#01 Neypes v.

C A 496 SC RA 633 (2005) (See

case of PC I Leasing & Finance v. Milan @ p 32
for a better discussion)
FRESH PERIOD RULE: it is practical to allow a fresh period
of 15 days within which to file a Notice of Appeal counted
from
the receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or
motion for reconsideration.
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of
due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance to law.
It should be taken within 15 days from notice of judgment or
final order appealed from.
A FINAL ORDER or JUDGMENT is one that finally disposes
of a case; an adjudication on the merits.

#02 Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago 494 SC RA 393

(2006)
The constitutional faculty of the SC to promulgate rules of
practice & procedure necessarily carries with it the power to
overturn judicial precedents regarding remedial law.
If a complainant is dismissed due to his/her own fault, the
dismissal is without prejudice to the defendants right to
prosecute his counterclaim in the same or separate action.
But if it were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the
counterclaim must also be dismissed as it is merely ancillary
to the main action.
Dismissal of the compulsory counterclaim is automatic upon
the dismissal of the complaint whether upon initiative of the
plaintiff or defendant.
HOWEVER, 2 & 3 of Rule 17 ordains a more equitable
disposition of the counterclaims by ensuring that any
judgment thereon is based on the merit of the counterclaim
itself and not because of the survival of the main complaint.

#05 C atipon, Jr. v. Japson

Facts:
Catipon took the exam without finishing his college degree
as he had a deficiency of 1.5 units which the school allowed
him to graduate before. He was found guilty of Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service. He appealed the
decision to the CA
Issue: W/N He was right in appealing the decision to the
CA?
Ruling: No, He shouldve appealed it first to the Commission
Proper, thereby failing to observe the principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies. Non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies renders petitioner's CA petition
premature and thus dismissible.

#06 Quesada v. DOJ 500 SC RA 454 (2006)

A direct recourse to the SC is warranted only where there
are special & compelling reasons specifically alleged in the
petition to justify such action.
Where the issuances of an extraordinary writ is also within
the competence of the CA or RTC, it is in either that the
action must be presented. [RULE ON HIERARCHY OF
COURTS]
*CONCURRENCE OF JURISDICTION is not, to be taken as
an absolute & an unrestrained freedom of choice of the
court to which one will seek recourse from.

#07 Ngo Bun Tiong v. Sayo 163 SC RA 614

(1988)

Mandamus lies to compel performance when refused of a

ministerial duty but not to compel the performance of a
discretionary one.
*If a law is silent as to the retroactivity of the law to pending
cases and must therefor be taken to be of prospective
application.

*POLICY OF JUDICIAL STABILITY/DOCTRINE OF NONINTERFERENCE: the judgment of a court of competent

jurisdiction may not be interfered by any court of concurrent
jurisdiction.
A court cannot refuse to issue a writ of execution upon a
final & executor judgment except when certain facts &
circumstances transpired after the finality, which would
render the execution of the judgment unjust.
The filing of several cases against the same party over the
same issue after the appellate court has decided adversely
against them constitutes a contumacious defiance of the
authority of courts and impedes the speedy administration
of justice.

#04 Dipad v. Olivan

#08 BF Homes v. Meralco (2010)

#03 Paloma v. Mora 470 SC RA 711 (2005)

As defined in jurisprudence, errors of jurisdiction occur when

the court exercises jurisdiction not conferred upon it by
law.18 They may also occur when the court or tribunal,
although it has jurisdiction, acts in excess of it or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
On the contrary, errors of judgment are those that the court
may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. They include
errors of procedure or mistakes in the courts findings20
based on a mistake of law or of fact.
Here, it is patently clear that petitioners do not question
whether the MTC has jurisdiction or authority to resolve the
issue of confidentiality of ITRs. Rather, they assail the
wisdom of the MTCs very judgment and appreciation of the
ITR as not confidential. Specifically, they claim that the
ruling violated the provisions of the NIRC on the alleged
rule on confidentiality of ITRs.

Administrative agencies, like the ERC, are tribunals of

limited jurisdiction and, as such, could wield only such as are
specifically granted to them by the enabling statutes. In
relation thereto is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction
involving matters that demand the special competence of
administrative agencies even if the question involved is also
judicial in nature. Courts cannot and will not resolve a
controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal, especially when the question
demands the sound exercise of administrative discretion
requiring special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate
matters of fact. The court cannot arrogate into itself the
authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction of which is
initially lodged with the administrative body of special
competence.
Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the Petition of BF
Homes and PWCC in Civil Case No. 03-0151, then it was

also devoid of any authority to act on the application of BF

Homes and PWCC for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction contained in the same Petition. The ancillary and
provisional remedy of preliminary injunction cannot exist
except only as an incident of an independent action or
proceeding.

#14 C alimlim v. Ramirez 118 SC RA 399 (1982)

#09 C abili v. Balindong

#15 Dela C ruz v. C A 510 SC RA 103 (2006)

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR DOCTRINE OF

JUDICIAL STABILITY
This doctrine in the regular orders or judgments of a coequal court is an elementary principle in the administration
of justice: no court can interfere by injunction with the
judgments or orders of another court of concurrent
jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by
the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the
concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over
the case and renders judgment, to the exclusion of all other
coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents,
and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of
ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.

#10 Villamor v. Salas 203 SC RA 540 (2006)

Judges of co-equal branches may not interfere with each
others judgments.
A judge is not liable for an erroneous decision in the
absence of malice or wrongful conduct in rendering it.

#11 Dela Rosa v. Roldan 501 SC RA 34 (2006)

What determines the nature of an action as well as which
court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the
complaint and the character of the relief sought, whether or
not plaintiff is entitled to any and all reliefs prayed for.
Jurisdiction is CONFERRED BY LAW and not by the
voluntary act or agreement of the parties.
Cannot be waived, enlarged, or diminished by the parties
act or omission.
It cannot be conferred through the acquiescence of the
court.

#12 Asiatrust v. First Aikka

#13 Tijam v. Sibonghanoy 23 SC RA 29 (1968)
- GENERAL Rule: Jurisdiction over the subject matter may
be raised at any time in the proceedings because lack
thereof affects the very authority of the court to take
cognizance of the case.
- EXCEPTION: A party may be barred by laches from
invoking this plea for the first time on appeal for the
purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the
active participation of said party invoking it.
- LACHES: Failure or neglect for an unreasonable &
unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising
due diligence, could or should have been done earlier.
o Negligence or omission to assert a right within a
reasonable time warranting a presumption that the party
entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to
assert it.
- A party cannot invoke the courts jurisdiction and then
deny it to escape a penalty.

- The ruling in Tijam is to be considered as a mere exception

rather than the general rule.
- When a party erroneously files a suit in a court without
jurisdiction, such act cannot be a sufficient basis for estoppel
in raising the question of jurisdiction.

- *Jurisdiction is the power or capacity given by law to a

court/tribunal to entertain, hear, and determine certain
controversies.
- Rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools
designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict &
rigid application which tends to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.
- SCs power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so
pervasive and compelling that as to alter even that which
this court itself has already declared to be final.
o In its rule-making power, it can suspend its rules with
respect to a particular case (pro hac vice)

#16 Sta. C lara Homeonwers Association v.

Gaston 374 SC RA 396 (2002)
A defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on the ground
of lack of cause of action is regarded as having
hypothetically admitted the factual averments in the
complaint.
TEST OF SUFFICIENCY OF ALLEGATIONS CONSTITUTING
THE CAUSE OF ACTION is whether, admitting the facts
alleged, the court can render a valid judgment on the
prayers.
It implies the issue must be passed upon based on the bare
allegations in the complaint.
*ELEMENTS OF CAUSES OF ACTION:
Legal right of the plaintiff exists.
Correlative obligation of defendant to respect the plaintiffs
rights.
Act/omission of defendant violating such right.

#17 Sun Insurance v. Asuncion 170 SC RA 274

(1989)

- Statutes regulating court procedures are applicable to

actions pending and undetermined at the time of their
passage.
o Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that
extent.
- It is not only the filing of the complaint but the payment of
the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with
jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action.
- Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the fee, the court may allow
payment within a
reasonable time but not beyond the prescriptive or
reglementary period.
o This rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party
claims, and the like.
- When the judgment awards a claim not specified in the
pleading, the additional filing fee constitutes a lien on the
judgment.

#18 Ballatan v. C A 304 SC RA 34 (1999)

- In REAL ACTIONS, the docket & filing fees are based on
the value of the property & amount of damages claimed, if
any.
- If a complaint is filed but not paid during filing, the court
acquires jurisdiction upon full payment of the fees within a
reasonable time as the court may grant, barring
prescription.
- Where the prescribed fees for the real action have been
paid but fees for damages have not, the court, although
having jurisdiction over the real action, may not have
acquired jurisdiction over the claim for damages.
o The court may expunge those claims or allow, on motion,
a reasonable time for amendment of the complaint to allege
the precise amount of damages & accept payment of the
requisite legal fees.

#19 Tacoy v. RTC of Tagum

#20 Yuchengco v. Republic 333 SC RA 368
(2000)
Timely filing of correct docket fees is jurisdictional but the
SC, in various decisions, applied considerations of law &
equity on a case-to-case basis.
*Sandiganbayan now tries civil cases.
Parties filing such cases are liable to pay the
required docket fees.

#21 Vda. De Murga v. C han 25 SCRA 441 (1968)

weaken the plaintiffs claim, but not to obtain affirmative

relief.
The court has no jurisdiction to hear & determine a set-off or
counterclaim in excess of its jurisdiction.
*Only the award by a court of an amount in excess of its
jurisdiction is void and of no effect.
Thus, it can be attacked even if the decision has become
final & executor.
Nullity of a portion of a decision that has become final &
executor cannot affect its conclusion over the main action
for Ejectment.

#24 Mangaliag v. C atubig- Pastoral 474 SC RA

153 (2005)
- Generally, a direct recourse to the SC is highly improper
for it violates the established policy of strict observance to
the judicial hierarchy of courts.
- Hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. It generally
applies to cases with different factual allegations. As such, it
does not involve when cases do not involve factual
questions.
- Where the amount of the demand in a civil case exceeds P
100k, RTC has jurisdiction. In 1999, it was increased to P
200k.

#25 Samson v. C abanos (2005)

#26 Bejer v. C A 169 SC RA 566 (1989)

*Notice giving the lessee the alternative of either paying or

vacating the land is not the demand contemplated by the
Rules in Unlawful Detainer cases.
Without a DEFINITE DEMAND TO VACATE, the lessee is
not considered to be in default which would give rise to a
right on the part of the lessor to bring an action for Unlawful
Detainer.
*Where it is clearly shown in the pleadings that the
controversy is on the correct interpretation of a clause in a
lease contract, the action is not for Unlawful Detainer but
one not capable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore,
beyond the competence of the MTC. [RTC has jurisdiction]

*Failure to avail of the conciliation process (PD 1508) does

not warrant jurisdictional objection.
It merely renders the complaint vulnerable to a
timely Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause of action
or prematurity.
For purposes of VENUE, the residence of a person is his
personal, actual, or physical habitation, or his actual
residence, or place of abode, such residence being more
than temporary. [characteried by continuity & consistency]
PRIMARY PURPOSE OF PD 1508: provide the conciliation
mechanism as an alternative to litigations in dispute
settlement to members of corresponding barangays who are
actually residing therein.

#22 Heirs of C oncha v. Sps. Lumocso 540

SC RA 1 (2007)

#27 Zamora v. Heirs of C armen 443 SC RA 24

(2004)

- JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER is the power

to hear & determine cases of the general class to which the
proceeding in question belong.
o It is conferred by law.
- *To determine if a court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter, it is important to determine the nature of the cause
of action & the relief sought.

#23 Agustin v. Bacalan 135 SC RA 340 (1985)

A judgment may be attacked directly or collaterally on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction or by petition for relief.
A defendant in an Ejectment action may setup a
counterclaim for moral damages and may be awarded to the
defendant.
A counterclaim beyond the courts jurisdiction (ie. beyond P
10k in Ejectment) may only be pleaded by way of defense to

Purpose of PD 1508 is to reduce court litigations & prevent

the deterioration of the quality of justice brought about by
the indiscriminate filing of cases in courts.
As a precondition to filing a complaint in court, parties shall
go through the conciliation proceedings either before the
Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat
*Motion to Dismiss an action for Unlawful Detainer may be
filed if based on: (1) lack of jurisdiction; or (2) failure to
comply with PD 1508.

#28 Aquino v. Aure 546 SC RA 71 (2008)

Non-compliance with the barangay conciliation process is
not a jurisdictional requirement. It cannot affect the
jurisdiction which the court has otherwise acquired over the
subject matter or over the person of the defendant. o For
this reason, the court cannot motu propio dismiss the case.

*Failure to object to the deficiency in the complaint (ie.

failure to resort to barangay conciliation) in the defendants
answer is deemed a waiver or acquiescence to such defect.

#29 Banares II v. Balising 328 SC RA 36 (2000)

FINAL ORDER: one which disposes the subject matter in its
entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action,
leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution
what has been determined by the court.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER: one which does not dispose of a
case completely, but leaves something more to be
adjudicated upon.
An order dismissing a case without prejudice is a final order
if no MR or appeal is timely filed.
After finality, the court has no power to amend & modify it.
A party wishing to reinstate the case has no other remedy
but to file a new complaint.
This rule applies to Civil, Criminal, & Summary Proceedings.

#30 Diaz v. Gestopa

#31 Dy v. Hon. Palaran