INTRODUCTION

The first thing that we will take up in Civil Procedure are basic
concepts. We are going to discuss the legal concept of courts. As
you will know, whenever we talk of procedural law, we have no
choice but to involve courts in our discussion.
Lets try to have a mental picture of courts. If I (Dean Iigo)
say courts, please tell me the scene that comes into your mind.
What do you see? There is a table, a gavel, there is someone
sitting there. Then below, there are lawyers sitting down. That is
how everybody pictures a court. But actually, what was pictured
out was a courtroom and not a court.
Similar example: How can you picture a corporation? A
corporation, as you know in Persons, is a juridical entity. It is a
creature of the law. It is a person under the law but it has no
physical existence. But what you see in a corporation is a building
and people who are running the office business. Well, that is the
office of the corporation.
A corporation cannot run without people running it. But a
corporation can own properties, kaya you see the building, the
office, the equipments there. The president or the vice-president
are the officers of the corporation. But the officers are not the
corporation, they run the affairs of the corporation. Ganoon din
ang court. A court has no physical existence, only a legal one.

the cake into parts this part is for you, this part is mine. So,
kanya-kanya tayo ng trabaho. You cannot put the burden only in
one court.
For example, you want to sue your debtor for not paying a
loan. You mean to tell me that you will go to the SC? All cases in
the Philippines will have to filed there? NO. You cannot do it. You
have to start from certain courts in you city or municipality.
Ngayon, pag-sinabi mo kung saan ako mag-file, sa Regional
Trial Court (RTC) ba? O sa Municipal Trial Court (MTC)? Of
course, depende yan on how much you are claiming. If you are
claiming so much, dito ka. If you claim is lower, dito ka naman.
Why is that? Because each has its own work. Each one has its
own portion what is yours is yours, what is mine is mine.
Thus, each court has its own jurisdiction and may only try
cases within its jurisdiction. No court has all the power of the
judiciary but only a portion of it. So there is a division of labor.
Just as corporations cannot act without its officers, a court
cannot function without a judge. But do not say that the court and
the judge mean the same thing. The judge is the person or officer
who presides over a court.

Q: Why portion only?

A: This is because the Constitution provides that the judicial
power shall be vested in one Supreme Court (SC) and in such
other lower courts as may be established by law. (Art. VIII,
Section 1, 1987 Constitution.

Q: Distinguish court from judge.

A: The following are the distinctions:
1.) Court is the entity, body, or tribunal vested with a
portion of the judicial power, while judge is the person
or officer who presides over a court. Judges are
human beings they die, they resign, they retire, they
maybe removed. The court continues to exist even
after the judge presiding over it ceases to do so.
2.) The two concepts may exist independently of each
other, for there may be a court without a judge or a
judge without a court. (Pamintuan vs. Llorente, 29
Phil. 342)

The reason that the law creates different courts is to divide the
cases or judicial power among them so that one court may not be
burdened with so many cases. So, judicial power is not exercised
only by one court, but by several courts. It is like a cake. You slice

EXAMPLE: The present Supreme Court (SC), the

justices presiding over it are not the same justices
who presided it in the early part of this century yet the
Court in some decisions states that as early 1905,

Q: What is a court?
A: A court is an entity or body vested with a portion of the
judicial power. (Lontok vs. Battung, 63 Phil. 1054)

WE have already ruled such as such Why do they

use WE? They are talking about the court, they are
not talking about themselves. The court is continuous.
It does not die alongside with the justices who
presided on it.
Q: Classify courts in general.
A: Generally, courts may be classified as:
1.) Superior Courts
and First-Level courts (inferior
courts);
2.) Courts of Original jurisdiction and Courts of Appellate
jurisdiction;
3.) Civil Courts and Criminal Courts;
4.) Courts of law and Courts of equity;
5.) Constitutional Courts and Statutory Courts.
SUPERIOR COURTS vs. FIRST-LEVEL COURTS
Q: Distinguish superior courts from inferior courts.
A: SUPERIOR COURTS, otherwise known as courts of
general jurisdiction, are those which take cognizance of all kinds
cases, whether civil or criminal, and possess supervisory authority
over lower courts.
FIRST-LEVEL COURTS (inferior courts), otherwise known as
courts of special or limited jurisdiction, are those which take
cognizance of certain specified cases only. (14 Am. Jur. 249)
Q: What courts are superior or inferior?
A: It DEPENDS on what viewpoint you are looking. If you are
looking from the viewpoint of the Constitution, there is only one
superior court the Supreme Court.
From the real viewpoint, the Court of Appeals (CA) maybe
inferior to the SC but it is a superior court for it exercises
supervision over RTC. In the same manner that the RTC might be
inferior to the SC and the CA but it has also power of supervision
over MTC. The jurisdiction of the RTC is varied. It is practically a
jack of all trade. The RTC has also the power of supervision over
MTC.

A superior court may therefore handle civil, criminal cases

while an inferior court may try specified cases only. The SC, CA
including the RTC are considered as superior courts.
The MTC is a first-level (inferior) court so that its power is
limited to specified cases despite of the law which expanded the
jurisdiction of the MTC. It is already at the bottom. Wala ng under
pa sa kanya.
In 1996 Bar: Explain the hierarchy of courts in the Philippines.
Practically, the judicial level is being asked by the examiner.
ORIGINAL COURT vs. APPELLATE COURT
Q: Distinguish original court from appellate court.
A: ORIGINAL COURTS are those where a case is
commenced, while APPELLATE COURTS are those where a case
is reviewed. (Ballentine's Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 91)
So, if you are filing a case for the first time, that case is filed in
an original court. But the case does not necessarily end there. You
may bring the case to the appellate court which has the power to
change the decision of the original court.
Q: Is the SC an original or appellate court?
A: The SC is both an original and an appellate court. Some
people have the impression that you cannot file a case there for
the first time that you have to file it somewhere else, then doon
(SC) mo i-akyat. But when we study the jurisdiction of the SC, we
will be able to know that it is not only an appellate court, but also
an original court. The SC has original jurisdiction on cases of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, etc. There are certain cases
where one may file directly to the SC.
Q: Is the CA an original or appellate court?
A: The same is true with the CA. It is both original and
appellate court. (Section 9, BP 129) When we study the
jurisdiction of the CA, you will see that it is both an original and an
appellate court. There are cases which are elevated to it from the
RTC, but there are also cases which are filed there for the first
time.

Q: How about the RTC? Is the RTC an original or appellate

court?
A: The RTC is also both original and appellate court. You can
file certain cases there for the first time, and there are also
decisions of the MTC which are appealable to the RTC.
Q: How about the MTC? Is the MTC an original or appellate
court?
A: The MTC however, is a 100% original court. It is the lowest
court in the hierarchy. There are no cases appealed to it. There is
no such animal as barangay court. The barangay captains do not
decide cases, they only conciliate.
CIVIL COURTS vs. CRIMINAL COURTS
Q: Distinguish civil courts from criminal courts.
A: CIVIL COURTS are those which take cognizance of civil
cases only, while CRIMINAL COURTS are those which take
cognizance of criminal cases only. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Ballentine's
Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 301)
All the courts in the Philippines are both civil and criminal
courts. They can handle both types of cases. The SC decides civil
and criminal cases. The same thing with the CA, RTC and MTC.
So, in the Philippines, there is no such thing as a 100%
criminal court or civil court. Unlike before, during the 70's there are
some special courts which were existing but were abolished by BP
129. There was the old Circuit Criminal Court. As the name
implies, it is purely a criminal court.
But with the abolition of those special courts, all their powers
were transferred to the present RTC. Right now, there is no such
thing as a 100% civil court or a 100% criminal court. So, all our
courts are both civil and criminal courts at the same time.

sometimes called courts of conscience. (Ballentines Law Dict.,

2nd Ed., p. 303)
Courts Of Law dispose cases according to what the law says
I will decide your case by what the law says. Yan ang court of
law! When we say Courts Of Equity, it adjudicates cases based on
the principles of equity. Principle of equity means principles of
justice, fairness, fair play.
Q: Are the Philippines courts, courts of law? Or courts of
equity? Do they decide cases based on what the law says? or, do
they decide cases based on the principle of justice and fairness?
A: In the Philippines, our courts are both courts of law and of
equity. In the case of substantive law, there is a thin line which
divides the principle of law from the principle of equity because
principles of equity are also found in the principles of law. Equity is
what is fair and what is just and equitable. Generally, what is legal
is fair.
As a matter of fact under the Civil Code, when the law is
silent, you decide it based on what is just and fair. Kaya nga may
kasabihan na EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW. In the Philippines
you cannot distinguish sometimes the principle of law and the
principle of equity because principles of equity are also written in
the law. Example: The principle of estoppel, laches or solutio
indebiti. One cannot say that they are purely principles of equity
since they are also found in our law. Under the Civil Code, when
there is no applicable law, courts still have to decide according to
customs and general principles.
Example: ESTOPPEL. Estoppel is an equitable doctrine that
it is not fair that you disown your own representation after
misleading somebody. But if you look a the Civil Code, meron
mang chapter diyan ba! estoppel! So if you apply estoppel, you
cannot say that you are applying a principle not found under the
law.

COURTS OF LAW vs. COURTS OF EQUITY

Q: Distinguish Courts of Law from Courts of Equity.
A: COURTS OF LAW are tribunals only administering the law
of the land, whereas COURTS OF EQUITY are tribunals which
rule according to the precepts of equity or justice, and are

Example: LACHES the half-brother of prescription if you

delay a certain right then you must have no right. That is more of
equity, rather than of law.

Example: SOLUTIO INDEBITI. No one should enrich himself

at the expense of another. That is a principle of equity. But if you
look at the Civil Code, it's there!
The SC, when deliberating, focuses more on justice and
equity where reason can always be found. The SC once said
that equity follows the law. In the case of :
ALONZO vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT
May 28, 1987, J. Cruz
HELD: The question is sometimes asked, in
serious inquiry or in curious conjecture, whether we
are a court of law or a court of justice. Do we apply
the law even if it is unjust or do we administer justice
even against the law? Thus queried, we do not
equivocate. The answer is that we do neither because
we are a court both of law and of justice. We apply the
law with justice for that is our mission and purpose in
the scheme of our Republic.
So the SC described it self both as a court of law and court of
equity. I have already talked with so many justices of the SC
before. And I asked them on how do they deliberate on cases
when somebody files an appeal or petition. They told me, if you
want to convince the SC to hear your case because the
tendency of some lawyers is that they will file their petition and
they will cite the law. Meaning, backed-up by statutory provisions
ba. A justice of the SC told me that that is a wrong approach. Do
not tell us what is the law. We know more law than you do! When
you file a petition, fairness must be on your side! Because when
we deliberate and we agree that your side seems to be the correct
one, to decide on your favor is more than just to decide on the
other side. Then, we will even look for the law to support our
decision. So, you don't have to tell us what is the law, we will look
for it. And if there is no law, we will make it for you, by
interpreting because we are a court more of equity than of law.
But when we look on the equity, we will look for the law and
chances are, there is the law to follow.

CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS vs. STATUTORY COURTS

Q: Distinguish Constitutional Courts from Statutory Courts.
A: CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS are created directly by the
Constitution itself, while STATUTORY COURTS are created by
law or by the legislature.
In our country, there is only one Constitutional court the
Supreme Court. Even the Sandiganbayan is not considered a
Constitutional court because it was not created by the Constitution
directly. The 1973 Constitution ordered Congress to create
Sandiganbayan. It was law that created Sandiganbayan (PD
1486). There is a provision in the 1973 Constitution which says,
There should be created a Sandiganbayan.
The CA, RTC, and the MTC are created by the Congress.
Thus, Congress has the power to abolish the said courts but it can
never abolish the Supreme Court.
So there is only one Constitutional court. All the rest, from the
CA down and all other special courts, are only creatures of
Congress. In political law, the power to create carries with it the
power to abolish. That is why, BP 129 abolished all existing courts
at that time (CFI, CA, Juvenille, etc.) and RTC, IAC, MTC were
created. That was the judicial reorganization of 1980 under BP
129. But there is only court which the Batasan Pambansa could
not touch the Supreme Court.
They have no power to abolish the SC because it is created
by the Constitution. Pareho lang tayong tabla eh. Congress is also
created by the Constitution. So if you want to abolish the SC, you
must call for a constitutional convention to change the
Constitution.
INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT
Before we leave the concepts of courts, you must know that
the courts of justice have what we call inherent powers. Just like
the State have certain inherent powers, whether written or not,
these things are understood to have them Police power, power
of taxation, and power of taxation.

Courts have also inherent powers. Their very existence

automatically necessitates the existence of these powers. Now,
that was already asked in the Bar before what are the inherent
powers of the court?
Q: What are the inherent powers of the court?
A: Section 5 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court of the provides:
Section 5. Inherent powers of courts.
Every court shall have the power:
(a) to preserve and enforce order in its
immediate presence;
(b) to enforce order in proceedings before
it, or before a person or persons empowered
to conduct a judicial investigation under its
authority;
(c) to compel obedience
to its judgments orders, and processes,
and to the lawful orders of a judge out of
court, in a case therein;
(d) to control, in furtherance of justice, the
conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all
other persons in any manner connected with a
case before it, in every manner appertaining
thereto;
(e) to compel the attendance of persons to
testify in a case pending therein;
(f) to administer or cause to be
administered oaths in a case pending therein,
and in all. other cases where it may be
necessary in the existence of its powers;
(g) to amend and control its process and
orders so as to make them conformable to law
and justice;
(h) to authorize a copy of a lost or
destroyed pleading or other paper to be filed
and used instead of the original, and to
restore, and supply deficiencies in its records
and proceedings.

There are many powers enumerated. Some of them are

common sense. Every court has the power to see to it that
everything of his order is enforced; to compel obedience to his
order. Common sense yan. You are inutile if you cannot even
enforce your own judgment! So I've been telling some judges
here, eh. Sometimes we talk about this: they say, it seems that I
don't have the power under the Rules of Court. It's beyond my
power. I made a decision but I cannot see how was it enforced.
Parang pampalakas-loob ang Rule 135, Section 5 because
you can see there the powers that you do not know you have.
These are inherent eh hindi puwedeng alisin sa iyo iyan.
Otherwise, maging inutil ka I have the power to decide but I do
not know how to enforce my decision. That is a sign of impotence
(Charles, pinaringgan ka ni Dean!). As a matter of fact, the next
section (Section 6, Rule 135) tells us how to carry out your
judgment. If you do not know how to carry out your judgment
because the law is silent, Section 6 says, look for a way. Hanapan
mo ng paraan!
SITUATION: Suppose I have the power to decide and I render
a decision. I want to enforce the decision, how do I enforce? Well,
usually the law provides for the procedure.
Q: But suppose the law does not provide for any manner to
enforce? For example a judge has rendered a decision, and the
law is silent on how to enforce it, do you mean to say that the
order is unenforceable because the law is silent?
A: NO. Section 6 of Rule 135 answers the question.
SEC 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect
When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a
court or a judicial officer, all auxiliary writs,
processes and all other means to carry it into
effect maybe employed by such court or
officer; and if the procedure to be followed in
the exercise of such jurisdiction is not
specifically pointed out by law or these rules,
any suitable process or mode of proceeding
may be adopted which appears conformable
to the spirit of said law or rules.

What Section 6 is trying to say is that when you have the

power to decide, you have the power to enforce. And if the law is
silent, you have to think how to do it. Be creative. Provided you
conform with the spirit of the rule. So you do not make the order
useless simply because there is no rule. In other words, try to look
for a way on how to enforce you judgment. That is part of your
power.
ENFORCEABILITY OF COURT WRITS AND PROCESSES
Another provision that I want to emphasize before we leave
this subject of court is Section 3 of the Interim Rules.
Question: The court of Davao will issue a writ or a process.
Can that writ or process be enforced in Cebu or Manila? Or only in
Davao? Or only in Region IX? Hanggang saan ba ang
enforceability ng aking writ or processes? You have to distinguish
what kind of writ or process you are talking about.

EXAMPLE: If you are illegally detained, you can ask

the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Now, a
person is detained in Bansalan and the family is here in
Davao City. They filed a petition for habeas corpus in
Makilala, North Cotabato. Makilala is in Region 12 and
the RTC of Bansalan is part of the 11th judicial region.
Thus, the judge in Makilala cannot issue the writ of
habeas corpus due to the fact that Bansalan belongs to
the 11th judicial region while Makilala is in the 12th
judicial region. The RTC of Tandag, Surigao is Region
12 and therefore can issue a writ of habeas corpus to be
enforced in Makilala which is hundreds of miles away
because they are of the same judicial region. And yet
the RTC of Bansalan cannot issue a writ to be enforced
in Makilala, North Cotabato, which is the next town,
because that is not part of their region. The law is very
clear: writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction issued by a trial
court may be enforced in any part of the region.

Under Section 3, Interim Rules:

Sec. 3. Writs and Processes. a) Writs
of
certiorari,
prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction issued by a regional trial court may
be enforced in any part of the region.
b) All other processes whether issued by
the RTC or MetTC, MTC, and MTC may be
served anywhere in the Philippines, and, the
last three cases, without a certification by the
judge of the RTC.
Q: What is the area of enforceability of writs and processes of
the courts?
A: Under Section 3 of the Interim Rules, you have to
distinguish what kind of writ or process you are talking about:
a) If it is a writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus, injunction, it can be enforced
anywhere within the region. So at least, RTC can enforce
it within the region and it cannot enforce those writs
outside the region.

b) Section 3 further says, all other writs are enforceable

anywhere in the Philippines. Suppose the MTC issues a
warrant for the arrest of the accused in the criminal case,
and he fled to Baguio City, such warrant can be enforced
there. This includes summons, writs of execution or
search warrants.
-oOoJURISDICTION IN GENERAL
The word JURISDICTION is derived from 2 Latin words: 1.)
JURIS law; 2.) DICO to speak, or to say. So, in effect, when
you say jurisdiction, literally translated, it means, I speak by the
law. It means that you are saying I speak with authority because
when you invoke the law, then your act is authorized. Even in old
times when the representatives of the king or the sovereign will try
to arrest somebody or will try to enter your house, they open up in
the name of the law. They will always invoke in the name of the
law.

So when you say, I speak by the law I will do it in the name

of the law. It connotes authority or power. You cannot be wrong.
How can you be wrong if you are doing it in the name of the law?
So more or less jurisdiction simply means authority or power. So
more or less that is the whole concept of jurisdiction. It simply
means authority or power. That is precisely what jurisdiction is all
about.
JURISDICTION simply means the power of the court to hear
try and decide a case. In its complete aspect, jurisdiction includes
not only the powers to hear and decide a case, but also the power
to enforce the judgment. (14 Am. Jur. 363-364)
Q: What is the effect if the court has no jurisdiction?
A: If a court has no jurisdiction, it has no power or authority to
try a case and that is a concept you already know in Criminal
Procedure. Without jurisdiction, the trial is null and void as well as
the judgment.
Lets go to a criminal case. Can you file an information for
murder before the MTC? Or can you file an information for slight
physical injuries before the RTC? There is something wrong there.
If a slight physical injury case is filed against you in the RTC, what
will you do? If Im the lawyer of the accused why will I allow my
client to be arraigned and to be tried when everything is null and
void. Kapoy-kapoy lang ako. So Ill file a motion to quash under
Rule 117. Thats the same thing in civil cases. If you file a civil
case before a court that has no jurisdiction, then it can be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION vs. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
Now, let us not confuse jurisdiction with certain terms related
to it.
Q: Distinguish jurisdiction from exercise of jurisdiction.
A: The authority to decide a case, not the decision rendered,
is what makes up jurisdiction. It does not depend upon the
regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of
the decision made. Where there is jurisdiction over of the person
and subject matter, the resolution of all other questions arising in

the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction. (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25

Phil. 245)
In other words, JURISDICTION is the authority. If I have no
authority, I cannot act. And if I have authority, I can act. Now, if the
court has authority, it will try the case and render judgment.
Now, what the court will do later, like try the case and render
judgment is merely an EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION. So the
trial and judgment are all products of the exercise of jurisdiction.
You cannot talk of exercise without having first the authority. It is a
useless procedure when you say I will exercise something which
I do not have.
Q: Why is it important to distinguish jurisdiction from exercise
of jurisdiction?
A: Definitely, a court acting as such may commit errors or
mistakes. That is why the action of the court can be questioned
later in a higher court. A court can commit an error which is either
an error of jurisdiction or an error of judgment.
EXAMPLE: A case of murder was filed in the MTC. The
accused, Ken Sur, files a motion to quash because MTC has no
jurisdiction over cases of murder. Eh, yong judge iba man yong
libro niya, No, I have jurisdiction. So the court denied the motion
to quash. Meaning, the judge has decided to assume jurisdiction.
So, meaning from the very start mali na. Now what do you call
that? When the court without authority assumes authority over the
case that is called ERROR OF JURISDICTION the court
committed an error of jurisdiction.
EXAMPLE: Suppose the case for murder is filed in the RTC
where the court has jurisdiction. So walang mali, everything is
correct. But in the course of the trial, you cannot avoid mistakes
being committed like for example, the court misinterpreting the
provision of the RPC saying that this is a requirement, this is not a
requirement for the crime. Meaning misapplication or
misinterpretation of the RPC as well as misinterpretation of the
rules of evidence wrong interpretation of the law. And the
accused was convicted but actually tingin mo mali man ito, di ba!
Under the law, this elements was not considered or this element
was considered as present. Do you say the decision of the judge

is null and void? NO, the judgment is valid kaya lang mali. So, you
do not say the court committed an error in the exercise of
jurisdiction, and that is called an ERROR OF JUDGMENT. And
that was also asked in the bar.
ERROR OF JURISDICTION vs. ERROR OF JUDGMENT
BAR QUESTION: Distinguish ERRORS OF JURISDICTION
from ERRORS OF JUDGMENT.
A: The following are the distinctions:
1.) When a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject
matter, the decision or order on all other questions
arising in the case is but an exercise of
jurisdiction; Errors which the court may commit in
the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely
ERRORS OF JUDGMENT; whereas,
When a court takes cognizance of a case over the
subject matter of which it has no jurisdiction, the
court commits an ERROR OF JURISDICTION.
2.) ERRORS OF JURISDICTION are reviewable by
certiorari; whereas,
ERRORS OF JUDGMENT are reviewable by appeal.
Meaning, when a court has no jurisdiction but insists in
handling the case, that is a mistake by the trial court. It is called an
error of jurisdiction.
Now, suppose a court has jurisdiction over the case but the
decision is wrong it applied the wrong provision of the law, or
interpretation of evidence. This is not an error of jurisdiction
because the court has authority. But in the exercise of its
jurisdiction, it committed several errors. This is now what you call
an error of judgment.
Q: What is the use of distinguishing error of jurisdiction from
error of judgment?
A: The difference is in the remedy taken. Actually, it is still an
error. If it is an error, it can be corrected by a higher court. The
importance, however, as we will see later, is that there is a definite
procedure for correcting a mistake and other procedures which we

will know later where the court commits an error of judgment and
an error of jurisdiction.
In error of judgment, if the judgment is wrong, it is a valid
judgment. Your remedy is to APPEAL the wrong judgment to a
higher court. But when a court commits an error of jurisdiction,
where it insists on handling a case when it has no authority, I can
question its actuation not necessarily by appeal, but by resorting
to extraordinary remedies, which refer to the remedy of
CERTIORARI or PROHIBITION. (Araneta vs. Commonwealth Ins.
Co., L-11584, April 28, 1958; Nocon vs. Geronimo, 101 Phil. 735)
The principle came out in the bar. This error should have been
raised on ordinary appeal, not by certiorari because certiorari is
only confined to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion. The governing rule is that the remedy of certiorari is not
available when the remedy of appeal is available. And when the
remedy of appeal is lost, you cannot revive it by resorting to
certiorari because certiorari is not a substitute for the lost remedy
of appeal.
So, the remedies given by the law are different. These are
basic terms which you should remember.
Q: In whom is jurisdiction is vested?
A: Jurisdiction is vested with the court, not in the judge. A court
may have several branches, and each is not a court distinct and
separate from the others. So, when a case is filed before a
branch, the trial may be had or proceedings may continue before
another branch or judge. (Tagumpay vs. Moscoso, L-14723, May
29, 1959)
EXAMPLE: The RTC of Davao is composed of several
branches eleven to twelve judges. But technically, there is only
one court the RTC of Davao. We do not consider branches as
separate courts.
Q: Now, if the case is filed and is assigned to Branch 8, can
that case later be transferred and continued in Branch 9?
A: Ah YES, because you never leave the same court. You are
still in the same court. This is because jurisdiction is not with the
judge. It is with the court itself.

commencement. (Ballentines Law Dict., 2nd Ed., pp.

91 and 917) One can file the case there for the first
time.

TYPES OF JURISDICTION:
Types of jurisdiction:
1.) General Jurisdiction and Special or Limited
Jurisdiction;
2.) Original Jurisdiction and Appellate Jurisdiction; and
3.) Exclusive Jurisdiction and Concurrent or Coordinate
Jurisdiction;
1. GENERAL JURISDICTION and SPECIAL OR LIMITED
JURISDICTION
a.) GENERAL JURISDICTION is the authority of the court
to hear and determine all actions and suits, whether
civil, criminal, administrative, real, personal or mixed.
It is very broad to hear and try practically all types of
cases. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)
b.) SPECIAL or LIMITED JURISDICTION is the authority
of the court to hear and determine particular cases
only. Its power is limited. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs.
Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)
So, the court is authorized to hear and try
certain specified cases. Limitado pa ang power
niya. And when you go over the Judiciary Act,
studying the jurisdiction of the different courts, in
civil cases you will see that the jurisdiction of
some courts like the RTC, masyadong far
ranging. It covers many things whereas the
jurisdiction of the MTC, makipot. Very narrow
bah because it is a court of limited or special
jurisdiction.
2.
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION

and

APPELLATE

a.) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION is the power of the court to

take cognizance of a case at its inception or

b.) APPELLATE JURISDICTION is the power vested in a

superior court to review and revise the judicial action
of a lower court. (Ballentines Law Dict., 2nd Ed., pp.
91 and 917) If one court has the power to correct the
decision of a lower court, the power of this court is
appellate. This is because it commenced somewhere
else and it is just reviewing the decision of the said
lower court.
EXAMPLE: Maya Quitain will file a civil case
in the RTC and that court will take cognizance
and try it. You are invoking the original
jurisdiction of the RTC. After trial, Maya lost the
case, so Maya decided to appeal the decision of
the RTC to the CA. The case is now there. It is
now in the CA and you are now invoking its
appellate jurisdiction.
3. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION and CONCURRENT OR
COORDINATE JURISDICTION
a.) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION is that possessed by a
court to the exclusion of all others.
Q: Sugar JJ filed a collection case against
John Vera, for an unpaid loan of P5,000. The
judiciary law says, if you file a civil case to
collect an unpaid loan below P200,000, you
should file it with the MTC. Can Sugar JJ file it
in the RTC?
A: NO. Therefore the jurisdiction of the MTC
is EXCLUSIVE. It does not share its power with
other courts.
b.) CONCURRENT or COORDINATE JURISDICTION is
that possessed by the court together with another or
other courts over the same subject matter, the court

obtaining jurisdiction first retaining it to the exclusion

of the others, but the choice of court is lodged in those
persons duly authorized to file the action. (Villanueva
vs. Ortiz, 58 O.G. 1318, Feb. 12, 1962)
Example: Thaddeus Tangkad wants to file a
case or petition in court. Then, he looks at the
law and the law says that you can file it in this
court or, kung ayaw mo diyan, puwede din dito,
diyan or doon Thaddeus Tangkad can file it in
this court or in other courts. Therefore, he has
the right to choose where to file. So if Thaddeus
files it in court #2, and it assumes now
jurisdiction, out na ang court #1 and court #3. If
he files it in court #3, out na yong #1 and #2.
Now this is what you call CONCURRENT
jurisdiction because you can file the case in two
courts or more at your choice.
Now, last time we were classifying courts
and you learned that the SC is meron palang
original jurisdiction. Ito palang CA also has
original jurisdiction. Ang RTC obviously is more
of an original court than an appellate court.
Q: Are there certain types of cases or
petitions where I can file it directly with the SC
or file with the CA or file it with the RTC?
A: YES and the best example is a petition
for HABEAS CORPUS. The SC, CA and RTC
share concurrent jurisdiction to entertain
petitions for habeas corpus. Makapili ka. I-file
mo SC, puwede. Kung gusto mo sa CA,
puwede din. Kung ifile mo sa RTC, puwede. In
effect, these are the instances when the SC, CA
and RTC exercise concurrent jurisdiction.
ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES

In your study of criminal procedure where you also studied the

law on jurisdiction, there are also some elements of jurisdiction in
criminal cases. Otherwise, the proceeding will be illegal.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter; Jurisdiction over the person of
the accused; and the third is territorial jurisdiction, i.e. the case
should be filed in the place where the crime was committed. In
civil cases meron din iyong counterpart.
Q: What are the elements of jurisdiction in civil cases?
A: The following:
a.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter ;
b.) Jurisdiction over the person of the parties to the case;
c.) Jurisdiction over the res; and
d.) Jurisdiction over the issues.
Q: Now, what happens if in a particular case one of these is
missing?
A: The proceedings become questionable. The proceedings
become void. The judgment is not binding. That is the effect of
lack of jurisdiction. The proceedings are tainted with illegality and
irregularity. Alright, lets go over them one by one.
A. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
Q: Define jurisdiction over the subject matter.
A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power of the court
to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belongs. (Banco Espaol-Filipino vs.
Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)
In other words, it is the jurisdiction over the nature of the
action. Now, you know already the various types of civil cases
such as actions for nullity of marriage, action publiciana, action
reivindicatoria, etc. This is what we call the NATURE OF THE
ACTION.
Now, if the nature of the subject matter of the action, e.g.
annulment of marriage, where will you file it? It should not be filed
in the wrong court or else it will be dismissed. The counterpart of
that in Criminal law is e.g. offenses punishable by death penalty
cannot be tried with the MTC. Annulment cases should be filed in

the RTC otherwise it will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over

the subject matter.
Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter acquired or
conferred?
A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and
is never acquired by consent or submission of the parties or by
their laches. This is a matter of legislative enactment which none
but the legislature can change. (MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil.
523; Otibar vs. Vinson, L-18023, May 30, 1962) It cannot be
acquired by an agreement between the parties, waiver, failure to
object (silence).
Q: Now, suppose I want to file a case against you and under
the law that should be filed in the RTC. But both of us believe that
the judges of the MTC like Judge Caete knows more, he is more
competent than the other judge there. Maganda siguro dito na
lang tayo sa MTC. O sige, we sign an agreement, magpirmahan
tayo that we will file the case by agreement in the MTC. By
agreement, doon sa MTC natin i-file. Did the MTC acquire
jurisdiction over the case because the parties agreed?
A: NO, agreements between parties cannot change the law.
Jurisdiction is conferred by law, not by agreements of the parties.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be agreed upon. It is
acquired by or conferred to the court by law either the
Constitution or the Judiciary Law. The parties cannot agree to
have the case submitted to another court.
Q: Now, suppose I will file a case against you in a wrong court.
Ikaw naman hindi ka kumibo. Actually what you should do there is
file a motion to dismiss (or in criminal cases a motion to quash.)
But hindi ka nagkibo Sige lang. I will not complain. So is it okey?
Since you did not object, you did not file a motion to dismiss, you
did not file a motion to quash, did the wrong court acquired
jurisdiction over the case?
A: NO. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by silence of the
parties or by waiver. Estoppel or waiver or silence or failure to
object cannot vest jurisdiction in the wrong court because
jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. And when
the court has no jurisdiction, the court by itself has the power to
dismiss, Why will I burden myself for trying a case, when I have
no jurisdiction?

The ONLY exception is when there is estoppel by laches, as

laid down in tile TIJAM vs. SIBONGHANOY (April 15, 1968). The
issue of jurisdiction was not questioned for an unreasonable
length of time. BUT the rule is, it can be raised at any stage of the
proceeding even for the first time on appeal. And even the parties
may not raise it, the court motu propio has the authority to dismiss
it.
Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter determined?
A: It is determined by the allegations of the complaint. It does
not depend upon the pleas or defenses of the defendant in his
answer or motion to dismiss. (Cardenas vs. Camus, L-19191, July
30, 1962; Edward J. Nell Co. vs. Cubacub, L-20842, June 23,
1965; Serrano vs. Muoz Motors, L-25547, Nov. 27, 1967)
B. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
Q: Define jurisdiction over the person.
A: Jurisdiction over the person is the power to render a
personal judgment through the service of process or by voluntary
appearance of a party during the progress of a cause. (Banco
Espaol-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)
Q: In criminal cases, how does the court acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the accused?
A: By having him (1) arrested; (2) by service of the warrant of
arrest; or (3) by his voluntary surrender.
Q: Even if he is not arrested, can the court try an accused
without the accused being arrested?
A: Of course not, because the court has not acquired
jurisdiction over his person. Arestuhin mo muna. Then puwede
siyang mag-bail kung gusto niya. After na-arrest, naglayas,
nagsibat? Bahala ka i-try in absentia. There will be a valid decision
because the court has already acquired jurisdiction. Of course we
cannot enforce the decision until we caught him. Pero pagnahuli,
ka diretso ka na sa prisuhan. You say, I was not able to give my
side. I was not able to confront and cross-examine the witness
against me. Eh, bakit ka naglayas? Pasensiya ka! Thats the
concept of trial in absentia. But for trial in absentia to proceed in
criminal cases, you must first arrest him. You cannot try him

without being arrested. You must arrest him and arraign him first.
The same thing in civil cases. It must be that the court must
acquire jurisdiction over this person.
Normally, when we say jurisdiction over the parties, we are
referring to the PLAINTIFF the one suing, and the DEFENDAN'T
the one being sued. For the decision to be valid, the court must
obtain jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff and the
defendant. Otherwise, the decision will not bind the parties over
whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction.
That is why jurisdiction over the parties is the power of the
court to render a personal judgment which will bind the parties to
the case. What is the use of rendering a decision if the parties are
not bound? It must have effect.
Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff?
A: Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired from
the moment he files his complaint. Upon filing his complaint in
court, he is automatically within the jurisdiction of the court. (MRR
Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)
Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the defendant?
A: Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired:
1.) upon service on him of coercive process in the
manner provided by law; or
2.) by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court. (MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)
First Instance: UPON SERVICE ON HIM OF COERCIVE
PROCESS
IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW
The first instance when a court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is through a service upon him of the
appropriate court process which in civil law is called service of
summons. This is the counterpart of warrant of arrest in criminal
procedure.
So if the defendant was never served with summons, any
judgment rendered by the court will not bind him. Even if he is the

loser in the case, judgment cannot be enforced because the court

did not acquire jurisdiction over his person.
The same principle holds true in criminal cases. A court cannot
try and convict an accused over whose person the court never
acquired jurisdiction. In criminal cases, the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person through the issuance of a warrant of
arrest. The warrant cannot have its effect even if it was issued, if
the same had not been served, i.e. by effecting the arrest of the
accused by virtue of a warrant.
Q: In criminal cases, how can the warrant of arrest be
effected?
A: Once an information has been filed in court, the court
issues a warrant. Then, the arresting officer will arrest the
accused. The court acquires jurisdiction by ENFORCEMENT OF
SERVICE for effective arrest of the accused pursuant to the
warrant of arrest.
Second Instance: BY HIS VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO
THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
Another way to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
accused even if the accused is not arrested is through
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. Since there is no more need for the
warrant, the court will recall the same. In civil cases, it is the
voluntary submission of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the
court.
Q: Defendant was served with summons improperly or
irregularly therefore, he could question the jurisdiction of the court
over his person. But instead, he did not question the jurisdiction of
the court despite the defective service of court process. Did the
court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?
A: YES, because jurisdiction over the person can be acquired
by:
a.) waiver;
b.) consent; or
c.) lack of objection by the defendant. (MRR Co. vs. Atty.
Gen. 20 Phil. 523)

This is unlike the jurisdiction over subject matter wherein the

case could be dismissed upon filing in the wrong court. The SC
said that when you remained silent despite the defects, your
silence has cured the defect. Meaning, the jurisdiction over your
person was acquired by waiver, or consent, or lack of objection.
Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter from
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?
A: Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may
be cured by waiver, consent, silence or failure to object, whereas
jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be cured by failure to
object or by silence, waiver or consent. (MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20
Phil. 523)

court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant,

jurisdiction over the res becomes a substitute over the person.
EXAMPLE: Even if the defendant is a non-resident who is out
of the country and the object of litigation is here in the Philippines,
then acquisition of jurisdiction over the res confers jurisdiction to
the court even if the defendant is abroad. The res here is where
the judgement can be enforced.
That is why in Rule 14, there is an extra-territorial service of
summons. But based on a SC ruling, the extra-territorial service of
summons is not for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant but is merely how to comply with the due
process clause.

C. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES

RES is the Latin word for thing.
Q: Define jurisdiction over the res.
A: Jurisdiction over the res is that acquired by the court over
the property or the thing in contest, and is obtained by seizure
under legal process of the court whereby it is held to abide such
order as the court may make. (Banco Espaol-Filipino vs.
Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)
Q: A and B quarreled over a piece of land. What is the res of
the case?
A: The piece of land is the res of the case.
Q: However, res may not be tangible. For example, Weng
Kolotski is an illegitimate child. She wants to be acknowledged by
her father. Thus, she filed a case against her father for compulsory
recognition. What is the res?
A: The res is the status of the child because it is the object of
the litigation.
Q: Why is jurisdiction over the res important?
A: Sometimes it is a substitute for jurisdiction over the person.
There are instances when the court cannot acquire jurisdiction
over the defendant like when he is abroad. But if the court
acquires jurisdiction over the res, the case may go on. Even if the

D. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

Q: Define jurisdiction over the issues.
A: Jurisdiction over the issue is the authority to try and decide
the issues raised by the pleadings of the parties. (Reyes vs. Diaz,
73 Phil. 484)
Q: What are pleadings?
A: They are governed by Rule 6.
Rule 6, Section 1 - Pleadings are the
written allegation of the parties of their
respective claims and defenses submitted to
the court for trial and judgment.
In a civil case, the parties before the trial file in court
pleadings. That is where you state your position.
EXAMPLE: Francis Paloy Ampig will sue you to collect a
loan. So Paloy will file a complaint in court. That is a pleading.
Then you have to answer Paloys complaint in court. You say that
you do not owe him anything because you already paid him. So
you prepare your answer in writing in court and that is also called
a pleading. Based on what Paloy said in his complaint and your
answer, we will now know what they are quarreling about.

For example: Paloy says you borrowed money, you

never paid him. Now according to your answer, No. I
already paid him.

Jurisdiction over the issues of the case is acquired

upon filing of the answer which joins the issues
involve in the case.

Q: Now what is the issue?

A: The issue is, whether the obligation still existing or is it
already extinguished by payment. So that is the issue. So that is
where we will know what we will try in this case.

EXAMPLE: I am the plaintiff, I will file a case in

court to collect an unpaid loan. From the moment I
file the case, the court has acquired jurisdiction over
the subject matter. Now, you are summoned. File ka
naman ng sagot mo, Wala akong utang, bayad na.
Then the court has now acquired jurisdiction over the
issue. One is acquired upon filing of the complaint
and the other one is acquired after the filing of the
answer by the defendant.

Q: Suppose after the trial, the court said that the obligation
has been extinguished by condonation. Now where did the court
get that? Your defense is payment, and the decision now it was
extinguished by condonation. Is the decision correct?
A: The decision is WRONG because the parties did not raise
condonation as the issue. The case was decided on an issue that
was not even raised by the parties. So the court never acquired
jurisdiction over the issue. In other words, the court should only
rule on what the parties raised in their pleadings. That is what we
call jurisdiction over the issue. The court should only rule on what
the parties claim.

HIERARCHY OF THE COURTS

In the 1996 BAR: One of the questions in Remedial Law was:
State the hierarchy of the Courts in the Philippines.
a.) Regular courts

So, the court is supposed to rule on the issue raised and not
those not raised by the parties.
Take note that jurisdiction over the issues in civil cases is
acquired after defendant has filed an answer. In criminal cases,
jurisdiction over the issues is acquired upon filing of a complaint.
For a decision to be effective, the court must acquire the
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the person, the res in case the
defendant is not around, and the last is jurisdiction over the issue.
Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter and
jurisdiction over the issues.
A: The following are the distinctions:
1.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to
hear and try a particular case, while
Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court to
resolve legal questions involved in the case;
2.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired upon
filing of the complaint, while

SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
MetTC

MTCC

MTC

MCTC

Note:
MetTC- In Manila
MTCC- cities outside Manila e.g. Cebu, Davao
MTC- municipalities such as Digos, Panabo
MCTC- circuitized areas because it is impractical and
expensive to maintain one MTC in every municipalities.
b.) Special courts
There are also Special Courts which are also considered part
of the judiciary. These are:

1. Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125)

2. Sandiganbayan (PD 1486 as amended)
3. Sharia District Courts and the Sharia Circuit
Courts (PD 1083 , also known as the Code of
Muslim Personal Law);
4. Family Courts
We are concerned only of the jurisdiction of the REGULAR
COURTS.
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The highest court of the land is the Supreme Court. It was not
affected by the Judiciary Law (BP 129) which reorganized the
judiciary in 1983. Being a constitutional court, its jurisdiction is
found in the fundamental law itself. The SC is both an original and
appellate court.
a.) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
Article VIII, Section 5 , paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution
enumerates the ORIGINAL jurisdiction of the SC:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have
the following powers:
[1] Exercise original jurisdiction over
cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, over petitions for
certiorari,
prohibition,
mandamus,
quo
warranto , and habeas corpus.
Now, it is still premature for us to discuss now what do you
mean by certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto because
that is discussed exhaustively in the study of Special Civil Actions.
But you are more acquainted with habeas corpus. It is a special
proceeding. If you are illegally detained, you can file a petition for
habeas corpus directly before the SC because it has original
jurisdiction.

So that is the first provision in the Constitution dealing with the

jurisdiction of the SC. However, the SC is not only an original
court, it is also an appellate court.
b.) APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The appellate jurisdiction is found in Section 5, Paragraph (2),
Article VIII 1987 Constitution:
2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or
affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the
Rules of Court may provide, final judgments
and orders of lower courts in:
a) All
cases
in
which
the
constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
b) All cases involving the legality of
any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation thereto.
c) All cases in which the jurisdiction
of any lower court is in issue.
d) All criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher.
e) All cases in which an error or
question of law is involved.

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.
So if the RTC in a certain civil case declares the law as
unconstitutional since it has the power to do so, the same has to
be appealed directly to the SC. It cannot pass through the CA

because the SC has exclusive appellate jurisdiction regarding the

matter.
QUESTIONS OF LAW and QUESTIONS OF FACT
b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
This is related to the legality of tax cases whether a tax or
tax penalty is legal or not. However, whatever decision the lower
court gives, it has to be appealed directly to the SC.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue
EXAMPLE: The RTC or the MTC says it has jurisdiction or it
has no jurisdiction over a case. The aggrieved party, it if wants to
raise that joint, it must go to the SC. When the issue is purely
jurisdiction, the SC shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
Now, when the law says all cases in which the jurisdiction of
any lower court is in issue, the cases involve 100% pure
jurisdiction as an issue. There are no factual issues involved. If the
issue of jurisdiction is mixed with a factual issue, the appeal
should be in the CA without prejudice to the filing of the same with
the SC later. So, this is 100% issue of jurisdiction. No factual issue
is involved.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
We will not dwell on this. This is more on Criminal Procedure.
We are only interested in civil cases.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
Take note that ONLY an error or question of law is involved.
So, if there is a mixed question of law and a question of fact,
appeal must be filed with the CA. You only go to the SC if the
appeal is 100% legal. That applies to both criminal and civil cases.

The best example of questions of law where the issues are

purely legal are classroom problems. The question is: Who is
right? A or B? Reasons. You apply the law. But as to what
happened, the facts are already given. Based on these facts who
is correct? Yun ang tinatawag na question of law.
Pero if the facts are still vague, that is not a question of law,
that is a question of fact. Example: Lyle filed a case against Aivy to
collect an unpaid loan. According to Lyle, Aivy borrowed money
from him and its already overdue and she has not paid. Aivy
admits she borrowed money from Lyle but says she has already
paid. Now, the question in the exam: Who is telling the truth?
My golly! How can you answer the question who is telling the
truth? In other words, I have to hear them. Yun ang tinatawag na
question of fact what happened, pinag-aawayan pa. When you
go to SC in civil cases, you are not there to ask the SC to
determine who is telling the truth. You are asking who is right
under the law.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH
THE
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
Article IX, Section 7, paragraph (a), 1987 Constitution:
Each Commission shall decide by a
majority vote x x x. Unless otherwise provided
by this Constitution or by law, any decision,
order, or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by
the aggrieved party within thirty days from
receipt of a copy thereof.
The COMELEC, COA and the CSC act also as courts of
justice. They have powers to decide certain cases within their
jurisdiction. Election cases, sa COMELEC man yan ba. Claims
against the government COA. Or disallowance on disbursement

by government officers or removal from government service

CSC.
Now, according to Section 7, any decision, order or ruling of
these commissions may be brought to the SC on certiorari, etc.
So you will see that the decisions of the constitutional
commissions are reviewable by the SC.
However, Congress amended the Judiciary Law particularly
Section 9 on the jurisdiction of the CA by now making decisions of
the CSC no longer appealable to the SC directly but appealable to
the CA.
So based on the present law, out of the three
constitutional commissions, the only ones whose decisions are
appealable directly to the SC are those of the COMELEC and the
COA
When that law was passed where the decisions of the CSC
are appealable to the CA, first I was stunned. I said there is
something queer here because the CSC is a constitutional body
and the CA is not. So why will a decision of a constitutional body
be reviewable by a non-constitutional body? And I said parang it
might violate the Constitution. Under the Constitution, decisions of
the constitutional commissions are appealable to the SC. Does
Congress have the power to change that by making it appealable
to the CA?
So I had to look at the provision again to find out whether this
is possible. But pwede naman pala. You look at the provision,
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law..
Meaning, the decisions are appealable to the SC unless otherwise
provided by law. The Constitution itself gave Congress the power
to change it. So there is no problem.
Article VII, Section 4, last paragraph, 1987 Constitution:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall
be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the
President or Vice-President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.

If theres an electoral protest for the President and VicePresident, the matter is not to be decided by the COMELEC but by
the SC. This is what is called as the SC acting as the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal. The only case so far was that filed by
Defensor-Santiago but which was dismissed, the SC ruled that
when she ran for the Senate, she has already technically
abandoned her interest for the Presidency.
Article VII, Section 18 (3), 1987 Constitution Commander-inChief Clause
The Supreme Court may review, in an
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen,
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ or extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision
thereon within thirty days from its filing.
So, the SC, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen
review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of
martial law. Meaning, the SC can inquire into the basis on why
martial law is declared.
Which therefore abandons the Political Question doctrine laid
down in many earlier cases that it is the prerogative of the
President to determination, at his discretion, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof.
So this particular provision of the Constitution came about in
1987 to check the supposed excesses during the time of Marcos,
though it came too late. It may well take another 100 years to
produce another Marcos.
Article VIII, Section 2, 1987 Constitution:
The Congress shall have the power to
define,
prescribe,
and
apportion
the
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not

deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction

over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
Congress may change or even remove the jurisdiction of the
RTC or CA. The law can change them because jurisdiction over
the subject matter is conferred by law. However, Congress does
not have the power to lessen or deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction under Section 5, Article VIII.

certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against the following: the SEC,

the CSC, the different boards, tribunals or agencies which
replaced the old Public Service Commission (e.g. LTFRB). Also,
issuance of writ of certiorari against the RTC and other
quasi-judicial agencies, courts, instrumentalities and commissions.
CONCURRENT with the RTC are those actions affecting
ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls. This is
based on the Judiciary Law and the Constitution.

However Article VI, Section 30 states:

No law shall be passed increasing the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as
provided in this Constitution without its advice
and concurrence.
Thus , Congress cannot lessen but it can increase the SCs
powers and jurisdiction, PROVIDED it is with the latter's advice
and concurrence.
The provision under the Ombudsman Law (RA) with regards
to the Ombudsmans disciplining power appealable directly to the
SC, was declared unconstitutional by the SC because it increased
the SCs jurisdiction and was passed without the advise and
concurrence of the SC.
So more or less, these are the scattered provisions of the
Constitution dealing with the SCs jurisdiction.
[Note: PLEASE REFER TO THE HANDOUT HEREIN
ATTACHED FOR A COMPLETE OUTLINE OF THE SUPREME
COURT'S JURISDICTION.]
The ORIGINAL EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the SC refers to
petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus as defined in Rule 65 against the following: the CA,
the COMELEC, COA, Sandiganbayan, Central Board of
Assessment Appeals, NLRC or the Secretary of Labor under the
Labor Code.
The cases where its original jurisdiction is CONCURRENT
with the CA are likewise petitions for the issuance of writs of

CONCURRENT with the CA and RTC are those involving

habeas corpus, quo warranto, and writs of certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus against inferior courts and bodies. For example, a
petition for mandamus against the MTC of Davao City can be filed
with the SC, CA, or RTC although the policy of the Supreme Court
is that it should be filed with the RTC based on the hierarchy of the
courts. (Vergara vs. Suelto, 156 SCRA 758)
Finally, with the advent of the new law (RA 8249), there is now
a CONCURRENCE between the SC and the Sandiganbayan in so
far as petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas
corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of the
Sandiganbayan's APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
b.) APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT:
1.) Automatic review of death penalty. So when the RTC
imposes the death penalty, whether the accused appeals
or not, the case will be elevated to the SC;
2.) Ordinary appeal from the RTC direct to the SC. This only
applies to criminal cases where the penalty of reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed or other offenses
which arise out of the same occurrence or committed by
the accused on the same occasion;
3.) Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45. When it comes to
appeal by Certiorari, there are three types:
3.1.) From the CA or all appeals from the CA are certiorari
which is different from the certiorari in Rule 65.

3.2.) From the RTC direct to the SC. Now, this is not
ordinary appeal because this only applies to criminal
cases. In civil cases, if you want to go directly to the
SC, you can do so by appeal by certiorari, provided
that the following conditions are met:
a.) If no question of fact is involved and the case
involves the constitutionality or legality validity of
any tax, impost, etc., or jurisdiction of the lower
courts is in issue ( Article VIII, section 5 par.(2)
b.) only an error or question of law involved (supra);
c.) a judgment rendered upon an award under the
Arbitration Law (RA 876)
d.) appeal on pure questions of law in cases of
appeal to the RTC from inferior courts. So, from
the MTC to the RTC ordinary appeal. From the
RTC, on pure questions of law, to the SC appeal
by certiorari.
3.3.) Appeal from other courts or administrative agencies
liked appeal from the Sandiganbayan to the SC, from
the Central Board of Assessment Appeal or from the
Ombudsman.
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
The jurisdiction of the CA is now governed by BP 129 or the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. BP 129 was passed in 1983
by the former Batasang Pambansa which practically abolished all
the regular courts at that time, and also with the special courts
except the SC which cannot be abolished by Congress. What was
also spared was the Court of Tax Appeals which was likewise not
affected.
In lieu of these, other courts were created. The
constitutionality of BP 129 was challenged as violative of the
security of tenure of the judges. But its constitutionality was
sustained in the case of DELA LLANA vs. ALBA, 112 SCRA 294.

The CA is composed of over 50 justices but I think new

divisions were created. They decide cases by a division of three.
Before BP 129, the court was also called the Court of
Appeals, the counterpart of the present CA, though the CA now is
different and more powerful than the old one. BP 129 abolished
the old CA and created another court which was called the
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (IAC).
So, from the 1983 to 1986, it was called the IAC. After the
EDSA Revolution, President Aquino, pursuant to her law-making
powers, issued E.O. #33 amending the Judiciary Law and
changed the name of IAC to CA (referring to the jurisdiction of the
IAC).
Many people thought that the CA of President Aquino under
E.O. #33 is actually the IAC under another name only, pinalitan
lang ng pangalan. But in a case decided by the SC, reported in
IN RE: LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
REYNATO S. PUNO
210 SCRA 589 [1992]
HELD: E.O. # 33 created an entirely new court.
Therefore, the IAC existed only for three years from
1983 to 1986. Hence, President Aquino not only rebaptized or re-christened the IAC but she actually
abolished the IAC and created a new CA.
It is the holding of the Court that the present
Court of Appeals is a new entity, different and distinct
from the Court of Appeals or the Intermediate
Appellate Court existing prior to Executive Order No.
33, for it was created in the wake of the massive
reorganization launched by the revolutionary
government of Corazon C. Aquino in the aftermath of
the people power (EDSA) revolution in 1986.
So, in effect, Section 9 which defines the second highest court
of the land has been amended twice. First, by E.O. #33. And then
on February 1995, it was amended again by RA 7902, known as
The Act expanding the jurisdiction of the CA.

The essential features of the CAs jurisdiction are as follows:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

jurisdiction of the two courts at the same time. Now, suppose I will
do that, what do you think will happen to me?
A: The consequence is found in Section 17 of the Interim
Rules. Thats why, as I said, the Interim Rules are still intact.

[1] Section 9, paragraph 1, BP 129

Section 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.
Does the language sound familiar to you? Original jurisdiction
to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
quo warranto. Did you hear that before?
Under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court the
language is the same, eh. Now, we take the same provision for
the second time. So, if I would like to file a petition for habeas
corpus, where will I file it?
Q: If I file it with the Supreme Court, is it allowed?
A: Yes, because the Constitution says so.
Q: But suppose I will instead file it with the CA, is it also
allowed?
A: Yes, under Section 9, paragraph 1.
So what is the conclusion? The SC and the CA exercises
concurrent jurisdiction to entertain petitions to issue writs of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto.
Alright, so I will go to a specific SITUATION: Im a clever
lawyer, and I will file a petition for quo warranto. In order to be sure
I will get what I want, I will prepare two identical petitions. Since
concurrent man sila, I will file before the SC and the other one with
the CA. Sigurista ba kung madisgrasya sa isa, meron pang isa.
Q: Can I do that? Meaning, I will file one petition before the
SC, I will file another petition, pareho-pareho I will invoke the

Interim Rules, Sec. 17. Petitions for writs of

certiorari, etc. - No petition for certiorari,
mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus or quo
warranto may be filed in the IAC if another
similar petition has been filed or is still
pending in the SC. Nor may such petition be
filed in the SC if a similar petition has been
filed or is still pending in the IAC, unless it is
to review the action taken by the IAC on the
petition filed with it. A violation of this rule
shall constitute contempt of court and shall be
a cause for the summary dismissal of both
petitions, without prejudice to the taking of
appropriate action against the counsel or
party concerned.
So, eto, you believe you are a clever lawyer, so you will file
two identical petitions. Do you know what will happen to you
according to the provision? Once the CA learns that you filed an
identical petition with the SC, the CA will dismiss the petition
before it. And once the SC also learns that you also filed before
the CA, the SC will also dismiss the one you filed before it. So
you end up with nothing because both courts will dismiss.
And not only that, both courts will declare you in contempt of
court and if you are a lawyer, disciplinary actions may be taken
against you. That is what you will get if you think you are clever. It
turns out that you placed yourself in a frying pan. In other words,
this is what is called abhorrent, contemptible practice of FORUM
SHOPPING. Have you heard that term before forum shopping?
Yun bang sabay-sabay kang mag-file ng case. You will invoke the
jurisdiction of two or more courts simultaneously. That is an act of
contempt of court (Rule 7, Section 5).
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

[2] Section 9, paragraph 2, BP 129

(2) Exclusive jurisdiction over actions
for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial
Courts;
Yes, you will notice again that this type of action belongs to the
original jurisdiction of the CA. But there is something that you will
notice. In paragraph 2, it says there exclusive jurisdiction. In
paragraph 1, the word exclusive is not present. As already
explained earlier in paragraph 1, the jurisdiction of the CA is
concurrent with the SC. In paragraph 2, the original jurisdiction of
the CA is exclusive with the CA. You can only file this type of
action before the CA such as an action for annulment of
judgments of the RTCs.
Q: Actions for annulment of judgments of RTCs, an action to
annul a judgment of the RTC. Now, is this similar to an appeal? Is
this the same as appealing the decision of the RTC to the CA?
A: No, because in appeal, you are invoking the appellate
jurisdiction of the CA. Here in paragraph 2, it is not appellate
jurisdiction. Original ito, eh. Meaning, you are filing an action
before the CA for the first time. And the nature of the action is to
annul a judgment of the RTC.
Well, you are familiar with the Civil Law about actions of
annulment of contracts. So, if there is such a case of annulment
of contract, there is also such a case as annulment of judgments
of the RTCs and you come to wonder:
Q: What would be the ground? What will be the ground to
annul the judgment of the RTC and how do you distinguish it from
an appeal?
A: The present 1997 Civil Procedure now contains a specific
rule on this. Before 1997, the guidelines on annulment of
judgment of the RTCs are SC decisions. There is no specific rule,
ba. But yung guidelines are based on jurisprudence.
Right now, starting July 1, 1997, there is now a specific rule on
annulment of judgments of RTC. And that is Rule 47. That is an
entirely new rule. So that is enacted precisely to implement

Section 9 Paragraph 2. Of course, we will discuss that rule very

much later.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Now well go the 3rd. Paragraph 3 is the most popular
jurisdiction of the CA. Appellate, eh. This is what is often
involved. Most of the cases which land in the CA are appealed
cases. Alright, so paragraph 3 defines the appellate jurisdiction of
the CA.
[3] Section 9, paragraph 3, BP 129
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all
final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders
or awards of the RTCs 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 SC in accordance
with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the
Philippines under PD 442, as amended, the
provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1)
of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of
the fourth paragraph of Sec. 17 of the
Judiciary Act of 1948.
Take note, the appellate jurisdiction of the CA is EXCLUSIVE.
Now, if you will analyze paragraph 3, you will notice that the CA is
a powerful court because it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over all final judgments, decisions, resolution, orders or awards of
RTCs. So as a general rule, if the RTC, anywhere in the country
renders a decision and you want to appeal, whether civil or
criminal, chances are it will go the to CA. It is a powerful court, eh
all RTCs eh exclusive pa.
And not only only RTCs. The law says and quasi-judicial
agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions Not only

decisions of the RTC but quasi-judicial, this is what you call

administrative bodies. Administrative bodies are not actually part
of the executive branch but they act just like courts of justice.
They can decide cases and there are hundreds of administrative
agencies in the Philippines. And therefore, if you lost a case
before anyone of these bodies, or tribunals, you appeal the
decision not with the SC, but to the CA.
The amendments by RA 7902 is even more specific by adding
this phrase, including the SEC, SSS, the Employees
Compensation commission and the Civil Service Commission
(CSC). That is the addition. Gi-klaro ba.
CSC this is what Ive notice beforeI told you before.
Before this law was passed, under the Constitution, decisions of
the CSC are appealed to the SC together with the COMELEC and
the COA. But with the passage of RA 7902, the appeal from the
CSC has been transferred to the CA, so what is left behind in the
Constitution is the COMELEC and the COA na lang.
For a while there I thought that this was wrong because the
CSC is a constitutional body and its decisions shall be appealed to
a non-constitutional body like the CA. So, how do we reconcile this
with the Constitution, Article IX-A, Section 7, where it states that
the ruling of each commission shall be reviewed by the SC?
However, the same provision states that: Unless otherwise
provided by this Constitution or by law. And the law is the RA
7902. So, this is how we reconcile it, in other words, the
Constitution and the law can provide for a different mode.
Obviously, the purpose of this statute is to unburden the SC
with so many cases. At least transfer some of the workload to the
CA. That is the obvious purpose.
The phrase except those falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Courtmeans all cases should be
appealed to the CA except those which belong to the SC under
the Constitution. We know that already. When the issue is the
constitutionality of the law, treaty, legality of any tax, the
jurisdiction of any lower court yan, hindi puwede sa CA. Diretso
yan sa SC.

And also except those falling under the Labor Code of the
Philippines. A labor case is not supposed to be filed in court but
with a quasi-judicial agency known as the NLRC and you start in
the local level from the Labor Arbiter, then the decisions of the
Labor Arbiter are appealable to the NLRC and then from there,
where will you go?
Q: Is the decision of the NLRC appealable before the CA?
Because it is also a quasi-judicial agency and under the law, all
decisions of quasi-judicial agencies are supposed to be appealed
to the CA.
A: NO. The decision of the NLRC is an exception except
those under the appellate jurisdiction of the SC under the
Constitution and in accordance with the Labor Code (PD 422). So
conclusion: NLRC decisions cannot be appealed to the CA and
the only way to elevate it is to the SC by what we call certiorari,
not appeal. Also, decisions of the Secretary of Labor, under the
Labor Code are not reviewable by the CA, but they are reviewable
directly by the SC.
And then there is the phrase, "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.
So, in other words, the new Judiciary Law still makes some
reference to the old law. This shows that the entire 1948 Judiciary
Law has not been totally repealed. Some provisions are still intact
because of the reference.
Now what is this subparagraph 1 of the third paragraph? It
only applies to criminal cases. EXAMPLE: A person is sentenced
to reclusion perpetua, his co-accused is sentenced to reclusion
temporal or prison mayor, and all of them will appeal, all of them
should be sa SC na. Otherwise, you will be splitting the appeal
into two parts.
Subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17. When
by appeal from the RTC is on pure legal question, SC yan.
Q: Suppose nasagulan ng questions of fact, I will appeal
questions of fact and questions of law.
A: Under the 1948 Judiciary Law, you cannot appeal directly to
the SC. You must appeal to the CA.

The same thing on when the issue is on the constitutionality of

a treaty, law, legality of tax, when the jurisdiction of the lower court
is in issue, as explained here in this paragraph of the Judiciary Act
of 1948, if the appeal is 100% constitutional issue, jurisdictional or
legality issue appeal is to the SC under the Constitution. But if
it is mixed with questions of fact, do not go to the SC. You go first
to the CA. That is what the paragraph is all about. Alright, so that
takes care of the jurisdiction of the CA.
[4] Section 9, last paragraph, BP 129:
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 CA must be
continuous and must be completed within
three (3) months unless extended by the Chief
Justice. (As amended by RA 7902)
JURISDICTION OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
Ito ang third level, no? And by going over their jurisdiction,
you will see that it is a court of general jurisdiction and it is actually
the workforce of the whole judiciary. Yantalagang mabigat ang
trabaho nitong RTC. Their workload is terrible. Before, somebody
asked me, Dean, gusto mong mag-judge sa RTC? Inyuha na na!
(Burawi nyo!) Inyo na nang trabaho na yan because there are 2
things there when you get the job of the RTC judge: Of course,
you want to excel, you want to do your job properly and efficiently,
you will die early because of the workload. Or, you end up as one
who is lazy. You end up with administrative cases for laziness, left
and right. So mabuti pa, huwag ka na lang magtrabaho diyan,
kasi mabigat ang trabaho diyan.

Q: How many RTCs are there in the Philippines, from

Northern Luzon to Southern Mindanao? In your opinion?
A: You look at the opening clause of Section 13:
Section 13 (1) Creation of Regional Trial
Courts There are hereby created thirteen (13)
Regional Trial Courts, one for each of the
following regions: x x
So the Judiciary law has divided the country into 13 areas
which is called JUDICIAL REGION. From the 1st to the 12th, the
13th is actually in the National Capital Region (NCR), Metro
Manila. Every division is divided into branches and the number of
branches keep on increasing by law.
So, to what region do we belong? We are in the 11th judicial
region. So there is one RTC for the 11th judicial region, pero bakit
yun ganoon? Davao City lang, more than 10 na? Well, here is
where you will go back to your fundamentals. A court is not the
same as a judge. Yan
Actually, what the law says is that, there are 13 RTCs, and
every court is divided into branches. So, kung branches siguro,
malapit nang maging 1000 throughout the country. So there are
13 courts with almost 1000 judges. Now, as a matter of fact, if you
want to know exactly how many there are, you refer to your
Section 14. Actually, this has been amended many times because
from 1980 up to the present, Congress passed laws. In fact when
the law took effect, according to Section 14, there are originally 29
RTC judges commissioned for the 11th judicial region 29
originally.
Now, from what I know, based on the amendment in 1991, it
was increased from 29 to 41. So there are supposed to be 41
RTC judges for the 11th judicial region. As I said, unless from
1991 to the present dinagdagan na naman nila.
So 41 RTC judges shall be commissioned for the 11th judicial
region. There should be 6 branches which sits thereafter for the
province of Davao del Norte, which sits at Tagum, Nabunturan and
Panabo. Four branches which sit thereat for the province of
Davao Oriental which sits at Mati, Bagangga and Butuan. Sixteen

branches which sit thereat for the province of Davao del Sur. And
the City of Davao which sits at Davao City, Digos, Malita and
Bansalan. Then 10 branches whish sit thereat for the province of
South Cotabato and the City of General Santos which sit at
General Santos City, Koronadal [the City of Eumir, Francis and
Mortz], Surallah, and Polomolok. And 5 branches which sit thereat
for the province of Surigao del Sur which sit at Tandag, Ginanga,
Bislig and Kantilan. So that is how they are distributed within the
11th the juridical region.
Q: So, since there are 41 of them scattered throughout the
11th judicial region, from Surigao to South Cotabato, for example, I
would like to file a case against my neighbor based in Davao. So ifile ko sa Polomolok, anyway thats the same court, eh. Or a
criminal in Davao City file-an sa Mati. Anyway, the same court na.
Are you allowed to do that?
A. The answer is NO! Every branch of the RTC has its own
area of responsibility. Except in Davao City, or in chartered cities,
the authority of every branch here is throughout Davao City. But sa
probinsya, hati-hati yan eh, and the provision there is Section 18
of BP 129.
BP 129, Section 18 . Authority to define
territory appurtenant to each branch The
Supreme Court shall define the territory over
which a branch of the Regional Trial Court
shall exercise its authority. The territory thus
defined shall be deemed to be the territorial
area of the branch concerned for purposes of
determining
the
venue
of
all
suits,
proceedings or actions, whether civil or
criminal, as well as determining the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over
which the said branch may exercise appellate
jurisdiction. The power herein granted shall
be exercised with a view to making the courts
readily accessible to the people of the
different parts of the region and making the
attendants of litigants and witness as
inexpensive as possible.

Yan, so in the province every branch has its own defined

area. So, for example if you are from Nabunturan, you cannot file
a case in Panabo. Kalayo-layo niyan. There is a branch there in
Nabunturan. Doon ka mag-file. Kanya-kanya ng responsibility.
Now, the law says, the SC has the power to define the area of
its branch for purposes of supervising that area and the MTC
there. Now, as early as 1983, the SC has already come out with
administrative order throughout the Philippines defining the area of
responsibility of each branch. Sometimes I need that, eh,
because there are cases to be filed outside Davao City, especially
Cotabato Province. And you have to be updated kung sang
branch ba ako pupunta nito. Sometimes you have a hard time, eh.
For example, the case originated in Babak, part of Davao del
Norte, saan ba ito i-file? Panabo or Tagum? I need to consult that
circular. Yanthat will be very helpful. Now you please correlate
Section 18 of the Judiciary Law with the Interim Rules Section 2
because Section 2 of the Interim Rules is related to this, eh.
Interim Rules, Sec. 2. Territorial Jurisdiction
of Courts. a) MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs shall
exercise their jurisdiction in the city,
municipality or circuit for which the judge
thereof is appointed or designated.
b) A Regional Trial Court shall exercise
its jurisdiction within the area defined by the
SC as the territory over which the particular
branch concerned shall exercise its authority,
in accordance with Sec. 18 of BP 129.
Yaan! So every RTC shall have authority. Alright, these are
what you call administrative provisions.
Now, lets go to the jurisdiction of the RTC:
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Section 19 as
amended by RA 7691
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION with other courts
Section 21
APPELLATE JURISDICTION Section 22

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC

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.
What does it mean? When the subject of the litigation is not
expressed in terms of pesos, centavos. Alright.
In most cases that we know, the demand of the plaintiff is
expressed in terms of amount, eh. EXAMPLE: A creditor will file a
case for the collection of the unpaid loan from the defendant. Ang
nakalagay sa demanda niya, that after trial that the court should
order the defendant to pay him the sum of P500,000 na utang with
interest. So, the subject is expressed in terms of amount of
damages ba, the court shall award to the defendant damages
amounting to half a million. Karamihan ng kaso ganyan.
But here, in this civil case, the subject of the civil case is not
capable of pecuniary estimation. It cannot be estimated or
calculated in pesos.
EXAMPLE is an action for annulment; rescission of contract;
an action for specific performance; an action for declaratory relief
by express provision of the law now; an action for the permanent
injunction against somebody;
[2] In all civil actions which involve the title
to, or possession of, real property or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of
the property involved exceeds P20,000 or for
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value
exceeds P50,000 except actions for forcible
entry into and unlawful detainer of lands and
buildings; original jurisdiction over which is

conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
So real actions outside of forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
The best example would be accion publiciana, accion
reinvidicatoria, quieting of title, provided the value of the property
exceeds P20,000.00 based on the assessed value of the property.
So, for a lesser value, MTC has jurisdiction. This is why MTCs
now has jurisdiction over accion publiciana when the value of the
property is P20,000 or less. But kung forcible entry and unlawful
detainer, klaro yan walang RTC.
Now, if in Metro Manila, then value is P50,000. But outside
Metro Manila, the assessed value is only P20,000.
[3] In all civil actions in admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction where the demand or
claim exceeds One Hundred Thousand pesos
(P100,00.00) [now PhP 200,000.00] or, in Metro
Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds
Two Hundred Thousand pesos (P200,000.00)
[now, PhP 400,000].
EXAMPLE: The shipper will ship to you in Davao goods
involving common carrier. While in transit, the goods are lost or
they are totally damaged. You would like to file a claim or a case
against the carrier, what kind of a case? That is an admiralty or
maritime case.
Q: If you are going to file a case against the shipping
company, where will you file it? RTC or MTC?
A: It depends on how much is your claim. If your claim of the
damaged or lost cargo exceeds P200,000, sa RTC; if it is
P200,000 or less, sa MTC. In Metro Manila, the jurisdiction is
higher it should be over P400,000. Now do not confuse this with
No. 2 because that involves LAND with more than P20,000 value.
Take note that prior to August 16, 1999, the claim should
exceed P100,000 or P200,000 in Metro Manila as the case may
be. Now, the claim is adjusted to P200,000 and P400,000,

respectively pursuant to Section 5 of RA 7691 which took effect

last August 15, 1995:
RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years from
the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional
amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8);
and 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, 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).
So after August 16, 1999 (5 years from the effectivity of RA
7691) yung P100,000.00 naging P200,000 na. Yung P200,000 in
Metro Manila, naging P400,000. Then after another 5 years
(2004), aakyat na naman ang jurisdiction ng MTC. So from the
original P100,000.00 magiging P300,000 na yan. Automatic ha.
[4] In all matters of probate, both estate
and intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds One Hundred Thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) [now P200,000] or, in probate
matters in Metro Manila, where such gross
value exceeds Two Hundred Thousand pesos
(P200,000.00) [now P400,000].
In the subject of Wills and Succession, when a person dies,
his estate, his property will be settled for the benefit of his
creditors and heirs. That is what you call either as testate or
intestate proceedings depending on whether the deceased left a
will or none.
Q: Where should the estate of the deceased person be
settled, RTC or MTC?
A: It depends on how much is the gross value of his estate. If
it exceeds P200,000, RTC. If it is P200,000 or less, it should be

with the MTC. In Metro Manila again, it is doubled, the gross

should be more than P400,000. And again, this will automatically
increase after 5 years from 1999.
[5] In all actions involving the contract of
marriage and marital relations.
Most of these cases are under the Family Code.
Q: What are the possible actions which you can imagine
involve the contract of marriage and marital relations?
A: Annulment of marriage, legal separation, declaration of
nullity, dissolution of the absolute community of husband and wife,
and action for support. These cases are the ones arising under
the Family Code, where it arises out of a marital relationship.
Take note that these cases are NO LONGER covered by the
RTC because under RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997), these
cases should now be tried by the FAMILY COURTS.
RA 8369, SECTION 5. Jurisdiction of Family
Courts. The Family Courts shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and
decide the following cases:
xxxxxx
d) Complaints for annulment of marriage,
declaration of nullity of marriage and those
relating to marital 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;
xxxxxx
Now, in areas where there are no family courts, the cases
shall be adjudicated by the RTC. So certain branches of the RTC
will act as family courts (acting family courts.
We shall skip first no. 6. We will return to that later. Lets go
to no. 7.

[7] In all civil actions and special

proceedings falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of
Agrarian Relations as now provided by law;
Before BP 129, these were special courts existing before
1980. Among these courts were the so called Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Courts (JDRC). Then you have the Court of
Agrarian Relations (CAR) which tried the cases involving tenancy,
agricultural lessor, agricultural lessee, agricultural lands. When
BP 129 was enacted, the CAR and the JDRCs were abolished.
Cases which they used to handle were automatically transferred to
the RTC. That was after BP 129 took effect.
What were the cases which were usually falling within the
original jurisdiction of the former JDRC? Usually, those involving
family and children, like support filed by the child against his
father, compulsory recognition, custody of children, adoption
proceedings these are the cases which are usually heard by the
JDRC.
Under BP 129, all of these are now within the jurisdiction of
RTC. HOWEVER, this has been amended again by RA 8369
(Family Courts Act of 1997) These cases are now under the
jurisdiction of the FAMILY COURTS: (See Sections 5 [b], [c], [e],
[g])
RA 8369, SECTION 5. Jurisdiction of
Family Courts. The Family Courts shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and
decide the following cases:
xxxx
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of
children, habeas corpus in relation to the
latter;
c) Petitions for adoption of children and
the revocation thereof;
xxxx
g) Petitions for 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 Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive
Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other
related laws;
xxxxx
But the law transferring the jurisdiction of the CAR to the RTC
became partially obsolete with the enactment of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or RA 6657 (June
15, 1988). Under the CARL, all agrarian disputes between
landlord and tenant, lessor and lessee were transferred to the
DAR particularly the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), making
them quasi-judicial cases . So, from CAR to RTC, from RTC to
DARAB
So the RTC has NO jurisdiction, EXCEPT in the following 2
cases:
1.) Cases where the issue is PAYMENT OF JUST
COMPENSATION, f or, the property which has been taken
under CARP law;
EXAMPLE: If you are a landowner and your
agricultural land is placed under the CARP coverage,
the government will fix the payment for you. The
trouble is that you did not lot agree on the amount of
payment. Agrabiyado ka sa compensation ng
gobyerno. Now, you go to RTC and you ask for higher
compensation.
1.) Prosecution of criminal offenses for violation of the CARL;
So these are the only agrarian cases which still belongs to the
RTC. This was explained by the SC in the case of
QUISMUNDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
201 SCRA 609 [1991]

HELD: Wth the enactment of Executive

Order No. 229, which took effect on August 29,
1987, the Regional Trial Courts were divested of
their general jurisdiction to try agrarian reform
matters. The said jurisdiction is now vested in the
Department of Agrarian Reform. Said provisions
thus delimit the jurisdiction of the regional trial
courts in agrarian cases only to two instances:
1.) petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners; and
2.) prosecution of criminal offenses under
said Act.
[8] In all cases in which the demand,
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and
costs or the value of the property in
controversy exceeds One Hundred Thousand
pesos (P100,000.00) [now P200,000] or, in such
other cases in Metro Manila, where the
demand, exclusive of the above-mentioned
items exceeds Two Hundred Thousand pesos
(P200,000.00)[now P400,000]
The best example is money claim. Most cases which go to
court now are money claims an action to collect sum of money.
Q: Unpaid loan you would like to collect an unpaid loan of
your debtor. Where will you file your case?
A: It depends on how much are you collecting. If it is over
P200,000 outside Metro Manila RTC, in Metro Manila, double
the amount P400,000. If the amount that you are collecting is
only P200,000 or less obviously, you file your case in the MTC.
If the value of the claim is > P200,000 RTC
If the value of the claim is = or < P200,000 MTC
So this is the same as number [3] and [4] where the
jurisdiction of the MTC was raised from P20,000 to P100,000. And
under the present law, it is now P200,000. But again, this is
subject to the automatic increase in jurisdiction by 2004.

Q: Suppose the principal amount that you borrowed from me

is P200,000, the interest is P30,000. And you are collecting
P10,000 for moral damages, another P10,000 for expense of
litigation, etc. So my total claim is P250,000. Where will I file the
case?
A: MTC pa rin. In determining the jurisdictional limit of
P200,000, do not include the interest, damages, attorneys fees,
etc. So you deduct those from the principal claim even if you put
them in your complaint because the law says, xxx exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation
expenses, and costs xxx.
Q: What are litigation expenses and costs?
A: Costs are not the same as attorneys fees and litigation
expenses. Actually, attorneys fees and litigation expenses are part
of damages. Costs are governed by Rule 141, while attorneys
fees and litigation expenses are governed by the Civil Code.
Because there is some confusion there, akala ang costs and
litigation expense, pareho. No, they are not the same.
ACTIONS PURELY FOR DAMAGES
SITUATION: Suppose the action is purely for damages, like
breach of contract of carriage. Instead of bringing you to your
destination, you ended up in the hospital. You now sue the
common carrier for damages and your claim is P1 million for
injuries, moral, exemplary, etc. Now, because the law says the
jurisdiction of the RTC is above P200,000 but do not include
damages. The claim in this case is P1 million, all for damages.
Now, where will you file the case?
Somebody said it should be in the MTC because in
determining the jurisdiction of the RTC, you do not include
damages. If that is the interpretation, I said, all damage suits
cannot be tried by the RTC because remember, you pay filing fee
for these cases but the jurisdiction is limited to the MTC. That is
absurd! I do not believe that kung puro damages wala ng
jurisdiction ang RTC. Otherwise, all damage suits should be filed
in the MTC.

This question has been clarified by SC Circular No. 09-94:

Guidelines in the Implementation of RA 7691 Extending the
Jurisdiction of the MTCs where the SC said that the provision
excluding damages applies only if the damages are INCIDENTAL
to the action. If the main cause of action is 100% damages, you
include it in determining tire P200,000 jurisdictional limit of the
MTC.
EXAMPLE: Ms. Pastor rode on a PAL fight. The plane crashed
but she survived. She claims for damages for breach of contract of
carriage amounting to P1 million.
Q: Where will she file her case?
A: RTC because the amount of the claim for damages
exceeded P200,000. Since the case is purely for damages, it is
included in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
The rule is, you only exclude the damages if it is a secondary
claim. But if damages is the primary or only claim, you determine
whether the total claim for damages is above P200,000, or equal
to or less than P200,000. Yaaann!
The SC said in this Circular, the exclusive damages of
whatever kind in determining the jurisdiction under Section 19
paragraph [8] applies to cases where the damages are merely
incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action.
However, if the claim for damages is the main cause of action, the
amount of such claim should be considered in determining the
jurisdiction.
EXAMPLE: Inay will file a case against Janis to recover a
piece of land worth P20,000.00 only. But her claim for damages
exceeds P300,000. So, you will notice ang claim for damages is
incidental lang. Ang main action is to recover a piece of land.
Q: In what court will Inay file a civil case where she wants to
recover a piece of land with value of only P20,000?
A: MTC because of paragraph [2]. But ang damages naman is
P300,000? MTC pa rin iyan because such damages, being
incidental, is not included in determining the jurisdiction of the
RTC.
However, if my actions against you is purely damages, like I
will file a case against you for damages arising from vehicular -

collision and I will claim P300,000 for damages, it should be in the

RTC. That is the explanation. The term excluding damages
applies only if the damages are purely incidental to the case. But if
the action is purely damages, then you observe the P200,000
jurisdictional limit.
Now, the law says, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs or
THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN CONTROVERSY exceeds
P200,000.
Q: What is the property in controversy?
A: Obviously here, the property is PERSONAL PROPERTY
not real. If the property sought to be recovered is real, apply
paragraph [2] of Section 19 on recovery of real property.
Q: In the subject of Sales, the unpaid seller would like to
rescind the sale and get back the unit. Where will the unpaid
seller file the case?
A: If above P200,000 sa RTC ka. It if is only P200,000 or less,
sa MTC. So this is an example of the value of the [personal]
property in controversy.
Q: (By a classmate, Review class) Who shall determine the
value or how should the value be determined?
A: You will learn the answer when we reach Rule 16 on Motion
to Dismiss. In determining the jurisdiction of the court, in the
meantime, which will prevail? You will learn later that the
allegations of the complaint will prevail.
Like for example, I will file a case against you for an unpaid
loan of P250,000. Then you say in your motion to dismiss, No!
ang utang ko sa iyo is not P150,000, but only P80,000. Therefore,
the RTC has no jurisdiction. So there is now a conflict with what
Im saying and with what you are saying.
With that, we will discuss the conflict later. Now, we do not
know who is telling the truth. For the moment, the rule is, you
follow the plaintiff because jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations of the complaint. It is the complaint which will
determined whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject

matter. It is not based on what the defendant is saying. That is the

answer there.
Let us go to some interesting cases on this provision.
ORTIGAS AND CO., LTD PARTNERSHIP vs.
HERRERA
120 SCRA 89 [1983]
FACTS: A entered into an agreement with B
where A deposited the sum of P50,000 with B. After
certain conditions are complied B has to return the
amount to A. According to A the conditions are already
complied with but B still refuses to return the money.
So A filed a complaint which he denominated as sum
of money and since he is only asking for the return of
P50,000, A filed the case in the MTC.
ISSUE #1: Whether or note the MTC has
jurisdiction over the case.
HELD: The MTC has NO jurisdiction. It should be
filed in the RTC. It is not an action to collect a loan.
You are not recovering a loan. You are compelling him
to comply with the agreement to return the money
after certain condition are complied with, di ba? You
are trying to enforce your agreement. therefore your
action is an action for SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
which should be tried by the RTC under paragraph [1].
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. So it is
cognizable by the RTC.
ISSUE #2: But according to the plaintiff, when he
filed the complaint, it is entitled for sum of money
which should fall under paragraph [8]. Is the plaintiff
correct?

HELD: NO. The plaintiff is wrong. The title of the

action is not determinative of the court. Just like the
rule on contracts where the nature of the contract is
not determined by the title but by stipulation.
The factual allegations in the complaint seeking
for the performance of an obligation of a written
contract which is a matter clearly incapable of
pecuniary estimation prevail over the designation of
the complaint as one for the sum of money and
damages.
[6] In all cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions
Practically, this makes the RTC the universal catcher what
does not belong to anyone of you, belongs to me. Thats what this
provision is saying.
EXAMPLE: An employee, Inday Locsin, files a case against
the employer, Kenneth Lim, to claim non-payment of wages,
overtime pay, ECOLA and reinstatement for illegal termination.
Under the Labor Code, dapat sa NLRC. So it does not belong to
RTC but if there is no vesting to NLRC, then it goes to the RTC.
A case which does not belong to any other court. Lets try to
connect it with something you know.
Q: If you want to file an action for annulment of judgment of
RTC, where will you file your action?
A: CA only an exclusive original jurisdiction of the action for
annulment of the judgment of the RTC.
Q: Suppose Karen will file an action for annulment of judgment
of the MTC. Does it belong to the CA?
A: NO! What the law says is: annulment of judgment of RTC,
and not MTC. How about Supreme Court? Lalong wala. Saan ka
pupunta? There is really no provision in BP 129 which goes that
way. I dont think you can go to NLRC.

Wala kang mapuntahan, saan ka tatakbo? Sa RTC because it

does not belong to the jurisdiction of any other court. It should fall
under paragraph [6] That is why, this, there are problems reaching
the SC on jurisdiction whether a case belongs to this, to the
regular court or to a special quasi-judicial body. And we are going
to go over some of these cases.
SANDOVAL vs. CANEBA
190 SCRA 77 [1990]
FACTS: The quarrel in this case involves the
owner of the subdivision and the buyer. Later on, the
buyer refused to pay the unpaid installments. The
subdivision developer filed a case for the collection of
unpaid installments over the subdivision lots. Now, if
you look at the law, parang money claims sa RTC or
MTC.
HELD: The regular courts have no jurisdiction.
That should be decided by the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) formerly known as NHA.
Under PD 957, it is the HLURB not the RTC or MTC
which has the jurisdiction to hear a case involving
non-payment of installments over subdivision lots.
The counterpart of this case was the case of
CT TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC. vs.
HIBIONADA
191 SCRA 268 [1990]
FACTS: This is also the case between the buyers
of a subdivision lot against the subdivision developer.
Only this time baliktad it is the subdivision lot buyers
who are suing the developer of the subdivision. The
subdivision lot owners filed against the subdivision
developer for not maintaining properly the roads of the
subdivision. So they filed a case for specific
performance with damages to compel the developer
to comply with the contract to maintain the roads.

HELD: The jurisdiction is with the HLURB and not

with the regular courts. But according to the plaintiff
But Im also claiming for damages so that it should
be filed before the regular courts. How can the
HLURB award damages? Only the regular courts can
award the damages. Can the HLURB award
damages? According to the SC:
The argument that only courts of justice can
adjudicate claims resoluble under the provisions of the
Civil Code is out of step with the fast-changing times.
There are hundreds of administrative bodies now
performing this function by virtue of a valid
authorization from the legislature. This quasi-judicial
function, as it is called, is exercised by them as an
incident of the principal power entrusted to them of
regulating certain activities falling under their
particular expertise.
So quasi-judicial bodies are now authorized to
award damages.
As a matter of fact in Labor Relations, the question is asked
whether the NLRC is authorized to grant damages also to an
employee, moral and exemplary, which normally is only awarded
by courts. The Labor Code says yes. In other words, even
damages now can be awarded by administrative bodies such as
NLRC.
FAJARDO vs. BAUTISTA
232 SCRA 291 [1994]
FACTS: Isabelo and Marita Jareno and the
owners and developers of a subdivision. Fajardo and
others, as buyers, signed separate contracts each
designated a contract to sell under which for
consideration therein stated, the Jarenos bound
themselves to sell to Fajardo et al the of subject
thereof, and after the latter shall have paid the
purchase price and interest shall execute in favor of
Fajardo et al the corresponding deeds of sale.
When these contracts to sell are still ongoing the
Jarenos sold these lots to other buyers and the title
was transferred to the second buyer. So when Fajardo

et al learned about it, they filed separate complaints

with the RTC for annulment of the sale to the other
buyers.
Now, according to Fajardo, the jurisdiction of the
case belongs to the RTC and not with the HLURB
because the title of the lots are transferred to the other
buyers. It is no longer under the name of Jareno.
Secondly, their action is for the annulment of title to a
third person. Thirdly, these third persons are not the
developers; fourthly, under the Judiciary Law, actions
involving title to a real property are to be tried by the
RTC.
HELD: The RTC still has NO jurisdiction because
the case involved unsound real estate business
practice on the part of the subdivision owners and
developers. Under the law, unsound real estate
business practice is under the HLURB. The practice in
the case is not a sound real estate business I am a
developer, I enter into a contract with you and then
later on I sold the contract to a third person, that is
unsound!
By virtue of P.D. 1344, the HLURB has the
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. In
addition to involving unsound real estate business
practices, the complaints also involve specific
performance of the contractual and statutory
obligations of the owners or developers of the
subdivision. So it is still with the HLURB and not with
the regular courts.

BENGUET CORPORATION vs. LEVISTE

204 SCRA 99 [1991]
FACTS: A mining company entered into a
operations agreement for management with another
mining company. Then later on, one wants to file a
case for rescission of the agreement for one reason or
another. So it was filed with the RTC.

HELD: The RTC has NO jurisdiction again

because PD 1281 vested with the Bureau of Mines
with jurisdictional supervision and control over all
issues on mining claims and that the Bureau of Mines
shall have the original exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and decide cases involving the cancellation and
enforcement of mining contracts.
The trend is to make the adjudication of mining cases a
purely administrative matter. Another case is the case of
MACHETE vs. COURT OF APPEALS
250 SCRA 176 [1995]
FACTS: This case involves the collection by the
landowner of unpaid back rentals from his leasehold
tenants. The landowner filed the money claims before
the RTC.
HELD: The RTC has no jurisdiction over cases for
collection of back rentals for the leasehold tenants.
This is an agrarian dispute which exclusively
cognizable by the DARAB.
The failure of petitioners to pay back rentals
pursuant to the leasehold contract with landowner is
an issue which is clearly beyond the legal competence
of the trial court to resolve. The doctrine of primary
jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto
itself the authority to resolve a controversy the
jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an
administrative body of special competence.
Lets go to Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). That
is the government body which administers all government
examination for professionals except members of the law
profession. Sa medicine, CPA, engineer, lahat andiyan sa kanila,
including plumber and marine officers. Basta lahat ng merong
examination sa kanila yan except sa bar which is under the
jurisdiction of the SC. Now, this is what happened in the case of

LUPANGCO ET AL vs. COURT OF APPEALS

160 SCRA 848 [1988]
FACTS: Lupangco et al were BS Accounting
graduates and reviewing to take the CPA exams in
1985.
There were some anomalies (leakages) in the
1985 CPA Board Examination. By next year, the PRC
passed a resolution prohibiting CPA examinees to
attend review classes or conferences because of
leakages. They are prohibited from receiving any
handouts, review materials or any tip from any school,
college or university. That was Resolution No. 105 of
the PRC.
So petitioners Lupangco et al, all CPA reviewers
filed an injunction suit against the PRC and to declare
the resolution unconstitutional. They filed it with the
RTC. The PRC moved to dismiss alleging that the
RTC has no jurisdiction over the case because the
one which has the jurisdiction is the CA exclusive
jurisdiction to review any decision, order, ruling orresolution of any quasi-judicial body. And the PRC is a
quasi-judicial body. So their resolution can only be
questioned before the CA and not with the RTC.
HELD: The PRC is WRONG because PRC is not
only a quasi-judicial body, it is also a quasi-legislative
body. It also acts as legislative body by issuing rules
and regulations.
Now, what kind of resolution is being questioned
here? It is a resolution pursuant to it purely
administrative function. It is a measure to preserve the
integrity of licensure examination. Therefore, it does
not belong to the CA. It is not the type of resolution
contemplated by Section 9.
The authority of the CA to review all resolutions
of all quasi-judicial bodies pursuant to the law does
not cover rules and regulations of general applicability

issued by the administrative body to implement its

purely administrative policies and functions like
Resolution No. 105 which was adopted by the PRC as
a measure to preserve the integrity of licensure
examinations.
So that is not the resolution
reviewable by the CA.
Now, under what provision under Section 19 can
we justify the jurisdiction of the RTC in the case. The
SC said: It is under paragraph 1 where the case is
incapable of pecuniary estimation or, it may fall under
paragraph 6 where the case is not within the exclusive
jurisdiction by any court, tribunal or- body exercising
Judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
So, if it is not reviewable by the CA, in what court can you
question the resolution? Definitely, not the CA, definitely not the
SC. I dont think its with the NLRC. So it will fall under the
jurisdiction of the RTC. Or, it can also fall under paragraph [1,]
where the subject matter of the suit is not capable of pecuniary
estimation because what is the nature of the demands is to
declare unconstitutional this resolution. So it belongs to the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
BERNARDO vs. CALTEX PHIL. INC.
216 SCRA 170 [1992]
FACTS: Under E.O. No. 172, when there is a
dispute between an operator or dealer and an Oil
company regarding dealership agreement, the case
shall be under the jurisdiction of the Energy
Regulatory Board (ERB). So any dispute regarding
their relationship agreement except disputes arising
out of the relationship as debtor and creditor. So if the
dispute arose out of the relationship as bebtor and
creditor, it should be filed with the RTC.
Now what happened here is that on December 5,
1990, Bernardo, a dealer of Caltex, ordered gasoline
from Caltex. So he ordered in the morning. At 6:00 at
night on the same day, there was a price increase. So
when the gasoline was delivered the following day,
Caltex charged Bernardo for the increased price.
Bernardo refused to pay and he he filed a case before

the RTC. Caltex argued that the case should be filed

with the ERB.
HELD: The RTC has jurisdiction because a
contract of sale of petroleum products was here
perfected between Caltex and its operator/dealer
Bernardo; that in virtue of the payment admittedly
made by Bernardo, Caltex became a debtor to him
in the sense that it was obligated to make delivery to
Bernardo of the petroleum products ordered by him;
and that the only issue is the manner by which Caltex
shall perform its commitment in Bernardos favor. It is
rather one cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, as
a dispute indeed arising out of their relationship as
debtor and creditor.
What the controversy is all about, to repeat, is
simply the prices at which the petroleum products
shall be deemed to have been purchased from Caltex
by Bernardo in December 5, 1990. This is obviously a
civil law question, one determinable according to the
provisions of the Civil Code and hence, beyond the
cognizance of the Energy Regulatory Board.
CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
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;
Q: What is the difference between the original jurisdiction of
the RTC in Section 21 and the original jurisdiction of the RTC in
Section 19?
A: In Section
19, you have the EXCLUSIVE original
jurisdiction, whereas in Section 21 you have the original
jurisdiction but CONCURRENT with other courts.

Thus original jurisdiction stated in Section 21 is also shared

with the SC and CA. Therefore , the SC, CA, and RTC have
original concurrent jurisdiction under Section 21. Like issuance of
writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus, etc. This is concurrent with the CA and the SC. Such writs
may be issued by (a) the RTC under Section 19; (b) CA under
Section 9; and (c) SC under Article VIII Section 5 of the
Constitution. The 3 courts share concurrent jurisdiction over these
cases.
However the only difference is that writs issued by an RTC
can only be enforced in the same region where the RTC belongs.
Unlike writs issued by the SC and CA, they can be enforced
anywhere in the Philippines.
[2] In actions affecting ambassadors and other public
ministers and consuls.
The SC and RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction in
actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.
Section 21 paragraph 2 states only of the concurrent original
jurisdiction of the SC and RTC. Section 19 on the jurisdiction of
CA does not include the action stated in section 21 paragraph 2 as
part of its (CAs) jurisdiction.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE RTC
Sec. 22.
Appellate jurisdiction. - Regional
Trial
Courts
shall
exercise
appellate
jurisdiction over all cases decided by MetTCs,
MTCs and MCTCs 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
RTCs. The decision of the RTCs in such cases
shall be appealable by petition for review to
the CA which may give it due course only

when the petition show 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.
Pursuant to original
jurisdiction of the
RTC:
Now take note that the RTC also has
appellate jurisdiction under Section 22. COURT
These are cases decided by the MTC. So
OF
they act as a sort of court of appeals.
APPEA
The RTC exercises appellate jurisdiction
LS
over all cases decided by the MTC in
their respective territorial jurisdiction.
Ordinary appeal
(Rule 41)
Q: How will the RTC decide on the
appeal?
RTC
A: It shall be decided on the basis of
the entire record of the proceedings had
in the court of origin (MTC) such as
memoranda and/or briefs as may be
submitted. This means that witnesses will
not be made to
appear again in the appeal. It is only
a matter of reviewing the testimony, stenographic notes, evidence
presented, memoranda and briefs by the RTC judge.
Q: What are memoranda and briefs?
A: It is where the appealing party will argue that the decision is
wrong and try to convince the judge that the decision is wrong,
and the other party to counter act that the decision is correct.
Q: Assuming that the case is originated in the MTC and
subsequently dismissed by the RTC on appeal, is the decision by
the RTC rendered pursuant to its appellate jurisdiction appealable
to the CA?
A: YES, but the mode of appeal is now different. The decision
of the RTC in such cases shall be appealable by petition to review
to the CA. The CA may or may not give it due course.

Q: What is the difference between an appeal made from the

RTC to CA and appeal from the MTC to RTC, which is dismissed
the same and subsequently appealed to the CA?
A: The former (RTC CA) is in pursuance to the original
Pursuant
to jurisdiction of the RTC. The latter (MTC-RTCCA) is in pursuance to the appellate jurisdiction
appellate
jurisdiction of the of the RTC. (They are governed by different
rules)
RTC:
COUR
T OF
APPEA
LS

To illustrate:

Petition for Review

(Rule 42)
RTC
Ordinary Appeal
(Rule 40)

Unlike in a case under the original

jurisdiction of the RTC, where an appeal to the
CA is a matter of course. Meaning, for as long
as your appeal is on time and properly made, the
CA will entertain it.

It is different, however, in a case under the

appellate jurisdiction of the RTC, even if your
appeal is on time and properly made, there is no
assurance that the CA will entertain the appeal. The CA may give
it due course only when your petition for review shows prima facie
evidence that the lower court has committed as error of fact or law
that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or
judgment sought to be reviewed.

MTC

Now, statistically for the past 20 years, the rate of petitions for
review from the RTC which are given due course is only 15%17%. For every 100 petitions for review, 15 are given due course,
85 are thrown out. They did not pass the test under Section 22. It
is really a difficult process.
Summary of RTC jurisdiction:
1.) As to the EXCLUSIVE original jurisdiction Section
19 (BP 129);
2.) As to its original CONCURRENT jurisdiction Section
21 (BP 129);

3.) As to its APPELLATE jurisdiction Section 22 (BP

129)
This paragraph shows that the present CA that we have now
is a more powerful court than before. It is a unique court. Aside
from being an appellate court, it also acts as a trial court. It may
receive evidence but only those evid
ence which were overlooked by the trial court. It can order a
new trial or conduct a new trial itself.
Q: If an issue of fact is tried before the RTC, can I always ask
the CA to allow me to present evidence? Does it mean to say now
that since the CA is a very powerful court, it can take the place of
the RTC? Meaning, if Im a party instead of presenting my case
before the RTC, I will not, Doon na lang sa CA.
A: That is already interpreted in the case of
LINGER AND FISHER vs. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT
125 SCRA 522 [1983]
HELD: The power of the CA to receive evidence
refers only to incidental facts which were not 100
percent touched upon, or matters which were simply
overlooked by the trial court. You cannot opt not to
present evidence before the RTC. It only refers to
incidental facts.
Evidence necessary in regards to factual issues
raised in cases falling within the Appellate Courts
original and appellate jurisdiction contemplates
incidental facts which were not touched upon, or fully
heard by the trial or respondent Court. The law could
not have intended that the Appellate Court would hold
an original and full trial of a main factual issue in a
case, which properly pertains to Trial Courts.

JURISDICTION OF THE
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

Actually, when you know the jurisdiction of the RTC,

automatically you know the jurisdiction of the MTC. In criminal
cases for example, sa RTC, imprisonment of more than 6 years
until death penalty. So, necessarily 6 years or below, sa MTC.
Same with civil cases.
Summary of jurisdiction of MTC:
A.) As to original jurisdiction Section 33
B.) As to delegated jurisdiction Section 34
C.) As to special jurisdiction Section 35
A.) EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE MTC
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 Two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) or, in
Metro Manila where such personal property,
estate, or amount of the demand does not
exceed 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.
Well if you know the jurisdiction of the RTC on money claims
and probate cases, automatically you will also know that of the
MTC. Under the law, it is only the principal claim or the main claim
which is computed. Interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys
fees, litigation expenses and cost are not included in determining
the jurisdiction.
Even if the amount of damages and attorneys fees do not
determine jurisdiction, they must still be specifically alleged in the
complaint for the purpose of payment of docket fees. Thus, the
higher the amount one is claiming the higher the filing fee.
So with that , we will now go to decided cases involving docket
fees.
JURISPRUDENCE ON THE FILING FEE IN CIVIL CASES:
Rule 111, the filing of criminal action, the civil aspect is
deemed instituted. If it claims for moral and exemplary damages,
the filing fees should be paid immediately. If not stated, then it will
be a lien in the judgment. Compensatory damages are exempt
from the filing of the fee.
Technically, a complaint in a civil case is not considered as
filed unless you pay the complete amount of the docket fee. Even
if a complaint is filed, say, on December 1 and the payment is
made only on the December 4, the complaint is deemed officially
filed on the December 4 when the payment of the whole amount is
effected.
This is so material for the purpose of prescription. Suppose
today December 1 is the last day for the filing of the complaint and
the whole amount is not fully paid. ON December 2, the action is
prescribed already. Thus, the court acquires no jurisdiction over
the case until the filing of the fee for the whole amount is made.
In the case of

MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. CA

149 SCRA 562
FACTS: The plaintiff files a complaint and paid the
docket fee but he did not specify the amount of the
damages he was claiming. He contended that he is
claiming for moral damages in such amount as the
court will grant. Respondent contended, on the other
hand, that it cannot be done, there is a necessity to
state the exact amount of the damages in order to
determine the correct amount of the docket fee. So
the plaintiff amended the complaint and paid the
balance of the docket fees.
ISSUE: Whether or not
amendment cures the defect?

the

subsequent

HELD: No, the defect is incurable. Thus, the

action has to be dismissed. The court acquires no
jurisdiction over the case. The remedy is to re-file the
complaint and pay again the complete amount of the
docket fee. The prior payment made is forfeited in as
much as the defect in the first complaint is incurable.
So based on the MANCHESTER ruling, you cannot cure the
defect by merely amending the complaints. The moment the case
is filed, the court acquires jurisdiction. You cannot by yourself
confer jurisdiction. Very harsh noh? However, the SC, after
reflecting on what it said in the case of MANCHESTER, realized
the harshness of their decision. This Manchester ruling was
relaxed in the subsequent case of SUN INSURANCE OFFICE
which now the governing law:
SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LTD. vs. COURT OF
APPEALS
170 SCRA 274 [1989]
HELD: Thus, the Court rules as follows:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the
prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with

jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the

action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court
may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time
but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive
counterclaims, third party claims and similar
pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until
and unless the filing fee prescribed therefore is paid.
The court may also allow payment of said fee within a
reasonable time but also in no case beyond its
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over
a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and
payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently,
the judgment awards a claim not specified in the
pleading, or if specified the same has been left for
determination by the court, the additional filing fee
therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall
be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly
authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and
collect the additional fee.
For example, I make a partial payment of the docket fee
because of inadequacy of money. Under the SUN INSURANCE
ruling, kung kulang ang bayad, huwag namang i-dismiss ang
kaso! Give the party a reasonable time to pay the balance. When
the filing of the initiatory (complaint) pleading is not accompanied
by the payment of the docket fees, the court may allow the
payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond
the prescriptive period. Meaning, if by the time you paid the
balance, nag prescribe na ang cause of action, ah wala na! So,
provided that the action has not prescribed.
The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims. So this
answers the question:
Q: Is the defendant obliged to pay the docket fee?
A: It DEPENDS: if the counterclaim is permissive, dapat
magbayad ka. If the counterclaim is compulsory, libre yan!

And the third rule laid down in Sun Insurance: if the judgment
awards a claim not specified in the pleadings, the filing fee
therefor shall be a lien in the judgment. It shall be the
responsibility of the clerk of Court or his duly-authorized deputy to
enforce the lien, assess and collect the additional fee.
Q: When can this possibly happen?
A: That can happen for example if I ask for damages. A man
was hospitalized because of physical injuries. Nag file siya ng
kaso. Sabi ng court, may damages ito. So the court acknowledged
the claim of P300,000. But after the case is filed, di pa rin siya
nakabayad sa hospital. After filing, marami pang gastos! So in
other words he might ask from the court another P 50,000.
Q: Can the court award the P 50,000?
A: Yes, because the additional expenses came only after the
filing of the case. The additional expenses occurred only after filing
the case. So nagkulang ngayon ang docket fee. Bayaran mo,
dont dismiss the case!
The Sun Insurance is a leading case on docket fee. It was
followed with a third case in December 1989 which further clarified
the SUN INSURANCE ruling. This is the case of
TACAY vs. RTC OF TAGUM, DAVAO DEL
NORTE
180 SCRA 433 [1989]
NOTE: When this case was filed, wala pa yong
INSURANCE.
The
guiding
rule
was
still
MANCHESTER. But while this was pending lumabas
na yong SUN INSURANCE.
FACTS: The case was for recovery of land with
damages (accion publiciana). So it is not purely for
damages. So how will you assess the filling fees?
Based on the value of the land, binayaran ng plaintiff
ang docket fee. Defendant moved to dismiss based
on MANCHESTER because the plaintiff did not
specify in the complaint how much damages he was
claiming. Now the RTC of Tagum denies the motion to

dismiss. The defendant goes to the SC citing

MANCHESTER.
Of course sabi ng SC wala na ang Manchester
because of Sun Insurance. But here is another rule:
HELD: Dalawa ang filing fee: the assessed value
of the land and for the damages. There are two (2)
options here: (1.) Kung nabayaran ang docket fee for
the recovery of land pero wala ang para sa damages,
do not dismiss the entire case! That is crazy if you will
dismiss the entire case kasi nagbayad man siya ng
docket fee for the recovery of the land. Just do not
consider the claim for the damages. Or, (2.) second
option, citing SUN INSURANCE, give him reasonable
time to pay the balance. So that's the case of TACAY.
Where the action involves real property and a
related claim for damages as well, the legal fees shall
be assessed on the basis of both (a) the value of the
property and (b) the total amount of related damages
sought. The court acquires jurisdiction over the action
if the filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied by
the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are
not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading, as of
the time of full payment of the fees within such
reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of
course, prescription has set in the meantime.
Now, there are other interesting cases on the issue on docket
fees.
FILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. vs.
COURT OF APPEALS
171 SCRA 674 [1989]
FACTS: Adrian dela Paz sued all oil companies
(Shell, Caltex, Mobil, etc.) of the Philippines for
infringement of patent with prayer for the payment of
reasonable compensation for damages. According to
him, these companies used in their operation a certain
type of machine which he claimed he invented. His
patent was infringed. Thus, all these companies are

all liable to him for royalties. The estimated yearly

royalty due him is P236,572. Since the violation has
been for many years already, his claims reached
millions. The trial court ordered him to pay
P945,636.90 as docket fee. He had no money so he
questioned it. So sabi rig court: We will allow you to
file the case and the docket fee is deductible from
whatever judgment of damages shall be awarded by
the court. So, parang file now pay later.
HELD: There is no such thing as file now pay
later. No justification can be found to convert such
payment to something akin to a contingent fee which
would depend on the result of the case. Hindi pwede
sa gobyerno yan! Example is kung matalo ka sa kaso
the case is dismissed. Tabla ang gobyerno? So, di
pwede yan!
Filing fees are intended to take care of court
expenses in the handling of cases in terms of cost of
supplies, use of equipments, salaries and fringe
benefits of personnel, etc., computed as to man hours
used in handling of each case. The payment of said
fees therefore, cannot be made dependent on the
result of the action taken, without entailing
tremendous losses to the government and to the
judiciary in particular.
Alam ninyo, ang dapat sana n'yang ginawa, nag file sya ng
motion to allow him to litigate as a pauper. In legal ethics, pwede
yan sa abogado yung contingent fee: Attorney, will you handle
my case? Wala akong pera. I will offer a contingent fee. Okay,
Ill handle your case. Pag-talo, wala kang utang. Pag panalo,
kalahati sa akin. Yan! Pwede yan. Pero sa gobyerno, wala yan
because usually the judiciary gets its budget from the filing fees.
LACSON vs. REYES
182 SCRA 729
FACTS: There was a case filed and then the
lawyer filed a motion to direct the plaintiff to pay him
his attorneys fees a motion for payment of
attorneys fees. So sabi ng court: Attorney, magbayad

ka ng docket fee. Bakit? Motion nga lang yan, may

docket fee pa? Grabeeh!
HELD: No, bayad ka uli. It may be true that the
claim for attorney's fees was but an incident in the
main case, still, it is not an escape valve from the
payment of docket fees because as in all actions,
whether separate or as an offshoot of a pending
proceeding, the payment of docket fees is mandatory.
The docket fee should be paid before the court would
validly act on the motion.

RTC Cebu City, it became an entirely separate case

from that was dismissed by the RTC of Leyte due to
improper venue. As far as the case in Cebu is
concerned, while undoubtedly the order of dismissal is
not an adjudication on the merits of the case, the
order, nevertheless, is a final order. This means that
when private respondent did not appeal therefrom, the
order became final and executory for all legal intents
and purposes.
DE LEON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
287 SCRA 94 [March 6, 1998]

SUSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS

278 SCRA 284 [August 21, 1997)
FACTS: Mortz filed a case against Charles in
Leyte. After filing, the court dismissed the case
because it should be filed in Cebu. Mortz wrote a
letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
asking that the docket fee paid in Leyte be considered
applicable to Cebu. OCA granted his request.
Charles questioned it because of the rule that the
payment of docket fee is jurisdictional.
HELD: The OCA has neither the power nor the
authority to exempt any party not otherwise exempt
under the law or under the Rules of Court in the
payment of the prescribed docket fees. It may be
noteworthy to mention here that even in the Supreme
Court, there are numerous instances when a litigant
has had to re-file a petition previously dismissed by
the Court due to a technicality (violation of a pertinent
Circular), and in these instances, the litigant is
required to pay the prescribed docket fee and not
apply to the re-filed case the docket fees paid in the
earlier dismissed case.
In the case at bar, in the strict sense, Mortzs
complaint cannot be deemed to have been re-filed in
Cebu City because it was not originally filed in the
same court but in the RTC Leyte. Thus, when Mortzs
complaint was docketed by the clerk of court of the

FACTS: The question for decision is whether in

assessing the docket fees to be paid for the filing of
an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of
sale, the value of the real property, subject matter of
the contract, should be used as basis, or whether the
action should be considered as one which is not
capable of pecuniary estimation and therefore the fee
charged should be a flat rate of P400.00 as provided
in Rule 141, Section 7(b)(1) of the Rules of Court.
Polgas argued that an action for annulment or
rescission of a contract of sale of real property is a
real action and, therefore, the amount of the docket
fees to be paid by Dagul should be based either on
the assessed value of the property, subject matter of
the action, or its estimated value as alleged in the
complaint.
Since Dagul alleged that the land, in which they
claimed an interest as heirs, had been sold for
P4,378,000.00 to Polgas, this amount should be
considered the estimated value of the land for the
purpose of determining the docket fees.
Dagul countered that an action for annulment or
rescission of a contract of sale of real property is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and, so, the docket
fees should be the fixed amount of P400.00 in Rule
141, Section 7(b).

HELD: Dagul is correct. In determining whether

an action is one the subject matter of which is not
capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining 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 municipal courts or in the
courts of first instance 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, like in
suits to have the defendant perform his part of the
contract (specific performance) and in actions for
support, or for annulment of a judgment or to
foreclose a mortgage, this Court has considered such
actions as cases where the subject of the litigation
may not be estimated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance.
The rationale of the rule is plainly that the second
class cases, besides the determination of damages,
demand an inquiry into other factors which the law
has deemed to be more within the competence of
courts of first instance, which were the lowest courts
of record at the time that the first organic laws of the
Judiciary were enacted allocating jurisdiction.
Actions for specific performance of contracts
have been expressly pronounced to be exclusively
cognizable by courts of first instance and no cogent
reason appears, and none is here advanced by the
parties, why an action for rescission (or resolution)
should be differently treated, a "rescission" being a
counterpart, so to speak, of specific performance.
In both cases, the court would certainly have to
undertake an investigation into facts that would justify
one act or the other. No award for damages may be
had in an action for rescission without first conducting
an inquiry into matters which would justify the setting
aside of a contract. Issues of the same nature may be
raised by a party against whom an action for

rescission has been brought, or by the plaintiff

himself.
It is, therefore, difficult to see why a prayer for
damages in an action for rescission should be taken
as the basis for concluding such action as one
capable of pecuniary estimation a prayer which
must be included in the main action if plaintiff is to be
compensated for what he may have suffered as a
result of the breach committed by defendant, and not
later on precluded from recovering damages by the
rule against splitting a cause of action and
discouraging multiplicity of suits.
Thus, although eventually the result may be the
recovery of land, it is the nature of the action as one
for rescission of contract which is controlling.
Since the action of Polgas against Dagul is solely
for annulment or rescission which is not susceptible of
pecuniary estimation, the action should not be
confused and equated with the value of the property
subject of the transaction; that by the very nature of
the case, the allegations, and specific prayer in the
complaint, sans any prayer for recovery of money
and/or value of the transaction, or for actual or
compensatory damages, the assessment and
collection of the legal fees should not be intertwined
with the merits of the case and/or what may be its end
result.

TOTALITY RULE
Now, continuing with Section 33, it says there in paragraph [1]:
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.
What do you call that rule? The TOTALITY RULE.
ILLUSTRATION: Joinder of causes of action. The defendant
secured from me two or more loans. Lets say, apat na utang
covered by four (4) promissory notes and all of them are due and
he has not paid me any. Let's say each note covers a principal
amount of P75,000. Now, I decided to file one complaint
embodying my four causes of action against him although I have
the option also to file four separate complaints. If you will look at
the value of each claim which is P75,000 that is triable by the
MTC. But if you will add the four claims that will be P300,000.00.
Q: Which will prevail? The amount of each of the claim or the
total?
A: The total amount will prevail. So it should be filed in the
RTC. That is the totality rule.
Never mind that there are four (4) separate loans because the
law says irrespective of whatever the cause of action arose out of
the same or different transactions. Now in that example, there is
only one plaintiff and one defendant. The plaintiff has four claims
against the same defendant. Now suppose there are 4 plaintiffs
suing the same defendant in what is called in procedure as joinder
of causes of action and joinder of parties.
EXAMPLE: There are four (4) passengers riding on a public
vehicle. They were all injured when the bus met an accident and
all of them were hospitalized. So after they were discharged, the
four of them wanted to sue the bus company for damages arising
from contract of carriage or culpa contractual. Since they hired the
same lawyer, the lawyer said, Why will I file 4 complaints? Isahin
na lang. I will join them. In effect, he joined 4 causes of action.
Q: The same question will arise. What will be now the basis of
jurisdiction? The claim of every plaintiff or the total claims of the 4
plaintiffs?
A: The total claims. You apply the totality rule because the law
says where there are several claims or cause of action between
the same or different parties. So whether the parties are the same
or the parties are different embodied in the same complaint the

amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims the totality
rule applies in both situations.
We will now go to paragraph [2] of Section 33.
[2] Exclusive original jurisdiction over
cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
Provided, That when, in such cases, the
defendant raises the question 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. x x x x
This is related to the Law on Property FORCIBLE ENTRY
(recovery of physical possession, e.g. squatting) and UNLAWFUL
DETAINER (e.g. you eject a lessee does not pay his rent.) MTC
lahat iyan. The two cases should not be confused with accion
publiciana which is also the recovery of possession but that is a
better right. Now, in unlawful detainer, the plaintiff also prays not
only to eject the defendant but also to claim for back rentals or the
reasonable amount of the use and occupation of the property in
case of forcible entry.
Q: Suppose the unpaid rentals already amount to almost half
a million pesos so, unlawful detainer plus back rentals of half a
million. Where should the case be filed?
A: The case should still be filed with the MTC. What
determines jurisdiction is the nature of the action, and not the
amount of recoverable rentals. Kahit na one (1) million pa yan,
MTC pa rin yan.
Q: In an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, can the
party present evidence of ownership?
A: The general rule is NO because the MTC cannot adjudicate
ownership. That has to be threshed out in the proper civil action in
the RTC. But if evidence of ownership is presented in the forcible
entry or unlawful detainer case, it is only incidental and it is only
resolved to determine the issue of possession. But the declaration
of ownership is not final that is only prima facie. The question of
ownership must be litigated in a separate action in the RTC.

Let us now proceed to the third paragraph of Section 33 as

amended by R.A. 7691:
[3] Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil
actions which involve 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 tax purposes, the value of such
property shall be determined by the assessed
value of the adjacent lots. (As amended by RA
7691)
Aside from forcible entry and unlawful detainer, MTCs have
now jurisdiction over other real actions like accion publiciana and
accion reinvidicatoria cases where the assessed value of the land
should be P20,000 or less. In Metro Manila, it is P50,000 or less.
That is the amendment brought about by RA 7691 which
expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC.

there are more than one, or from the

corresponding tax declarations of the real
property. Their decisions in these cases shall
be appealable in the same manner as
decisions of the RTCs. (As amended by RA
7691)
Review: These are related to your study of Land, Titles and
Deeds (The Property Registration Decree) When you file a petition
for land registration, the object is to have your property registered
and fall under the Torrens System of the Land Registration.
Patituluhan ba! Now, what is the difference between a land
registration proceeding and a cadastral proceeding? Cadastral is
compulsory registration.
Q: Now, what is this delegated jurisdiction all about?
A: It refers only to cadastral and land registration cases which
involve the titling of property under the Torrens system or cadastral
land registration.
Under the Property Registration Decree, only the RTC has
authority to entertain land registration and cadastral cases. But
now, Section 34 gives the Supreme Court the authority to
DELEGATE MTCs to hear and decide land registration and
cadastral cases under the following conditions:
1.) when there is no controversy or nobody is contesting
your petition; or
2.) even if the petition is contested where the value of the
land to be titled does not exceed P100,000.

B.) DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF THE MTC

Sec. 34.
Delegated
Jurisdiction
in
Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs may be assigned
by the Supreme Court to hear and determine
cadastral or land registration cases covering
lots where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots where the value
of which does not exceed One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to
be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant
or by agreement of the respective claimants if

In which case, these MTCs can decide and their decisions are
appealable directly to the CA. Para bang acting RTC sila ba.
Thats what it is called delegated jurisdiction. Delegate means it
really has to be assigned to you.
Now do not confuse this P100,000 (Section 34) with the
P20,000 under Section 33. Section 34 deals with cadastral and
land registration cases. Section 33 involves civil cases (accion
publiciana, etc.)
C.) SPECIAL JURISDICTION OF MTC

Sec. 35.
Special jurisdiction in certain
cases. - In the absence of all the Regional Trial
Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan
Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal
Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or
applications for bail in criminal cases in the
province or city where the absent Regional
Trial Judges sit.
This is what we call special jurisdiction. That only applies to
two (2) types of cases: (1) Habeas corpus and (2) hearing of
petitions for bail.
Remember that habeas corpus is not within the jurisdiction of
the MTC. It is with the RTC. Also, the hearing on petition for bail,
RTC yan because the offense may be a heinous one, but under
the law on criminal procedure you can file a petition for bail to
have your temporary freedom while the case is going on. Thats
supposed to be in the RTC.
But suppose there is no available RTC judge, all of them are
sick or all of them are attending a convention (this actually
happened in Davao in 1990) Section 35 provides that the MTC, in
the absence of RTC judges, can hear and decide on habeas
corpus case petitions and applications or petitions for bail in
criminal cases. So acting pa rin yan because they are urgent and
the liberty of a person is at stake.
That is allowed because of the urgency of the situation. There
is no need for a SC authorization. However, this is only allowed in
the absence of the RTC judges. But if the RTC judge comes back,
he has to take over the petition.
So with that we are through with the jurisdiction of our courts.
So we will now proceed to remedial law proper.
CIVIL PROCEDURE PROPER

Laws are classified as either Remedial or Substantive Law.

Remedial Law is also known as Adjective or Procedural Law.
REMEDIAL LAW vs. SUBSTANTIVE LAW
Q: Distinguish Remedial law from Substantive law?
A: SUBSTANTIVE LAW is that branch of the law which
creates, defines and regulates rights. (Bustos vs. Lucero, 81 Phil.
640; Ballentines Law Dict., 2nd., pp. 66, 1023) Like the Civil
Code, the rights of children, husband and wife, creditor and debtor
are all found there.
REMEDIAL LAW is that branch of law which prescribes the
method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion.
(Ibid) Example of Remedial Law is the Rules of Court.
So a right is useless unless you enforce it. And the manner of
enforcing rights is now prescribed by remedial law. Like in civil
cases, my neighbor borrowed from me but until now, despite
several demands, he refused to pay. Under the law on Obligations
and Contracts, I have the right to collect. But how do I collect? Is
it by writing a letter to the judge, Dear Judge? or Is it by calling
him on the phone? I-text ko kaya? Di puwede yan! There must be
a procedure. That is where the Civil Code leaves you behind and
that is where the Rules of Court will take over. So the 2 laws go
hand in hand. That is what the SC said in the 1992 case of
DE DIOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS
212 SCRA 519 [1992] Cruz, J.
HELD: The 2 laws have a symbiotic relationship.
They go hand in hand one supports the other. They
are not antagonistic towards each other.
Procedural rules are designed to insure the
orderly and expeditious administration of justice by
providing for a practical system by which the parties to
a litigation may be accorded a full and fair opportunity
to present their respective positions and refute each
other's
submissions
under
the
prescribed
requirements, conditions and limitations. Adjective law

is not the counterfoil of substantive law. In fact, there

is a symbiotic relationship between them. By
complying faithfully with the Rules of Court, the bench
and the bar are better able to discuss, analyze and
understand substantive rights and duties and
consequently to more effectively protect and enforce
them.
ASPECTS OF REMEDIAL LAW
Q: Give the two (2) aspects of Remedial Law.
A: There are 2 aspects of Remedial Law:
1.) PUBLIC ASPECT one which affords a remedy in
favor of the State against the individual (e.g.
criminal procedure) or in favor of the
individual against the State (e.g. habeas
corpus) on the other hand,
2.) PRIVATE ASPECT one which affords a remedy in
favor of an individual against another
individual, like the rules on civil procedure.
(Gamboas Introduction to Philippine Law, 6th
Ed., pp. 97-99)

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAW ON CIVIL PROCEDURE IN

THE PHILIPPINES
The origin of our law on procedure is American. Forget the law
on procedure during the Spanish regime. But the first known
ancestor of the law on Civil Procedure was the old Act 190,
otherwise known as the Code of Civil Procedure, which was
enacted on August 7, 1901 by the United States and Philippine
Commission.
And that was the law until 1940 because on July 01,1940 the
SC enacted the Rules of Court which we now call the Old Rules of
Court. That continued for another 24 years until January 01, 1964
when the SC enacted the Revised Rules of Court repealing the

Old Rules of Court. And that continued for another 33 years until
July 01,1997 where the SC enacted and which took effect on that
day (July 01, 1997) the New Rules on Civil Procedure.
SUMMARY:
1.) First Law August 07, 1901 Act 190 Code of Civil
Procedure (40 years)
2.) Second Law July 01, 1940 Old Rules of Court (24
years)
3.) Third Law January 01, 1964 Revised Rules of Court
(33 years)
4.) Fourth Law July 01, 1997 New Rules of Civil
Procedure.
SOURCES OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Well of course the sources are almost the same as the prior
law. The old Rules of Court is also a source. Many provisions were
taken from the 1964 Rules, substantive law like the Civil Code and
jurisprudence. And of course SC circulars. Many circulars are now
incorporated under the new rule. So those are the main sources.
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)

SOURCES:
Previous Rules of Court;
Jurisprudence;
New Civil Code;
SC Circulars

RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Rules of Court (1940, 1964, 1997) have all been enacted
by tile SC. It is law, not enacted by Congress but enacted by the
SC.
Q: What is the authority of the SC to enact a law when
actually the role of the judiciary is only to interpret the law? Is this
not a violation of the separation of powers?
A: The authority of the SC in enacting the prior rules and the
present rules is what you call its rule-making power which
provision was found in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
Based on the present law, the rule-making power of the SC is
expressed in Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph [5] which is

substantially the same as the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. Only

everytime they amend the Constitution, it is getting longer and
longer.
Rut the pertinent portion which has not been changed is that
the SC shall have the power to promulgate rules on pleading,
practice and procedure. That is the authority of the SC in enacting
the Rules of Court. But you should know also the limitations.
LIMITATIONS TO THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SC
The Constitution has also placed limitations on these powers.
As currently worded, one limitation provided for by the Article is
the rules of procedure to be enacted by the SC shall provide for a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases. The second one is: the rules shall be uniform for all courts
of the same grade. And the third is: the rules shall not diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights.

Before we take up the rules on criminal procedure, we have to

review the law on jurisdiction. Just like in civil cases, we have to
know the jurisdiction of the different courts before we take up the
provisions.
Q: How do we define jurisdiction with reference to criminal
cases?
A: Jurisdiction in criminal cases has been defined as the
power and authority of a court to take cognizance of an offense
and to pronounce the judgement or sentence provided by law after
a trial in the manner prescribed. (Albert, Law on Criminal
Procedure, p. 56)
Q: What are the elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases:
A: The following:
1. Territorial jurisdiction;
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter; and
3. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
First Element: TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

LIMITATIONS :
1. The Rules of Court shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases;
2. The Rules of Court shall be uniform for all courts of
the same grade; and
3. The Rules of Court shall not diminish, modify or
increase substantive rights.
Substantive rights are created by substantive law so the Rules
of Procedure should not increase, diminish or modify them. In
effect, the Rules of Court should not amend the substantive law. It
can only interpret substantive law but should not change it
completely. Those are the limitations. With that we are now ready
to tackle the 1997 rules on civil procedure.

LAW ON JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES

In civil cases, the place is never considered part of jurisdiction.

It is only a question of venue that the case should be tried in
Manila or Davao is never considered as jurisdictional. But in
criminal procedure, the place where the trial is to be heard is not
only a question of venue but also a question of jurisdiction. It is
called territorial jurisdiction.
Q: Define Territorial Jurisdiction.
A: Territorial jurisdiction refers to the limits of the geographical
boundaries of a place within which a court has jurisdiction to act
judicially and outside of which its judicial acts are null and void.
(Mendoza vs. B.T. Co., 90 Phil. 804)
Q: How is territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases determined?
A: The territorial jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is
determined by the geographical area over which it presides, and
the fact that the crime was committed, or any of its essential
ingredients took place, within said area is an element of
jurisdiction. (U.S. vs. Jueves, 23 Phil. 100)

The area of authority of said court is found in Section 2 of the

Interim Rules:
Section 2. Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts
Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trail Courts shall
exercise
their jurisdiction in the city,
municipality or circuit for which the judge
thereof is appointed or designated. Thus, a
judge appointed to the municipality or
circuitized
municipalities
would
have
jurisdiction over the said place.
(a) Regional Trial Courts shall exercise its
jurisdiction within the area defined by the
Supreme Court as the territory over which the
particular branch concerned shall exercise its
authority, in accordance with Section 18 of
B.P. Blg. 129.
There is no problem with the MTCs and MCTCs where the
crime is committed there. Pero yung RTC, it is not really the
province because the province can be split into several areas itong RTC branch na ito, dito ka. So it is the limit of its authority as
defined by the SC pursuant to the Judiciary Law the place or
municipality where the particular RTC
branch exercises
jurisdiction. Every RTC branch has its own area of responsibility.
Meaning, in one province there are many RTC branches
which are scattered. A branch in a particular place will only
exercise jurisdiction over its designated territory, a small portion,
not the whole province. The territory is defined by the SC.
(Section 18, B.P. Blg. 129)
Second Element: JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER
Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter in criminal cases
determined?
A: It is determined by the allegations of the complaint or
information in accordance with the law in force at the time of the
institution of the action, not at the time of the commission of the
offense. (U.S. vs. Mallari, 24 Phil. 366; People vs. Pegarum, 58
Phil. 715)

EXAMPLE: At the time the crime is committed, it was triable

by the RTC, but when the charge was filed in court, it is MTC na
because the jurisdiction of the MTC was increased.
Q: Saan ang sundin natin? RTC, which is the law at the time
the crime is committed? Or MTC, which is the law at the time the
case was filed?
A: Dun sa MTC. You follow the latter. This is not a question of
prejudice, this is purely procedural. We are not talking here of a
retroactive effect of penal law where the law is more favorable to
the accused no? This is just a question of jurisdiction, not a
question of law. So, it is the law in force at the time of the filing of
the action is what determines the jurisdiction of the court.
Q: To be more precise, how do we know where the court has
or no jurisdiction?
A: Essentially, it is determined by the penalty provided by the
law for the offense as that offense is charged in the complaint or
information. (People vs. Pecson, 92 Phil. 172; Punzalan vs.
People, 99 Phil. 295)
Third Element: JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
ACCUSED
Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the accused?
A: It is conferred upon the court either by the voluntary
appearance or surrender of the accused, or by his arrest to
answer for the crime charged. (Choc vs. Vera, 64 Phil. 1066)
JURISDICTION OF PHILIPPINE COURTS
Let us now go over the jurisdiction of the different courts in the
Philippines. We will start with the Supreme Court, and then down.
Remember that there are two (2) special courts also authorized to
try criminal cases: (1) the Family Courts acting through RTCs, and
(2) the Sandiganbayan.
SUPREME COURT (SC)

Q: What criminal cases are within the jurisdiction of the SC?

Well, one of them are cases affecting ambassadors, public
ministers and consuls. It is very rare. But let us concentrate on the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the SC in criminal cases.
A: The following:
1.

All criminal cases involving offenses for which the

penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment;
2.
Other offenses which, although not so punished,
arose out of the same occurrence or which may have
been committed by the accused on the same occasion as
that giving rise to the more serious offense, regardless of
whether the accused are
charged as principals,
accomplices, or accessories, or whether they have been
tried jointly or separately.
EXAMPLE: Hannah is the principal, accused of
murder. Maying is the accomplice and JJ is the accessory.
All of them are found guilty. For the principal, sigurado
perpetua ang pinakamababa nyan so SC ka!
How about the accomplice? Reclusion Temporal man
lang yan ba! And the accessory? Prision Mayor. In order
not to split the jurisdiction, all of them will be appealed to
the SC.

the appeal is not purely a question of law; the appeal either

involves question of fact or mixed question of law and fact.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC)
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. (BP 129)
The jurisdiction of the RTC in criminal cases is provided for in
Section 20, BP 129 which is very broad in general provided it
does not belong to the Sandiganbayan or the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC). So what does not belong to the Sandiganbayan or
the MTC belongs to the RTC. Therefore, the best guide is
determine the jurisdiction of the MTC. Let us forget the
Sandiganbayan for the meanwhile. If it does not belong to the
MTC, it should be to the RTC.
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT (MTC)

3.

Even if the penalty is less than reclusion perpetua,

death or life imprisonment, where the issue on appeal is
pure question of law.
EXAMPLE: Suppose the crime is homicide. The
penalty imposed is reclusion temporal 20 years or less
definitely sa Court of Appeals yan. However, if the issue
on appeal is purely legal question lang - 100% legal, no
factual issue SC yan. The mode of appeal is Rule 45
Appeal by Cetiorari.
COURT OF APPEALS (CA)

Lets go to the CA. Simple: If a case does not fall within the
jurisdiction of the SC, then necessarily it falls within the CAs
jurisdiction. That is, the penalty imposed is less than perpetua and

Q: What law governing the jurisdiction of the MTC?

A: Section 32, BP 129, as amended by RA 7691. RA 7691 is
the law expanding the jurisdiction of the MTC which took effect last
April 05, 1994.
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 of 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 offense involving
damage to property through criminal
negligence, they shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction thereof. (as amended by R.A. 7691)
There are only two (2) things to remember:
1. all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed
within their respective territorial jurisdiction
2. all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not
exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine
When the prescribed penalty is below six (6) years or kung
prision correctional and down, puro MTC lahat yan. Everything
above six (6) years, RTC ang jurisdiction.
Q: Suppose if the penalty prescribed is imprisonment, fine or
both?
A: Never mind the fine and the both. Just look at the
imprisonment. That is the innovation by the new rules. The fine is
never considered in determining the jurisdiction. All you have to do
is look at the imprisonment, i.e. above six (6) years RTC; six (6)
years and below MTC.
RTC JURISDICTION: Above six (6) years, regardless fine
MTC JURISDICTION: Six (6) years and below, regardless of
fine
Q: Suppose the penalty prescribed by law is 100% fine? There
are crimes na walang imprisonment eh where the prescribed
penalty is only fine. What will happen?

A: Under the SC Circular 04-94, if the penalty is imprisonment

and fine, or imprisonment or fine, never mind the fine and
concentrate on the imprisonment. But if the penalty prescribed is
purely fine, apply the old law before RA 7691: it depends on the
amount prescribed by law. Under the old law, if the maximum fine
is P4,000 or less MTC yan. If the penalty prescribed by law is
purely fine and above P4,000 RTC yan.
Where the prescribed by law is purely fine:
MTC P4,000 or less
RTC above P4,000
However, the exception to the exception is when the crime
is damage to property, like reckless imprudence, because in the
crime of damage to property through criminal negligence the
penalty is only fine, wala yang imprisonment under the RPC and
the fine is equal to the damage or not more than three (3) times
the amount of the damage.
EXAMPLE: You bumped a car and you wreck it. The car is
worth P100,000. Ano ang penalty? The minimum fine is P100,000
equal to the value of the damage and the maximum is
P300,000 (three times the value of the damage, Article 365, RPC).
So the fine could range from P100,000 to P300,000.
Q: Sa RTC na ba yan because it is above P4,000?
A: No! Basta damage to property through reckless
imprudence, automatically it is the MTC regardless of the amount
of fine. The P4,000 is only for crimes other than damage to
property through reckless imprudence.
Outline of the jurisdiction of the MTC and RTC over criminal
cases:
RTC:
1. when the prescribed penalty for the offense is
imprisonment exceeding six (6) years irrespective of
the amount of the imposable fine;
2. when the prescribed penalty for the offense is fine
only and the imposable fine exceeds P4,000.
MTC:

1. all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed

within their respective territorial jurisdiction;
2. all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not
exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of
the imposable fine;
3. when the prescribed penalty is fine only and the
imposable amount does not exceed P4,000;
4. when the offense involves damage to property through
criminal negligence irrespective of the amount of the
imposable fine.

penalty. Since less serious physical injuries is punishable by

arresto mayor only, it should be filed in the MTC.

Take note, jurisdiction is determined by the principal penalty

not by the civil liability, additional penalty or the subsidiary penalty,
which changed the previous rules under the old jurisprudence.
Under the old jurisprudence in the old case of U.S. vs. Bernardo,
the SC ruled that the penalty for simple seduction is only arresto
mayor [not more than 6 months]. It cannot be tried by the old
MTC. It should only be tried by the CFI (now, RTC) because under
Article 345 of the RPC, in the event that the accused is convicted
there be a judgment for support and the acknowledgment of the
child which can only be decreed by the CFI. So what determines
the jurisdiction of the court is not the criminal penalty by the civil
liability.

If the law says this case shall be tried with the RTC, sundin
mo yan and never mind the penalty because the law specifically
provides in what court you should file it. Even if the penalty is one
(1) month imprisonment, pag-sinabi ng law RTC, you follow it.

Pero bahaw na yan!! Those pronouncements are already

obsolete. Now, never mind the civil liability. So, in simple
seduction [below 6 months], the MTC can order for the support
and acknowledgment of the child because that is only incidental.
What is important is six (6) months lang ang penalty.
CASE: Suppose Sir Jet is convicted of less serious physical
injuries for the 6th time within a period of 10 years only. The
penalty for such crime is only arresto mayor six (6) months
maximum. But since Sir Jet is already a habitual delinquent, may
patong na yan where the penalty can reach as high as 6 months
to 14 years and 8 months.
Q: Where are you going to file the case?
A: That is what happened in the case of People vs. Custoso
where the SC held that the case should be file din the RTC
because you consider the principal plus the additional penalty. But
this doctrine is already obsolete. Under the present law RA 7691,
we do not consider the additional penalty, only the principal

Take note the opening clause of Section 32: Except in cases

falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial
Courts and of the Sandiganbayan. In other words, if the crime has
a penalty of six (6) years or lower, dapat talaga MTC. It cannot be
tried by the MTC if the law says it is falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the RTC or the Sandiganbayan [if the law
itself ba!].

Q: Give instances of this exception. In what cases will the

RTC will try the case even if the penalty is only six (6) years or
less?
A: There are four (4) instances as laid down by the SC in
cases of MORALES VS. CA, 283 SCRA 211 (1997) and
COMELEC vs. NHOYNAY , 292 SCRA 254 (1998):
1. Libel Klaro sa Article 360, RPC na RTC, pero if you look
at the penalty for libel, hindi man makaabot ng six (6)
years ba! Article 360 prevails.
2. The Decree on Intellectual Property. Criminal cases for
the violation of the Decree on Intellectual Property mga
trademarks yan.
3. The Dangerous Drugs Act. Basta Dangerous Drugs,
automatic RTC yan even if the penalty is prision
correcional lang.
4. Violation of the Omnibus Election Code Criminal cases
arising from the vilations of the Omnibus Election Code is
with the RTC even if the penalty is below six (6) years and
one (1) day (Comelec vs. Nhoynay)
FAMILY COURTS

Q: What criminal cases are falling within the original

jurisdiction of the Family Courts under RA 8369 An Act
Establishing Family Courts?
A: The following under Section 5, RA 8369:
1. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below
18 years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age, or
one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the
commission of the offense.
So for example: 10 years old na bata, sinuntok mo
slight physical injuries sa Family Courts yan. Hindi
yan pwede sa MTC because regardless of the penalty
basta below 18 years old siya, Family Courts yan
whether he is the accused or the offended party.
2. Criminal cases against minors under the Dangerous
Drugs Act; and
3. Violations of RA 7610 the famous child Abuse Law as
amended by RA 7658.
But since the Family Courts have not yet been constituted, the
temporary measure is some RTC branches were designated as
acting as Family Courts. Here in Davao, the salas of Judge Breva
and Judge Archangel are designated as Family Courts. Temporary
set-up lang yan. They are still RTC but acting as Family Courts.
SANDIGANBAYAN
The most confusing is the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Everyone is always confused with this Sandiganbayan. It is the
most controversial.
How do you know that the case is to be tried by the
Sandiganbayan or by the regular courts? It does not mean naman
that all crimes committed by a public officer must be with the
Sandiganbayan. It could be with the Sandiganbayan or it could be
with the RTC or MTC. If you know the jurisdiction of the RTC or
MTC, there is no problem. Above six (6) years RTC; below six
(6) years MTC.

But the problem is whether it is with the Sandiganbayan or the

regular courts, because for the Sandiganbayan, doon, regardless
of the penalty na naman. Even if the penalty is above six (6) years
or six (6) years and below, if it is triable before the
Sandiganbayan, you go there. Forget the penalty. That is where
there is some confusion. Maraming naguguluhan!
Q: What is the guideline in determining the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan?
A: The latest governing law is RA 8249 approved on February
05, 1997. This is what it requires:
1. What kind of position in t he government does he hold
or occupy?
2. What criminal cases was committed by him?
WHAT KIND OF POSITION IN THE GOVERNMENT DOES HE
HOLD OR OCCUPY?
Sino ba itong taong ito? if he is a governor, vice-governor,
member of the sanggunian, provincial treasure, assessor,
engineers and other provincial department head, city mayor, vice
mayor, members of the sanggunian panglungsod, city treasurer,
assessor, engineer, other city department heads, official of the
diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher,
Philippine army and air force, colonels and naval captains and all
officers of higher rank, officers of the PNP while occupying the
position of provincial directors and those holding the rank of
Senior Superintendent or higher, city and provincial prosecutors
and their assistant, and officials and prosecutors of the Office of
the Ombudsman and special prosecutor, presidents, directors or
trustees or managers of GOCCs, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations; members of Congress; members of the
Constitutional Commission without prejudice to the provisions of
the Constitution; [ito ang pinakamaganda:] all other national and
local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher.
Those specified positions or even if you are just an ordinary
employee but you are Grade 27 or higher coupled with Anti-Graft
crime or crime committed in relation to your office
Sandiganbayan yan, forget the penalty.

If he is below Grade 27 and the crime is anti-graft or a crime

committed in relation to his office, then it is not Sandiganbayan. It
is either RTC or MTC. Tingnan mo lang ang Grade. That is the
cue. Madali man lang ba: you just correlate the nature of the crime
and the nature of the position.
WHAT CRIMINAL CASE WAS COMMITTED BY HIM?
When it comes to criminal cases, dalawa (2) lang yan eh: AntiGraft cases or violation of RA 1379 [Forfeiture of an illegally
acquired property]. But more or less Anti-Graft would be a better
example since anyway majority of the cases falls there.
Q: How about those in the RPC?
A: Find out whether the crime was committed by the public
officer in relation to his office. Yan muna ang babantayan mo.
If it is outside of those two [anti-graft or not anti-graft but the
crime is committed in relation to his office], wala na, forget the
Sandiganbayan.
What do you mean by crime committed in relation to the
office of the person accused? In the case of
PEOPLE vs. MONTEJO
108 Phil. 652
FACTS: This is a case for murder filed against the
former Mayor Leroy Brown of Basilan City together
with some Basilan policeman. Brown ordered his men
to arrest the suspect and he was interrogated. It is in
the course of the investigation or interrogation that
they committed the crime of murder.
ISSUE: Was the crime of murder committed in
relation to his office?
HELD: Yes. In other words, if they were not public
officers they would not have succeeded in committing
the crime. Although public office is not an element of
the crime of murder in abstract, as committed by the

main respondents herein, according to the amended

information, the offense therein charged is intimately
connected with their respective offices and was
perpetrated while they were in the performance,
though improper or irregular, of their official functions.
Indeed, they had no personal motive to commit the
crime and they would not have committed it had they
not held their aforesaid offices. The co-defendants of
respondent Leroy S. Brown, obeyed his instructions
because he was their superior officer, as Mayor of
Basilan City.
Of course, normally when you say in relation to his office
mga falsification or malversaton yan, talagang klaro. That is the
normal meaning. That is why in the 1995 case of CUNANAN VS.
ARCEO, 242 SCRA, the SC held that an offense may be
considered as committed in relation to the accused's office if the
offense cannot exist without the office such that the office is a
constituent element of the crime. Let us try to compare this in the
case of
SANCHEZ vs. DEMETRIOU
207 SCRA 627
FACTS: Mayor Sanchez of Calauan was charged
with rape and homicide for the deaths of Aileen
Sarmenta and Allan Gomez. They were charged
before the RTC. Sanchez questioned the jurisdiction
of the RTC that since he is an incumbent mayor at the
time of the alleged commission of the crime, his case
should be tried before the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction
over the case.
HELD: Yes. The case should be tried by the RTC
and not Sandiganbayan. The case of Sanchez was
not considered in relation to their office.
There is no direct relation between the
commission of the crime of rape with homicide and
Sanchez office as municipal mayor because public

office is not an essential element of the crime

charged. The offense can stand independently of the
office. Moreover, it is not even alleged in the
information that the commission of the crime charged
was intimately connected with the performance of
Sanchez official functions to make it fall under the
exception laid down in People vs. Montejo.
In that case of People vs. Montejo, a city mayor
and several detectives were charged with murder for
the death of a suspect as a result of a third degree
investigation held at a police substation. The Supreme
Court held that even if their position was not an
essential ingredient of the offense, there was
nevertheless an intimate connection between the
office and the offense, as alleged in the information,
that brought it within the definition of an offense
committed in relation to the public office. Indeed, they
had no personal motive to commit the crime and they
would not have committed it had they not held their
aforesaid offices.
We have read the informations in the case at bar
and find no allegation therein that the crime of rape
with homicide imputed to Sanchez was connected
with the discharge of his functions as municipal mayor
or that there is an intimate connection between the
offense and his office. It follows that the said crime,
being an ordinary offense, is triable by the regular
courts and not the Sandiganbayan.
LACSON vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
301 SCRA 298 (1999)
HELD: It is not enough to say that the crime
committed is in relation to his office. You must make
specific allegations to show really the connection.
Otherwise, it will not be tried by the Sandiganbayan
but by the regular courts.
While the information states that the above-name
principal accused committed the crime of murder in
relation to their public office there is, however, no
specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the

victim by the said principal accused was intimately

related to the discharge of their official duties as police
officers. Likewise, the amended information does not
indicate that the accused arrested and investigated
the innocent victim and killed the latter while in their
custody.
Dapat:
nahulinag-imbestigatapos,
pinatay yun, ma-consider pa! Pero pag-sinabi mo na
they killed him in relation to their office, without further
explanation wala! It becomes merely a conclusion
lang ba.
The mere allegation in the information that the
offense was committed by the accused public officer
in relation to his office is not sufficient the phrase is
merely a conclusion of law, not a factual averment that
would show the close intimacy between the offense
charged and the discharge of the accuseds official
duties.
In the case of People vs. Montejo, it is
noteworthy that the phrase committed in connection
to his public office does not also appear in the
information, which only signifies that the said phrase
is not what determine the jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan. What is controlling is the specific
factual allegations in the information that would
indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of
the accuseds official duties and the commission of the
offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as
having been committed in relation to his public office.
Q: The offender is a public officer and in committing the crime,
he took advantage of his position. Ano yan? Is that a sufficient
allegation that the crime is committed in relation to the office?
A: NO! It does not carry the same meaning. When you say
that the public officer took advantage of his position, that is only
an allegation of an aggravating circumstance under Article 14,
RPC. (People vs. Magallanes, 249 SCRA 212)
Now, there are instances where there could also be a conflict
between the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction and that of the regular
courts. This is were we follow the general rules on statutory

construction that special law prevails over a general law; a specific

provision prevails over a general provision.
Such principle is applied in the case of De Jesus vs. People
(1983), reiterated in the case of Corpuz vs. Tanodbayan (1987).
These cases were decided under the 1973 Constitution. But
actually, the doctrine still applies now.
CORPUZ vs. TANODBAYAN
April 15, 1987
NOTE: This Corpuz case was asked in the Bar,
not in remedial law but in political law because it has
something to do with the COMELEC.
FACTS: The accused here is a Comelec registrar
who allowed the registration of voters outside of the
registration day bawal man yan ba. So there was a
violation of the Election Code. He committed a crime
in relation to his office. For that, he was charged
before the Sandiganbayan under the 1973
Constitution. Now, he challenged the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan to try the case and also the
jurisdiction of the former Tanodbayan which is now the
Ombudsman.
Under the Election Code, violations of election
code committed by public officers in relation to their
office are supposed to be tried by the RTC. It is a
direct provision in the code RTC eh! And the
preliminary investigation should be conducted by the
Comelec under the election code.
And of course the prosecution said: No! Under
the law, when the crime is committed by a public
officer in relation to his office, it should be the
Sandiganbayan, not the regular courts. Pero sabi ng
accused: Under the election code, it should be the
RTC! Ngayon, sino ngayon mag-prevail dyan?
HELD: The election code prevails because there
is a specific provision which is: crimes under the
election code. Whereas the provisions of the
Sandiganbayan is broader: crimes committed by
public officers in relation to their duty. That applies to

public officers in general. So the specific provision

prevails over the general provision.
Another interesting point about the Sandiganbayan is that the
Sandiganbayan law says that where a private individual commits a
crime in conspiracy with a public officer, all of them should be tried
in the Sandiganbayan. So yung isa, nasabit no? Nasabit yung
private individual. He is not even in the government bakit pati siya
i-try sa Sandiganbayan? Because may conspiracy. There should
be a joint trial.
So you cannot say that the public officer should be tried in the
Sandiganbayan and the private individual should be tried in the
RTC. Di pwede yan. You cannot split the jurisdiction.
Q: What is the reason why the private individual should be
tried together with the public officers in the Sandiganbayan?
A: The SC explained in the following manner: Private persons
may be charged together with public officers to avoid repeated and
unnecessary presentation of witnesses and exhibits against
conspirators in different venues, especially if the issues involved
are the same. (Balmadrid vs. Sandiganbayan, March 22, 1991)
Lets go to some interesting cases on the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan over private individuals:
BONDOC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
November 9, 1990
FACTS: This case involves quieting(?) operations
(manuevers sa mga tseke) between Central Bank (a
government institution, now Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas) employees allegedly in connivance with
Carlito Bondoc, an assistant manager of a private
bank. Now, two (2) CB employees were charged with
several counts of estafa through falsification of public
documents because of their manipulations of the
checks. I think what they did maybe something similar
to what Estrada did no? Of course they were charged
with the Sandiganbayan and the cases were assigned
in the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan.

Subsequently after further investigation, another

information was filed against Bondoc as principal by
indispensable cooperation and he was also in
conspiracy, so f-in-ile sa Sandiganbayan. His case
was raffled to the Third Division. When the Third
Division learned that this is related to the case against
the two (2) CB employees in the Second Division,
pinasa sa 2nd Division for consolidation. However,
tapos na pala ang trial dun (2nd Division). So the 2nd
Division returned the case of Bondoc to the 3rd
Division.
So naiwan na si Bondoc. Now he questions the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbyan: How could the
Sandiganbayan try me alone when in fact I should be
tried jointly with the 2 CB employees. Eh tapos na sila!
So my case should be tried in the RTC.
HELD: The law requires that the private
individuals accused before the Sandiganbayan should
be tried together jointly with the public officer. That is
really true unless the attendant circumstances have
made impossible or impracticable such a joint trial, in
which event the trial of said private persons may
proceed separately from the public officers or
employees whose own trials have been concluded.
Besides, there is nothing so sacred or important
about a joint trial as to justify a radical deviation from
ordinary, orderly court processes in order to have it, or
as to affect the very jurisdiction of the Court required
to conduct it. The evidence of the State or of the
accused does not become weaker or stronger
whether presented at a joint or separate trial; the
rights of the accused are not enhanced or diluted by
the character of a trial as joint or separate; the
procedure prescribed in either situation is essentially
the same.
So joint trial is possible kung pwede pa. Eh kung wala na? Eh
di maiwan ka na lang dyan! Now, sabihin mo: No! No! the the law
says joint trial! I should not be tried alone. The SC in the case of
Bondoc said: Teka muna, do you have an advantage in joint trial?
Or when tried alone? Or you are tried together with another

person? Does joint trial make your job easier or harder? Makes
conviction easier? Wala man bah! Pareho man lang yan!
So meaning, you cannot insist on a joint trial if that is no
longer feasible. But as far as the law is concerned, since you
committed the crime in conspiracy with these public officers, you
remain in the Sandiganbayan. So in that case (Bondoc), mag-isa
lang siya and his trial continued in the Sandiganbayan.
AZARCON vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
268 SCRA 747 (February 26, 1997)
FACTS: I think this case happened in Bislig.
Azarcon here leased a truck of somebody for logging
operations. The owner of the truck was a delinquent
taxpayer pala. So the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) issued this warrant of distraint. The BIR looked
for the truck which is quite an item which worthwhile:
This truck is hereby considered as under the
possession of the BIR. Now since you (Azarcon) are
the one leasing, okey lang, ituloy mo but you are now
the custodian. You are now holding it in behalf of the
BIR.
After the lease, he returned the truck to the lessor
(taxpayer). Obviously, nawala nga ang truck. So
hinabol na si Azarcon ng BIR: Bat mo sinauli? That
is under distraint already and that is malversation!
Under the RPC, the crime of malversation may be
committed by a public officer, by a private individual
who is entrusted with the custody of a property which
has been levied by the government (Article 222,
RPC)
So, f-in-ile-an sya ng kaso sa Sandiganbayan
malversation eh! He now questions the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan: I am not a public officer. If you
want to sue me, you sue me in the regular courts, not
here in the Sandiganbayan!
ISSUE: Does the Sandiganbayan have the
jurisdiction over a private individual who is charged
with malversation of public funds or property as a
principal after the said individual has been designated

by the BIR as custodian of a restrained property? Did

such accused become a public officer and therefore
subject to the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction as a
consequence of such designation?
HELD: No. The Sandiganbayan does not have the
jurisdiction over him. The law equivocally specifies:
the only instances when the Sandiganbayan will
have jurisdiction over a private individual, i.e. when
the complaint charges the private individual either as
a co-principal, accomplice or accessory of a public
officer or employee who has been charged with a
crime within its jurisdiction.
The Information does not charge petitioner
Azarcon of being a co-principal, accomplice or
accessory to a public officer committing an offense
under the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. Thus, unless
petitioner be proven a public officer, the
Sandiganbayan will have no jurisdiction over the crime
charged.
Granting arguendo that the petitioner, in signing
the receipt for the truck constructively distrained by
the BIR, commenced to take part in an activity
constituting public functions, he obviously may not be
deemed authorized by popular election. The next
logical query is whether petitioner's designation by the
BIR as a custodian of distrained property qualifies as
appointment by direct provision of law, or by
competent authority. We answer in the negative.
However, we find no provision in the NIRC
constituting such person a public officer by reason of
such requirement. The BIR's power authorizing a
private individual to act as a depositary cannot be
stretched to include the power to appoint him as a
public officer. The prosecution argues that "Article 222
of the Revised Penal Code . . . defines the individuals
covered by the term 'officers' under Article 217 . . ." of
the same Code. And accordingly, since Azarcon
became a "depository of the truck seized by the BIR"
he also became a public officer who can be
prosecuted under Article 217 . . .

We are not persuaded. The language of the

foregoing provision is clear. A private individual who
has in his charge any of the public funds or property
enumerated therein and commits any of the acts
defined in any of the provisions of Chapter Four, Title
Seven of the RPC, should likewise be penalized with
the same penalty meted to erring public officers.
Nowhere in this provision is it expressed or implied
that a private individual falling under said Article 222 is
to be deemed a public officer.
What it says is, you can be charged for malversation. Thats
all. But he is still a private individual and therefore he cannot be
tried alone in the Sandiganbayan.
Q: Under the present law, anti-graft or crimes committed by
public officers below Grade 27, RTC man yan ba! Now, suppose
you are convicted by the RTC, where will you appeal?
A: Sandiganbayan. It becomes the appellate court.
Q: Eh halimbawa, MTC? The case is tried by the MTC
because the penalty is up to 6 years only. Convicted ka, where will
you appeal?
A: RTC, in accordance with the judiciary law.
Q: From the RTC, convicted pa rin! Where will you appeal?
A: Petition for Review before the Sandiganbayan. Do not go to
CA. The Sandiganbayan takes the place of the CA.
And take note, Sandiganbayan is now given the exclusive
original jurisdiction over petition for issuance of writ of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and other auxiliary
writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Ayan! in
aid yan ang importante dyan.