic Act No. 10354 - “Responsible Parenthood and

Reproductive Health Act of 2012”)
• Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. No. 10175)
• Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)
• Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA)
• Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)
• Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)
• The Burial of President Marcos at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani
• The Supreme Court’s Public Information Office is mandated to upload
on the Court’s website the decisions within 48 hours after a decision
has the Certification of the Chief Justice.

• Amendments on Court rules are promulgated through the Committee

on Revision of Rules.
• administrative rules and regulations

• Human Resource Manual (a draft personnel manual of the Supreme

Court)

• Rules of Court
• intended to protect and enforce constitutional rights, pleadings
and practice and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the
practice of law
• Examples of resolutions issued by the Supreme Court:

• Rule on the Writ of Amparo

• Writ of Amparo – a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

• Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data

• Writ of Habeas Data – a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in
life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened to be violated by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or any private individual or entity engaged
in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information regarding the person,
family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

• Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Writ of Kalikasan)

• Writ of Kalikasan – a legal remedy under Philippine law that provides protection of
one's constitutional right to a healthy environment, as outlined in Section 16, Article
II of the Philippine Constitution, which states that the "state shall protect and
advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with
the rhythm and harmony of nature.”
• procedure on cases involving the enforcement or violations on
existing environmental and other related laws and regulations

• Green Courts – courts designated to try cases related to the

environment and resources
• created by virtue of Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution

• supervised by the Supreme Court

• Its principal function is to screen prospective appointees to any

judicial post including the Ombudsman and the Deputies.
• composed of:
• the Chief Justice (as ex-officio Chairman)
• Ex-officio - by virtue of one’s position or status.
• the Secretary of Justice (as ex-officio member)
• a representative of Congress (as ex-officio member)
• a representative of the Integrated Bar
• a professor of law
• a retired member of the Supreme Court
• a representative of the private sector

• conducts live public interviews and has set guidelines for vacancy in the
Chief Justice, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and Appellate
Courts.

• submits a list of at least three nominees for every vacancy to the

President from which the President may choose from. The President has
90 days to fill in the vacancy.
• created by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 828, as amended by P.D. No.
842

• Functions of OCA:
• The primary duty is to assist the Supreme Court in exercising
administrative supervision over all lower courts.
• reports and recommends to the Supreme Court all actions that
affect the lower court management
• Consists of:
• the Court Administrator
• three Deputy Court Administrators
• three Assistant Court Administrators

• Offices in the OCA:

• Administrative Office
• Legal Office
• Court Management Office
• Fiscal Management Office
• Office of the Halls of Justice
• created by the Supreme Court on March 16, 1996 by virtue of
Administrative Order No. 35-96

• institutionalized on Feb. 26, 1998 by virtue of R.A. No. 8557

• Functions (Section 3, R.A. No. 8557):

• The training school for justices, judges, court personnel, and
aspirants to judicial posts.
• provides and implements a curriculum for judicial education
• conducts seminars, workshops, and other training programs
designed to upgrade legal knowledge, moral fitness, probity,
efficiency, and capability
• performs other functions and duties as may be necessary in
carrying out its mandate
• No appointee to the Bench may commence the discharge of his
adjudicative function without completing the prescribed course in the
Philippine Judicial Academy.

• PHILJA Executive Officials (appointed by the Supreme Court for a term

of 2 years):
• Chancellor
• Vice-Chancellor
• Executive Secretary
• PHILJA Board of Trustees:
• Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (as ex-officio Chairman)
• Senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (as ex-officio Vice-
Chairman)
• Chancellor of the Academy (as ex-officio member)
• Presiding Justices of the Court of Appeals (as ex-officio member)
• Presiding Justices of the Sandiganbayan (as ex-officio member)
• Court Administrator (as ex-officio member)
• President of the Philippine Association of Law Schools (as ex-officio
member)
• Judge of a first level court (appointive member)
• should have served at least 5 years as judge
• taught in a reputable law school for 5 years
• The PHILJA Training Center is located at Brgy. Silang, Crossing East,
Tagaytay City

• The PHILJA Office is at the Supreme Court in Manila

• organized and established pursuant to Supreme Court En Banc
Resolution A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA on Oct. 16, 2001 and in line with
the objectives of the Action Program for Judicial Reforms (APJR), that is,
to decongest court dockets and enhance access to justice

• establishes, in coordination with the OCA, PMC Units in courthouses and

such other places, as may be necessary. Each PMC Unit is manned by
Mediators and Supervisors.

• renders mediation services to parties in court-referred, court-related

mediation cases

• help disputing parties reach mutually acceptable solutions by providing

efficient and effective Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM), Judicial Dispute
Resolution (JDR), Appeals Court Mediation (ACM), and other court-
related/referred Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services,
including arbitration
• CAM
• a voluntary process conducted under the auspices of the court by
referring the parties to the PMC Unit for the settlement of their
dispute, assisted by a Mediator accredited by the Supreme Court

• Cases Subject to CAM

• all civil cases, except those which by law may not be
compromised (Art. 2035, Civil Code)
• special proceedings for the settlement of estates
• civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the R.P.C.
• civil aspect of criminal cases where the imposable penalty does
not exceed six years imprisonment and the offended party is a
private person
• civil aspect of theft (not qualified theft), estafa (not syndicated
or large scale estafa), and libel
• JDR
• a process whereby the judge (called the JDR Judge) employs
conciliation, mediation or early neutral evaluation in order to
settle a case at the pre-trial stage. In the event the JDR fails, then
another judge (called the trial judge) shall proceed to hear and
decide the case

• Cases Subject to JDR

• all cases not successfully settled in CAM
• all appealed cases from the exclusive and original jurisdiction of
the First Level Courts
• ACM
• a mediation program in the Court of Appeals that will provide a
conciliatory approach in conflict resolution.

• In this third stage, the CA promotes a paradigm shift in the

resolution of disputes from rights based (judicial) to an interest
based (mediation) process to amicably settle appeals.

• Cases Subject to ACM

• all covered cases referred during the appeal
• The PMC Office, including the PMC Units, are under the operational
control and supervision of PHILJA.

• Qualifications to Become a Mediator

• Bachelor’s degree
• At least 30 years old
• Good moral character
• Willingness to learn new skills and render public services
• Proficiency in oral and written communication in English and
Filipino
• PMC Unit in Aklan
• Address: Hall of Justice, Kalibo, Aklan
• PMC Unit Staff
• Mediation Staff Asst. II: Ms. Mary Jane I. Delos Reyes
• JDR Staff: Ms. Josephine T. Taytayon
• Mediators
• Mr. Jessie C. Fegarido
• Mr. Gilmer L. Garcia
• Mr. Michael R. Legaspi
• Mr. Andrew D. Sualog
• Courts Covered
• RTC, Branches 1-9, Kalibo
• MTC, Kalibo
• 1st MCTC, New Washington-Batan
• 2nd MCTC, Banga-Libacao-Madalag
• 3rd MCTC, Malinao-Lezo-Numancia
• 4th MCTC, Makato-Tangalan
• 5th MCTC, Buruanga-Malay
• 6th MCTC, Altavas-Balete
• 7th MCTC, Ibajay-Nabas
• organized pursuant to B.M. No. 850 dated Oct. 2, 2001

• Purpose
• to ensure that throughout the career of the IBP members they keep
abreast with the law and jurisprudence
• maintain the ethics of the law profession
• enhance the standards of the practice of law

• Members of the IBP must complete 36 hours of continuing legal

education every 3 years

• Qualifications for exemption from the MCLE are provided in Sections 1-2,
Rule 7 of B.M. No. 850 dated Aug. 22, 2000

• holds office in the IBJ Main Office at Julio Vargas St., Ortigas Center,
Mandaluyong City
• Internal Rules of the Supreme Court: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/1461/
• Writ of Kalikasan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_Kalikasan
• About PMC: http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/pabout.html
• PMC Rules: http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/prules.html
• PMC FAQ: http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/pfaq.html
• PMC How to Become a Mediator: http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/pmediator.html
• Aklan, Kalibo PMC Unit: http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/JR/6jr/Aklan/kalibo.html
• B.M. No. 850: https://www.lawphil.net/courts/bm/bm_850_2000.html
• Supreme Court Justices: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/justices/
• Legal Research and Citations of the Philippines by Milagros Santos-Ong
• Legal Research by Rufus B. Rodriguez
VII. HIERARCHY
OF COURTS
1. Metropolitan Trial Courts
2. Municipal Trial Courts
3. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

• Front lines of the judicial system know as "inferior courts“

• Tribunals in which most of the controversies in the community are heard
and provisionally decided
• Very limited jurisdiction but is close to people
• For civil suits with smaller amounts of money involved and minor
violation of criminal laws.
• It is vital that in this level, justice be administered fairly with dignity.
• formerly known as the courts of First Instance

1. Regional Trial Court

2. Shari'a Courts- jurisdiction over Muslim Filipinos in Mindanao

• For civil claim and criminal prosecution with amount of money or

potential criminal sentence involved
• Court empowered to try all kinds of case without monetary or subject
matter limitation
• Court of Appeals – is the body with exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
decisions of the Regional Trial Court and other quasi-judicial agencies.

1. Sandiganbayan- criminal cases

2. Court of Tax Appeals- protest of private individual adversely affected by
the tax and customs law.

• Consist of one Presiding Justice and fifty Associate Justices

• City of Manila- 17 divisions (compose of 3 members each)
• Unanimous Vote of the 3 members of the division- Decision
• If there is no unanimous vote a special division is formed- compose of 5
justices (majority vote is needed for a decision)
• Supreme court determines finality. of what the law is and should be.
• Manila- consist of one Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices
• Three Divisions (compose of 5 members each)
• Power to review on appeal or certiorari final judgment or order of lower
courts