Jurisdiction

1 I.

JURISDICTION

The most important subject matter in Civil Procedure is the issue on jurisdiction, because a lot of remedial law problems may be resolved through the principles of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the sun of remedial law. All issues revolve around jurisdiction. Sometimes, questions are presented as if there’s no issue on jurisdiction when in truth and in fact, it is just but a question of [jurisdiction]. Illustrations: (1) A (lessor) filed a case against B (lessee) for unlawful detainer due to non-payment of rentals. A filed it with the RTC. (issue: proper forum) (2) A files a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. (issue: hierarchy of courts) What is JURISDICTION? It is the authority [of the court] to hear and determine a case. This must be distinguished from ‘exercise of jurisdiction.’ Jurisdiction is the authority while its exercise will result into a judgment. (Brondial) Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to hear, try, and decide a case. It has reference to the power of the court over the subject matter, over the res or property in contest, and to the authority of the court to render the judgment or decree it assumed to make. (Riano) Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the jurisdiction. (Riano) By the authority to hear and determine a case, does it mean ANY case? No. Only a justiciable case. A non-justiciable issue is beyond the ambit of jurisdiction and therefore, beyond the power of the court. Political issues are non-justiciable. If it is a political issue, it must be resolved by the sovereignty.

Justiciable Question - matter of legality • Political Question - matter of policy • Note: Political questions refer to considerations affecting the wisdom, efficacy, or practicability of a law Which has the authority to hear and determine a case? It is the court which is a part and parcel of jurisdiction. This pertains to the regular courts and other quasi-judicial bodies. What are the regular courts? 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. (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution) 1. 2. 3. 4.

Supreme Court (divisions) Court of Appeals (divisions) Regional Trial Courts (branches) Lower Courts: a. Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC) b. Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) c. Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) d. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) 5. Court of Tax Appeals (CTA; now a regular court pursuant to RA 9282 which elevated its status) -- remove from Rule 43 6. Sandiganbayan - not a constitutional court but only a constitutionally-mandated court; therefore, it is a creation specifically, PD 1606** *Rule 43 old-Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial • Agencies to the Court of Appeals

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

2 new-Appeals from Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of • Appeals **The applicable law now vis-a-vis the Sandiganbayan is RA 7975, as amended by RA 8249.

There are other quasi-judicial bodies under Sec. 1, Rule 43. 1. Civil Service Commission 2. Central Board of Assessment Appeals 3. Securities and Exchange Commission 4. Office of the President 5. Land Registration Authority 6. Social Security Commission 7. Civil Aeronautics Board 8. Bureau of Patents 9. Trademarks and Technology Transfer 10. National Electrification Administration 11. Energy Regulatory Board 12. National Telecommunications Commission 13. Department of Agrarian Reform under RA 6657 14. Government Service Insurance System 15. Employees Compensation Commission 16. Agricultural Inventions Board 17. Insurance Commission 18. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission 19. Board of Investments 20. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission 21. voluntary arbitrators authorized by law No need to memorize because the listing provided is not exclusive. Every now and then, the President would create bodies with quasijudicial functions and they become quasi-judicial bodies, i.e., COSLAP (Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems), DARAB (Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board), HLURB (Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board), which are not stated in Sec. 1, Rule 43.

How about “military courts”? They are not really courts because they are under the Executive Branch. They are under the President. They were created only to emphasize the function of the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. But for purposes of prohibition of Congressmen, Senators, and other public officers from the practice of law, military courts are considered as such. It is only for this purpose that they are deemed courts. When you file a case against a military officer and you file it with the military court, it is not governed by the rules. Pursuant to RA 1038 is the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). There might be certain amendments to the judicial functions of the Shari’ah Courts. Currently. These only function in the ARMM and covering only Muslims. *possible bar question because of the pending Bangsamoro law There are three (3) Shari’ah Courts: 1. Appellate Shari’ah Courts 2. District Shari’ah Courts 3. Shari’ah Circuit Courts Regarding their jurisdiction over the subject matter, generally it’s about family and property relations between and among muslims. Ex-1. Consider if a muslim is staying in Quiapo. Does he have to go to Zamboanga in order to file a case? No. That’s optional. They can file it with the regular courts here. Ex-2. Suppose they are married under the muslim law and they want to seek divorce. Even if they are residents of Manila, they have to go the ARMM in order to get a divorce. Classification of Jurisdiction 1. Original Jurisdiction v. Appellate Jurisdiction

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

What is original jurisdiction? It is the authority of the court that takes cognizance of a case for the first time. As such, it is an exercise of original jurisdiction. Therefore, if the court takes cognizance of a case for the second, third, or fourth time, then it is an exercise of appellate jurisdiction. There are certain courts which are courts of original jurisdiction ONLY. An example is the MTC. But there are also courts which are both of original and appellate jurisdiction. Prominent among them, which must be emphasized, is the Sandiganbayan. The exercise of original jurisdiction may either be exclusive or concurrent. Thus we classify original jurisdiction into: 1. exclusive original jurisdiction 2. original concurrent jurisdiction

3 Original Concurrent Jurisdiction: This means that a justiciable issue may be taken cognizance of by more than one court. Ordinarily, concurrent jurisdiction pertains to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and the Regional Trial Courts. When they exercise concurrent jurisdiction, a petitioner will have to file it in any of these courts. But simply because they have authority, it does not mean that the petitioner has the absolute option where to file it. One must comply with certain principles under concurrent jurisdiction. These are already wellsettled by jurisprudence.

What are the three (3) most important principles of concurrent jurisdiction?

Exclusive Original Jurisdiction: Only a specific subject matter may be taken cognizance of by a particular court.

1. Hierarchy of Courts see: Liga ng mga Barangay v. Atienza and Agan v. PIATCO

The Supreme Court also has exclusive original jurisdiction but limited only to five (5) tribunals: 1. Court of Appeals 2. Sandiganbayan 3. Court of Tax Appeals (en banc) 4. Commission on Audit (pursuant to Rule 64) 5. Commission on Elections (pursuant to Rule 64)

When you plan to file a case, the subject matter of which is cognizable in the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction, you have to go to the lowest court. Hence, instead of going to the Supreme Court, you go to the RTC. You cannot go to the Supreme Court directly by virtue of this principle.

When you come from these five (5) tribunals, you have nowhere else to go except to the Supreme Court. All the rest, it is to the Court of Appeals. Another constitutional body which is the Civil Service Commission is not under the Supreme Court for purposes of appeal. Appeal therefrom, which is on the level of COA and COMELEC, must be brought to the Court of Appeals.

2.

Transcendental Importance

This is an exception to the principle of hierarchy of courts and is precisely the doctrine illustrated in Agan v. PIATCO. The case should have been filed with the lower court but the Supreme Court took cognizance of it because of its transcendental importance which could mean that it is of national (or international) importance; a matter of urgency hence the Supreme Court may take cognizance of the case. The most fundamental principle that you must never forget is that the Supreme Court is not governed by the Rules. 3.

Supreme Court Not a Trier of Facts

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

4 This is the rationale under Rule 45 which is a mode of review. Section 1 thereof specifically provides that you can raise to the Supreme Court only questions of law, never a question of fact. When do you know that it is a question of fact? The basic test is what you call the “evidence test rule.” If it requires presentation of evidence, it is a question of fact. If it does not, it is a question of law. Hence, if you raise to the Supreme Court both questions of fact and of law, the Supreme Court will not remand that to the lower court because pursuant Section 2 of Rule 50, that should already be dismissed. No more transmittal and remand but rather, immediate dismissal, if you avail of the wrong remedy. In appellate jurisdiction, is there also a classification? No, because there is only one (1) court in which you have to appeal. You cannot appeal to two (2) courts. You also follow the hierarchical presentation of your appeal -- from the MTC, the only appeal will be to the RTC; from the RTC, the only appeal will be to the CA, and so on. Hence, appellate jurisdiction is not classified anymore because you go up to only one. If a petitioner sought the wrong court, that would be subject to outright dismissal. Ex. If a sergeant of an army is sued before the RTC for violation of RA 3019 and he was convicted, you do not appeal to the CA. Rather, it is to the Sandiganbayan because that falls under their [appellate] jurisdiction (public officers). You cannot file that directly to the Sandiganbayan either because the sergeant of an army is not from salary grade 27 (or above). The Sandiganbayan therefore exercises appellate jurisdiction. 2.

As to nature, jurisdiction may either be a jurisdiction over the: a. subject matter b. persons of the parties c. issues d. res e. territory

Territory: This is not applicable in civil cases because territoriality in civil cases is a matter of venue, not a matter of jurisdiction. Thus the principle that venue is jurisdictional. (Note: This was asked in the 2009 bar exams.) True or False. Venue is jurisdictional. (A: False) Res: This literally means “the thing” which is the object of the action. Note that the object of an action is not always property. It can be status. In annulment of marriage or legal separation, the object is the status. Should jurisdiction over the res be acquired? No. It is not necessary that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. As long as the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, even if it does not acquire jurisdiction over the res, the case can continue. When should a court acquire jurisdiction over the res? Precisely, if the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, if it wants to continue [with the case], it has to at least acquire jurisdiction over the res. If it is an action for recovery of property, the court must acquire jurisdiction over the property. Otherwise, the case cannot continue. But if and when the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant for one reason or another, then it must at least acquire jurisdiction over the res so that the case continues. Suppose the res is the status of a person and the case is annulment of marriage, how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the res? Not necessarily by summons. Under the new rules, it can also be by publication, etc. (see Rule 14). Section 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown. — In any action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order.

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

5 Section 16. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. — When any action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding section.

(e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors; or

For the court to have jurisdiction over the res, ordinarily you apply Rule 57 (Preliminary Attachment). You have to attach the property.

The application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment may be done at the commencement of the action or at anytime before entry of judgment. This time frame is quite long because when the action is on appeal, there is no entry of judgment yet. Similarly, when the action is under a petition for review, there is is no entry of judgment yet.

Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the following cases: (a) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of money or damages, other than moral and exemplary, on a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict against a party who is about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors; (b) In an action for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use by a public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty; (c) In an action to recover the possession of property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or converted, when the property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an authorized person; (d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or in the performance thereof;

(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publication.

The enumeration of Section 1, Rule 57 is EXCLUSIVE. Beyond these six (6) grounds, you cannot apply for a writ of preliminary attachment. This is simply to illustrate the second point of jurisdiction which is jurisdiction over the res. When the subject matter of the case is real property and the court acquires jurisdiction over that property, the case goes on; but the only limitation there is when you try to execute the judgment, you are limited to the res. You cannot go beyond that. You cannot use Rule 39 (Execution, Satisfaction, and Effect of Judgments). You are limited to the res because the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person. Hence, you can only execute on the res. Since Rule 39 is not available, you apply levy on attachment. You do not proceed to levy anymore because you already levied through attachment at the commencement of the action. Therefore, when you win the case as an attaching creditor, you don’t go anymore to Rule 39. You immediately proceed to sale on attachment. When the attached property is sold, the proceeds therefrom will answer or satisfy the judgment. Suppose the judgment is for P1M and the property sold was for P800K only, you have a deficiency of P200K. Can you go Rule 39? No. You can only collect up to P800K because the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person. It only acquired jurisdiction

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

over the res. But at least the case continued; and ordinarily, in actual practice, you do not attach less than the debt. Issues: The principle is that jurisdiction over the issues is determined by the allegations in the pleading. Hence, that which is not included in the pleading, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over that issue. Example: Rule 70 (Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer) What is the only issue in unlawful detainer? Possession de facto. It has nothing to do with ownership. But when ownership is raised in the pleading, pursuant to Section 16, Rule 70, the court is not divested of its jurisdiction but must resolve the issue of ownership only to resolve the issue of possession. This is so because the court acquired jurisdiction over the issue of ownership, even if it is not an issue in a case of unlawful detainer; since the pleader asserts it in the pleading. But that which is not asserted in the pleading, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over such issue. Section 16. Resolving defense of ownership. — When the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. If the court nonetheless renders a judgment, involving that issue which was not raised in the pleading, as a general rule, it will be null and void had you objected. If you did not object, it is deemed a waiver because that’s already on trial. Example: In an action for sum of money in the amount of P100K, A is the creditor and B is the debtor. There was no allegation whatsoever regarding demand to pay. In the course of the trial, plaintiff now is on the witness stand and his counsel was asking him, “Mr. Witness, when defendant failed to pay, what did you do?” Plaintiff respondent, “I wrote

6 him three (3) demand letters.” That was never alleged in the pleading. Defendant never objected. Therefore, that forms part of evidence. Further, under Section 5, Rule 10 (Amended and Supplemental Pleadings), the court must sustain the objection because it is valid. Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. — When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not effect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made. What then should counsel for the plaintiff do? The plaintiff must invoke Section 5, Rule 10 regarding amendment to conform to the evidence. Under Rule 6 (Kinds of Pleadings) in relation to Rule 8 (Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings), when you speak of allegations in the pleading, it is stated that you only have to allege ultimate facts. Evidentiary matters are not part of the pleadings -- that’s part of trial, when you start presenting evidence. As such, your pleading must only allege ultimate facts which is the cause of action or right of action, as the case may be. If you do not allege that, the court does not acquire jurisdiction. You tie this up with Section 1(g), Rule 16 regarding insufficiency of cause of action as a ground for Motion to Dismiss; although it is not really insufficiency because it is correctible by amendment, it is rather lack of cause of action.

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

By making the amendment, plaintiff will do the reverse by conforming to the evidence to supplement his allegations. Persons of the Parties: In civil cases, there are only five (5) parties to the maximum: plaintiff, defendant, co-defendant, 3rd (4th)-party defendant, and intervenor, pursuant to Rule 19 (Intervention). Legend: A - plaintiff B - defendant C - co-defendant D - third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant E - intervenor How does the person acquire jurisdiction over the person of A? 1) filing of the complaint 2) timely payment of correct docket fees Cases on docket fees: II-1 Alday v. FGU Insurance II-2 Korea Technologies v. Lerma II-3 Mercado v. CA II-4 Proton Pilipinas v. Banque Nationale de Paris II-5 Ruby Shelter v. Formaran II-6 St. Louis University v. Cobarrubias What is now the law on docket fees? Per jurisprudence, it is Alday v. FGU Insurance (no more Korea Technologies v. Lerma which has been overturned by Mercado v. CA which reinstated the doctrine in Alday). In Korea Technologies, the court ruled that payment of docket fees applies to filing of counterclaims, regardless of whether they are compulsory or permissive. By virtue of Mercado, however, the prevailing doctrine is that payment of docket fees applies only to permissive counterclaims. Payment of docket fees is not limited to filing of initiatory pleadings.

7 Sidebar: May a plaintiff be declared in default? Yes, because pursuant to counterclaims, the plaintiff becomes a defendant and such counterclaims require an answer such that if this is not filed, the then plaintiff may be declared in default. This is so even if Section 3, Rule 9 only speaks of the defendant having failed to file an answer within the prescriptive period. St. Louis University v. Cobarrubias: Cobarrubias was an employee of St. Louis University who was discharged from service and so she filed a case of illegal dismissal which she won. St. Louis University appealed it and it was reversed. Cobarrubias went up to the SC which St. Louis University questioned because she did not pay docket fees on time. The SC said that St. Louis University is correct. The payment of docket fees is out of time; therefore, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal. Brgy. of Legaspi City v. Imperial (not in the outline): This case was about an appeal. Legaspi City is in Bicol and the appeal was filed by mail. Included in the mail was the postal money order for appellate docket fees. When the CA received that, it notified the petitioner that the docket fee is deficient by P2.25 which was substantial at the time. The lawyer said that he followed the Rules so he did not comply with the deficiency. The next order that he then received is a dismissal of the appeal. He then went up to the SC and filed a certiorari. The SC said that the court did not acquire jurisdiction because the docket fee is incorrect.

How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of B? 1) valid service of summons 2) voluntary appearance Note: The same goes for C and D. How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of E? It is upon approval of the motion for leave to admit intervention. Under Rule 19 (Intervention), intervention can only be granted upon leave of court.

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

Hence, when a motion for leave of court is filed and it is approved, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the intervenor. Subject Matter: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. The exception is the Supreme Court because its jurisdiction is not conferred by law but by the Constitution (Sec. 5, Art. VIII). This is a detailed enumeration of the power of judicial review and it has something to do with jurisdiction. *for purposes of jurisdiction, at least memorize the first two (2) paragraphs* 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

8 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 under-privileged. 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. 6. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law. [Supreme Court] Par. 1: original jurisdiction *may be exclusive or concurrent With regard to certiorari, prohibition, etc., that is concurrent • jurisdiction. But where certiorari, prohibition, etc. are brought before the • following courts, the SC has exclusive jurisdiction. a. Court of Appeals b. Sandiganbayan c. Court of Tax Appeals (en banc) d. Commission on Audit (pursuant to Rule 64) e. Commission on Elections (pursuant to Rule 64)

[Supreme Court] Par. 2: appellate jurisdiction Coverage: review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm • Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

This may be exercised pursuant to Rule 45 (mode of appeal) or • Rule 65 (Special Civil Action). Rule 45 is the remedy against an error of judgment while Rule 65 • is the remedy against an error of jurisdiction so that the grounds in Rule 45 and Rule 65 are different. Grounds of Rule 65 : • lack of jurisdiction • • excess of jurisdiction • grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction Jurisdiction of the CA over the subject matter This is now conferred by law, originally by BP 129, as amended by RA 7691 which is the prevailing law on the matter but only as far as CA, RTC, and MTC are concerned. As regards marriage and marital relations, read this in relation to RA 8369 because the Family Courts are separate and distinct from the Regional Trial Courts. Special Criminal Courts, Commercial Courts, Intellectual Property Courts, are mere creations of SC circulars; but the Family Court is a creation of law (RA 8369). Those which are under the jurisdiction of the Family Courts are no longer under the jurisdiction of the RTCs. The CA pursuant to RA 7691 has only one (1) exclusive original jurisdiction and that is annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts pursuant to Rule 47 (Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and Resolutions). All the rest, the CA exercises original concurrent jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter *refer to RA 7691 What is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation? It is a kind of action which is not determinable in terms of money. Even if ultimately, the reward will be money, that is only incidental to the action. Hence, it is still incapable of pecuniary estimation.

9 How do you determine whether an action is incapable of pecuniary estimation? You look at the prayer in the pleading. If the prayer is for money, it is capable of pecuniary estimation. If money is only incidental, it is incapable [of pecuniary estimation]. But there are some borderline cases relative thereto. Suppose the prayer uses the conjunctive “and” so that the prayer in the complaint is, defendant must finish the construction of my house AND pay me P150,000.00. Is it capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation? It is INCAPABLE because the payment is only incidental to finishing the house. If you change the word “and” to “or,” it is already capable of pecuniary estimation because there is already an option on the part of the defendant which is to finish the house or pay the stated amount. Therefore, the jurisdiction of that will depend on the amount claimed. Another subject matter are actions involving title to or possession of real properties where the assessed value of the property is more than P20,000.00 outside Metro Manila or P50,000.00 within Metro Manila. Take note of the word “assessed value,” because the value of the property may be zonal, it may be market value, but the word here is assessed value. Look at the determinant: “more than P20,000.00 or more than P50,000.00, as the case may be.” How about unlawful detainer and forcible entry? See the landmark case of Vda. de Barreira which actually changed the provision on assessed value and also the case of Malana v. Tappa. Vda. De Barreira: Unlawful detainer and forcible entry are exclusively cognizable by the MTC (Rule 70). But Rule 70 involves title or possession of property pursuant to RA 7691 so that the determinant is assessed value. This case speaks of accion publiciana which is not necessarily cognizable by the RTC. Another issue here is the settlement of estate which is now cognizable either by the RTC or the MTC, depending on the gross value of the estate which is above P300,000.00 or above

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

10 P400,000.00, as the case may be, whether outside Metro Manila or within Metro Manila, it is cognizable by the RTC. Lower than that, it is with the MTC. Admiralty cases follow the same jurisdictional amount: more than P300,000.00, more than P400,000.00, as the case may be.

2.

there is no trial: in lieu of trial is the submission of position papers, affidavits, depositions, and all other documents in support of your position; there is also no examination (direct, cross, etc.) that is why if you tie this up with Evidence, that is an exception to “offer” as a requirement for admissibility; hence, the general rule is that any evidence that is not offered is inadmissible and the exception is summary procedure because on the basis of position papers, etc., judgment can be rendered by the court

3.

there are prohibited pleadings: an example is a motion to dismiss except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and compliance with barangay conciliation procedure; there are about 13 prohibited pleadings (Sec. 19, Rules of Summary Procedure, p. 144, Riano); take note that “demurrer to evidence” is NOT a prohibited pleading even if it is a kind of a motion to dismiss

How about an action for a sum of money? The determinant is the principal amount: above P300,000.00 or above P400,000.00, as the case may be. Take note of the phrase “exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs.” Bar Question: The demand letter states, you owe me P250,000.00 plus interest of P100,000.00 plus damages of P50,000.00 plus attorney’s fees of P400,000.00. The debtor failed to comply so a case was filed stating in detail the breakdown thus mentioned. Where should the action be file? It should be filed with the RTC, because even if the principal amount is only P250,000.00 cognizable by the MTC, the action is already breach of contract which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. It would now be easy to distinguish the jurisdiction of the MTC from the RTC because if it involves money, you just look at the jurisdictional amount of P300,000.00 or P400,000.00, as the case may be. If it is P300,000.00 and below outside Metro Manila, it is with the MTC. If it is P400,000.00 and below within Metro Manila, it is with the MTC. Jurisdiction of the MTC over the subject matter The problem here is that the MTCs are governed by two (2) rules: the ordinary/regular rules of civil procedure and summary procedure. RULES OF SUMMARY PROCEDURE: 1. it is only applicable in the MTC: there is no summary procedure before the RTC; if ever you call it summary it is not under the rules on summary procedure but rather it is an ex parte presentation of evidence

note: jurisdiction over the issue is waivable; jurisdiction over the res is not even required; jurisdiction over the territory does not even apply 4.

the periods are shorter: the time to answer is only ten (10) days as against the regular procedure which is fifteen (15) days; the time to submit the case for decision is only thirty (30) days and the time to render judgment is thirty (30) days from submission -- in regular procedure, it is ninety (90) days from submission

What is the subject matter of summary procedure? The rule so provides: violation of traffic rules, violation of the rental law. Take note that in Metro Manila, any claim for money which does not exceed P200,000.00 is summary. Outside Metro Manila, when it does not exceed P100,000.00 it is likewise summary. There would be a confusion regarding summary procedure in the small claims suit. Under the small claims suit, it is also P100,000.00. Which then are you going to comply with or what are you going to avail of? There is no rule that gives this choice. But for purposes of the bar, if you are presented a problem where

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

the amount claimable is P100,000.00 and below, which are you going to apply? You will find that there are salient factors in point under the small claims suit that you do not find in summary procedure. An example is that lawyers are not allowed under the small claims suit. Therefore, if it is filed by counsel, that cannot be small claims. It has to be summary. Another point, you don’t file an Answer but instead, a Response. You don’t file a complaint but rather an application. Jurisdiction of the Family Courts over the subject matter The Family Courts, pursuant to RA 8369, what you have to remember that all cases involving marriage and marital relations are lodged exclusively with the Family Courts -- i.e., annulment of marriage, legal separation, custody of children, guardianship (special proceedings), these are all under Family Courts. What is a possible bar problem regarding the jurisdiction of Family Courts? It would be the parties. When any of the parties in a case is a minor, automatically it will be with the Family Court, even if it is the accused, or the private complainant, or the plaintiff, or the defendant, as long as it involves a minor, it will be with the Family Court. Note: VAWC (RA 9262) is also under jurisdiction of Family Courts. Habeas corpus, a special proceeding, is cognizable by the RTC. However, if it is habeas corpus in relation to guardianship and custody of children, it is the Family Court which has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the subject matter *PD 1606 In studying the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, you have to answer three (3) questions: 1) What offense was committed? 2) Who committed the offense? 3) How was the offense committed?

11 What offenses are under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan pursuant to RA 1606, as amended? 1) RA 3019 - Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act 2) RA 1379 - Ill Gotten Wealth Law 3) RPC, Bribery 4) EOs 1, 2, 14, 14-A (PCGG cases) 5) added by jurisprudence (read Hannah Serana v. Sandiganbayan*): • Estafa • Falsification *G.R. No. 162059, 22 January 2008 Hannah Serrana amended the rule of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Read also Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia v. Sandiganbayan (not in the outline). Who committed the offense? It must be a public officer with Salary Grade 27. In identifying who these officers are, you refer to the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 which is cited in the case of Hannah Serana. See also the case of Escobal v. Garchitorena where the case was dismissed because the petitioner is a Police Senior Inspector, with salary grade "23." How was the offense committed? It must have been committed in relation to one’s office. These principles have been amended or modified by the Hannah Serana. Hannah Serana v. Sandiganbayan: Hannah Serana was a student of UPCebu and she made it to the membership to the Board of Regents. As a representative of the student body, she started soliciting money for the renovation of the Vinzons Hall of UP Diliman. She was able to solicit, in millions, from then President Joseph Estrada. She promised that after the renovation, they are going to change the name to Joseph Estrada Hall. However, nothing happened on the renovation and so when her term ended, the succeeding student body reported her and filed a case

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

before the Office of the Ombudsman for Estafa and said office filed it with the Sandiganbayan. Serana filed an MTD on the ground that estafa is not among the cases cognizable by the Sandiganyan and even if it is so, she is not a public officer; and even if she were a public officer, she is not from Salary Grade 27; and even if she does, she did not commit the alleged crime in relation to her office. The Supreme Court decided this way: estafa having been committed, is now part of the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, if committed by a public officer. Serana, being a member of the Board of Regents, performs public functions. Since UP is a state university, she is considered similar to presidents, directors of government-owned and controlled corporations. These officers are not salary graded, yet if they commit those offenses, it is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. Finally, in relation to one’s office, this means that the public office must be an ingredient of the offense. As long as the public function facilitated the commission of the crime, such person falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. This case amended the doctrine laid down in Exec. Sec. v. Lacson which is the kuratong baleleng case -- a landmark case in Criminal Procedure, together with the case of Sanchez v. Demetrio. In Sanchez, the accused argues that he should be tried before the Sandiganbayan which was rejected because one does not need to be a mayor to commit the crime of rape. In Lacson, Lacson questioned the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan pursuant to RA 7975 which is the law prevailing at the time. According to Lacson, said law provides that if any of the principal accused has Salary Grade 27 but in the Kuratong Baleleng case, not one of the principal accused has Salary Grade 27. Therefore, he claimed that he should be charged before the regular courts. At the time, however, Congress was trying to pass another law to amend RA 7975 which is now RA 8249. In that law, Congress simply removed the word “principal” thus covering all public officers with Salary Grade 27. The Supreme Court denied Lacson’s arguments. However, Lacson was tried before the regular courts because of the third requirement. The Supreme

12 Court said that in relation to one’s office, Lacson did not commit the crime. Other Kinds of Jurisdiction What is primary jurisdiction? Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially when the question demands the sound exercise of administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. The court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction of which is initially lodged with the administrative body of special competence. (Riano) This doctrine was first laid down in the case of Omictin v. CA. It means the jurisdiction of administrative bodies in compliance with the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Examples: If it is a case between a subdivision owner and a developer, the • primary jurisdiction is with the HLURB. If it is a case of a tenant and a landlord, the jurisdiction is with • the DARAB. If it is between the construction company and a subcontractor, • the jurisdiction is with the CIIC (Construction Industry). If it’s about squatters, you can bring it before the COSLAP. • This is the exercise of primary jurisdiction. But this concept has been somehow changed. When you speak of jurisdiction, we simply deal with courts. But this time, the jurisdiction using the word “primary” is now the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Remember that the Ombudsman is not part of the Judicial Branch of the government but is a constitutionally-created body. Neither is the DOJ which is under the Office of the President. At any rate, these two entities came up with a MoA which provides, among others, that in cases involving public

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

officers cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, preliminary investigation must be conducted by the Ombudsman in the exercise of primary jurisdiction so that even if the case is already under investigation by the DOJ, the Office of the Ombudsman can take it from the DOJ and continue the investigation. What is delegated jurisdiction? It is the jurisdiction of the MTC in taking cognizance of land registration and cadastral cases when the subject property is assessed at more than P100,000.00 and there are no oppositors. When the MTC rendered a cadastral judgment, where should you appeal? It is to the Court of Appeals and not to the RTC. This is exceptional and the only instance when a judgment of the MTC goes on appeal to the CA and not to the RTC. The regular jurisdiction of land registration and cadastral cases is the RTC, but if it is delegated to the MTC, that is what you call delegated jurisdiction and an appeal therefrom is to the CA and not to the RTC. What is a special jurisdiction? It is the jurisdiction of the MTC in taking cognizance of bail applications and writ of habeas corpus. In the absence of RTC judges. How about limited jurisdiction? Limited jurisdiction is actually a misnomer because courts are really used in a very limited sense. Example, the probate court exercises limited jurisdiction. This means that even if it is a petition for allowance/disallowance of a will, it will be filed with the RTC and the RTC exercises limited jurisdiction which is only to discuss the authenticity and due execution of the will. But you know from your special proceeding that after the allowance/disallowance of the will, the settlement of estate is not over. It has just started. Hence, this does not mean that you have to file another case because the same probate courts resolves the matter. Another example will be unlawful detainer or forcible entry. You only entertain

13 the issue of possession and never ownership. But again there is an exception under Sec. 16, Rule 70. What is residual jurisdiction? It is the jurisdiction of the trial court in taking cognizance of a case even after it has lost jurisdiction over the subject matter. This is why it is called “residual” because it remains with the trial court. Do not confuse this with residual prerogative. Read the case of Katon v. Palanca where the Supreme Court discussed the latter principle. What is residual prerogative? Under the Katon case, it is the authority of the appellate court in dismissing a case motu proprio on the ground of that provided under Sec. 1, Rule 9 (defenses and objections not pleaded: lack of jurisdiction, res judicata, litis pendentia, and prescription). The basic distinction between residual jurisdiction and residual prerogatives: The first is with the trial court while the second is with the appellate court. When does a court lose jurisdiction over the subject matter? It is only after expiration of the period to appeal, file a motion for reconsideration, or file a motion for a new trial. Before that, it has still jurisdiction. Refer to Sec. 9, Rule 41. Section 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — A party's appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time. A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time. In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015

In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the appeal of the other parties. In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal. There are two (2) issues under this provision. 1) perfection of appeal 2) loss of jurisdiction over the subject matter

14 When does the court lose jurisdiction over the subject matter? It is after January 30, because the last person (defendant Z) who may appeal has until that date. Hence, the expiration of the period of appeal is after January 30 because the defendants received the copy of the judgment on different days. When the court loses jurisdiction over the subject matter, it can still entertain certain matters in the exercise of residual jurisdiction. An example is a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. This is filed with the trial court, provided, under jurisprudence, the records of the case have not been transmitted to the appellate court. Once they are transmitted [to the appellate court], said motion becomes an execution pending appeal under Sec. 2, Rule 39 which is no longer an exercise of residual jurisdiction.

In perfection of appeal, Sec. 9 provides that the trial court loses jurisdiction over the subject matter upon expiration of the period to appeal. But perfection appeal is upon the filing of a notice of appeal. Illustration: If A files a case against X, Y. and Z. Judgment was rendered in favor of A. The defendants (X, Y, and Z) received a copy of the judgment on January 5, 10, and 15, respectively. When may each defendant appeal? X may appeal up to January 20 (15 days from receipt). In the case of Y, he has to appeal that up to January 25. Z, on the other hand, has until January 30 within which to appeal. If upon receipt on January 5 by X, he files a notice of appeal on January 8. When is appeal perfected? The answer is in Sec. 9, Rule 41. Appeal is perfected as to X, on January 8 when he filed the notice of appeal. When is appeal perfected as to Y and Z? It will never be perfected because they never filed a notice of appeal. Hence, it is only perfected as to X upon filing thereof.

Remedial Law Review | Atty. Brondial | A.Y. 2014-2015