Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

Page 1

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER Part II of IX JURISDICTION I. Jurisdiction A. Definition


Jurisdiction the power granted by law to hear and decide cases.

B. Classifications of jurisdiction
Classifications of jurisdiction 1. General or Limited/special a. General jurisdiction power to adjudicate all controversies except those expressly withheld from the plenary powers of the court b. Limited/special jurisdiction restricts the jurisdiction only to particular cases and subject limitations as may be provided by the governing law 2. original or appellate a. Original jurisdiction power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by law b. appellate jurisdiction authority of a court higher in rank to re-examine the final order or judgment of a lower court which tried the case now elevated for judicial review 3. exclusive or concurrent a. exclusive jurisdiction power to adjudicate a case proceeding to the exclusion of all other courts at that stage or courts to such

b. concurrent/coordinate jurisdiction power conferred upon different courts, whether of the same or different ranks, to take cognizance at the same stage of the same case in the same or different judicial territories 4. over subject matter, person, or the res a. jurisdiction over the subject matter conferred by law, determined upon the allegations made in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled or not, to recover upon the claim asserted therein b. jurisdiction over the person 1) plaintiff acquired by filing of the initiatory pleading and payment of the complete filing fees. 2) defendant acquired by the

Page 2 a) proper service of summons b) voluntary appearance in court, or c) voluntary submission to the authority of the court. c. jurisdiction over the res acquired by 1) the seizure of the thing under legal process whereby it is brought into actual custody of law, or 2) the institution of a legal proceeding wherein the power of the court over the thing is recognized and made effective (ex: writ of attachment)

C. Jurisdiction of the Courts 1. SC (Art. VIII, Sec. 5 Consti)


Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. (2) Review, revise, modify, or affirm on appeal on certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. (d) All criminal cases in reclusion perpetua or higher. which the penalty imposed is

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned. (4) Order a change miscarriage of justice. of venue or place of trial to avoid a

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a

Page 3 simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law. Powers of the Supreme Court 1. original jurisdiction over a. cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls b. petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto c. habeas corpus 2. appellate jurisdiction over cases of a. constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. b. legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto c. jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. d. penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. e. only an error or question of law is involved. 3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed 6 months without the consent of the judge concerned. 4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. 5. Promulgate rules concerning a. the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights b. pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts c. the admission to the practice of law d. the Integrated Bar, and e. legal assistance to the underprivileged 6. Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

Page 4 Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

2. Court of Appeals (Sec. 9, BP 129 as amended by RA 7902)


Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. - The Court of Appeals shall exercise: (1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts; and (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. Jurisdiction of the CA 1. Original jurisdiction a. Exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of RTC b. Concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes 2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over RTCs and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, except COMELEC or Commission on Audit The CA shall have the power to

Page 5 1. try cases and conduct hearings (must be continuous and completed within 3 months, unless extended by the Chief Justice) 2. receive evidence and 3. perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. CA now has appellate jurisdiction over the NLRC. Note: Constitutional Commission decisions should have been appealable to the SC under the Constitution. CSC decisions are appealable to the CA only by law.

3. Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 19, BP 129 as amended by RA 7691)


Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction. (1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation; (2) In all civil actions which involve the (dispute in ownership, possession, or any interest) title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) EXCEPT actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; (3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000) or, in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000); (amount increased as per RA7691) (4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Four Hundred thousand pesos (P400,000); (amount increased as per RA7691) (5) In all actions marital relations; involving the contract of marriage and

(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic

Page 6 Relations Court and provided by law; and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now

(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Four Hundred thousand pesos (P400,000). (amount increased as per RA7691) The interest to be excluded is the interest imposed as a form of damages as a result of default (e.g. legal interest), not interest which the defendant must pay even if he is not in default (cf Art. 1170, 1169 CC). Penalties should be included in the computation of the sum demanded. RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years (which is 1999) from the effectivity of this Act (effectivity: 1994), the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8) xxx of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter (which is 2004), such jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000,00). Sec. 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter. Sec. 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction: (1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; and (2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls. Sec. 22. Appellate jurisdiction. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall be appealable by petition for review to the Intermediate

Page 7 Appellate Court which may give it due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed. Jurisdiction of the RTC 1. Civil cases exclusive original jurisdiction. a. actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation b. actions involving the (dispute to ownership, possession, or any interest) title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein 1) where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds a) P20,000 outside Metro Manila b) P50,000 in Metro Manila 2) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the inferior courts c. actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds 1) P300,000 outside Metro Manila 2) P400,000 in Metro Manila d. matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds 1) P300,000 outside Metro Manila 2) P400,000 in Metro Manila e. actions involving relations; the contract of marriage and marital

f. cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; g. actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations h. cases in which the demand (exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs) or the value of the property in controversy exceeds NOTE: penalties shall be included in the computation of the sum. 1) P300,000 outside Metro Manila 2) P400,000 in Metro Manila

Page 8 2. Criminal cases exclusive original jurisdiction in a. all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body b. except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter. 3. Concurrent original jurisdiction a. issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; and b. actions affecting consuls. ambassadors and other public ministers and

4. Appellate jurisdiction all cases decided by the inferior courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions

4. MTC, MeTC (Secs. 32-33, BP 129 as amended by RA 7691, and Sec. 5, RA 7691)
Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise: (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed

Page 9 Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees: Provided, further, That 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 the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions; (amount increased as per RA7691) (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve (dispute to ownership, possession, or any interest) title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years (which is 1999) from the effectivity of this Act (effectivity 1994), the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in xxx Sec. 33 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter (which is 2004), such jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years (1999) from the effectivity of this Act (1994) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000,00). Jurisdiction of the MTC 1. Criminal Cases (except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan) exclusive original jurisdiction over a. all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and b. all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years

Page 10 1) irrespective of the amount of fine, and 2) regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties 3) including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof 2. Civil Cases Exclusive original jurisdiction over a. Civil actions and probate proceedings where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand 1) does not exceed a) P300,000 outside Metro Manila b) P400,000 in Metro Manila 2) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged (but interest, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing fees) 3) 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 the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions b. cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer (when, in such cases, the defendant raises the questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession) c. actions which involve (dispute to ownership, possession, or any interest) title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein 1) does not exceed a) P20,000 outside Metro Manila b) P50,000 in Metro Manila 2) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: 3) in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.

Page 11

D. Cases

Raymundo v. CA, 213 SCRA 457 (1992):


A claim of attorney's fees is only incidental to its principal cause of action and therefore not determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. An action to remove the illegal and unauthorized installation of glasses at a condominium unit is not capable of pecuniary estimation and falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation the criterion is first to ascertain the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the MTC or in the RTC would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by the RTC.

Ortigas v. Herrera, 120 SCRA 89 (1983)


Facts: Ortigas and respondent entered into an agreement whereby Ortigas agreed to sell to the respondent a parcel of land with a special condition that should respondent as purchaser complete the construction including the painting of his residential house on said lot within 2 years from purchase, Ortigas would refund to respondent the amount of P10 per square meter. When the aforesaid special condition was fulfilled, respondent notified Ortigas in writing and requested for his refund. Upon failure of Ortigas to pay his obligation, respondent filed a complaint for sum of money and damages with the City Court. Ortigas fails in his attempt to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Held: The action involved in this case is one for specific performance and not for a sum of money and therefore incapable of pecuniary estimation because what private respondent seeks is the performance of petitioner's obligation under a written contract to make a refund but under certain specific conditions still to be proven or established. In a case for the recovery of a sum of money, as the collection of a debt, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation because the obligation to pay the debt is not conditioned upon any specific fact or matter. But when a party to a contract has agreed to refund to the other party a sum of money upon compliance by the latter of certain conditions and only upon compliance therewith may what is legally due him under the written contract be demanded, the action is one not capable of pecuniary estimation and is within the jurisdiction of the RTC. The payment of a sum of money is only incidental which can only be ordered after a determination of certain acts the performance of which being the more basic issue to be inquired into.

Page 12 Counterclaim filed in MTC in excess of the MTCs jurisdictional amount is considered waived (Agustin v. Bacalan, GR L-46000). NOTE: case of specific performance for delivery of title of real property from people engaged in the realty business is within the primary jurisdiction of the HLURB.

Legados v. de Guzman, 170 SCRA 357 (1989):


The rule now (1989) is MTCs have jurisdiction over offenses punishable with at most 4 years and 2 months (now [2001] 6 years), regardless of other imposable accessory penalties or civil liability. Simple seduction is now within the MTCs jurisdiction even if the offender may be compelled to acknowledge and give support to the offspring.

SEC v. CA, 201 SCRA 124 (1991)


Facts: The Uy Family owned 2 corporations: UBS Marketing and Soon Kee. Uy-Flores and Uy-Chua were managing directors and had custody of corporate accounting and tax records of both corporations. As a result of a family dispute, the family resolved to assign all their shares in UBS to Johnny Uy, while Johnny Uy assigned all his shares in Soon Kee to the rest of the family. Johnny Uy demanded from UyFlores and Uy-Chua the UBS corporate books, funds, properties and records. His request was denied, hence he filed a case before the SEC. Uy-Flores and Uy-Chua filed MTD on the ground that the SEC has no jurisdiction, because there was no intra-corporate dispute. This was denied. CA reverses holding that since Uy-Flores and Uy-Chua were no longer stockholders and directors of UBS, there was no intracorporate relationship and hence no intra-corporate dispute. Held: The SEC has jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes. Intracorporate dispute is one which arises between a stockholder and the corporation. The SEC has no jurisdiction over a controversy wherein one of the parties involved is not or not yet a stockholder of the corporation. This rule negating the jurisdiction of the SEC however, does not apply where one of the parties was a former stockholder and the controversy arose out of this relation. In the case at bar, at the time of the execution of the Deeds of Assignment the parties were all interlocking stockholders and officers of the 2 corporations. Hence, the deeds of assignment were intra-corporate transactions which arose from intra-corporate relations or between and among the stockholders of the two 2 corporations. The controversy is, therefore, an intra-corporate controversy which falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC. The fact that when the complaint was filed with the SEC, Uy-Flores and Uy-Chua were no longer stockholders of the UBS did not divest the SEC of its jurisdiction. The existence of the intra-corporate relationship at the time of the filing of the complaint does not determine the jurisdiction of the SEC. The fact that the intra-

Page 13 corporate relationship has apparently terminated does not deprive the SEC of its jurisdiction to hear and decide the controversy which arose from that relationship. The determining factor is whether the controversy arose out of intra-corporate relations.

Primero v. IAC, 156 SCRA 435 (1987):


Labor arbiters now have jurisdiction to award damages. Failure to claim moral damages in the illegal dismissal case before the Labor Arbiter bars the subsequent claim for moral damages in a regular court.

Tipait v. Reyes, 218 SCRA 592 (1993)


Facts: Labor Arbiter orders employer to reinstate the employee and to pay backwages. Decision became final and writ of execution was issued. The employer now files an action for prohibition to restrain enforcement of the writ of execution. Held: A civil case to restrain enforcement of a writ of execution issued by labor officials is in the nature of a motion to quash such writ of execution. It is the labor officials who has jurisdiction over the case, not the civil courts.

Manliguez v. CA, 232 SCRA 427 (1994)


Facts: Employer was ordered in a final judgment to pay its employees. Writ of execution was issued and enforced by levying on property. Manliguez filed a complaint which sought the lifting of the levy over, and annulment of the sale of, the property on the ground that Manliguez was the owner of such property and that the employer was just leasing it from him. Held: Where the civil case is to lift levy over and annulment of the sale of the property on the ground that it was not owned by the respondent in the labor case, the civil court has jurisdiction. Where the action attacked the regularity of the issuance of the writ of execution in the labor case, the labor officials have jurisdiction. If the action does not attack the issuance, but the manner of execution, the civil courts have jurisdiction. ***Note: In Tipait, there was an employer-employee relationship between the plaintiff in the civil case and the judgment obligee in the labor case. In Manliguez, there was no such relationship.

Trade Union of the Phils. v. Coscolluela, 140 SCRA 302 (1985)


Facts: Super Garments and Rustan Commercial Corporation have separate compartments in the same building. TUPAS filed a notice of strike against Super Garments. Alleging that goods of Super Garments were spirited out of its strike-bound premises thru Rustan's warehouse, TUPAS picketed Rustan as well. Rustan thus files a petition for injunction and damages before the RTC and NLRC to enjoin the union from picketing its premises. RTC after finding no employer-employee relationship between the parties, issued the writ of preliminary injunction. TUPAS files a case of Unlawful delegation of Legislative

Page 14 Power (ULP) against both Super Garments and Rustan alleging that the former is but the manufacturing arm of the latter. TUPAS claims that the RTC has no jurisdiction to issue an injunction because the case is a labor dispute, that the prerogative belongs to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Held: Where no employer-employee relation exists between the parties, there is no labor dispute. The civil courts, not labor officials, has jurisdiction. There is no labor dispute between the TUPAS and Rustan. Therefore Rustan was justified in seeking relief in before the RTC. The ULP complaint filed by TUPAS does not prove a labor relationship. Furthermore, it was improper for Rustan to have filed a case with the NLRC.

Painaga v. Cortes, 202 SCRA 245 (1991)


Power and authority given to the Director of Lands to alienate and dispose of public lands does not divest the regular courts of their jurisdiction over possessory actions instituted by occupants or applicants against others to protect their respective possessions and occupations. While the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands is confined to the determination of the respective rights of rival claimants to public lands or to cases which involve disposition of public lands, the power to determine who has the actual, physical possession or occupation or the better right of possession over public lands remains with the courts. A protest filed before the Bureau of Lands seeking the cancellation of OCT on the ground of fraud differs from Civil Case for injunction to protect prior possession. The administrative protest boils down to the question of ownership of the area in controversy, while the court action is concerned merely with possession.

Pestanas v. Dyogi, 81 SCRA 574 (1978)


Where a party seeks the cancellation of a free patent with the Bureau of Lands, he must pursue his action in the proper Department and a review by the Courts will not be permitted unless the administrative remedies are first exhausted. Note: In Painaga, the action before the courts was for mandatory injunction to stop invasion into its property. In Pestanas, the action was for cancellation of patent.

Villamor v. Salas, 203 SCRA 540 (1991)


An RTC has no jurisdiction to declare as unjust a judgment of another RTC and sentence the judge thereof liable for damages. Only the higher appellate courts, namely, the CA and the SC, are vested with authority to renew and correct errors of the RTC.

Vital-Gozon v. CA, 212 SCRA 235 (1992)


The CA has jurisdiction to award moral and exemplary damages in original special civil actions of mandamus, even without an express grant from statute.