You are on page 1of 5

1.) Tolentino v Social Security Commission, G.R. No.

L-28870, September 6, 1985


[GR L-28870]

Amado Tolentino was employed as an Editorial Assistant in the SSS before 14 April 1961 with a salary of
P2,400.00 per annum. His appointment as such was duly approved by the Civil Service Commission. On 14 April
1961, he was given a promotion in salary from P2,400.00 per annum to P2,580.00 per annum effective 1 March
1961. This promotion in salary was likewise duly approved by the CSC.

On 16 March 1962, his designation was changed from Editorial Assistant to Credit Analyst. This appointment was
also duly approved by the CSC. On 15 June 1964, he was given an appointment reinstating him to his former
position as Credit Analyst. This reappointment was extended to him following his resignation from the SSS to run
for a municipal position in his municipality in the 1961 elections.

On 16 June 1964, he took his Oath of Office. On 11 May 1965, his designation was changed from Credit Analyst to
Technical Assistant effective 1 January 1965, with an increase in salary from P2,580.00 per annum to P4,200 per
annum. It was the position of Technical Assistant (Executive Assistant) that Tolentino was holding when the SSC
passed Resolution 1003 on 15 September 1966 affirming the decision of Administrator Gilberto Teodoro finding
Tolentino guilty of dishonesty, as charged, and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service,
effective on the first day of his preventive suspension (6 July 1966) with prejudice to reinstatement. Under dates of
May 23 and 24, 1966, respectively, the Administrator filed charges against Tolentino for dishonesty and

Tolentino answered in two separate letters. The administrator was unsatisfied with his denial, and an investigation
ensued, with Tolentino in preventive suspension. On 30 September 1966, Tolentino received a letter dated 20
September 1966 from the Administrator informing him, among others, of his dismissal from the service by virtue of
Resolution 1003 of the SSC.

On 10 November 1966, Tolentino filed with the CFI Rizal (Quezon City, Branch IX) a petition for mandamus with
preliminary mandatory injunction questioning the validity of Resolution 1003. On 5 June 1967, after the parties had
submitted memoranda to support their respective contentions on the question raised by the pleadings, the lower court
rendered an order dismissing Tolentino’s petition for lack of jurisdiction over the SSC because the latter ranks with
the CFI in the exercise of the quasi-judicial powers granted to it by the Social Security Act of 1954, as amended,
following the decision of this Honorable Tribunal in Poblete Construction Co., et al. vs. Social Security
Commission, et al. (GR L-17605, promulgated 22 January 1964).

On 12 August 1967, Tolentino filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in an order dated 1 December
1967. Hence, the present petitions for review by certiorari involve two different decisions of two different tribunals.

[GR L-39149]

On 7 May 1968, the Prosecution Division of the CIR filed with said court a complaint on motion of the SSS
Employees Labor Union — NLU and Amado Tolentino charging the SSS and Gilberto Teodoro with commission of
unfair labor practices (Case 5042 — ULP). On 5 March 1974, the CIR rendered a decision declaring the SSS and
Gilberto Teodoro guilty of unfair labor practice and ordering the reinstatement of Tolentino with back wages. On 13
August 1974, the CIR en banc denied the motion for reconsideration dated 12 March 1974 filed by the SSS, the
petition for review on certiorari.

On 13 January 1975, the Supreme Court issued a resolution in GR L-39149 consolidating the two appeal cases as
both involve the same parties and substantially the same issues. The Supreme Court remanded to the Office of the
Commissioner of Civil Service for appropriate action the questioned Resolution 1003 together with the records
thereof, and set aside as null void the decision and resolution appealed from in GR L-39149 for having been
rendered without jurisdiction; without costs.


Whether or not the Social Services Commission has jurisdiction over administrative actions filed before it against its
own erring employees.


Jurisdiction over the subject matter is vested by law. It is not acquired by the consent or acquiescence of the parties,
nor the unilateral assumption thereof by any tribunal (Bacalso vs. Ramolete, G.R. No. L-22488, October 26, 1967;
De Jesus vs. Garcia, L-26816, February 28, 1967). The settled rule is that jurisdiction of a court or tribunal is
determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action (Aquisap vs. Basilio, L-21293,
December 29, 1967; Rilloraza vs. Arciaga, L-23848, October 31, 1967; People vs. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 715. And once
acquired, jurisdiction continues, regardless of "subsequent happenings", until the case is finally terminated (People
vs. Pegarum, 57 Phil. 715).

The pertinent laws under the circumstances are the Social Security Act of 1954 (R.A. 1161), as amended by R.A.
2658 (which took effect June 18, 1960) and the Civil Service Act of 1959(R.A. 2260).
2.) Luna v Carandang, G.R. No. L-27145, November 29, 1968


On March 6, 1962, Mariquita Luna and Geronimo Carandang entered into a contract of lease for a period of 10 years
involving a parcel of agricultural land containing an area of 158.7713 hectares situated at Calapan, Oriental
Mindoro. The stipulated rent was P4,500 a year payable semi-annually for the first five years and P5,000 yearly
beginning January 1967, to the end of the period of the lease. The lessee, Carandang, failed or refused to pay in full
the stipulated rent during the first two years of the contract such that as of March 26, 1964, he owed the lessor
unpaid rents in the amount of P4,156.63.

With this, the plaintiff-lessor commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of Batangas against the defendant-
lessee for rescission, with damages, of the said contract of lease. The rescissory action was grounded on the failure
or refusal of the lessee to pay in full the stipulated rent for about two years. After trial, the lower court rendered its
decision holding that plaintiff had made out a case for rescission with damages, but that the court could not order the
defendant to vacate the leased premises because the land is situated at Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, where it had no

Accordingly, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff granting rescission of the contract of lease, with
damages, consisting of unpaid rents as well as future rents. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court on questions of
law and in due time filed her brief as appellant.


Whether or not the Jurisdiction of a court can be established through a contract.


Appellant contends that the lower court erred in finding that since the leased land is situated at Calapan, Oriental
Mindoro, it had no jurisdiction to order the defendant, appellee here, to vacate the leased premises. The contention
is tenable in view of the following considerations:

(1) A Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over suits involving title to, or possession of, real estate wherever
situated in the Philippines, subject to the rules on venue of actions;

(2) Rule 4, Section 2, of the Rules of Court requiring that an action involving real property shall be brought in the
Court of First Instance of the province where the land lies is a rule on venue of actions, which may be waived
expressly or by implication. In the case at bar, there was an implied waiver of improper venue of the action because
the defendant answered and went to trial without objecting to the improper venue.

The contract of lease contained a stipulation "that the parties herein agreed that the Court of Batangas shall have the
exclusive jurisdiction to any case that may arise in this contract. * * *". This stipulation is void because the
jurisdiction of the courts is conferred by law and cannot be the subject-matter of contracts. However, as pointed out,
the Court of First Instance of Batangas had, in accordance with law, jurisdiction over the case, and there was implied
waiver of improper venue by the defendant.
3.) Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana v De Los Angeles

G.R. No. L-30798, November 26, 1970

4.) Allied Domecq Phil. Inc., v. Villon, G.R. No. 156264, September 30, 2004