Jurisdiction (Court) - (Outline, Case Digest & Fulltext)

8/9/2019 Jurisdiction (Court) - (Outline, Case Digest & Fulltext)

1/109

JURISDICTION CIVIL PROCEDU

meikimouse 1

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Judge Mike Asuncion

OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

SUPREME COURT

I. Original Jurisdiction

A. Exclusive

1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamusagainst the following:

a. Court of Appeals - R.A. No. 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948), Sec. 17i

b. Sandiganbayan - PD 1606 (amending Sandiganbayan Law), Sec. 7iias amended by R.A. No. 82Sec. 5

c. Court of Tax Appeals en banc- R.A. No. 1125, Sec. 19 as amended by R.A. No. 9282, Sec. 12iii

d. Commission on Elections en banc - Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 7; ivAratuc v. Comelec, G.R. 49705-09, February 8, 1979

e. Commission on Audit - Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 7v

f. Ombudsman in criminal and non-administrative disciplinary cases - Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. 129742, September 16, 1998

2. Sitting en banc, it shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualificatof the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. - Constitution, ArtVII, Sec. 4

3. Review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filingConstitution, Article VII, Sec. 18

B. Concurrent

1. with the Court of Appeals

a. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the Civil Service Commission - R.A.7902 (Act Expanding Jurisdiction of the CA by amending Sec. 9 of BP 129)vi

b. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamusagainst the National Labor Relations Commissunder the Labor Code - B.P. 129, Sec. 9, as amended by R.A. No. 7902; vii St. Martins FunHomes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998

c. Petitions for writ of kalikasan- A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Part III, Rule 7, Sec. 3viii

2. with the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Courts

a. Petitions for habeascorpusand quowarranto - R.A. 7902 (amending Sec. 9 of BP 129) and R5440 (amending R.A. 296)

b. Actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of laws concerning monopolies and combinatiin restraint of trade - R.A. No. 296, Sec. 17 as amended by R.A. No. 5440ix

c. Petition for writ of continuing mandamus on environmental cases - A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Part III, R8, Sec. 2x

3. with the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts

a. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus relating to an act or omission of a MTC or ocorporation, a board, an officer, or person - Constitution, Article VIII, Sec. 5(1) and (2);xiRule 65amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC dated December 12, 2007xii

b. Petitions for issuance of writ of amparo - Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (The Rule on the WriAmparo)xiii

c. Petitions for issuance of writ of habeasdata- Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC (The Rule on the WrHabeas Data)xiv

4. with the Regional Trial Courts

a. Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls - Constitution, Art. VIII, S5(1);xvB..P. Blg. 129, Sec. 21(2)xvi

II. Appellate Jurisdictionxvii


2/109


meikimouse 2

- No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in Constitution without its advice and concurrence - Constitution, Article VI, Section 30

A. Ordinary Appeal by Notice of Appeal

From the Court of Appeals in all criminal cases involving offences for which the penalty imposed is reclusperpetua or life imprisonment; or a lesser penalty is imposed for offenses committed on the same occasor which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more severe offenses for which the penof death is imposed - Sec. 13(c), Rule 124 as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC; Sec. 13(b), Rule 124People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004

B. By Petition for Review on Certiorari1. Appeals from the Court of Appeals - R.A. No. 296, Sec. 17 as amended by R.A. No. 5440; Constitut

Article VIII, Sec. 5(2); Rule 45

2. Appeals from the Sandiganbayan on pure questions of law, except where the penalty imposedreclusionperpetua, life imprisonment, or death - P.D. No. 1606, Sec. 7 (supra) as amended by R.A. 8249 (supra); Nuez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 50581-50617, January 20, 1982; Rule 45

3. Appeals from judgments or final orders of the RTCs exercising original jurisdiction in the following:

a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreemlaw, 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 imposerelation thereto

c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue

d. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved - Constitution, Article VIII, Sec. 5(b, c, e); R.A. No. 296, Sec. 17 as amended; B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 9(3); Rule 45; Rule 41, Sec. 2Rule 122, Sec. 3(e)

e. Appeals from decisions or final resolutions of the Court of Tax Appeals en banc- Rule 16, SecA.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA or The Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals; xixSec. 1, Rule 45amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC dated December 12, 2007; R.A. No. 9282

C. By Special Civil Action of Certiorari (Rule 64) against the following:

1. Commission on Elections - Constitution, Article IX-A, Sec. 7; Aratuc v. Comelec, G.R. No. 49705February 8, 1979

2. Commission on Audit - ibid.

COURT OF APPEALSI. Original Jurisdiction

A. Exclusive

1. Actions for annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Court - B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 9(2); Rule 47

2. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamusinvolving an act or omission of a quasi-judicial agenunless otherwise provided by law - Rule 65, Sec. 4 as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC daDecember 12, 2007

B. Concurrent

1. with the Supreme Court

a. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the Civil Service Commission - R.A.7902

b. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamusagainst the National Labor Relations Commissunder the Labor Code - B.P. 129, Sec. 9, as amended by R.A. No. 7902; St. Martins Funeral Homv. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998

c. Petitions for writ of kalikasan - A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC dated

2. with the Supreme Court and Regional Trial Courts

a. Petitions for habeas corpusand quo warranto-

b. Actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of laws concerning monopolies and combinatiin restraint of trade - R.A. No. 296, Sec. 17 as amended by R.A. No. 5440

c. Petition for writ of continuing mandamus on environmental cases - A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC

3. with the Supreme Court, Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial Courts


3/109


meikimouse 3

a. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus relating to an act or omission of a MTC or ocorporation, a board, an officer, or person - Constitution, Article VIII, Sec. 5(1) and (2); A.M. No. 7-12-SC dated December 12, 2007

b. Petitions for issuance of writ of amparo - Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (The Rule on the WriAmparo)

c. Petitions for issuance of writ of habeas data- Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC

II. Appellate Jurisdiction

A. Ordinary Appeal by Notice of Appeal or with Record on Appeal

1. Appeals from the Regional Trial Courts except those appealable to the Supreme Court Sandiganbayan

2. Appeals from the Regional Trial Courts on constitutional, tax, jurisdictional questions involving questiof fact or mixed questions of fact and law or which should be appealed first to the CA - R.A. No. 2Sec. 17, par. 4.4, as amended

3. Appeals from the decisions and final orders of the Family Courts - R.A. No. 8369, Sec. 14

4. Appeals from the Regional Trial Courts where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or imprisonment or where a lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasiowhich arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penof reclusion perpetuaor life imprisonment is imposed - Rule 122, Sec. 3(c) as amended by A.M. No. 5-03-SC; People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-8, July 7, 2004

5. Direct appeal from land registration and cadastral cases decided by MTCs, MTCCs and MCTCs ba

on their delegated jurisdiction - B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 34 as amended by R.A. No. 7691

B. Special civil action of certiorari (Rule 65) against decisions and final resolutions of the NLRC - A.M. No. 901-SC; St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 13086, September 16, 1998; Torres v. SpecialiPackaging Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 149634, July 6, 2004

C. Automatic review in cases where the Regional Trial Courts impose the death penalty - Secs. 3(d) andRule 122 as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC; People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-8, July 7, 2004

D. Petition for Review

1. Appeals from the Civil Service Commission - R.A. No. 7902; Rule 43

2. Appeals from the Regional Trial Courts in cases appealed from the MTCs, MTCCs and MCTCs ware not a matter of right - B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 22; Rule 42; Rule 122, Sec. 3(b)

3. Appeals from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of, or authorised by, quasi-judicial agenin the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions, among which are:

a. Securities and Exchange Commissionb. Office of the Presidentc. Land Registration Authorityd. Social Security Commissione. Civil Aeronautics Boardf. Intellectual Property Officeg. National Electrification Administrationh. Energy Regulatory Boardi. National Telecommunications Commission

j. Department of Agrarian Reform under R.A. No. 6657k. Government Service Insurance Systeml. Employees Compensation Commissionm. Agricultural Inventions Boardn. Insurance Commissiono. Philippine Atomic Energy Commissionp. Board of Investmentsq. Construction Industry Arbitration Commissionr. Voluntary arbitrators authorised by laws. Decisions of Special Agrarian Courts

4. Appeals from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) - R.A. No. 8371, Sec. 67

5. Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases - A.M. No. 99-2-01-Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998


4/109


meikimouse 4

SANDIGANBAYAN- P.D. No. 1606, Sec. 4 as amended by R.A. 8249, Sec. 4


A. Exclusive

1. Violations of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices R.A. No. 1379; and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code (Bribery), where oor more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government whether permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

a. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherw

classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1(R.A. No. 6758), specifically including:

i. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan and provintreasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial department heads

ii. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessengineers and other city department heads

iii. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher

iv. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank

v. Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher

vi. City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Officthe Ombudsman and special prosecutor

vii. Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or -controlled corporatiostate universities or educational institutions or foundations

b. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade 27and up under R.A. No. 6758

c. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution

d. Chairmen and Members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of Constitution

e. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under R.A. No. 6758

2. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the puofficials and employees mentioned in no. 1 above in relation to their office

3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, 1(Sequestration Cases) - R.A. No. 7975, Sec. 2 as amended by R.A. No. 8249

In case none of the accused is occupying the above positions, the original jurisdiction shall be vestedthe proper RTC or MTC, etc., as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provideB.P. Blg. 129, as amended - R.A. No. 7975, Sec. 2 as amended by R.A. No. 8249

In case there is no specific allegation of facts showing that the offense was committed in relation to public office of the accused, the original jurisdiction shall also be vested in the proper RTC or MTC, eas the case may be - Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999

4. Violation of R.A. No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001) as amended by R.A. No. 9194, wcommitted by public officers and private persons who are in conspiracy with such public officers

B. Concurrent with the Supreme Court

Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, injunction and otancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, including quo warranto arising or that marise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A - Ibid, as amend

by R.A. No. 8249C. Concurrent with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Courts

1. Petitions for writ of amparo and writ of habeas data when action concerns public data files of governmoffices - Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (The Rule on the Writ of Amparo); Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC

2. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus relating to an act or omission of a Municipal TCourt, corporation, board, officer or person - Sec. 4, Rule 65 as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC

II. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction

Final judgments, resolutions or orders of RTCs whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of tappellate jurisdiction under P.D. No. 1606, as amended - R.A. No. 8249, Sec. 5

COURT OF TAX APPEALS - R.A. No. 9282, Section 7, amending Section 1 of R.A. No. 1125

I. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction to Review by Appeal


5/109


meikimouse 5

A. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refundinternal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue

B. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refundinternal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters arising unthe National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, whthe National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shalldeemed a denial

C. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resoby them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction

D. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs

1. in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or releof property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or

2. other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs

E. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cainvolving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city boardassessment appeals

F. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review fdecisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of Tariff and Customs Code;

G. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product, commodity or artand the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumpand countervailing duties under Section 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to imposnot to impose said duties

II. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction

A. All criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and CustoCode and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Providhowever, That offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount o taxes and feexclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where therno specified amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shallappellate.

B. In tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penaltProvided, however, That collection cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charand penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper MunicTrial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court.

III. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction

A. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax cases origindecided by them, in their respected territorial jurisdiction

B. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exerof their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, MunicTrial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective jurisdiction.

C. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection caoriginally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction

D. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the Exerof their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial CouMunicipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their respective jurisdiction

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS


A. Civil

1. Exclusive

a. Subject of the action is not capable of pecuniary estimation

b. Actions involving title or possession of real property or interest therein where the assessed vaexceeds Php20,000.00 or in Metro Manila Php50,000.00, except for forcible entry and unlawdetainer


6/109


meikimouse 6

c. Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where demand or claim exceeds Php300,000.00 oMetro Manila Php400,000.00

d. Matters of probate, testate or intestate, where gross value of estate exceeds Php300,000.00 oMetro Manila Php400,000.00

e. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judiciaquasi-judicial function

f. Other cases where the demand, exclusive of interest, damages, attorneys fees, litigation expenand costs, or value of property in controversy exceeds Php300,000.00 or in Metro Ma

Php400,000.00 (B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 19 as amended by R.A. No. 7691). However, if the claim damages is the main cause of the action, the amount thereof shall be considered in determining

jurisdiction of the court (Administrative Circular No. 09-94 dated June 14, 1994)

g. Additional original jurisdiction transferred under Sec. 5.2 of the Securities Regulation Code:

i. Devices or schemes employed by, or any acts of, the board of directors, business associatesofficers or partnership, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation

ii. Controversies arising out or intra-corporate partnership relations

iii. Controversies in the election or appointment of directors, trustees, officers, or managers of scorporation, partnership, or association

iv. Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in a state of suspensiopayments - R.A. No. 8799

h. Application for issuance of writ of search and seizure in civil actions for infringement of intellec

property rights - Sec. 3, A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC

i. Violations of R.A. No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001) as amended by R.A. No. 9194

2. Concurrent

a. with the Supreme Court

Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls - B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 21(1)

b. with the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals

i. Petitions for habeas corpusand quo warranto

ii. Petition for writ of continuing mandamus on environmental cases - A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC

c. with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan

i. Petitions for writ of amparo and writ of habeas data - Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC; Sec. 3, ANo. 08-1-16-SC

ii. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus if they relate to an act or omission omunicipal trial court, corporation, board, officer or person - Sec. 4, Rule 65 as amended by ANo. 07-7-12-SC

d. with the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Application for Protection Order under R.A. No. 9282, Sec. 10, unless there is a Family Court in residence of petitioner

e. with the Insurance Commission

Claims not exceeding Php100,000.00 - Insurance Code, Sec. 416; P.D. No. 612; Applicabsubject of the action is not capable of pecuniary estimation, otherwise, jurisdiction is concurrent wMTC, etc.

B. Criminal

1. ExclusiveCriminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or body - B.P. Blg. 129, Sec.These include criminal cases where the penalty provided by law exceeds six (6) years imprisonmirrespective of the fine - R.A. No. 7691

These also include criminal cases not falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary gradeand higher - R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249

But in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine, the RTCs have jurisdiction if the amounthe fine exceeds Php4,000.00 - R.A. No 7691 as clarified by Administrative Circular No. 09-94 daJune 14, 1994


7/109


meikimouse 7

Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime is lodged with the trial court having jurisdiction to impose maximum and most serious penalty imposable for an offence forming part of the complex crime - Cuv. Garcia, G.R. No. 46934, April 15, 1998

II. Appellate

All cases decided by lower courts (MTCs, etc.) in their respective territorial jurisdictions - B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 2

FAMILY COURTS

I. Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction

A. Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than n(9) years of age, when one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the criProvided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liabwhich the accused may have incurred. The sentence, however, shall be suspended without needapplication, pursuant to P.D. No. 1903 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code)

B. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, and habeas corpus in relation to the latter - Sec. 3, A.M. 03-04-04-SC; Sec. 3, A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC

C. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof (Sec. A.20 and B.28, A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC; aR.A. No. 9523 - An Act Requiring Certification of the DSWD to Declare a Child Legally AvailableAdoption as a Prerequisite for Adoption Proceedings, Amending Certain Provisions of R.A. No. 85otherwise known as The Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, R.A. No. 8043, otherwise known as The InCountry Adoption Act of 1995, P.D. No. 603, otherwise known as The Child and Youth Welfare Code, and

Other Purposes)D. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage, and those relating to marital sta

and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreemeand petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains - Sec. 2, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC

E. Petitions for involuntary commitment of a child, for removal of custody against child-placement or child-caagency or individual, and for commitment of disabled child - Secs. 4(b), 5(a)(ii), 6(b), A.M. No. 02-1-19

F. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment

G. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209 otherwise knownThe Family Code of the Philippines

H. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent or neglected children, petitionsvoluntary or involuntary commitment of children, the suspension, termination or restoration of pareauthority and other cases cognizable under P.D. No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, series of 1986 and ot

related lawsI. Petitions for constitution of family home - repealed by Executive Order No. 209

J. Cases against minors cognizable under R.A. No. 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Ac2002; A.M. No. 07-8-2-SC

K. Violation of R.A. No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Child AbuExploitation and Discrimination Actas amended by R.A. No. 7658 and as further amended by R.A. No. 9

L. Violation of R.A. No. 9775 otherwise known as the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009

M. Cases of domestic violence against:

1. Women which are acts of gender-based violence that result or are likely to result in physical, sexuapsychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threand coercion which violate a womans personhood, integrity and freedom of movement; and

2. Children which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development

N. Cases of violence against women and their children under R.A. No. 9262 otherwise known as Anti-VioleAgainst Women and their Children Act of 2004 including applications for Protection Order under the saAct

O. Criminal cases involving juveniles if no preliminary investigation is required under Sec. 1, Rule 112 - SecA.M. No. 02-1-18-SC


8/109


9/109


meikimouse 9

E. All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus and all other auxiliary writs processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction

II. Concurrent Jurisdiction

A. Petitions of Muslims for the constitution of the family home, change of name and commitment of an insperson to an asylum

B. All other personal and legal actions not mentioned in paragraph 1 (d) wherein the parties involved Muslims except those for forcible entry and unlawful detainer which shall fall under the exclusive jurisdictof the MTC

C. All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory relief wherein the parties are Muslims or the propinvolved belongs exclusively to Muslims

SMALL CLAIMS CASES, RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE and BARANGAY CONCILIATION

I. Small Claims - A.M. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 2

A. MTCs, MeTCs and MCTCs shall have jurisdiction over actions for payment of money where the value ofclaim does not exceed Php100,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs

B. Actions covered:

1. purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for paymenreimbursement of sum of money

2. the civil aspect of criminal actions, either filed before the institution of the criminal action, or reserupon the filing of the criminal action in court

3. the enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving a money claSec. 417, R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code)

II. Rules on Summary Procedure

A. Civil Cases

1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rensought to be recovered

2. All other cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the plaintiffs claim does exceed Php100,000.00 or outside Metro Manila Php200,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs

B. Criminal Cases

1. Violations of traffic law, rules and regulations

2. Violation of the rental law

3. All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed is imprisonment not exceeding six (6) monthsfine not exceeding Php1,000.00, or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessoryotherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom, provided, that in offenses involving damage to propthrough criminal negligence, RSP shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed Php10,000

III. Barangay Conciliation

A. The Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring together the parties actually residing insame municipality or city for amicable settlement of all disputes except:

1. where one party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof

2. where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his offfunctions

3. offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year or a fine exceeding Php5,000.00

4. offenses where there is no private offended party

5. where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parthereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupin

6. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, excwhere such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differenceamicable settlement by an appropriate lupin

7. such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or uponrecommendation of the Secretary of Justice

8. any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships, or juridical entities

9. disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or furcontinued, specifically:

a. a criminal case where the accused is under police custody or detention


10/109


meikimouse 10

b. a petition for habeas corpus by a person illegally detained or deprived of his liberty or one actinhis behalf

c. actions coupled with provisional remedies, such as preliminary injunction, attachment, replevin support pendente lite

d. where the action may be barred by statute of limitations

10. labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relationship

11. where the dispute arises from the CARL

12. actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which can be directly filed in court


11/109


meikimouse 11

Week of July 22-26, 2014 - Case Assignment

Jurisdiction of Courts

Supreme Court

1. Cruz v. Mijares, G.R. No. 154464, September 11, 2008

2. First Lepanto Ceramics v. CA, G.R. No. 110571, October 7, 19943. Aratuc v. Comelec, G.R. No. 49705-09, February 8, 19794. Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998

Court of Appeals

1. Aragon v. CA, G.R. No. 124333, March 26, 19972. St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 19983. Torres v. Specialized Packaging, G.R. No. 149634, July 6, 2004

Regional Trial Courts

1. Katon v. Palanca, G.R. No. 151149, September 7, 20042. Encarnacion v. Amigo, G.R. No. 169793, September 15, 20063. RCPI v. CA, G.R.No. 136109, August 1, 2002

4. Bokingo v. CA, G.R. No. 161739, May 4, 2006

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

1. Reyes v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. L-33213, June 29, 19792. Ortigas & Co. v. J. Herrera, G.R. No. L-36098, January 21, 1983

3. Ortigas & Co. CA, G.R. No. 52488, July 25, 19814. Villostas v. CA, G.R. No. 96271, June 26, 1992

5. Vda. de Barrera v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi, G.R. No. 174346, September 12, 2008

Family Courts

1. Madriav. Madria, G.R. No. 159374, July 12, 2007

Commercial Courts

1. Reyes v. RTC of Makati, G.R. No. 165744, August 11, 2008

Katarungang Pambarangay

1. Blardony v. Coscolluela, G.R. No. 70261, February 28, 19902. Wee v. De Castro, G.R. No. 176405, August 20, 20083. Aquino v. Aure, G.R. No. 153567, February 18, 2008


12/109


meikimouse 12

iSection 17. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. - The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction over cases affec

ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; and original and exclusive jurisdiction in petitions for the issuance of writcertiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the Court of Appeals.

In the following cases, the Supreme Court shall exercise original and concurrent jurisdiction with Court of First Instanc

1. In petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus;

2. In actions between the Roman Catholic Church and the municipalities or towns, or the Filipino Independent Churccontroversy as to title to, or ownership, administration or possession of hospitals, convents, cemeteries or other properties useconnection therewith;

3. In actions brought by the Government of the Philippines against the Roman Catholic Church or vice versa for the to, or ownership of, hospitals, asylums, charitable institutions, or any other kind of property; and

4. In actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of law concerning monopolies and combinations in restraintrade.

The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal, certiorawrit of error, as the law or rules of court may provide, final judgment and decrees of inferior courts as herein provided, in -

(1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or regulation question;

(2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto;

(3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior court is in issue;

(4) All criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment; and those involvother offenses which, although not so punished, arose out of the same occurrence or which may have been committed byaccused on the same occasion, as that giving rise to the more serious offense, regardless of whether the accused are chargeprincipals, accomplices, or accessories, or whether they have been tried jointly or separately;

(5) All civil cases in which the value in controversy exceeds fifty thousand pesos, exclusive of interests and costs, owhich the title or possession of real estate exceeding in value the sum of fifty thousand pesos to be ascertained by the oath party to the cause or by other competent evidence, is involved or brought in question. The Supreme Court shall likewise hexclusive jurisdiction over all appeals in civil cases, even though the value in controversy, exclusive of interests and costs, is thousand pesos or less, when the evidence involved in said cases is the same as the evidence submitted in an appealed case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided herein;

(6) All other cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved.iiSection 4.Jurisdiction.Except as herein provided, the Sandiganbayan shall have original and exclusive jurisdictio

try and decide:

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices

Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accuare officials occupying the following positions in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the timthe commission of the offense:

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Gr'27' and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan and provincial treasurassessors, engineers and other provincial department heads;

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors engineers and ocity department heads;

(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;

(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;

(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the of senior superintendent or higher;

(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsmanspecial prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or -controlled corporations, state universitieeducational institutions or foundations;

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade27' and up under the Compensation and PosClassification Act of 1989;

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade27' and higher under the Compensation and PosClassification Act of 1989.

b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office.


13/109


meikimouse 13

c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issue1986.

In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade '27' or higher, as prescriin the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military or PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shavested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court ' as the cmay be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders or regiotrial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.

The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamprohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed uExecutive Order Nos. 1,2,14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusivthe Supreme Court.

The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appand petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayathe Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippiexcept in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officersemployees, including those employed in govemment-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said puofficers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.

Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding action for the recovery of civil liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in, the saproceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily cwith it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shalrecognized: Provided, however, That where the civil action had therefore been filed separately but judgment therein has notbeen rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shatransferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint determination withcriminal action, otherwise the separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned."

iiiSec. 19. Review by Certiorari. - A party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the CTA en banc may file with

Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.ivSection 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members, any case or matter brought befo

within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decisioresolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commismay be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorariby the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.

vIbid.viSec. 9. Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals shall exercise:

(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxwrits or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts; and

(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional TCourts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commissthe Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except thfalling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippunder Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any anacts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the powe

grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and mustcompleted within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice.

viiIbid.

viiiSec. 3. Where to file.The petition shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Cou

Appeals.ix

Sec. 17. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction over cases affecambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; and original and exclusive jurisdiction in petitions for the issuance of writcertiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the Court of Appeals.

In the following cases, the Supreme Court shall exercise original and concurrent jurisdiction with Courts of First Instan

1. In petition for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus; and

2. In actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of law concerning monopolies and combinations in restraintrade.


14/109


meikimouse 14

The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal, as the larules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts as herein provided, in

(1) All criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment; and those involvother offenses which, although not so punished, arose out of the same occurrence or which may have been committed byaccused on the same occasion, as that giving rise to the more serious offense, regardless of whether the accused are chargeprincipals, accomplices or accessories, or whether they have been tried jointly or separately;

(2) All cases involving petitions for naturalization or denaturalization; and

(3) All decisions of the Auditor General, if the appellant is a private person or entity.

The Supreme Court shall further have exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on certiorari aslaw or rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts as herein provided, in

(1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or regulation question;

(2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment or toil, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto;

(3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior court is in issue;

(4) All other cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved: Provided, however, That if, in additionconstitutional, tax or jurisdictional questions, the cases mentioned in the three next preceding paragraphs also involve questof fact or mixed questions of fact and law, the aggrieved party shall appeal to the Court of Appeals; and the final judgmendecision of the latter may be reviewed, revised, reversed, modified or affirmed by the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari; and

(5) Final awards, judgments, decisions, or orders of the Commission on Elections, Court of Tax Appeals, CourIndustrial Relations, the Public Service Commission and the Workmen's Compensation Commission.

xSec. 2. Where to file the petition.The petition shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction o

the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred or with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.xi

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitforcertiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal orcertiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, fjudgments and orders of lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, 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 there

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed isreclusion perpetuaor higher.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.xiiSec. 4. When and where to file the petition. The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of

judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is requirenot, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion.

If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a perit shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the courts appe

jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or thrules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

In election cases involving an act or an omission of a municipal or a regional trial court, the petition shall be exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

xiiiSec. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed on any day and at any time with the Regional Trial Court of the p

where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the CouAppeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.

When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ shall be returnable before such court or judge.When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, it may be returnable before such

court or any justice thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or anyits elements occurred.

When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable before such Court or any justice thereobefore the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where thethreat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred.

xivSEC. 3. Where to File.The petition may be filed with the Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respon

resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored, at the optiothe petitioner.

The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the actionconcerns public data files of government offices.

xvSupra.


15/109


meikimouse 15

xviSec. 3.Where to File.The petition may be filed with the Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respond

resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored, at the optiothe petitioner.

The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the acconcerns public data files of government offices.

xviiArticle VI, Sec. 30 of the Constitution provides: No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of

Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.xviii

Sec. 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme Court.(a) Whenever the Court of Appeals finds that

penalty of death should be imposed, the court shall render judgment but refrain from making an entry of judgment and forthwcertify the case and elevate its entire record to the Supreme Court for review.

(b) Where the judgment also imposes a lesser penalty for offenses committed on the same occasion or which aroseof the same occurrence that gave rise to the more severe offense for which the penalty of death is imposed, and the accuappeals, the appeal shall be included in the case certified for review to, the Supreme Court.

(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall renand enter judgment imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed wthe Court of Appeals.

xixSection 1. Appeal to Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari. A party adversely affected by a decisio

ruling of the Court en bancmay appeal therefrom by filing with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari wfifteen days from receipt of a copy of the decision or resolution, as provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. If such partyfiled a motion for reconsideration or for new trial, the period herein fixed shall run from the party s receipt of a copy ofresolution denying the motion for reconsideration or for new trial.


16/109

CASES: JURISDICTION CIVIL PROCEDU

meikimo

SUPREME COURT

CRUZ vs MIJARES

G.R. No. 154464, September 11, 2008

Facts:

Ferdinand A. Cruz was the plaintiff in a civil case for

Abatement of Nuisance pending in the sala of respondent judge. He

sought permission to enter his appearance for and on his behalf.Claim anchored on Sec. 34, Rule 138: a non- lawyer may appear

before any court and conduct his litigation personally.

During the pre-trial, Judge Mijares required petitioner to

secure written permission from the Court Administrator before he

could be allowed to appear as counsel for himself. Counsel for the

defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner objected, alleging

that an motion to dismiss is not allowed after the Answer has been

filed.

Respondent judge remarked, Hay naku, masama yung

marunong pa sa Huwes. Ok? Petitioner filed a manifestation and

motion to inhibit: there was partiality on the part of respondent

judge as can be seen from her contumacious remarks. Motiondenied. Motion for reconsideration denied.

Cruzs appearance was also denied as he failed to submit

the document required by Rule 138-Aof the Rules of Court. Motion

for reconsideration: basis of his appearance was Rule 138, Sec. 34,

not Rule 138-A. 138 applicable to any non-lawyer; 138-A

specifically for law students.

Motion for reconsideration denied, still invoking Rule 138-

A. Hence, this petition for certiorari,prohibition, and mandamus.

Issue:

Whether or not SC have jurisdiction to entertain the

petition.

Held:

Yes. SC has concurrent jurisdiction with RTC and CA to

issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and injunction. This

concurrence does not mean that the petitioner has absolute

freedom to choose where the petition will be filed. Still has to give

due regard to the judicial hierarchy. Thus, petitions for the issuance

of extraordinary writs against RTCs should be filed with the CA. Only

in exceptional cases and for compelling reasons may the SC take

cognizance of petitions directly filed before it. SC assumes

jurisdiction over this petition as it concerns the interpretation of Sec.

34, Rule 138 and Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court. Petitioner is

cautioned not to continue his practice of filing directly with the SC.

*******

What rule applies in the case of petitioner, Rule 138 or 138-A?Rule

138.

Rule 138

Attorneys and Admission to Bar

Section 34.By whom litigation conducted. In the court of a justice

of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the

aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for the purpose, or

the aid an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduc

litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appeara

must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the b

Rule 138-A

Law Student Practice Rule

Section 1.Conditions for student practice.A law student whosuccessfully completed his 3rd year of the regular four-

prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized

school's clinical legal education program approved by the Supr

Court, may appear without compensation in any civil, crimina

administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or off

to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the

school.

Section 2.Appearance. The appearance of the law stu

authorized by this rule, shall be under the direct supervision

control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, brmemoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed by

supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.

Court agrees with petitioner that the basis of

appearance is Rule 138, not 138-A. As plaintiff, he

personally conduct the litigation of the case.

He would be acting not as counsel or lawyer, but as a p

exercising his right to represent himself.

The fact that petition is a law student does not mean

the applicable rule is always 138-A. Again, he seek

represent himself.

TCs conclusion that 138-A superseded 138 is incorreis an addendum to the instances when a non-lawyer

appear in courts.

Should respondent judge inhibit herself?NO.

Her hay naku statement is not enough to s

arbitrariness and prejudice.

In fact, petitioners administrative case against respon

judge for violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics

dismissed for lack of merit.

Presumption of regularity in the performance of of

duties applies.

DISPOSITION:Petition partially granted.


17/109


meikimo

FIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS vs CA

G.R. No. 110571, October 7, 1994

Facts:

Petitioner assailed the conflicting provisions of B.P. 129,

EO 226 (Art. 82) and a circular, 1-91 issued by the Supreme Court

which deals with the jurisdiction of courts for appeal of cases

decided by quasi-judicial agencies such as the Board of Investments

(BOI).BOI granted petitioner First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc.'s

application to amend its BOI certificate of registration by changing

the scope of its registered product from "glazed floor tiles" to

"ceramic tiles." Oppositor Mariwasa filed a motion for

reconsideration of the said BOI decision while oppositor Fil-Hispano

Ceramics, Inc. did not move to reconsider the same nor appeal

therefrom. Soon rebuffed in its bid for reconsideration, Mariwasa

filed a petition for review with CA.

CA temporarily restrained the BOI from implementing its

decision. The TRO lapsed by its own terms twenty (20) days after its

issuance, without respondent court issuing any preliminary

injunction.Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and to lift the

restraining order contending that CA does not have jurisdiction over

the BOI case, since the same is exclusively vested with the Supreme

Court pursuant to Article 82 of the Omnibus Investments Code of

1987.

Petitioner argued that the Judiciary Reorganization Act of

1980 or B.P. 129 and Circular 1-91, "Prescribing the Rules Governing

Appeals to the Court of Appeals from a Final Order or Decision of the

Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies" cannot be the

basis of Mariwasa's appeal to respondent court because the

procedure for appeal laid down therein runs contrary to Article 82 of

E.O. 226, which provides that appeals from decisions or orders ofthe BOI shall be filed directly with the Supreme Court.

While Mariwasa maintains that whatever inconsistency

there may have been between B.P. 129 and Article 82 of E.O. 226 on

the question of venue for appeal, has already been resolved by

Circular 1-91 of the Supreme Court, which was promulgated on

February 27, 1991 or four (4) years after E.O. 226 was enacted.

Issue:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over

the case.

Held:

YES. Circular 1-91 effectively repealed or superseded Article 82 of

E.O. 226 insofar as the manner and method of enforcing the right to

appeal from decisions of the BOI are concerned. Appeals from

decisions of the BOI, which by statute was previously allowed to be

filed directly with the Supreme Court, should now be brought to the

Court of Appeals.

ARATUC vs COMELEC

G.R. No. 49705-09, February 8, 1979

Facts:

On April 7, 1978, election for the position of Representative to th

atasangPambansa were held throughout the Philippines. The c

at bar concern only the results of the elections in Region XII w

comprises the provinces of Lanao Del Sur, Lanao Del N

,Maguindanao, North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat, and the citieMarawi, Iligan andCotabato. Tomatic Aratuc sought the suspen

of the canvass then being undertaken byRegional Board

canvassers in Cotabato City and in which, the returns in 1,966 ou

4,107voting centers in the whole region had already been canva

showing partial res

ASupervening Panel headed by Commissioner of Election Hon. V

ncio S. Duque hadconducted the hearings of the complaints of

petitioners therein of the alleged irregularities inthe election rec

of the mentioned provinces. On July 11, 1978, the Regional Bo

of Canvassers issued a resolution, over the objection of

Konsensiya ng Bayan candidates,declaring all the eight Kilusa

Bagong Lipunan candidates elected. Appeal was taken by thcandidates to the Comelec. On January 13, 1979, the Comelec is

its questionedresolution declaring seven KBL candidates and on

candidate as having obtained

firsteight places, and ordering the Regional Board of Canvassers

roclaim the winningcandidates. The KB candidates interposed

present petition.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent Comelec has committed grave abuse

discretion,amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Held:As the Superior administrative body having control over board

canvassers, theComelec may review the actuations of the Regi

Board of Canvassers, such as by extendingits inquiry beyond

election records of the voting centers in questions.The auth

of the Commission is in reviewing such actuations does not sp

from anyappellant jurisdiction conferred by any provisions of

law, for there is none

provisionanywhere in the election Code, but from the plenary pr

gative of direct control andsupervision endowed to it by

provisions in Section 168. And in administrative law, it is a too

settled postulate to need any supporting citation here, th

superior body or office havingsupervision and control over ano

may do directly what the latter is supposed to do or oughtto

done.


18/109


meikimo

FABIAN vs DESIERTO

Gr. No. 129742, September 16, 1998

Facts:

Petitioner Teresita Fabian was the major stockholder and

President of PROMAT Construction Development Corporation which

was engaged in the construction business. Private respondent

Nestor Agustin was the District Engineer of the First Metro Manila

Engineering District. PROMAT participated in the bidding forgovernment construction projects, and private respondent,

reportedly taking advantage of his official position, inveigled

petitioner into an amorous relationship. Their affair lasted for some

time, in the course of which, private respondent gifted PROMAT

with public works contracts and interceded for it in problems

concerning the same in his office. When petitioner tried to

terminate their relationship, private respondent refused and

resisted her attempts to do so to the extent of employing acts of

harassment, intimidation and threats. Petitioner filed an

administrative complaint against private respondent.

Ombudsman found private respondent guilty of

misconduct and meted out the penalty of suspension without payfor 1 year. After private respondent moved for reconsideration, the

Ombudsman discovered that the private respondents new counsel

had been his classmate and close associate, hence, he inhibited

himself. The case was transferred to respondent Deputy

Ombudsman who exonerated private respondent from the

administrative charges. Petitioner appealed to the SC by certiorari

under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Issue:

Whether or not Section 27 of RA 6770 which provides for

appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the

Ombudsman to the SC in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules ofCourt is valid

Held:

The revised Rules of Civil Procedure preclude appeals from

quasi-judicial agencies to the SC via a petition for review on

certiorari under Rule 45. Under the present Rule 45, appeals may be

brought through a petition for review on certiorari but only from

judgments and final orders of the courts enumerated in Sec. 1

thereof. Appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial

agencies are now required to be brought to the CA on a verified

petition for review, under the requirements and conditions in Rule

43 which was precisely formulated and adopted to provide for a

uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.

Section 27 of RA 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal

to the SC from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in

administrative disciplinary cases. It consequently violates the

proscription in Sec. 30, Art. VI of the Constitution against a law

which increases the appellate jurisdiction of the SC.


19/109


meikimo

COURT OF APPEALS

ARAGON vs CA

G.R. No. 124333, March 26, 1997

Facts:

MARENIR executed a real estate mortgage over its 5

subdivision lots to cover the P4M loan it obtained from the private

respondent. The mortgage was annotated in all the TCTs, andsubsequently, increased its mortgage loan to P4,560,000.00. In

1982, it sold one of the lots to the petitioner on installment. After

the full payment of the purchase price, MARENIR was unable to

transfer the TCT to the petitioner. Petitioner then filed a complaint

for Specific Performance and Damages against MARENIR with the

RTC.

The RTC rendered a decision ordering MARENIR to execute

a deed of absolute sale in favor of the petitioner and to deliver the

TCT and the actual physical possession thereof to petitioner. Since

no appeal was filed by MARENIR, petitioner filed a Motion to Direct

Branch Clerk of Court or Deputy Sheriff to Execute Absolute Deed of

Sale, which was granted by the RTC. Subsequently, the branch clerkof court executed for and in behalf of MARENIR, a Deed of Absolute

Sale in favor of the petitioner.

However, the RD refused to register the deed unless the

ODC of TCT is presented, which was in the possession of the Manila

Banking Corp. (MBC). The MBC agreed to release the TCT to the

petitioner upon payment of its corresponding value in the amount

of P185,020.52, which the petitioner refused to pay.

Petitioner left no other recourse but to file a complaint for

Delivery of Title and Damages against MBC with RTC. RTC rendered

judgment in favor of the petitioner. MBC appealed to the CA which

reversed the RTC decision and orders the dismissal of the complaint.

The CA ratiocinated that: The Specific Performance and Damagesfiled by the petitioner against MARENIR should have been filed with

the HLURB, the RTC had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the

complaint. Declaring as null and void the decision rendered by the

judge for having been rendered without jurisdiction - a void

judgment cannot acquire finality; it is non-existent; it is in legal

effect no judgment or order at all; and so was the order to the

branch clerk to execute the deed of absolute sale; it follows that the

deed of absolute sale executed by the branch of clerk was also null

and void

There being no decision upon which the challenged

decision is based, no deed of absolute sale in favor of the petitioner,

hence, no cause of action against MBC

There is no obligation on the part of MBC to respect or not

to violate such right

Hence, the present petition.

Issues:

1. Whether or not CA acquire appellate jurisdiction over

any case not properly brought to it by the parties concerned

2. Whether or not estoppel by laches is applicable

Held:

1. No. What was on appeal before the Court of Appeals was

decision rendered in Civil Case No. Q-91-10200 (Delivery of Title

Damages) where the parties are petitioner herein and respon

MBC. However, the said court, in deciding the issues raised in

aforesaid case, took cognizance of Civil Case No. Q-89-1797 (Spe

Performance and Damages) where the parties were different

petitioner and MARENIR. Furthermore, said case was not appe

before the Court of Appeals nor was there any action commence

annul the judgment of the court a quo. Hence, the decision overcase became final and executory. Respondent court cle

committed an error when it declared as null and void

proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-89-1797 as it was not the

appealed before it. Even if MARENIR itself, the losing party to

aforementioned case decides now to appeal the decision or to

any other proceeding seeking its nullification, it cannot at this

late stage do so. This is in consonance with the legal tenet

failure to perfect an appeal renders the trial court's judgment

and executory and it can no longer be subject to review. As s

any modification of that judgment by the appellate court canno

upheld.

2. Yes. The SC cited the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy where

ruled that even if they found that the trial court had no jurisdic

over the case, they still ruled that the proceedings condu

therein was valid based on the doctrine of laches.

In that case, the SC defined laches as failure or neglec

an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that wh

by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done ea

It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reason

time, warranting presumption that the party entitled to assert it

abandoned it or declined to assert it.

Although we agree with private respondent's conten

that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case mayobjected to at any stage of the proceeding even on appeal

particular rule, however, means that jurisdictional issues in a

can be raised only during the proceedings in said case and du

the appeal of said case. It certainly does not mean that lac

jurisdiction of a court in a case may be raised during the proceed

of another case, in another court and even by anybody

all. Certainly, we cannot countenance this procedure as this will

to absurdity and is against the basic principle of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Cour

Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the decision of

Regional Trial Court dated January 31, 1994 is REINSTATED,

costs against private respondents.


20/109


meikimo

ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998

Facts:

The present petition for certiorari stemmed from a

complaint for illegal dismissal filed by herein private respondent

before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional

Arbitration Branch No. III, in San Fernando, Pampanga. Private

respondent alleges that he started working as Operations Managerof petitioner St. Martin Funeral Home on February 6, 1995.

However, there was no contract of employment executed between

him and petitioner nor was his name included in the semi-monthly

payroll. On January 22, 1996, he was dismissed from his

employment for allegedly misappropriating P38,000.00 which was

intended for payment by petitioner of its value added tax (VAT) to

the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

Petitioner on the other hand claims that private

respondent was not its employee but only the uncle of Amelita

Malabed, the owner of petitioner St. Martins Funeral Home.

Sometime in 1995, private respondent, who was formerly working

as an overseas contract worker, asked for financial assistance fromthe mother of Amelita. Since then, as an indication of gratitude,

private respondent voluntarily helped the mother of Amelita in

overseeing the business.

In January 1996, the mother of Amelita passed away, so

the latter she took over the management of the business. She then

discovered that there were arrears in the payment of taxes and

other government fees, although the records purported to show

that the same were already paid. Amelita then made some changes

in the business operation and private respondent and his wife were

no longer allowed to participate in the management thereof. As a

consequence, the latter filed a complaint charging that petitioner

had illegally terminated his employment.

Based on the position papers of the parties, the labor

arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioner on October 25,

1996 declaring that no employer-employee relationship existed

between the parties and, therefore, his office had no jurisdiction

over the case.

Not satisfied with the said decision, private respondent

appealed to the NLRC contending that the labor arbiter erred (1) in

not giving credence to the evidence submitted by him; (2) in holding

that he worked as a "volunteer" and not as an employee of St.

Martin Funeral Home from February 6, 1995 to January 23, 1996, or

a period of about one year; and (3) in ruling that there was no

employer-employee relationship between him and petitioner.

On June 13, 1997, the NLRC rendered a resolution setting

aside the questioned decision and remanding the case to the labor

arbiter for immediate appropriate proceedings.[5]

Petitioner then

filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC in

its resolution dated August 18, 1997 for lack of merit,[6]

hence the

present petition alleging that the NLRC committed grave abuse of

discretion.[7]

Issue:

Whether or not the decision of the NLRC are appealable to

the Court of Appeals.

Held:

The Court is of the considered opinion that ever s

appeals from the NLRC to the SC were eliminated, the legisla

intendment was that the special civil action for certiorari was

still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the N

The use of the word appealin relation thereto and in the insta

we have noted could have been a lapsus plumae because appea

certiorari and the original action for certiorari are both mode

judicial review addressed to the appellate courts. The impordistinction between them, however, and with which the Cou

particularly concerned here is that the special civil action

certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this C

and the Court of Appeals; whereas to indulge in the assumption

appeals by certiorari to the SC are allowed would not subserve

would subvert, the intention of the Congress as expressed in

sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. 1495.

Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of

No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme C

are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petit

for certiorari under Rule65. Consequently, all such petitions sh

henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in sobservance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as

appropriate forum for the relief desired.

TORRES vs. SPECIALIZED PACKAGING

G.R. No. 149634, July 6, 2004

Facts:Petitioners claim to be employees of the Specia

Packaging Development Corporation (SPDC), a business e

engaged in the repackaging of cosmetic products. In three sepa

Complaints, they charged SPDC and alleged labor recruiters Eus

Camacho General Services (ECGS) and MPL Services with il

dismissal; and with nonpayment of overtime, premium

13th

month pays, and night differential.

The cases were later consolidated and assigned to L

Arbiter (LA) Salimathar Nambi. On June 30, 1995, the LA issue

Decision in favor of petitioners, because SPDC and MPL Services

failed to submit their position papers on or before the dead

SPDC was ordered to reinstate all petitioners to their for

positions and to pay them back wages, premium pay for holi

and rest days, service incentive leave pay and 13th

month pay.

The LA's Decision was appealed by SPDC to the Nat

Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which set aside the ruling

ordered the case remanded to LA Nambi for further proceedings

The case was then set again for hearings. Respond

SPDC and ECGS submitted their position papers five months a

the case had been considered submitted for decision.

On December 14, 1999, LA Nambi issued a sec

Decision finding petitioners' employment to have been ille


21/109


meikimo

terminated by SPDC. The NLRC, however, again reversed and set

aside this new Decision on June 9, 2000.

On January 29, 2001, petitioners appealed to the CA,

which dismissed their petition, finding that the verification and the

certification against forum shopping to be either defective or

insufficient. (signed by only two petitioners out of 25 petitioners)

Denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, the

appellate court pointed out that disregarding the rules could not be

rationalized by invoking a liberal construction thereof. Furthermore,it found no satisfactory explanation why the 25 principal petitioners,

who resided in different provinces, had not executed a special

power of attorney in favor of either of the two petitioners or their

counsel.

Hence, this Petition.

Issue:

Whether or not decisions and final resolutions of the NLRC

may be reviewed by a civil action for certiorari.

Held:

Yes. The proper procedure for seeking a review of the finaldispositions of the NLRC was laid down in 1998 in St. Martin Funeral

Homes v. NLRC.That case heralded two very important rules: 1)

decisions and final resolutions of the NLRC may be reviewed only via

a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of

Court; and 2) such petition must be filed with the CA in strict

observance of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts.

Thus, after St. Martinbecame final, special civil actions

challenging NLRC rulings have been referred by this Court to the CA

for proper disposition. Exceptions to this rule were those instances

when -- prior to the finality of St. Martin -- both parties had already

filed their respective memoranda with this Court, and it then opted

to take final cognizance of the case. Under AM No. 99-2-01-SC,however, all new cases erroneously filed with this Court after June 1,

1999, were dismissed forthwith.

X x x x

Indeed, rules of procedure are established to secure

substantial justice. Being instruments for the speedy and efficient

administration of justice, they must be used to achieve such end,

not to derail it. Technical requirements may thus be dispensed with

in meritorious appeals.

It has been our consistent holding that the ends of justice

are better served when cases are determined on the merits -- after

all parties are given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and

defenses -- rather than on technicality or some procedural

imperfections.

Consequently, the case should be remanded to the CA for

a proper determination of the substantive issues. Time-honored is

the principle that when the law entrusts the review of factual and

substantive issues to a lower court or to a quasi-judicial tribunal,

that court or agency must be given the opportunity to pass upon

those issues. Only thereafter may the parties resort to this Court.

WHEREFORE, this Petition is GRANTED.The assailed

Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE,and the case is

remanded to the CA for a proper determination of the substantive

issues. No costs.


22/109


meikimo

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

KATON vs. PALANCA

G.R. No. 151149, September 7, 2004

Where prescription, lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a

cause of action clearly appear from the complaint filed with the trial

court, the action may be dismissed motu proprio by the Court of

Appeals, even if the case has been elevated for review on differentgrounds. Verily, the dismissal of such cases appropriately ends

useless litigations.

Facts:

On August 2, 1963, a parcel of land located in Sombrero

Island, Puerto Princessa, Palawan was reclassified from forest to

agricultural land upon the request by the above-named

petitioner. The names of Felicisimo Corpuz, Clemente Magdayao and

Jesus Gapilango and Juan Fresnillo were included in the

endorsement as co-applicants of the petitioner.

Respondent Manuel Palanca, Jr. was issued Homestead

Patent No. 145927 and OCT No. G-7089 on March 3, 1977 with anarea of 6.84 hectares of Sombrero Island.

Petitioner assails the validity of the homestead patents

and original certificates of title covering certain portions of

Sombrero Island issued in favor of Manuel Palanca and the other

respondents on the ground that the same were obtained through

fraud.

Petitioner prays for the reconveyance of the whole island

in his favor.

On the other hand, Palanca said that petitioner never filed

any homestead application for the island and insisted that they

already had their respective occupancy and improvements on the

island. Respondents aver that they are all bona fide and lawfulpossessors of their respective portions and have declared said

portions for taxation purposes and that they have been faithfully

paying taxes thereon for twenty years.

Respondents contend that the petitioner has no legal

capacity to sue insofar as the island is concerned because an action

for reconveyance can only be brought by the owner and not a mere

homestead applicant and that petitioner is guilty of estoppel by

laches for his failure to assert his right over the land for an

unreasonable and unexplained period of time.

In the instant case, petitioner claims that he has the

exclusive right to file an application for homestead patent over the

whole island since it was he who requested for its conversion from

forest land to agricultural land.

The assailed Resolution by the CA, denied the Motion for

Reconsideration filed by petitioner. It affirmed the RTCs dismissal of

his Complaint in Civil Case No. 3231, not on the grounds relied upon

by the trial court, but because of prescription and lack of

jurisdiction.

Issues:

1.

Is the Court of Appeals correct in resolving the

Petition for Certiorari based on an issue not raised

(the merits of the case) in the Petition?

2.

Is the Court of Appeals correct in invoking its all

residual prerogative under Section 1, Rule 9 of

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in resolving the Pet

on an issue not raised in the Petition?

Held:

Propriety of Ruling on the Merits.

1.Yes. This is not the first time that petitioner has ta

issue with the propriety of the CAs ruling on the merits. He raiswith the appellate court when he moved for reconsideration o

December 8, 2000 Decision. The CA even corrected itself in

November 20, 2001 Resolution, as follows:

"Upon another review of the case, the Court concedes

it may indeed have lost its way and been waylaid by the var

complexity and seeming importance of the interests and is

involved in the case below, the apparent reluctance of the jud

five in all, to hear the case, and the volume of the conflicting, o

confusing, submissions bearing on incidental matters. We s

corrected.

That explanation should have been enough to settle

issue. The CAs Resolution on this point has rendered petitioissue moot. Hence, there is no need to discuss it further. Suffice

say that the appellate court indeed acted ultra jurisdiction in ru

on the merits of the case when the only issue that could have b

and was in fact, raised was the alleged grave abuse of discre

committed by the trial court in denying petitioners Motion

Reconsideration. Settled is the doctrine that the sole office of a

of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction. Such writ

not include a review of the evidence, more so when

determination of the merits has yet been made by the trial

Jurisdiction (Court) - (Outline, Case Digest & Fulltext)

Documents