• Uploaded by: Joanna Marie
  • 0
  • 0
  • March 2021
  • PDF

This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA


Download & View Jurisdiction as PDF for free.

More details

  • Words: 17,208
  • Pages: 21
Loading documents preview...
JURISDICTION Meaning: is the power and authority of the court (not of the judge) to hear, try and decide a case (Cuenca vs. PCGG, 535 SCRA 102, 114)  Also referred to as the power or capacity given by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain, hear, and determine certain controversies. (De la Cruz vs. CA, 510 SCRA 103,104) 

Jurisprudence considers jurisdiction as not only the authority of the court to render the judgment or decree it assumes to make (decide and execute judgment)

Note: When by law, jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by the law or by the rules, any suitable process or mode of the proceeding may be adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of the law or rules. (Echagaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96) A. Classification of Jurisdiction 1. Original vs. Appellate Original Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction Jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case at its inception, try it It has the power to review over the decision or orders of the and pass upon judgment upon the law and facts lower court Case is originally filed with it. CA- review the decision of RTC and specified quasi-judicial (MTC, MeTC, MCTC) bodies RTC- for cases involving petition for writ of amparo or a petition for a writ of habeas data CA- issuance of writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, annulment of judgement of RTC, petition for writ of amparo or petition for a writ of habeas data SB, SC RTC- petition for writs 2. General vs. Special General Jurisdiction Those with competence to decide on their own jurisdiction and take cognizance of all cases, civil and criminal, of a particular nature Has competence to exercise jurisdiction over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person, or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function (RTC) 3. Exclusive vs. Concurrent Exclusive Precludes the idea of co-existence and refers to the jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion of others (Cubero vs. Laguna West Multi-purpose Cooperatives, Inc. 509 SCRA 410, 416)

Special Jurisdiction Jurisdiction for a particular purpose or are clothed with special power for performance of specified duties beyond which they have no authority of any kind

A court may be conferred both original and exclusive jurisdiction over a particular case: MTC- has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer (B.P 129, Sec. 33[2], as amended)

Concurrent “coordinate jurisdiction”- the power of different courts to take cognizance of the same subject matter; the court first taking cognizance of the case assumed to the exclusion of the other courts. SC- concurrent original jurisdiction with RTC in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls (Art. VIII, Sec. 5. 1987 Philippine Constitution; B.P 129, Section 21[2], as amended)

RTC- has exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the subject matter of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation (B.P 129, Sec. 19[1], as amended)

SC- with CA in petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the RTC (Art. VIII, Sec.5; B.P 129, Sec. 9[1])

CA- has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgement of RTC (B.P. 129, Section 9[2], as amended)

SC- with CA and RTC in petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts and bodies and in petitions for quo warranto and habeas corpus (Art. VII, Sec.5; P.B. 129, Sec. 21[1])

NOTE: The concurrent jurisdiction among courts of different ranks is subject to the DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS. While SC has the concurrent jurisdiction, its issuance of writs in the petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction must be exercised only in special and important reasons, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. MEANS: The petition must be filed first with the court of lowest rank unless there are special countervailing reasons justifying its filing in the first instance with the higher court.  TEST OF JURISDICTION The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the court has the power to enter into the inquiry and not whether the decision is right or wrong. (Herrera vs. Baretto, 25 Phil. 254)  If it calls for a matter of interpretation and application of the law on jurisdiction which distributes the judicial power among the different courts in the Philippines. (Reyes vs. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484) Notes: When it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint filed before it, the court had the duty to dismiss the claim and can do so moto proprio (even without motion by the parties) Foreign jurisdictions with rules substantially similar to ours have declared that a court having jurisdiction over a case has not only the right, power, or the authority but also has the duty to exercise that jurisdiction and render a decision in a case properly submitted to it.


JURISDICTION GR: A court cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction merely on the ground of the motive or ulterior purpose of the plaintiff, failure to adjudicate the same may be a ground for reversal on appeal. Its duty to exercise jurisdiction may be enforced by way of MANDAMUS proceeding. XP: The general principle that a court which has jurisdiction over the case is bound to exercise jurisdiction over a case without qualification. Thus, a court having jurisdiction over a case may in its discretion decline to exercise it as where the doctrine of FORUM NON CONVENIENS is applicable, the controversy between parties is concerned only with a trifle, or an abuse of legal process is inherent in the case.  B.


In general, proceedings conducted or decisions made by a court are legally void in absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Even if the court believes in good faith that the subject matter is within its jurisdiction. In effect, it should dismiss the case. the court without jurisdiction may set aside its orders it had improperly made and may vacate at any time. It may be subject to collateral attack, if the jurisdictional defect appears on the face of the record. If so, the appellate court may dismiss, on its own initiative.

Doctrines of Hierarchy of Courts and Continuity of Jurisdiction

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION (Primary Administrative 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 the technical and intricate matters of fact. The court cannot arrogate itself the authority to resolve the controversy which the jurisdiction is initially lodged with the administrative body of special competence. (BF

Homes, Inc. Manila Electric Company, 636 SCRA 495)

If the determination requires the expertise, specialized training, and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the court is had even if the matter may well be within the latter’s proper jurisdiction. (Nestle Philippines Inc., v. Uniwide Sales Sales, Inc., 634 SCRA 232)


o OBJECTIVE OF THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION Guide the court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some questions or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court.

(Nestle Philippines Inc., v. Uniwide Sales Sales, Inc., 634 SCRA 232) EXAMPLES:

Commission on Audit- has primary jurisdiction over cases involving money claims against the government and its instrumentalities  MWSS- evaluate and decide which bid for waterworks project was compatible with its development  CSC- handles cases involving employment status of employees within its field of expertise  DARAB- agrarian dispute over payment of back rentals under leasehold contract.  DAR- Has primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, with exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform EXCEPT those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of DENR. (Cubero vs. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperatives, Inc. 509 SCRA 410) NOTE: Quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined in specific matters are generally accorded not only respect, but also finality, especially when affirmed by CA. (Shinryo[Philippines] Company Inc., v. RRN Inc., 634 SCRA 123) 

EXCEPTION TO THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISCIDTION 1. Estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; 2. Challenged administrative act is patently illegal; 3. Unreasonable delay or official inaction what will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; 4. Amount involved is relatively small; 5. Question is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by courts of justice; 6. Judicial intervention is urgent; 7. Cause great and irreparable damage; 8. Controverted acts violate the due process; 9. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; 10. No other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; 11. Strong public interest is involved; and 12. Quo warranto proceedings. (Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development Corporation, G. R No.

197592 and 292623, November 27, 2013)

DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE TO JURISDICTION (CONTINUITY OF JURISDICTION)- once the jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes the case . (Padlan vs. Dinglasan, 694 SCRA 91) if the court has jurisdiction to act on a motion at the time it was filed, that jurisdiction to resolve the motion continues until the matter is resolved and is not lost by the subsequent filing of notice of appeal. (Asmala vs. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 79) jurisdiction is also not lost by the mere fact that the judge ceased to be in office during the pendency of the case (Victory Liner

v. Belosillo, 425 SCRA 79)


court does not cease to have jurisdiction over the defendant by the mere fact that defendant ceased to be in office during the pendency of the case. (Flores vs. Sumaljag, 290 SCRA 568)



Resignation/ retirement does not affect the jurisdiction of the court in administrative case, as jurisdiction is acquired upon filing of the complaint, it continues until the case is terminated (Basilio vs. Dinio, 634 SCRA 516) What the court loses is the power to amend, modift, or later the judgment. Even if the judgment has become final, the cpurt retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it. (Echagaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA



The doctrine also applies to criminal cases.  Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted from the case by any subsequent events, such as new legislation placing such proceeding under the jurisdiction of another tribunal. EXCEPT:  There is an express provision in the statute; or  The statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment. (People vs. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267) Note: As a general rule, the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court. (Cang

vs. CA, 296 SCRA 128)


the earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to dismiss filed before the filing of the answer because of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, a ground for a motion to dismiss. (Rule 16, Sec. 1[b])  If no motion to dismiss is filed, the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised as an affirmative defense in the answer. (Rule


Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. (Calimlim vs. Ramirez,


When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the claim. (Rule 9, Sec.1) Even if lack of jurisdiction was only raised by defendants in their memorandum filed before the court, did not render them estopped. (Geonzon Vda. De Barrera v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi, 565 SCRA 192) If the court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, its only authority is to dismiss the case and not to do or make any other order (not refer or forward the case to the court of proper jurisdiction) (BAR 2004)

16, Sec. 6)

o o C.

118 SCRA 399)

Jurisdiction of various Philippine Courts (refer to the notes as supplement) **** 1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court i. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction (CPM) o Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus against:  CA  COMELEC  Commission on Audit  SB  CTA ii. Concurrent Original Jurisdiction o Petitions for CPM against:  RTC  CSC  Central Board of Assessment Appeals  NLRC  Other Quasi-judicial agencies o Note: this jurisdiction is subject to the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts o Concurrent original jurisdiction with CA and RTC on petitions for CPM and in HC and QW o Concurrent original jurisdiction with RTC in cases involving ambassadors, consuls, and public ministers iii. Appellate jurisdiction o By way of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 against:  CA On pure questions of law; constitutionality or validity of law or  SB treaty, international or executive agreement, PD, proclamation,  RTC order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation, legality of tax, impost,  CTA en banc Notes: GR: Supreme court is not a trier of facts which

assessment, toll or penalty, jurisdiction of lower courts.

means the passing upon of factual issue is not within province of the Supreme Court. 1. The findings of the facts by CA is not generally reviewable to SC. (Sarmiento vs. Castro, 490 SCRA 160) 2. The factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by CA, are generally binding on the SC. (Tan vs. GVT Engineering Services, 498 SCRA 93, BAR 2013) 3. Settled in this jurisdiction than the rule that the SC is not a trier of facts and only questions of law may be entertained by the Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Questions of fact are not reviewable. XP:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.


Findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; Inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; There is a grave abuse of discretion; Judgment is based on the misapprehension of facts; Findings of facts are conflicting; In making its findings, CA went beyond the issue of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties; Findings are contrary to those of the trial court;

JURISDICTION 8. 9. 10. 11. 

Findings are conclusions without citations of specific evidence on which they are based; Facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; Findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by evidence on record; and CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which if properly considered, could justify a different conclusion. (Republic vs. Bellate, G.R No. 175685, August 7, 2013)

Original cases cognizable by the SC; As a rule, the SC is not a trier of facts and cases are not filed originally with the SC. However, subject to certain exceptions: 1. Petition for certiorari; Procedure in original cases for C, P, M, Q, 2. Petition for prohibition; HC shall be in accordance with the 3. Petition for mandamus; following: (can be also applied to appealed 4. Petition for quo warranto; cases to CA) 5. Petition for habeas corpus; 1. Applicable provisions of the 6. Disciplinary action against members of the judiciary and attorneys; and Constitution; 7. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. (Rule 56, Sec. 1) 2. Applicable provisions of law; Also: and 1. Petition for a writ of amparo; and 3. Provisions of Rule 46, 48, 49, 51 2. Petition for writ of habeas data. and 52 (Rule 56, Sec. 2) Notes:

Rule 46- rules on SC Rule 48- preliminary conference Rule 49- rule on oral arguments Rule 51- provisions on judgment Rule 52- rules on MR of judgment or final orders of the Court a. Sec. 1, Rule 52- the motion shall be filed within 15 days from the notice of judgment or final resolution b. Sec. 4, Rule 52- pendency of a motion o reconsideration shall have the effect of staying the execution of the judgment or final resolution sought to be reconsidered, UNLESS the court otherwise directs for good reasons. c. Sec.2, Rule 52- expressly prohibits a second motion for reconsideration by the same party. “No second

motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained”.

APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT 1. Appeal to SC may be taken ONLY by a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45), EXCEPT in criminal cases (where the penalty imposed is D, RP, or LI) (Rule 56, Sec. 3) 2. The appeal is made by filing a verified petition for review on certiorari and shall raise ONLY purely questions of law. a. If the petition for review is taken to SC from RTC submitting issues of fact, the appeal may be referred to CA for the decision or appropriate action. The determination of SC, on whether or not the issues of fact are involved shall be final. DECISIONS: Supreme Court en banc 1. Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution: 1. Cases involving constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law (Art. VIII, Sec. 2.


All cases which, under ROC are required to be heard en banc (ibid); 3. All cases involving constitutionality, application or operation of PD, proclamation orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations(ibid); 4. Cases heard by division when the required number in the division is not obtained (Art. VIII, Sec. 4[3]); 5. Cases involving modifications or reversal of a doctrine or principle of law laid down previously by SC in a decision rendered en banc or by division (ibid); 6. Cases involving discipline of judges (Art. VIII, Section 11) 7. Contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice- President. (Art.

VII, Section 4[last par.])


PROCEDURE WHEN THE SC en Banc IS EQUALLY DIVIDED (BAR 2012) o Where the opinion of the SC en banc is equally divided, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall then be redeliberated. If after such deliberation, there is no decision reached:  The original action commenced shall be DISMISSED.  On appealed cases, the judgment or the order appealed from shall stand AFFIRMED.  On all incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be DENIED.

Jurisdiction of CA  CA may ONLY sit en banc for purpose of exercising administrative, ceremonial, or other NON-ADJUDICATORY FUNCTION.  CA shall exercise jurisdiction over the following cases:  Exclusive original jurisdiction in actions for annulment of judgment of RTC (BP 129, Sec. 4, as amended)  Concurrent and original jurisdiction with SC to issue writs of 1. Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against: a. RTC


JURISDICTION b. c. d. e.

CSC Central Board of Assessment Appeals Other quasi-judicial bodies under Rule 43 NLRC (St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, 295 SCRA 494)  Following the doctrine of hierarchy of court, the petition for certiorari against NLRC must be filed first to CA.  Concurrent and Original jurisdiction with the SC and RTC to issue writs of C, P, and M, QW, and HC against lower courts and bodies. (BAR 2011) 1. Before, the issuance of writs by CA are only aid of its appellate jurisdiction. 2. NOW, under the law the original jurisdiction of CA to issue writs of M, P, C, HC, and QW, ad auxiliary writs or processes may be exercised whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (B.P 129, Sec. 9[1], as amended)  Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of ordinary appeal from the judgment of RTC and Family Courts. (Sec. 9[3], BP 129, as amended)  Exclusive Appellate jurisdiction by way of verified petition for review from the judgment of RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. (B.P 129, Sec.22, 9, as amended; Rule 42)  Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way or petition for review from the decision of the Civil Service Commission, and other bodies mentioned under Rule 43 (CTA, Quasi-judicial agencies like Office of the Ombudsman) (Section 9[3], B.P 129, as amended) NOTE: The decisions of CTA (en banc) are now not appealable by way of petition for review to CA but to SC by way of Rule 45 (Sec. 11, R.A 9282)  Basically, the CA is not actually a trial court, under the law, it has the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence, and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues in cases not only falling within its original jurisdiction but also in cases falling within its appellate jurisdiction. It includes power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. (Prince Transport Inc. v. Garcia, 639 SCRA 312)  It can pass upon evidence of factual issues as when a petition for certiorari if filed before it, or petition for writ of amparo or habeas data or, in case of actions to annul the judgment of the RTC over which the CA has original jurisdiction. (BAR 2008) 3.

Jurisdiction of CTA  Aside to its jurisdiction over certain criminal offenses, under R.A. 9282, the CTA shall exercise: 1. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction to review by APPEAL: a. Decisions of CIR involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under NIRC or other law administered by BIR; b. Inaction of CIR in cases involving above, and provide specific period of action, in which inaction shall be deemed denial; c. Decisions, resolutions, or orders of RTC in local tax cases originally decided or resolved in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction; d. Decisions of Commission 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 in relation thereto, or other matters arising under Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs; e. Decisions of Central Board of Assessment Appeals, in its appellate jurisdiction, over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals; f. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code; g. Decisions pf Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of non-agricultural product, commodity or article, and Secretary of Agriculture in the case of Agricultural products, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under Secs. 301 and 302 of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under R.A. 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not impose said duties.  Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over: 1. Tax collection cases which are final and executory assessments, taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties. NOTE: penalties and charges less than 1M shall be tried by the proper MTC, MeTC, and RTC.  Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction over: 1. Tax collection cases over appeals from the judgment, resolution or orders of RTC in tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction. 2. Over petitions for review on judgments, resolutions or orders of RTC in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by MeTC, MTC, and MCTC.


Jurisdiction of MTC i. Jurisdictional amount o Jurisdictional amount- value of personal property, estate, or amount of the demand involved in the civil action or proceedings (Sec. 33[1], B.P 129, as amended; Cabrera vs, Francisco, G.R No. 172293, August 28, 2013)



Jurisdiction of the MTC was set at an amount not exceeding to 300k outside MM, and 400k in MM. (as its exclusive original jurisdiction) When the valued exceeds the amount mentioned above, the jurisdiction now falls under the RTC (exclusive original jurisdiction) (Sec. 19[8], B.P 129)

The jurisdictional amount does not include the following: (C-L-A-I-D) 1. Interest; UNLESS: agreed, or interest is the primary and inseparable component of the cause of action, not merely incidental thereto, and already determinable at the time of filing the complaint, it must be included in determination of which court has jurisdiction. 2. Damages (of whatever kind);  Administrative Circular no. 09-94, this applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or in consequence of the main cause of action.  Damages is included in determining jurisdiction when it is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action. 1. Attorney’s fees; 2. Litigation expenses; and 3. Costs. (B.P 129, Sec.33[1; Cabrera vs, Francisco, G.R No. 172293, August 28, 2013]) Note: although it is not included in determining jurisdiction, they shall be included in determining the filing fees (Sec.33[1], B.P 129)


Totality rule; basis of assessed value o TOTALITY RULE- a rule where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of same or different issues.  this presupposes that the various claims of the same or different parties are allowed to be embodied in the same complaint, or different causes of action are joined in favor of the same plaintiff and against the same defendants, and no misjoinder of parties. (applicable to permissive joinder of parties) iii. Cases involving personal property o MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions where the value of the personal property in controversy does not exceed 300k (outside MM), or does not exceed 400k (within MM). Otherwise, RTC has jurisdiction over the case. iv. Probate proceeding o MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over probate proceedings, testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate does not exceed 300k (outside MM) or 400k (within MM). Otherwise, RTC had jurisdiction over the case. v. Granting provisional remedy o MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction to grant provisional remedies in proper cases. Provided, MTC has jurisdiction over the principal cause of action. vi. Delegated jurisdiction o MTC has delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases when there is no opposition, or contested lots value does not exceed to 100k, as may be delegated by the SC. o the value of the lots shall be ascertained by the: a. affidavit of the claimant; or b. agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one; or c. from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property tax. (B.P 129, Sec. 34, as amended by R.A 7691)  Decisions of the MTC under delegated jurisdiction (deemed to be acting as RTC) shall be appealable to CA.  AS A RULE, cadastral and land registration cases is under the jurisdiction of RTC which the land sought to be registered was situated. UNLESS, the SC shall delegate such power to MTC, MeTC, and MCTC under certain circumstances. (Dumaguete v PPA, 656 SCRA 102) vii. Special Jurisdiction o hear and decide petition for writ of habeas corpus, in the absence of RTC judges in the province or city. o Hear and decide applications for bail on criminal cases in the province or city in the absence of RTC judges. (B.P 129, Sec. 35; BAR 2012) viii. Summary procedure, small money claims o MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over cases falling under Rules on Summary Procedure and Rules of Procedure for Small Money Claims. (Sec. 2, A.M. No. 08-8-07-SC) ix. Actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer o MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over ejectment cases involving forcible entry and unlawful detainer. (known as accion interdictal) o In FE and UD, the only issue that must be resolved is the physical and material possession of the property, that is, possession de facto and not possession de jure. (Garcia v. Zosa, 469 SCRA 334)  In this case, the Court holds that “all ejectment cases are within the jurisdiction of the

courts mentioned in B.P 129, Sec. 33, as amended, regardless of whether or not said cases involve questions of ownership or even if the issue of possession cannot have determined without resolving the question of ownership.”


JURISDICTION when the defendant in unlawful detainer case or forcible entry raises the question of ownership, the court cannot resolve without deciding the issue of ownership, but only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession (Sec. 33[2], B.P 129)  MTC are clothed with power to preliminarily resolve the question on the ownership of the real property, if necessary, to arrive at the proper and complete determination of the question on physical possession or possession de facto. (Manila Electric Company v. Heirs of Spouses Deloy, G.R. No. 192893, June 5, 2013)  The adjudication made in an ejectment case regarding the issue on ownership must only be provisional, and therefore would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving the title to the land. (Spouses SIlverio v. Spouses Marcelo, G.R. No. 184079, April 17, 2013) Real actions other that forcible entry o MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does NOT exceed to 20k (outside MM) or not exceeding 50k (within MM).  Exclusive of: CLAID.  In cases of land not declared for tax purposes, value of such property shall be assessed based on the assessed value of adjacent lots (BAR 2008; Sec. 3 R.A. 7691)  ASSESSED VALUE- FMV of the real property multiplied by the assessment level (taxable value)  FMV- the price of which the property may be sold by a seller, who is not compelled to sell, and bought by a buyer, who is not compelled to buy. (Hilario v. Salvador, 457 SCRA 815)  Excluding real actions of FE and UD which MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction REGARDLESS OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. o Under R.A. 7691, a distinction must be made between those properties the assessed value which does not exceed 20k (outside MM) or not exceeding 50k (within MM), an accion publiciana should be filed to MTC. If the assessed value exceeds to the amounts mentioned, RTC has jurisdiction.  Accion publiciana- ordinary civil proceeding to determine better right or possession of a realty independent of the title; ejectment suit where the cause of dispossession of the property is NOT among the grounds of FE and UD, or when possession has been lost for more than 1 year. o Its objective is to recover possession only, not ownership. (Modesto v. Urbina, 633 SCRA 383)  However, if the parties raise the issue on ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties has the right to possess the property. This is provisional, not final and binding determination of the issue on ownership; it is only for purpose of resolving the issue of possession. o In accion reinvindicatoria- a suit which has for its object the recovery of possession over the property as an owner. It is the recovery of ownership and possession based on the said ownership. o In determining the jurisdictional element of accion reinvindicatoria, R.A. 7691 provides that it is the assessed value of the property. Not exceeding 20k when outside MM or not exceeding 50k if within MM. The assessed value is based on the tax rolls in the municipality or city where the property is located contained in the tax declaration.  It is elementary rule that, the tax declaration enjoys presumption of regularity as it has been issued by the proper government agency. (Hilario v. Salvador, 457 SCRA 815) All civil actions which involve title to, possession of real property, or any interest thereof wherein the assessed value does not exceed 20k or 50k exclusive of CLAID falls under the jurisdiction of MTC.  Thus, reconveyance, cancellation of title, or quieting of title is not capable of pecuniary estimation but is a real action, recovery of ownership, which falls under the classification of a case that involve title to, possession or, real property, or any interest thereof, he assessed value of the property must be the basis of jurisdiction. Note: XP: action for quieting of title filed to prevent cloud to obtained declaration of his rights, is a form of declaratory relief, which falls under the jurisdiction of RTC under Rule 63. What is considered is the allegations in the complaint and the relief sought by the party. Where in a case, the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property, it should be files in the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof. ( Spouses Huguete v. Spouses Embudo, 405 SCRA 273)  The rule requires that the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant. Title- the claim, right or interest in the real property; gives the owner right to demand or be issued with cert. of title; although cert of title may have been lost, burned, or destroyed and later on reconstituted title subsist and remain UNLESS transferred or conveyed to another person subject to lien or encumbrances. (Heirs of Sebe v. Heirs of Sevilla, 603 SCRA 395) Certificate of title- document of ownership issued under the Torrens system of registration issued by the government through RD; evidence of claim or right; the holder of cert. of title does not necessarily possess a valid title over the property, no better right or title than what he actually has in law. 




Jurisdiction over an appeal from judgment of MTC o Decisions of the MTC shall be appealable to RTC. (Sec.22 and 38, B.P. 129)

Jurisdiction of RTC i. Exclusive original jurisdiction  Under Sec.19 of B.P.129: 1. All cases in which the subject of the litigation in incapable of pecuniary estimation (cannot be equated to a sum of money);  The nature of the action is not determined by what is state din the caption of the complaint but by the allegation of the complaint and the relief prayed for. The ultimate objective of the complaint must be inquired into.  E.g. o money claims are incidental to the main action; or o relief other than recovery of sum of money; o expropriation suit; o action seeking to annul the resolution of GOCC; o action for annulment of extrajudicial foreclosure; o partition of real property or determination of hereditary rights; o action for specific performance o action for specific performance AND damages o action for a writ of injunction o support o questioning the validity of mortgage o annulling a deed of sale and to recover the price paid o rescission (Russel v. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738) 

  

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Note: the amount of damages that may be claimed in addition to the specific performance is not determinative of jurisdiction o E.g. specific performance AND damages amounting to 200k.; and action for replevin is capable of pecuniary estimation as the amount is based on the value of the personal property While demand in alternative like action to compel the defendant to deliver the house OR to pay sum of money amounting to 1M, is an action which is capable of pecuniary estimation (Cruz v. Tan, 87 Phil. 627) Note: MTC, MeTC, MCTC also has jurisdiction over cases incapable of pecuniary estimation as long as the assessed value of the real property does not exceed to 20k outside MM, or 50k within MM In the determination if the case is incapable of pecuniary estimation, it must be done in a case-to-case basis, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case (Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation v. Formaran III, 578 SCRA 283)

All civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property or interest therein, where the assessed value of such property involved exceeds P20k (outside MM) or exceeding P50K (within MM); XP: UD and FE (MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction) All action in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds 300k outside MM, or exceeds 400K within MM; All matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where in the value of the estate exceeds 300k outside MM, or exceeds 400k within MM; All actions involving contract of marriage and marital relations;  Jurisdiction of Family Court under R.A, 8369 All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person, or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;  Known as the court of general jurisdiction, e.g. boundary dispute between municipality and independent component city (Municipality of Kanaga v. Madrona, G.R. No. 141375, April30, 2003)  It is a well-settled rule that disputes concerning the application of the Civil Code are properly cognizable

by the court of general jurisdiction. (Youshizaki v. Joy Traiing Center of Aurora, Inc. G.R.NO. 174978, July 31, 2013)


All civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of Court of Agrarian Relations;  Jurisdiction of Family Court under R.A. 8369 8. Other cases where demand, exclusive C-L-A-I-D, or value of the property exceeds 300k outside MM, or exceeds 400k within MM; 9. Actions for annulment of MTC judgements; 10. Actions for recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreement, vacation or modification of arbitration award, application for arbitration award and supervision (Sec. 47, Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004); 11. Citizens’ suit under Sec. 42 of Clean Air Act; 12. Petition for assistance in the liquidation of a bank or quasi-bank filed by a receiver under Sec. 30 of the New Central Bank



Concurrent original jurisdiction o With the SC in actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls (Sec. 21[2], B.P 129, as amended; Art. VIII, Sec. 5)




With SC and CA in petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against lower courts and bodies and in petitions for quo warranto and habeas corpus. (Sec. 21[2] and Sec. 9[1], B.P 129, as amended) With SC, CA and SB for petition for writ of amparo and habeas data

Appellate jurisdiction o All cases decided by MeTC, MTC, MCTC in their respective territorial jurisdiction  Decisions of RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is appealable by petition for review to CA, on the ground that the lower court committed an error of fact or law that would warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed. (B.P 129, Sec, 22) iv. Special jurisdiction to try special cases o RTC may be designated by SC to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban and land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodied and agencies, and/or such other special cases as the SC may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient administration of justice. (B.P 129, Sec. 23) v. Jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes o Sec. 5.2 of Securities Regulations Code, in relation to P.D 912-A, RTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following cases:  Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any acts, of the BOD, business associates, its officers or partnerships, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the stockholders, partners, members of the association or organization registered with SEC;  Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and among stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of them and the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members, or associates; between corporation, partnership or association and the state insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity;  Controversies in the election or appointments or directors, trustees, officers or managers of such corporation, partnership or association; and  Petition of corporations, partnerships or association to be declared in the state of suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership or association possesses sufficient property to cover all debts but foresees impossibility of meeting them with their respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation, partnership or association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under the management of Rehabilitation Receiver or Management Committee. o TEST in determining whether or not the dispute involves intra-corporate controversy:  Relationship test- relationship between: i. Corporation, partnership or association and the public; ii. Corporation, partnership or association and the State insofar as to its franchise, permit or license to operate; iii. Corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders; and iv. Among stockholders, partners, or associates Existence of any of the above would make it an intercorporate controversy.  Nature of controversy test- enforcement of parties’ rights and obligations under the Corporation Code and the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation.  Jurisdiction must be considered based on both tests. vi. Extent of RTC’s jurisdiction in probate proceedings o GR: A probate court cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be part of the estate and also claimed by outside parties. All the court should do is to DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY or LIST OF PROPERTIES to be administered. For such purpose, the probate court may pass upon the title thereto but it is not conclusive and is subject to the final determination to a separate action. ( Cuizon v. Ramolete, 129 SCRA 495)  XP when ALL of the parties consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court and third parties are not prejudiced or injured, the probate court may rule on questions involving ownership. Jurisdiction of Family Courts  Under R.A 8369, the Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over the following cases: 1. Petition for guardianship, custody of the child and habeas corpus involving children; 2. Petitions for adoption for children and the revocations thereof; 3. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains; 4. Petitions for support and acknowledgment; 5. Summary judicial proceedings brought under E.O 209, otherwise known as Family Code of the Philippines; 6. Declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children, the suspension, termination or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under P.D 603, E.O 56. 7. Petitions for the constitution of the family home 8. Minors cognizable under Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended; 9. Violations of R.A 7610; and 10. Domestic violence against- women and children  If an ac constitutes a criminal offense, the accused batterer shall be subjected to criminal proceedings and the corresponding penalties. If any matters mentioned above is incidental pending to regular courts, said incident shall be determined by that court. (Sec. 5. R.A. 8369)  In areas where there are no family courts, the case shall be adjudicated by the RTC. (Sec. 17, R.A. 8369)



Aspects of Jurisdiction (Boston Equity Resources, Inc., vs. CA, GR NO. 173946, 2013) 1. 

 

Jurisdiction over the parties Referred to the legal power of the court to render a personal judgment against a party to an action or proceeding. o Jurisdiction in personam- power which the court has over the defendant’s person which is required before the court can enter a personal judgment.

HOW jurisdiction over the person of the parties acquired? Depends upon if the party is a plaintiff or the defendant.  Jurisdiction over the plaintiff- filing of complaint or initiatory pleading, thus by doing so, he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.  Jurisdiction over the defendant- either by: 1. Voluntary appearance in the court and his submission to its authority; or a. The defendant’s voluntary appearance is shall be equivalent to service of summons. (Rule 14, Sec.20) b. To constitute voluntary appearance, it must amount to voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.  By seeking an affirmative relief EXCEPT when the relief sought is for the purpose of objecting the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant. E.g: 1. Defendant files the corresponding pleading: 2. Files MR of the judgment by default; 3. Petition to set aside the order of default; or 4. Parties jointly submit compromise agreement for approval of the court (Navale v. CA, 253 SCRA 705) 5. Filing of answer not assilaing the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the party. (If not, deemed voluntary appearance) 2. Service of summons. (Rule 14, Sec. 20) (Macasaet vs. co, G.R No. 156759, June 5, 2013) As a rule, an appearance in whatever form without expreslly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court. (Carballo v. Encarnacion, 92 Phil 974) 

WHEN jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required? o In action in personam, not in rem, or quasi in rem

Asiavest Limited v. CA, 296 SCRA 539 In personam Action against person based on personal liability Jurisdiction over the person id required


In Rem Action against the thing itself, or concerning status of persons (like annulment of marriage, petition for adoption, or correction of entries in the birth certificate) Service may be made by publication. Attach the thing, not necessarily acquire person of the defendant

Quasi in rem Action wherein an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest to the obligation or lien burdening the property Attach the thing, not necessarily acquire person of the defendant

 In rem and quasi in re, summons must be served, not to confer jurisdiction, but to comply with the due process requirement. As a rule, in proceeding in rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a pre-requisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the res, either by:  Seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into the actual custody of the law;  As a result of institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.

(Alba v. CA 465 SCRA 495)

Note: Objection to the jurisdiction of the court may be raised as a ground in a motion to dismiss, if no motion to dismiss, it can be raised as an affirmative defense in the answer. (Rule 16, Sec, 6) “defenses and objections not pleaded wither in motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.” (Rule

9, Sec.1)

Note: The omnibus motion rule, in relation to Sec. 1 f Rule 9, enumerates certain defense which are NOT DEEMED WAIVED even if not raised in the motion to dismiss: **** 1. No jurisdiction over the subject matter; 2. Another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause (litis pendentia); 3. Action is barred by prior judgment (res judicata); or 4. Action is barred by Statute of Limitations (prescription). (BAR 2011) In La Naval Drug Corporation v. CA, 236 SCRA 78**** The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall NOT be deemed voluntary appearance. (Rule 14, Sec. 20) 2. 


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

JURISDICTION Real actions Personal actions Incapable of pecuniary estimation Unlawful detainer and forcible entry  Give rise to accion publiciana, accion reinvindicatoria, partition of property, foreclosure of mortgage, expropriation, habeas corpus, and action for damages. Subject matter- refers to item with respect to which the controversy has arisen, or concerning which the wrong has been done, and it is ordinarily the right, the thing, or the contract under dispute. (De la Rama v. Mendiola, 401 SCRA 704) o o o o

 

How conferred? (as a matter of law) o It is conferred by law which is either Constitution or a statute, not by the Rules. (Dumaguete vs. Philippine Ports Authority, 656 SCRA 102) o It is not for the courts or the parties to determine or to conveniently set aside the jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Effect of jurisdiction as conferred by law: o It cannot be: 1. Granted by the agreement of the parties; 2. Acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act or omission of the parties; or 3. Conferred by acquiescence of the courts. (Republic vs. Estipular, 36 SCRA 333) o

ALSO, cannot be conferred by (Based on jurisprudence): 1. the administrative policy of any court; 2. a court’s unilateral assumption of jurisdiction; 3. or changed by mere agreement of parties, nor be a subject matter of a contract; 4. Consent or waived by parties, not be cured by mere silence acquiescence or even with express consent 5. Not for the parties or the court to disregard the rule as it is a matter which is legislative in character.

How jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined? o It is determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. 6. Irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted in the allegations. (Dumaguete vs. Philippine Ports Authority, 656 SCRA 102)

NOTES: *** Well-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the action, as well as the court which has jurisdiction over the case, are the allegations in the complaint. ***(Padlan vs. Dinglason, 694 SCRA 91) o In the allegations, it must clearly embody such statement of facts as to bring the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy. o The complaint must also be enough of its face to give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence. o The character of the relief prayed or sought for must also be considered.  E. forcible entry- without vinculum juris or juridical tie involving landowner-tenant relationship, recovery of physical or material possession is the relief asked for (MTC) o Caption of the case is not controlling; “The action in the complaint is not what the designation of the complaint states, but what the allegations in the body of the complaint define and describe.” (De la Cruz vs. CA, 510 SCRA 103) o The defenses and evidence do not determine jurisdiction; the jurisdiction over the subject matter is not affected by the pleas or theories set up by the defendant in answer or motion to dismiss. (Del Monte Philippines Inc., Employees Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative [DEARBC] v. Sangunay, 641 SCRA 87) o The amount of the award does not determine the jurisdiction IN SUM: GR “Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims asserted therein.” (Medical Plaza Makati Condominium v. Cullen, G.R. No. 181416, November 11, 2013) XP: defendant averred the existence of tenancy by way of defense and is prove das the real issue, the case should be dismissed (lack of jurisdiction) and file to proper Court of Agrarian Relations (now DARAB) (De la Cruz vs. CA, 510 SCRA 103) NOTE: The MTC does not automatically lose jurisdiction over ejectment cases by mere allegations of the defenses of tenancy relationship between parties. (Vda. De Victoria v. CA, 449 SCRA 319) There must be first reception of evidence, and if, after hearing, tenancy had been shown as the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. (Hilado v. Chaves, 438 SCRA 623) Tenancy relationship is cannot be presumed. There must be evidence to prove the tenancy:  Parties are landowner and tenant;  Subject is agricultural land;  There is consent of the landowner;  Purpose is agricultural land;  There is personal cultivation; and  There is sharing of harvest.



ALL these requisites are necessary to create tenancy relationship, the absence of one or more will not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant. ALL THESE ELEMENTS MUST CONCUR. (Salmorin v. Zaldivar, 559 SCRA 564)

EFFECT OF ESTOPPEL ON OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION: o Barred from raising the objection (La’o v. Republic, 479 SCRA 439) o E.g: active participation of the parties to the case like seeking for affirmative relief, questions the court’s jurisdiction only after receiving the ruling or adverse decision of the court.

GR: A court’s lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. XP: DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL- a party is to object, only after receiving an adverse decision, only after seeking affirmative relief by actively participating in all stages of the proceedings. (Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29) o Tijam rule, is an exception, estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual milieu is analogous to Tijam case:  laches should have been clearly present;  lack of jurisdiction have been raised so belatedly to warrant the presumption that the party is entitled to assert it had abandoned or declined to assert it. If the factual settings in Tijam case is absent, application of estoppel would not be justified. (Vda de

Herrera v. Bernardo, 650 SCRA 616)


Bases on the ground of public policy and is principally q question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.

Note: “The rule is that the active participation of the party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his

failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or administrative body where the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and willingness to abide by the resolution of the case, and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or body’s jurisdiction.” (Megan Sugar Corp. v. RTC of Iloilo, 650 SCRA 100) o

Rule on estoppel also applies to administrative proceedings. The active participation of a party in administrative proceedings and bars belated challenge the jurisdiction of the said court.

OMNIBUS MOTION RULE- (PPOJ)a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objection not included shall be deemed waived. (Rule 15, Sec. 8) o

The omnibus motion rule is subject to Sec. 1, Rule 9 of the ROC; as an exception “When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.  Not considered waived and can be raised as an affirmative defense because defenses are not barred by omnibus motion rule.

EFFECT OF JUDGMENT RENDERED WITHOUT JURISDICTION  A judgment rendered by a body or tribunal without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right or the creator of any obligation. It has no legal effect and can never be final. Any writ of execution based on that is likewise void. (Ga, Jr. v. Tubungan, 600 SCRA 739) 3. Jurisdiction over the object (issues) Meaning: power of the court to try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties (Reyes v. Diaz, 73 Phil 484)  Issues- a dispute point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision. How jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined?  Jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined by the allegations in the pleadings of the parties.  It may also be determined and conferred by stipulation of the parties, in trial, the parties enter into stipulation of facts and documents or to enter an agreement simplifying the issues of the case. Jurisdiction over the issues Jurisdiction over the subject matter Conferred by the pleadings Conferred by law May be conferred by consent of either parties, express or Cannot be subject to agreement implied Although issue is not properly pleaded, it can be validly Cannot be validly tried and decided absence of proper tried and decided if no timey objection is made by pleading the parties

Question of law Doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts must not involve an examination of the probative value of


Question of fact Doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts Issue invites a review on evidence presented

JURISDICTION the evidence Resolution of the issue rest solely on what the law provides on a given circumstance Note: Under Section 10 of Rule 8, when the issues not raised in 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 (Estolas vs. Acena, 448 SCRA 233) Upon motion of the party, the pleadings may be amended to conform to the evidence but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues because, it is submitted, the pleadings are deemed impliedly or constructively amended to embody the issues tried with the consent of the parties.  Consent may be inferred from the failure to interpose an objection to the presentation of evidence on a matter not alleged in the proceedings.  Failure to object or interpose the presentation of evidence not included in the issue of the pleadings will be deemed to have been raised by the parties in the pleadings and the evidence be admissible. Notes: An issue arises because a material allegation of a claiming party is specifically denied by the defending party. The denial to be specific, must conform to any of the denials prescribed in Rule 8, Section 10. A denial, made not in accordance with the said rule, is to be construed as an admission, a circumstance which does not give rise to an issue. Where the defendant admits all the material allegations of fact claiming party, there is no controverted issue between the parties. When an answer fails to render an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading, a judgment on the pleadings may be rendered by the court upon a motion properly filed. 4.   

Jurisdiction over the res or the property in litigation

Res- a thing or an object; everything that may form of an object, Persona- subject of rights or status Jurisdiction over the res- an action in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required; what is required is the jurisdiction over the res, although summons is required to be served to satisfy the requirements of due process. (Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921)

Extent of the relief when jurisdiction is only over the res o Ant relief granted in rem or in quasi in rem actions must be confined to the res, and the court cannot lawfully render a judgement against the defendant. (Banco do Brasil v. CA, 333 SCRA 545) In an action for foreclosure, when the court has jurisdiction only over the res and not on the person of the defendant (non-resident), the relief of the creditor extends only to the property foreclosed. If there is deficiency, a deficiency judgment against the debtormortgagor is not feasible (because is an action in personam which requires jurisdiction over the person of the debtor-mortgagor). There being no personal jurisdiction, a deficiency judgment cannot be rendered against him.



Jurisdiction vs. exercise of jurisdiction Jurisdiction Power or authority of the court to decide a case, and not the decision rendered therein

Error of Jurisdiction The act complained of was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction (Cabrera vs. Lapid, 510 SCRA 55)

occur when the court exercises jurisdiction not conferred by law or acts in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction Void Judgement/ absolute nullity Can be collaterally attacked Confer no right and afford no protection


Exercise of Jurisdiction Exercise of the power and authority; the decision on all other questions arising in the case Errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgement which are proper subjects of appeal (Republic of the Philippines v. “G” Holdings, Inc., 475 SCRA 608, citing Toletino v. Laviste, 443 SCRA 274)

Error of judgment Presupposes that the court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action but, in the process of exercising its jurisdiction, it committed mistakes in the appreciation of facts and the evidence leading to erroneous judgment Included errors in the procedure or mistakes in findings As long as the court has jurisdiction, any errors committed will amount to nothing more than error of judgment. (Cabrera vs. Lapid) Not a void judgment but only tainted with an error of jurisdiction Cannot be attacked collaterally Judgment is binding to parties unless it is reversed or annulled in a direct proceeding.

JURISDICTION May be struck down at any time, even on appeal XP: the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel Correctible ONLY by extraordinary writ of certiorari

Correctible by appeal

Notes: When the court, tribunal, or officer had jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other question arising in the case is an exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgement. (Catindig vs. Vda. De Meneses, 642 SCRA 350) o IT HAS ALSO BEEN RULED THAT, if the court has jurisdiction, it is altogether immaterial whether or not hoe grossly irregular or manifestly erroneous its proceeding has been. Lack of Jurisdiction The court or tribunal is not vested by law with authority or power to take cognizance of a case F.

Excess of Jurisdiction Presupposes the existence of authority for the court to assume jurisdiction over the case but, in the exercise of authority, it acted beyond the power conferred upon it.

Jurisdiction vs. Venue (Mendiola vs. CA, 677 SCRA 27) Jurisdiction Is the authority to hear and determine a case Matter of substantive law Established relation between the court and the subject matter Fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties


Cause of action An act or omission of a person violative of the rights of the others

Venue place where the case is to be tried or heard Relation between the plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent May be conferred by agreement of the parties

Jurisdiction over the cases covered by Barangay Conciliation, Small Money Claims, and cases covered by Summary Procedure

JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL CASES SUBJECT TO SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS (REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE OF 1991) This rule is applicable in MeTC, MTC, MCTC, and MTCC The following are the cases falling under summary procedure:  All cases of FE and UD irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered (BAR 1995); and  All other claims where the total amount of plaintiff’s claim does not exceed to 100k outside MM, or not exceeding 200k within MM, exclusive of interest and cost. XP: probate proceedings which are not covered by Rules on Summary Procedure even if the value of the estate does not exceed 100k or 200k. (Sec. 1A, Rules on Summary Procedure, as amended by A.M. 01-11-09-SC, effective November 25, 2002) o Pleadings allowed; requirement of verification  Not all pleadings in an ordinary civil action are allowed. The only pleadings allowed are: 1. Complaint; 2. Compulsory counterclaim pleaded in the answer; and 3. Answer to the pleadings. (Sec. 3, RRSP of 1991)  ALL PLEADINGS covered by summary procedure shall be VERIFIED. (Sec. 3B, RRSP)  



Prohibited pleadings and motions: ***** 1. Motion to dismiss except upon two grounds: a. Failure to comply with the barangay conciliation proceedings; and b. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. 2. Motion for bill of particulars; 3. MNT, or MR of judgment, or reopening of trial; 4. PFRFJ; 5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper; 6. Memoranda; 7. Petition for C, M, or P against any interlocutory order issued by the court; XP: this petition is allowed in one case because the trial court gravely abused its discretion acting contrary to the purpose of the 1991 RRCP. Although interlocutory orders are not appealable, the SC invoking its power to suspend the rules, gave due course to the petition pro hac vice, as allowing the petition would avoid mischiefs sought to be curbed by the Rules and would give spirit and life to the Rules on Summary Procedure. (Go. V. CA, 297 SCRA 574) 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.


Motion to declare the defendant in default; Dilatory motions for postponement; Reply; Third-party complaints; and Interventions

In a summary procedure, the court may dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for dismissal of a civil action apparent from the examination of the allegations in the pleadings and the evidence attached thereto.



o o

 If no ground for dismissal is found, the court shall state that the summary procedure applies to the case. (Sec. 4, RRSP) ANSWER: within 10 days from service of summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff.  It should contain the affirmative and negative defenses applicable, otherwise, those which are not pleaded are deemed waived  XP: defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, which is not deemed waived. (Sec. 5, RRSP) Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaim NOT asserted in the answer shall be barred. The answer to the cross-claims and counterclaims shall be filed within 10 days from service of the answer which they are pleaded.


EFFFECT OF FAILURE TO ANSWER:  Failure to answer within the 10-day period from service of summons, the court may moto proprio, or upon motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint. (Sec. 6, RRSP). The judgment of the court pursuant thereto shall me limited to what is prayed for in the complaint.  In relation thereto, Sec. 19[h] of the RRSP prohibits a motion to declare the defendant in default. Thus, the failure to file an answer will not result into declaration that the defendant of default.


PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE: Not later than 30 days after the last answer is filed, a preliminary conference shall be held using the rules on pre-trial in ordinary cases UNLESS inconsistent with the Rules.  Failure of the PLAINTIFF to appear in the Preliminary Conference shall be a cause for DISMISSAL of his complaint. (Sec. 7, RRSP)  The defendant shall be entitled to judgment on his counterclaim in accordance with sec. 6 of the Rule on Summary Procedure. The court may motu proprio, or upon motion of the defendant, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the counterclaim. However, all cross-claims must be dismissed.  Failure of the defendant to appear in the preliminary conference, shall cause the plaintiff to be entitled to the judgment in accordance to sec. 6 of the Rule on Summary Procedure. The court may motu proprio, or upon motion of the plaintiff, render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint. (Sec. 7, RRSP) Subsequent Proceedings:  Record of Preliminary Conference- within 5 days after the termination of the Preliminary conference, the court shall issue an order stating the matters taken up therein, including, but not limited to the matters stated in Sec. 8 of the RRSP.  Submission of affidavits and position papers- within 10 days from the receipt of the order, the parties shall submit the affidavits pf their witnesses and other evidence on the factual issues defined in the order. The position papers shall set forth the law and the facts relied upon by the parties shall also be submitted. (Sec. 9, RRSP)  The affidavits to be submitted shall state only facts of the direct personal knowledge of the affiants which are admissible in evidence. The affiants shall also show their competence to testify to the matters stated therein. (Sec. 20, RRSP)  Rendition of judgment- Within 30 days after the receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall render judgement. (Sec. 10, RRSP) APPEAL  MTC- RTC- RTC shall decide the appeal on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings held in court of origin and such memoranda and; or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by RTC (Sec. 22, RRSP)  Decisions of RTC in civil cases governed by RRSP of 1991 including FE and UD shall me IMMEDIATELY executory, without prejudice to a further appeal which may be taken therefrom. (Sec. 21, RRSP)  Decision pf RTC shall be appealable to CA by way of petition for review on an error of fact or law. (Sec. 22, RRSP)




A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC  The Rule of Procedure for Small Money Claims took effect on October 1, 2008. It was then amended October 27, 2009, and took effect on November 3, 2009 following their publication in a newspaper of general circulation.  The Rules of Procedure applies SUPPLITORILY to small claims but only insofar as they are not inconsistent with A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (Sec. 25, ROPFSMC)  The following are the grounds NOT allowed in Small Money Claims: **** 1. Motion to dismiss the complaint; The original rule allowed lack of jurisdiction as a ground for the motion to dismiss. NOW, it is no longer allowed under the amendments that took effect on November 3, 2009. 2. Motion for bill of particulars; 3. Motion for New Trial, or Reconsideration of a judgment, or reopening of trial; 4.Petition for relief from judgment; 5. Motion for extension of time to file affidavits, pleadings, or other paper; 6. Memoranda; 7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court; 8. Motion to declare the defendant in default; 9. Dilatory Motions for postponement; 10. Reply; 11. third-party complaint; and 12. Interventions







Small claim action is the use of forms which simply have to be filed up by a party or the court. That instead of filing a complaint by the plaintiff or his counsel, a STATEMENT OF CLAIM using FORM 1-SCC shall be filed. The answer of the defendant shall be filed by way of RESPONSE using FORM 3-SCC. The discussion of the court shall be contained in FORM 13-SCC. PURPOSE: to provide an inexpensive and expeditious means to settle disputes over small amount.  The time and expense required by ordinary litigation process is so disproportionate to the amount involved that it discourages just resolution of the case.  designed to function quickly and informally. It does NOT allow Attys. UNLESS he is the plaintiff or defendant. (Sec. 17, A.M. NO. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  there are no formal pleadings, the strict rule on evidence does not apply. The parties are encouraged to file their minor disputes as opposed to resorting to self-help or forcible means to seek their remedy. (Explanatory Note to A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, citing Pace vs. Hillcrest Motor Co., 161 Cal Rptr. 663, 1980)  The Rule governs the procedure in actions before the MTC, MTCC, MCTC, MeTC for the payment of money where the value does not exceed to 400k within NCR, 300k outside NCR, exclusive of interest and cost. *** Applicability:  The Rule shall apply to the following actions:  All actions that are purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment/ reimbursement; and  Civil aspect of criminal actions, either filed to the institution of the criminal action, or reserved upon filing of the criminal action, pursuant to RULE 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)  The claims or demands referred to any of the ff:  For money owed; The claim must arise from: a. Contract of lease; b. Contract of loan; c. Contract of services; d. Contract of sale; or e. Contract of mortgage. (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  For damages; or Claims must arise from: a. Fault or negligence; b. Quasi-contract; or c. Contract. (Sec. 4. A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  For enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving money claims covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code). (Sec. 4. A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  Although there are various sources of claims, the claims must be SOLELY FOR MONEY.  Other cases which Small Money Claims may include the following: 1. Actual damage caused to vehicles, other personal property, real property or person; 2. Payment or reimbursement for property, deposit or money loaned; 3. Payment for service rendered, insurance claim, rent, commissions, or for goods sold and delivered; 4. Money claims pursuant to a contract, warranty or agreement; and 5. Purely civil action for payment of money covered by bounced or stopped check. How the action is commenced?  By filing FORM 1-SCC, which must be duly accomplished and verified. It must be filed in duplicate. No other formal pleading is required other than STATEMENT OF CLAIM, to initiate the small money claim action. ( Sec. 5, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  The plaintiff shall pay the docket and other legal fees, UNLESS allowed to litigate as indigent.  Statement of Claim must be accompanied by CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING.  If the claim is based on actionable document, the Statement of Claims must be accompanied by two (2) duly certified photocopies of the documents. Also, attached are the affidavits of the witnesses and other evidence to support the claim. Evidence not attached shall not be allowed during the hearing, UNLESS good cause is shown for the admission of additional evidence (Sec. 5, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  The affidavits shall state only facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiants, otherwise they shall be inadmissible in evidence and such evidence shall be expunged from the record. Also, violation to this requirement will subject the party to appropriate disciplinary action, as well as the counsel who assists in the preparation of the affidavits. Action of the court  When the court receives the SOC (Statement of Claim), it shall make a determination whether or not the same falls under this Rule.  If so, the court, may by itself, dismiss the case outright on any ground for the dismissal of a civil action. The basis of dismissal shall be any ground apparent from: 1. Allegations of the claim; and 2. Evidence attached thereto. (Sec. 9, A.M. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  Under administrative guidelines for judges dated on February 16, 2010, upon receipt of the case, a judge is required to consider the following:  Must only involve a pure money claim which the principal amount does not exceed 300k (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended by OCA Circular No. 165-2018)  The principal amount exceeds 300k, there must be a waiver of the excess embodied in the SOC.  With regard to B.P. 22 cases, the court may only entertain the civil aspect if no complaint for the offense has yet been filed before the Office of the Prosecutor. Such fact must be stated under oath by the plaintiff in the SOC, and there should be an express waiver of such criminal action in the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.








If the case, as determined by the judge as not a small money claim within the meaning of this Rule, but still falls within its jurisdiction of 1st level courts, the case should NOT be dismissed, and the judge shall declare it governed by the appropriate procedure (Regular Procedure or Summary Procedure). Case should then be re-docketed but no re-assignment (by raffle in a multi-sala court) is necessary. This will prevent the forfeiture of the filing fees already paid by the party, and the case can be immediately acted upon by the same court.  The submission of Certificate to File Action from the barangay is a pre-requisite in Small Claims covered by barangay justice system.  Under Sec. 1 of Rule 16, par. (j) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, non-compliance with a condition precedent is a ground for dismissal of a complaint. The LGC, Chapter 7 (Sec. 399-422) of R.A. 7160., embodies the rules for mandatory conciliation proceedings before a barangay in covered cases. Although it is not expressly referred in Small money claims, it is still mandatory as it is required by law. Non-compliance, therefore, with the barangay requirement is still a ground for dismissal pursuant to Rule 16 of the regular rules, which is applied suppletorily according to Sec. 25 of the Rule. ( Administrative Guidelines for Judges, Feb. 16, 2010) Summons and Notice of hearing:  If no ground for dismissal, the court shall issue FORM 2-SCC, directing the defendant to file a verified response; Also, embodied in FORM 4-SCC, the notice directing to parties to appear before the court on a specific date and time for hearing.  Notice shall also contain a warning that no unjustified postponement shall be allowed.  It shall also contain prohibition against the filing of a motion to dismiss or any other motion under Sec. 14, ROSMC Cases. (Sec. 10, A.M. 08-8-7-SC, as amended) Response: counterclaim  The verified response of the defendant shall be filed with the court and serve the same on the plaintiff within 10 days from the receipt of the Summons. (NON-Extendable)  The response shall be accompanied by certified copies of the documents, as well as affidavits of the witnesses and other evidence Evidence not attached shall not be allowed during the hearing EXCEPT when good cause is shown for the admission of additional evidence. (Sec. 11, A.M. 08-8-7-SC, as amended) Although motion to dismiss is not allowed, Sec. 11 requires that the grounds for dismissal of the claim, under Rue 16 of ROC, should be pleaded. (Sec. 11, A.M. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  If at the time the action is commenced, the defendant possesses a claim against the plaintiff that is: 1. within the coverage of this Rule, exclusive of the interest and costs; 2. one arising out of the same transaction or event that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim; 3. does not require for its adjudication the joinder of third parties; and 4. not subject of another pending action, the claim shall be filed as a counterclaim in the Response.  If not filed, the defendant shall be barred from suit on the counterclaim. (Sec. 13, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended; BAR 2011)  If the counterclaim does not arise from the same transaction or occurrence, the defendant may elect to file a counterclaim against the plaintiff provided the two requisites are present: 1. Amount and the nature of the counterclaim are within the coverage of this Rule; and 2. Prescribed docket and other legal fees are paid. (Sec. 13, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended) Failure to file a response:  If the defendant:  Fails to file his response within 10 days from receipt of summons; and  Also fails to appear at the date set for hearing The court shall render judgment on the same say, as may be warranted by the facts (Sec. 12, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended) These requisites must be present to justify rendition of judgment. Thus, mere failure to file a response does not authorize the court to render judgment.  If the defendant fails to file the response but appears at the date of hearing, the court shall ascertain what defense he has to offer and proceed to hear, mediate or adjudicate the case on the same day as is a response has been filed. (Sec. 12, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended) Appearance on the date of hearing: postponement  GR: parties shall appear to designated date of hearing PERSONALLY XP: through a REPRESENTATIVE upon a valid cause.  the representative must not be a lawyer and must be related to or next- of kin of said party  Juridical entities shall not be represented by lawyers in any capacity. (Sec. 16, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  The representative must be authorized under SPA using Form 5-SCC, authorized to perform the following acts: 1. To enter into amicable settlement of the disputes; and 2. Enter into stipulations or admissions of the facts and of documentary exhibits ( Sec. 16, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  A request for postponement of hearing may be granted ONLY upon proof of physical inability of the party to appear before the court. Only 1 postponement may be availed by a party. (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended) Non-appearance at the hearing  Failure of the plaintiff to appear- DISMISSAL of the claim without prejudice.  Dismissed action may be refiled  Defendant who appears shall be entitled of judgment on a permissive counterclaim (not compulsory counterclaim) (Sec. 18, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  Failure of the defendant to appear- shall have the same effect as a failure to file a Response under Sec. 12  this rule shall not apply when other defendants who are sued under a common cause of action and have pleaded a common defense appear at the hearing. (Sec. 18, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)









 Failure of both parties- DISMISSAL with prejudice of both claim and counterclaim Appearance of Attorneys (BAR 2013)  NO attorney shall appear in behalf of a party or represent a party at a hearing.  It shall ONLY be ALLOWED if the attorney is the plaintiff or the defendant ( Sec. 17, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  The inability of the party to properly present his case is not a reason to allow representation by a lawyer. The court, in its discretion may allow another individual who is not an attorney to assist the party, provided that it is with the latter’s consent. (Sec. 17, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  This rule does not preclude an attorney from offering his services in assisting a party to prepare for the case. He is allowed to give advice to a party, either before or after the commencement of the action.  He may also submit affidavit as a witness (not counsel) for a party in order to state facts of which he has personal knowledge and about which he is competent to do so. (BAR 2013)  A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC explanatory notes provides the following situation when an attorney, neither directly a plaintiff nor a defendant may appear: 1. If the claim is by or against a partnership in which the attorney is a GENERAL PARTNER and provided all the partners in the partnership are attorneys; or 2. If the claim is by or against a professional corporation of which the attorney is officer or director and provided all other officers or directors are attorneys. Duties of the court during the hearing; confidentiality of settlement discussions  At the beginning of the court session, the judge shall read aloud a short statement explaining the nature, the purpose, and the rule of procedure of small money claims cases. (Sec. 20, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  The judge shall exert efforts to bring the parties to an amicable settlement of their dispute. Any settlement (FORM 7-SCC) or resolution (FORM 8-SCC) of the dispute shall be reduced into writing, signed by the parties and submitted to the court for approval (FORM 12-SCC) (Sec. 21, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended) Confidentiality  Settlement discussions shall be strictly confidential and any reference to any settlement made in the course of such discussions shall be punishable by CONTEMPT. (Sec. 21, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended) Failure of settlement  If the settlement shall fail, the hearing shall proceed and be conducted in an informal and expeditious manner. It shall be terminated within 1 day. (Sec. 22, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended) Decision  After hearing, the court shall render decision on the same day, based on the facts established by the evidence (FORM 13-SCC). It shall immediately be entered by Clerk of court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy shall be served to the parties. (Sec. 23, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  Despite relative informality of the proceedings, judgement is based upon strict application of substantive law and the judge is duty-bound to give the legal basis for the findings. (Explanatory note to the Rule) No appeal  The decisions of the court shall be FINAL and UNAPPEALABLE (Sec.23, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)  Party may avail of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Execution  If the decision is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the judgement shall be executed upon motion using (FORM 9SCC) (Sec. 24, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)




Basic Principles  Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law, under R.A. 7160, Secs. 399-422, changes not only in the authority of the Lupong Tagapamayapa, but also the procedure to be observed in the settlement of disputes within the authority of the Lupon.  AIM: to reduce the number of court litigation and prevent deterioration of the quality of justice which has been brought about by the indiscriminate filing of cases in courts. (Zamora vs. Heirs of Izquierdo, 443 SCRA 24; BAR 1999)  Established primarily as a means of easing up the congestion of cases in the judicial courts Proceedings before a barangay is NOT judicial proceedings  The Lupong Tagapamayapa and Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo of the barangay do not have inherent adjudicatory powers. They resolve disputes and attempt to do so through amicable settlement, conciliation, and arbitration. ( R.A. 7160, Secs. 410, 412, 413)  The adjudicatory powers of these bodies must be agreed upon by the parties. It may involve their willingness to abide by any arbitral award given by the lupon and pangkat. (R.A. 7160, Secs. 412, 413) Importance of barangay conciliation proceedings (BAR 2012)  NO complaint, petition, action, or proceedings involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court oy any other government office for adjudication, UNLES:  there has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman; or  UNLESS settlement has been repudiated. (Zamora vs. Heirs of Izquierdo, 443 SCRA 24)  When the case is covered by Katarungang Pambarangay Law, there is a compulsory process of arbitration as a pre-condition for filing a complaint in a court.


JURISDICTION The case should be dismissed when the complaint: 1. Did not state that it is one of the excepted cases, or 2. It did not allege prior availment of the said conciliation; or 3. Did not have a certification that no conciliation or settlement has been reached by the parties.  The same should also apply in criminal cases.  A motion to dismiss mat be filed if a condition precedent has not been complied with. Failure to undergo barangay conciliation is non-compliance with a condition precedent. No motu Proprio dismissal  The court may not motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground for failure to comply with the requirements of a barangay conciliation, the ground not being among those mentioned for dismissal of a complaint in the initiative of the court. Sec. 1 of RULE 9 of ROC provides the following grounds for a motu proprio dismissal: 1. Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; (lack of jurisdiction) 2. There is another cause of action pending between the same parties for the same cause;(litis pendentia) 3. Action is barred by prior judgment; (Res judicata) and 4. Action is barred by the Statute of Limiations (Prescription). In relation to the Rule on Summary Procedure  Under the ROSP, in cases requiring referral to the lupon for conciliation, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground for failure to undergo barangay conciliation (non-compliance), although the dismissal, by the very tenor of the rule, is one without prejudice.  Sec. 18, ROSP, where the case is dismissed for non-compliance with the conciliation proceedings, the dismissal may be revived only after the requirement shall have been complied with.  It is well-settled that non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation, when so required under the law, is not 



jurisdictional in nature and may, therefore, be deemed waived if not raised seasonably in the motion to dismiss. (Sps, Santos vs. Sps. Lumbao, 519 SCRA 408)

Note: defenses and objections not pleaded in the motion to dismiss or answers are deemed waived. If no motion has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal may be pleaded as affirmative defense in the answer. (Rule 16, Sec. 1, ROC) Subject matter of the settlement (BAR 2009)  Sec. 408, LGC  “The Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of ALL disputes” (Torbela v. Rosarion, 661 SCRA 633, Dec. 7, 2011)  ALL disputes are subject to Barangay Conciliation pursuant to revised Katarunagang Pambarangay Law, a pre-condition requirement before filing a complaint, EXCEPT the following: 1. One party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality; 2. One of the party is a public officer or employee and disputes related to the performance of his official functions; 3. Dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities, UNLESS the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; 4. Complaint by or against corporation, partnerships or juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainant or respondent; 5. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, EXCEPT when such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties agree to submit themselves in amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; 6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine over 5k; 7. Offenses where there are no private offended party; 8. Urgent legal action necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further continued in the ff: a. Criminal cases where the accused is under police custody or detention; b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived of or on acting in his behalf; c. Actions with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property (replevin) and support during the pendency of the action (support pendente lite) d. Actions which may be barred by Statute of Limitations. 9. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon recommendation by the Secretary of Justice; 10. Dispute arises from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law; 11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from EE-ER relationship (amended, the jurisdiction now rest to certain offices of the DOLE); and 12. Actions to annul judgment upon compromise which may be filed directly in court. (Sec. 408, LGC) LGC, Sec, 412 [b], parties may go directly to court without a need of undergoing barangay conciliation: 1. Accused is under detention; 2. A person has been otherwise deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings; 







Venue 

Actions with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property (replevin) and support during the pendency of the action (support pendente lite); 4. Actions which may be barred by Statute of Limitations. Regardless of the residence of the parties, when the real property or any interest therein is involved, the dispute shall be filed before the barangay where the property is located. (here the plaintiff is not resident of the Philippines but his atty.in- fact is a resident of the same place with the respondent; so barangay conciliation is needed)  If the parties, the real party in interest, is not an actual resident of the barangay where the defendant resides, the local lupon has no jurisdiction over the dispute, prior referral to barangay conciliation is not a condition precedent in its filing in court. (Pascual v. Pascual, 475 SCRA 271)  Although the petitioner and private respondent reside in the same municipality, does not justify compulsory conciliation, if they reside at a different barangay.

Sec. 409, LGC  Persons residing in the same barangay- amicable settlement shall be brought to the Lupon of the said barangay  Actual residents of different barangays within the same city/ municipality- barangay where the respondent or any of the respondent actually resides, at the election of the complainant;  Real property or any interest therein- barangay where the property is located  Arising from workplace where he is employed, or institution where such parties enrolled for studyin the barangay where the workplace or institution is located.  Objections as to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before punong barangay; otherwise, it shall be deemed waived.  Any legal question which may confront the punong barangay in resolving the OBJECTIONS TO VENUE may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice, or his duly designated representative, whose ruling thereon shall be binding. Initiation of the Proceedings  Upon payment of appropriate filing fee, any individual, who has cause of action against another individual, involving matter within the authority of the Lupon may complain, ORALLY or IN WRITING, to the chairman of the lupon (Punong Barangay). (Sec.399, LGC)  Upon receipt of the complaint, the chairman shall summon the respondents within the next working day to appear. Of the chairman fails in his mediation efforts within 15 days from the first meeting, he shall set the date to constitute the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo (Sec. 410[b], LGC) Notes:   





Another 15 days to explore settlement, if no settlement, the pangkat will issue certification If the complainant does not appear- DISMISS If the defendant does not appear Through barangay Secretary, will issue certificate to file action  There was confrontation but no settlement, Punong Barangay will not issue certification but pangkat will be constituted, there will be conciliation proceeding, if no settlement, pangkat will issue the certification to file action  In lupon, obligation is 100k, it was agreed to payment by installment, reduced into writing signed by the parties It is equivalent to judgment by the court and binding to the parties. If the parties do not comply, complaint be filed, if agreement is not repudiated, it is final. Any of the parties may revoke the agreement on the ground of F, D, UI, V, I within 10 days from the date of signing the settlement, otherwise the agreement will become final.

Personal appearance of parties  Parties must appear in person in all Katarungang pambarangay proceedings and without the assistance of a counsel or representatives, EXCEPT for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by the NEXT-OF-KIN who are nor lawyers. (Sec. 415, LGC; Magno vs. Velasco-Jacoba, 475 SCRA 584: BAR 1999) Parties  ONLY individauls. No complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or other juridical entities shall be filed, received, or acted upon. (Sec. 1, Rule IV, Katarungang Pambarangay Law) Form of Settlement  All amicable settlements shall be in writing, in a language or dialect known to parties, signed by then, and attested by the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the case may be.  When the parties do not use the same language or dialect, the settlement shall be written in a dialect or language known to them (Sec. 411, LGC) Effect of amicable settlement and award; repudiation  Amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of 10 days from the date thereof, UNLESS repudiation of the settlement has been made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper city or municipality. (Sec. 416, LGC)  Jurisprudence confirms that “amicable settlement reached after barangay conciliation proceedings has the

force and effect of a final judgment of a court if not repudiated or a petition to nullify the same is filed before the proper city or municipality court within 10 days from its date” (Chaves v. CA, 453 SCRA 843)


This does not apply to court cases settled by the lupon under the last paragraph of Sec. 408 of LGC, in which, the compromise settlement agreed upon by the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman shall be submitted to court, and upon approval, have force and effect of a judgment of the said court. “ the court in which non-criminal

JURISDICTION cases not within the authority of the lupon under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial, motu proprio refer the case to the lupon concerned for amicable settlement.”

A case for unlawful detainer, referral of said civil case to lupon is saliently an unsound exercise of discretion, considering that the matter falls under the Rule on Summary Procedure. As ROSP was promulgate to achieve and “expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases, the speedy resolution of the case is deemed a matter of public policy.  Referral of cases to upon under summary procedure is not favored; procedure mandates that a preliminary conference be made for purpose of possible amicable settlement. (Diaz vs. Gestopa, 652 SCRA 434) Repudiation of the settlement  Any party may repudiate within 10 days from the date of the settlement, by filing with the lupon chairman a statement to that effect, sworn before him, where the consent is vitiated by fraud, violence, or intimidation.  It is sufficient basis for the issuance of the certificate for filing the complaint.  Failure to repudiate the settlement shall be deemed waiver of the right to challenge the settlement. (Sec. 14, Katarungang Pambarangay Law)  As a rule, where no repudiation was made during the 10-day period, the amicable settlement shall be final and it becomes the ministerial duty of the court to implement and enforce it. XP: Quiros v. Arjona, 425 SCRA 57- parties entered into two agreements for the conveyance of a parcel of land, but upon ocular inspection, MTC found that the land inspected was different from what was agreed by the parties. Although the agreement was valid, subject to reformation. The court concluded that no writ of execution could be issued for failure to determine the land intended to be delivered. Execution of award or settlement (BAR 2012)  The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the lupon within 6 months from the date of settlement.  After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in an appropriate municipal court. (Chaves v. CA, 453 SCRA 843)  The timeline for 6 months does benefit both the complainant and the defendant. Note: The lupon has the power to give arbitral award binding between parties, as long as it is submitted to arbitration.  The enforcement by execution of the amicable settlement provide under Sec. 417 of the LGC, either the 1st remedy (within 6 months from settlement) or 2nd remedy (after 6 months from settlement), is only applicable if the contracting parties have not repudiated such settlement within 10 days from settlement in accordance with Sec 416 of the LGC.  If the amicable settlement is repudiated by one party, either expressly or impliedly, the other party has two options: 1. To enforce the compromise in accordance with the LGC or ROC, as the case may be; or 2. To consider it rescinded and insist upon his original demand. (Art. 2041 of the NCC) “if one of the parties fails or refused to abide by the compromise, the other party may either enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon the original demand” (Miguel v. Montanez, 664 SCRA 345)  No action for rescission is required, the party aggrieved by the breach of the compromise agreement, may bring a suit contemplated or involved in his original demand, as if there had never been any compromise agreement. 




Related Documents

March 2021 0
Challenge Jurisdiction
January 2021 0
01 Jurisdiction Cases
March 2021 0
Jurisdiction Part 1
March 2021 0

More Documents from "Renalyn Paras"