1/20/2016

G.R.No.L48754

TodayisWednesday,January20,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L48754November26,1941
EMILIOV.REYES,protestantappellant,
vs.
APOLONIOR.DIAZ,protesteeappellee.
MORAN,J.:
ThiscaseiscertifiedtothisCourtbytheCourtofAppealsuponthegroundthatthejurisdictionofthetrialcourtis
in issue. The supposed questions of jurisdiction are, first, whether or not there is sufficient to show that the
protestanthasdulyfiledhiscertificateofcandidacy,andsecond,whetherthetrialcourthasorhasnoauthorityto
pass upon the validity of the ballots adjudicated to the protestant which have not been challenged by the
protesteeinhiscounterprotest.
Article VIII, section 2, No. 3, of the Constitution confers upon the Supreme Court jurisdiction over "all cases in
which the jurisdiction of any trial court is in issue." Section 138, No. 3, of the Revised Administrative Code as
amended by Commonwealth Acts Nos. 3 and 259, provides that the Supreme Court shall have appellate
jurisdictionover"allcasesinwhichthejurisdictionofanyinferiorcourtisinissue."Ithasbeenheldthattheword
"jurisdiction" as used in the constitutions and in the statutes "means jurisdiction as to the subjectmatter only,
unlessanexceptionarisesbyreasonofitsemploymentinabroadersense."(15C.J.735Johnsonvs.Wells,91
Fed.1U.S.vs.Lee,84Fed.626Vinalvs.ContinentalConstr.,etc.Co.,34Fed.228Starnesvs.MutualLoan
etc.,Co.,102Ga.59729SE452.)ThereisinourConstitutionorinthelawaforecitednothingwhichmaylend
theword"jurisdiction"thereinusedabroadermeaningthanjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter.Onthecontrary,
havingdueregardtothemanifestpurposeofthelaw,whichistoconfinetheappellatejurisdictionofthiscourtto
cases of vital importance involving questions of fundamental character, such, for instance, as the question of
validityofstatute,treatyorordinance,orthelegalityofanytax,importorassessmentwhichmayeffectthevery
existenceofthegovernment,orcriminalcaseswhereinlifeimprisonmentordeathpenaltyisimposed,weareof
theopinionandsohold,thattheissueofjurisdictionwhichconfersappellatepowersuponthisCourtinagiven
caseisnotsuchquestionasisdependentexclusivelyuponminormattersoffactoruponamereconstructionof
thepleadings,butthatwhichhasreferencetothemoreimportantquestionofjurisdictionofthetrialcourtoverthe
subjectmatterasdeterminedbylaw.
Jurisdictionoverthesubjectmatteristhepowertohearanddeterminecasesofthegeneralclasstowhichthe
proceedingsinquestionbelong(C.J.S.,p.36)andisconferredbythesovereignauthoritywhichorganizesthe
courtanddefinesitspowers(BancoEspaolFilipinovs.Palanca,37Phil.921Perkinsvs.Dizon,40Off.Gaz.No.
7, 3d Sup. p. 216 Ng Si Chok vs. Vera, G.R. No. 45674). The question, therefore, of whether a court has
jurisdiction over the subjectmatter, calls for interpretation and application of the law of jurisdiction which
distributesthejudicialpoweramongthedifferentcourtsinthePhilippines,andsincetherulingonthematterisof
farreaching consequences, affecting, as it may, the very life and structure of our judicial system, the law has
deemeditwisetoplacethepowerandauthoritytoactthereoninthehighestcourtoftheland.
Intheinstant,case,thereisnosuchquestionofjurisdictionasabovedescribed.Bothpartiesagreethatifthedue
filingoftheprotestant'scertificateofcandidacyisproven,thetrialcourthasnojurisdictionexcepttodismissthe
case.Thereis,therefore,noquestionbetweenthepartiesastowhatthejurisdictionofthetrialcourtisaccording
tolawineithercase.Therealquestionbetweenthemisoneoffactwhetherornottheprotestant'scertificate
of candidacy has been duly filed. And not the until this fact is proved can the question of jurisdiction be
determined.
Neitheristhesecondquestiononeofjurisdictionwithinthepurviewofthelegalprovisionsabovequoted.Whether
certainballotsareorarenotpertinenttotheissueraisedinthepleadings,ismerelyaquestionofrelevancyof
evidence. It may be true that the court by an erroneous ruling on such question my encroach upon issues
completelyforeigntothosedefinedinthepleadings,butinsuchcasethequestionofjurisdictionthatmayarise
wouldnotbeoneofjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterbutofjurisdictionovertheissue.Inorderthatacourtmay
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1941/nov1941/gr_l48754_1941.html

1/2

1/20/2016

G.R.No.L48754

validlytryanddecideacase,itmusthavejurisdictionoverthepersonsoftheparties.(BancoEspaolFilipinovs.
Palanca,37Phil.921Perkinsvs.Dizon,40Off.Gaz.No.7,3dSup.p.216.)Butinsomeinstancesitissaidthat
thecourtshouldalsohavejurisdictionovertheissue(15C.J.734Huttsvs.Martin,134Ind.587,33N.E.676),
meaningtherebythattheissuebeingtriedanddecidedbythecourtbewithintheissuesraisedinthepleadings.
But this kind of jurisdiction should be distinguished from jurisdiction over the subjectmatter the latter being
conferredbylawandtheformerbythepleadings.Jurisdictionovertheissue,unlikejurisdictionoverthesubject
matter,maybeconferredbyconsenteitherexpressorimpliedoftheparties.(Rule17,sec.4,RulesofCourt.)
Althoughanissueisnotdulypleadeditmayvalidlybetriedanddecidedifnotimelyobjectionismadetheretoby
theparties.Thiscannotbedonewhenjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterisinvolved.Intruth,jurisdictionoverthe
issue is an expression of a principle that is involved in jurisdiction over the persons of the parties. Where, for
instance,anissueisnotdulypleadedinthecomplaint,thedefendantcannotbesaidtohavebeenservedwith
processastothatissue.(Cf.Atkinsetc.Co.vs.Domingo,44Phil.680).Atanyrate,whetherornotthecourthas
jurisdictionoveraspecificissueisaquestionthatrequiresnothingexceptanexaminationofthepleadings,and
thisfunctioniswithoutsuchimportanceascallfortheinterventionofthisCourt.
Furthermore,thisquestionofjurisdictionisunsubstantial.Itiswellsettledrulethattheinstitutionofsuffrageisof
public,notprivate,interest,andthecourtmayexaminealltheballotsaftertheballotboxesareopenedinorderto
determinewhicharelegalandwhichareillegal,eventhoughneitherofthepartiesraisedanyquestionastotheir
illegality. (Yalung vs. Atienza, 52 Phil. 781 Cecilio vs. Tomacruz, 62 Phil. 689 Cosculluela vs. Gaston, 63 Phil.
41).
Wherefore,thiscaseisherebyremandedtotheCourtofAppealsforfurtherproceedings.
Avacea,C.J.,AbadSantos,Diaz,Horilleno,andOzaeta,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1941/nov1941/gr_l48754_1941.html

2/2