Jurisdiction Part 1

Jurisdiction Part 1

What is jurisdiction?

• It is the power and authority of a court to try, hear, and decide a case and to carry its judgments into effect (Latin: “juris” and “dico,” which literally means “I speak of the law”).

Jurisdiction - has

been referred to as the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case - Includes authority of the court to execute its decisions

Jurisdiction, not a power of the judge

- it is the court, not the judge, which by law, is vested with jurisdiction.

- it

is the authority of the court to decide a case, and not the decision rendered.

Test of jurisdiction - Whether the court has the power to enter into the inquiry and not whether the decision is right or wrong.

Traditional jurisprudence - Recognizes that the question, therefore, of whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, calls for interpretation and application of the law on jurisdiction.

Aspects of Jurisdiction a. jurisdiction over the subject matter b . jurisdiction over the parties c. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case; and d. Jurisdiction over the res or thing involved in the litigation

Jurisdiction over subject matter - referred to as the power of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it. - also refers to the jurisdiction of the court over the class of cases to which a particular case belongs.

Duty of a court to dismiss an action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter

1. Look 2.

into the applicable laws on jurisdiction. Under ROC , to dismiss an action whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Duty of a court to dismiss an action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter 3. Address question of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Effect of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter GR: Proceedings conducted or decisions made by a court are legally void (absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter). - Even the court is in good faith

Distinguish jurisdiction from exercise of jurisdiction Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and decide cases. On the other hand, exercise of jurisdiction is any act of the court pursuant to such authority, which includes making decisions.

ERROR OF JURISDICTION vs. ERROR OF JUDGMENT Error of Jurisdiction Error of Judgment 1. One where the court, officer or quasi-judicial body acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion

1. One that the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction; it includes errors of procedure or mistakes in the court’s findings

ERROR OF JURISDICTION vs. ERROR OF JUDGMENT 2. Renders a judgment 2. Does not make the void or at least voidable court’s decision void 3. Correctible by certiorari

3. Correctible by appeal

ERROR OF JURISDICTION vs. ERROR OF JUDGMENT 4. There is an exercise 4. The court acted with of jurisdiction in the jurisdiction but absence of jurisdiction committed procedural errors in the appreciation of the facts or the law

How jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred - Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law which may be either the Constitution or a statute

Instances in which jurisdiction cannot be conferred 1.By the administrative policy of any court; 2. A court’s unilateral assumption of jurisdiction; 3.An erroneous belief by the court that it has jurisdiction;

4.By the parties through a stipulation e.g. contract;

Instances in which jurisdiction cannot be conferred 5. The agreement of the parties acquired through, or waived, enlarged or diminished by, any act or omission of the parties; 6. Parties silence, acquiescence or consent

The defenses and the evidence do not determine jurisdiction -Jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon

the defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss or in a motion for reconsideration. - It is determined by the allegations in the complaint and is not affected by the pleas or theories set

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

- a remedy within the administrative machinery must be resorted to give the administrative officers every opportunity to decide a matter within his jurisdiction. Such remedy must be exhausted first before the court’s power of judicial review can be sought

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

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies and doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only when the administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function .

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

a.where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;

b. where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;

c. where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction complainant;

d. where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; e. where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction justice;

f. where judicial intervention is urgent; g. when its application may cause great and irreparable damage; h. where the controverted acts violate due process;

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

i.

when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;

j.

when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;

k.

when strong public interest is involved;

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction l. In quo warranto proceedings.

DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE TO JURISDICTION Jurisdiction, once attached, cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, and the court retains jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.

DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE TO JURISDICTION Exceptions:

1. Where a subsequent statute expressly prohibits the continued exercise of jurisdiction;

2. 2. Where the law penalizing an act which is punishable is repealed by a subsequent law;

DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE TO JURISDICTION 3. When accused is deprived of his constitutional right such as where the court fails to provide counsel for the accused who is unable to obtain one and does not intelligently waive his constitutional right;

DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE TO JURISDICTION 4. Where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactment; 5. When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned or declared void;

DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION

6. Once appeal has been perfected; 7. Curative statutes

Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction - refers to the authority of an office or tribunal to do all things necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction, and for the enforcement of its judgement and mandate.

Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction - refers to the power to every court to adopt such means and perform such acts necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect.

DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY The doctrine of judicial stability provides that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders. Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another RTC. The principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court

DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review.

General Rule: No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction or to pass upon or scrutinize and much less declare as unjust a judgment of another court.

Exception: The doctrine does not apply where a third party claimant is involved.

EFFECT OF ESTOPPEL ON OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION The active participation of a party in a case is tantamount to recognition of that court’s jurisdiction and will bar a party from impugning the court’s jurisdiction. This only applies to exceptional circumstances.

OMNIBUS MOTION RULE - an Omnibus motion is a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgement, or proceeding. A motion to dismiss, by seeking for the dismissal of a claim, definitely attacks a pleading. Undoubtedly, therefore, a motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion under Sec. 8 of Rule 15.