Remedial Law Review 1

I. JURISDICTION

1. Classes of Jurisdiction

• Jurisdiction according to its nature: original, appellate
• Jurisdiction according to its object; corresponding principles
  1. over the subject matter
     1. Is conferred by Law
     2. Except with the SC with is Conferred by the Constitution
  2. over the persons of the parties
     1. Complainant
        1. acquired by the court upon filing of the complaint
        2. Upon timely payment of the Docket fees
     2. Defendant
        1. Upon valid serving of summons, or
        2. Voluntary Appearance
     3. Intervenor
        1. Upon approval of the Motion for Leave Intervenor

• over the “res”
  1. The object of the action
  2. is not necessary provided that the Court must acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
     1. If the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person, the complainant may file a n action quisi in rem, the complainant may attach the property of the defendant.
  3. over the issues
     1. determine by the allegation in the pleadings
     2. upon arraignment (Criminal)
  4. over the territory
     1. Do not apply in Civil Case because jurisdiction is a matter of venue
     2. Venue in Criminal Case is Jurisdictional

1. Elements of Jurisdiction: subject matter, parties, issues

1. Jurisdiction of Regular Courts
   1. Supreme Court
      5. Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
         1. Original Jurisdiction
            1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
            2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

2. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
3. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
4. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
5. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
6. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
7. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.
8. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
9. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
10. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

1. Original Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
   1. Court of Appeal
   2. Court of Tax Appeals – EnBanc
   3. Sandigangbayan
   4. Sharia’h Appellate Court
   5. Commission on Audit under Rule 64
   6. Commission on Election under Rule 64

2. Courts of Appeals
   1. Sec 9 of BP 129 Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:
      1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgements of Regional Trial Courts; and

3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commission, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, Except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

4. The court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice.

3. Regional Trial Court
   1. Sec 19 of BP 129 Jurisdiction in Civil Cases (as amended by RA 11576) – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
      1. In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
      2. In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds Php 400,000, except for Forcible Entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction of which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
      3. In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claims exceeds Php 2,000,000.
      4. In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate where the gross value of the estate exceeds Php 2,000,000.
      5. In all actions involving the contract of Marriage and Marital Relations.
      6. In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
      7. In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of agrarian relations as now provided by law.
      8. In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds Php 2,000,000.
   2. Intellectual Property Courts
   3. Special Courts
      4. Family Courts
      5. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in cities, Municipal Trial Courts and, Municipal Circuit Courts BP 129
         32. Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. – Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
             1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and
             2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. As amended by RA 7691

33. Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
    1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two Million Pesos (Php 2,000,000) exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions;
    2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.
    3. Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 400,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (as amended by R.A. No. 11576)
    4. Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the where the value of which does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)

• Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. – In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges sit.

36. Section 36. Summary procedures in special cases. – In Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts with at least two branches, the Supreme Court may designate one or more branches thereof to try exclusively forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, those involving violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations, violations of the rental law, and such other cases requiring summary disposition as the Supreme Court may determine. The Supreme Court shall adopt special rules or procedures applicable to such cases in order to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof without regard to technical rules. Such simplified procedures may provide that affidavits and counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony and that the periods for filing pleadings shall be non-extendible.

6. Sandiganbayan
   1. Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 Jurisdiction. – The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
      1. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, other known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
         1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade “27” and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
            1. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;
            2. City mayor, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;

• Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;

1. Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;
2. Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintended or higher;
3. City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

• Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations.

1. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade “27′” and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
2. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
3. Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commission, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
4. All other national and local officials classified as Grade “27′” and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

2. Other offenses of felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office.
3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
4. In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade “27′” or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officer mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
5. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or order of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.
6. The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.
7. The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may thereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
8. In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.
9. Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall, at all times, be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: Provided, however, That where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned.”

1. HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN – G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008
   1. Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explicitly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. Petitioner falls under this category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606.
   2. it is well established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to the public office.
   3. Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in the public office. An investment in an individual of some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public makes one a public officer.

• Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan, 762 SCRA (2015)
  1. The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violations of Section 3(a) and (e), Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, unless committed by public officials and employees occupying positions of regional director and higher with Salary Grade “27” or higher, under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758) in relation to their office.

1. De Lima vs. Guerrero, 843 SCRA (2017)
   1. In this case, RA 9165 specifies the RTC as the court with the jurisdiction to “exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of [RA 9165).” This is an exception, couched in the special law on dangerous drugs, to the general rule under Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660. It is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a general law and the latter is to be considered as an exception to the general.
   2. To reiterate for emphasis, Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, is the general law on jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over crimes and offenses committed by high-ranking public officers in relation to their office; Section 90, RA 9165 is the special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction violations of RA 9165 committed by such public officers. In the latter case, jurisdiction is vested upon the RTCs designated by the Supreme Court as drugs court, regardless of whether the violation of RA 9165 was committed in relation to the public officials’ office.
2. Court of Tax-Appeals

• City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo, R. No. 175723, February 4, 2014
  • Facts:
    • petitioner City of Manila assessed taxes for the taxable period from January to December 2002 against private respondents SM Mart, Inc., Et al. In addition to the taxes purportedly due from private respondents pursuant to Section 14, 15, 16, 17 of the Revised Revenue Code of Manila (RRCM), said assessment covered the local business taxes petitioners were authorized to collect under Section 21 of the same Code. Because payment of the taxes assessed was a precondition for the issuance of their business permits, private respondents were constrained to pay the ₱19,316,458.77 assessment under protest.
    • Private respondent filed in the RTC of Pasay which was presided by the Public Respondent a complaint denominated as one for “Refund or Recovery of Illegally and/or Erroneously-Collected Local Business Tax, Prohibition with Prayer to Issue TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction”
    • RTC granted the TRO and WPI in favor of the private respondent to which the petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied.
    • Petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA who dismissed the said petition for having no jurisdiction over the said petition. Move for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, this case.
  • Issue:
    • Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for lack of Jurisdiction?
  • Held:
    • No, while it is clearly stated that the CTA has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction, there is no categorical statement under RA 1125 as well as the amendatory RA 9282, which provides that the CTA has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari assailing interlocutory orders issued by the RTC in local tax cases filed before it.
    • However, if a case may be appealed to a particular court or judicial tribunal or body, then said court or judicial tribunal or body has jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. a court may issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction if said court has jurisdiction to review, by appeal or writ of error, the final orders or decisions of the lower court.”
    • The Court has held that while a court may be expressly granted the incidental powers necessary to effectuate its jurisdiction, a grant of jurisdiction, in the absence of prohibitive legislation, implies the necessary and usual incidental powers essential to effectuate it, and, subject to existing laws and constitutional provisions, every regularly constituted court has power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction and for the enforcement of its judgments and mandates. Hence, demands, matters or questions ancillary or incidental to, or growing out of, the main action, and coming within the above principles, may be taken cognizance of by the court and determined, since such jurisdiction is in aid of its authority over the principal matter, even though the court may thus be called on to consider and decide matters which, as original causes of action, would not be within its cognizance.
  • CE Casecnan Water & Energy Co. vs. Prov. Of Nueva Ecija

     759 CRA 180

8. Quasi-Judicial Tribunals (Sec. 1, Rule 43)
   1. This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Invention Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. (n)
9. Sharia’h Courts: appellate, district, circuit

• Lomondot vs. Balindong, R. No. 192463, July 13, 2015
  • Facts:
    • On August 16, 1991, petitioners Omaira and Saripa Lomondot filed with the SDC, Marawi City, a complaint for recovery of possession and damages with prayer for mandatory injunction and temporary restraining order against respondents Ambog Pangandamun (Pangandamun) and Simbanatao Diaca (Diaca). Petitioners claimed that they are the owners by succession of a parcel of land located at Bangon, Marawi City, consisting an area of about 800 sq. meters; that respondent Pangandamun illegally entered and encroached 100 sq. meter of their land, while respondent Diaca occupied 200 sq. meters, as indicated in Exhibits “A” and “K” submitted as evidence. Respondents filed their Answer arguing that they are the owners of the land alleged to be illegally occupied. Trial thereafter ensued.

• Shari’a District Court (SDC) ruled in favor of the petitioner, and an order was issued against the Private Respondent to vacate the said property. Petitioner filed a Writ of Demolition on the said property, which the SDC held in abeyance due to possible negotiation by the private parties. For failure to negotiate, SDC commissioned a Geodetic Engineer to measure the said property in dispute. Petitioner anew filed a writ of demolition and prayed for an appointment of anew Geodetic Engineer. Gleaned from Engineer Hakim Laut Balt’s Narrative Report, he could have conducted the required survey had not the plaintiffs dictated him where to start the survey. Hence, SDC denied the issuance of the writ of demolition and Parties were directed to choose and submit to the court their preferred Geodetic Engineer to conduct the survey.

• Petitioner filed two motions for reconsideration which were both denied by the SDC. Petitioner escalated the case to the CA. CA ruled that In pursuing the creation of Shari’a Appellate Court, the Supreme Court En Banc even approved A.M. No. 99-4-06, otherwise known as Resolution Authorizing the Organization of the Shari’a Appellate Court. However, the Shari’a Appellate Court has not yet been organized until the present. CA dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Hence this case.

• Issue:
  • Whether the CA has acquired appellate jurisdiction on the decision of the SDC due to the Shari’a Appellate Court has not yet been organized.

• Held:
  • Yes, the SC stated that the Shari’a Appellate Court has yet to be organized with the appointment of a Presiding Justice and two Associate Justices. Until such time that the Shari’a Appellate Court shall have been organized, however, appeals or petitions from final orders or decisions of the SDC filed with the CA shall be referred to a Special Division to be organized in any of the CA stations preferably composed of Muslim CA Justices.

 

• Municipality of Tangkal vs. Balindong, R. No. 193340, January 11, 2017
  • Facts:
    • The private respondents, heirs of the late Macalabo Alompo, filed a Complaint with the Shari’a District Court of Marawi City (Shari’a District Court) against the petitioner, Municipality of Tangkal, for recovery of possession and ownership of a parcel of land with an area of approximately 25 hectares located at Barangay Banisilon, Tangkal, Lanao del Norte. They alleged that Macalabo was the owner of the land, and that in 1962, he entered into an agreement with the Municipality of Tangkal allowing the latter to “borrow” the land to pave the way for the construction of the municipal hall and a health center building. The agreement allegedly imposed a condition upon the Municipality of Tangkal to pay the value of the land within 35 years, or until 1997; otherwise, ownership of the land would revert to Macalabo. Private respondents claimed that the Municipality of Tangkal neither paid the value of the land within the agreed period nor returned the land to its owner. Thus, they prayed that the land be returned to them as successors-in-interest of Macalabo.

• The Municipality of Tangkal filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue and lack of jurisdiction. It argued that since it has no religious affiliation and represents no cultural or ethnic tribe, it cannot be considered as a Muslim under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. Moreover, since the complaint for recovery of land is a real action, it should have been filed in the appropriate Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte. The SDC denied the motion of the petitioner, It held that since the mayor of Tangkal, Abdulazis A.M. Batingolo, is a Muslim, the case “is an action involving Muslims, hence, the court has original jurisdiction concurrently with that of regular/civil courts.” It added that venue was properly laid because the Shari’ a District Court has territorial jurisdiction over the provinces of Lanao del Sur and Lanao del Norte, in addition to the cities of Marawi and Iligan. Moreover, the filing of a motion to dismiss is a disallowed pleading under the Special Rules of Procedure in Shari’a Courts. Petitioner move for reconsideration, but was denied. Hence this case.

• Issue:
  • Whether the SDC has jurisdiction over the Petitioner Municipality for its Chief executive is also a Muslim?

• Held:
  • No, The Code of Muslim Personal Laws defines a “Muslim” as “a person who testifies to the oneness of God and the Prophethood of Muhammad and professes Islam.” Although the definition does not explicitly distinguish between natural and juridical persons, it nonetheless connotes the exercise of religion, which is a fundamental personal right. The ability to testify to the “oneness of God and the Prophethood of Muhammad” and to profess Islam is, by its nature, restricted to natural persons. In contrast, juridical persons are artificial beings with “no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.”33 They are considered persons only by virtue of legal fiction. The Municipality of Tangkal falls under this category. Under the Local Government Code, a municipality is a body politic and corporate that exercises powers as a political subdivision of the national government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory.

• Furthermore, as a government instrumentality, the Municipality of Tangkal can only act for secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects-consistent with the non-establishment clause. Hence, even if it is assumed that juridical persons are capable of practicing religion, the Municipality of Tangkal is constitutionally proscribed from adopting, much less exercising, any religion, including Islam.

 

Military Courts. Articles of War

Office of the Ombudsman vs. Mislang, 883 SCRA, Oct. 15, 2018

 

1. Discuss the concept, description and application of the following:
   1. Delegated jurisdiction
   2. Special jurisdiction
   3. Limited jurisdiction
   4. Primary jurisdiction

Unduran vs. Aberasturi, 823 SCRA (2017)

LBP vs. Dalauta, 835 SCRA (2017)

5. Residual jurisdiction

Dev. Bank of the Phil. Vs. Carpio, 816 SCRA (2017)

• Requisites: trial, judgment, appeal
• Residual jurisdiction refers to the authority of the trial court to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal; to approve compromises; to permit appeals by indigent litigants; to order execution pending appeal in accordance with Section Rule 39 and to allow the withdrawal of the appeal, provided these are done prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, even if the appeal has already been perfected or despite the approval of the record on appeal or in case of a petition for review under Rule 42, before the CA gives due course to the petition.
• The “residual jurisdiction” of the trial court is available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
• before the trial court can be said to have residual jurisdiction over a case, a trial on the merits must have been conducted; the court rendered judgment; and the aggrieved party appealed therefrom.

Inc. vs. De la Cruz, 781 SCREA (2016)

6. Epistolary jurisdiction

Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes, 756 SCRA (2015)

7. Split jurisdiction
   1. City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo, G.R. No. 175723, February 4, 2014
      1. The Court has held that while a court may be expressly granted the incidental powers necessary to effectuate its jurisdiction, a grant of jurisdiction, in the absence of prohibitive legislation, implies the necessary and usual incidental powers essential to effectuate it, and, subject to existing laws and constitutional provisions, every regularly constituted court has power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction and for the enforcement of its judgments and mandates. Hence, demands, matters or questions ancillary or incidental to, or growing out of, the main action, and coming within the above principles, may be taken cognizance of by the court and determined, since such jurisdiction is in aid of its authority over the principal matter, even though the court may thus be called on to consider and decide matters which, as original causes of action, would not be within its cognizance.
   2. Expanded/Extended jurisdiction
      1. LAGMAN ET. AL vs. PIMENTEL III ET. AL, G.R. No. 235935, February 6, 2018
         1. We emphasized that this Court’s jurisdiction under the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII is special and specific, different from those enumerated in Sections 1 and 5 of Article VIII. It was further stressed therein that the standard of review in a petition for certiorari is whether the respondent has committed any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the performance of his or her functions, whereas under Section 18, Article VII, the Court is tasked to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the President’s exercise of emergency powers. Hence, the Court concluded that a petition for certiorari pursuant to Section 1 or Section 5 of Article VIII is not the proper tool to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. SC held that to apply the standard of review in a petition for certiorari will emasculate the Court’s constitutional task under Section 18, Article VII, which was precisely meant to provide an additional safeguard against possible martial law abuse and limit the extent of the powers of the Commander-in-Chief.
      2. Equity jurisdiction
         1. Regulus Dev. Inc. vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 198172, January 25, 2016
            1. The appellate jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law. The appellate court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties when an appeal is perfected. On the other hand, equity jurisdiction aims to provide complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case because of a resulting legal inflexibility when the law is applied to a given situation. The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction, among others, is to prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution.
         2. Concurrent Jurisdiction
            1. Hierarchy of Courts
            2. Transcendental Importance

• The SC is not a Trier of Facts

 

1. References:
   1. Section 5, Article VIII, 1986 Constitution
   2. Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
   3. P. Blg. 129
   4. RA 7691
   5. RA 8369 (Family Courts Act)
   6. SC-AO No. 113-95- Intellectual Property Courts
   7. PD 1486; 1606 (Sandiganbayan)
   8. RA 7975; 8249; 10660 (Sandiganbayan)
   9. RA 9282 (Court of Tax Appeals)
   10. RA 9054 (Sharia’h Courts)
   11. RA 11054 (Bangsamoro Basic Law, July 2018)

1. Other Cases On:
   1. Jurisdictional estoppel
      1. GABRIEL L. DUERO vs. HON.COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 131282, January 4, 2002
         1. While participation in all stages of a case before the trial court, including invocation of its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively bars a party by estoppel from challenging the court’s jurisdiction, we note that estoppel has become an equitable defense that is both substantive and remedial and its successful invocation can bar a right and not merely its equitable enforcement. Hence, estoppel ought to be applied with caution. For estoppel to apply, the action giving rise thereto must be unequivocal and intentional because, if misapplied, estoppel may become a tool of injustice.
      2. SPS. GONZAGA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 144025, December 27, 2002
         1. A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches. It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate, or question that same jurisdiction. The question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject matter of the action or of the parties was not important in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice cannot be tolerated –– obviously for reasons of public policy.

• MANILA BANKERS vs. NG KOK WEI, G.R. No. 139791, December 12, 2003
  1. While it may be true that the trial court is without jurisdiction over the case, petitioner’s active participation in the proceedings estopped it from assailing such lack of it. We have held that it is an undesirable practice of a party participating in the proceedings and submitting its case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse.

1. BOSTON EQUITY RESOURCES, INC., vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 173946, June 19, 2013
   1. Since the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party to a case is not one of those defenses which are not deemed waived under Section 1 of Rule 9, such defense must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to prevent a waiver of the defense. If the objection is not raised either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, the objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff or the defendant is deemed waived by virtue of the first sentence of the above-quoted Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.
2. Hierarchy of Courts
   1. AGAN, JR., vs. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC. – G.R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003
      1. The rule on hierarchy of courts will not also prevent this Court from assuming jurisdiction over the cases at bar. The said rule may be relaxed when the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of this Court’s primary jurisdiction.
   2. THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY NATIONAL vs. THE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA, HON. JOSE ATIENZA, JR., G.R. No. 154599, January 21, 2004
      1. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard of that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (“inferior”) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is [an] established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court’s docket.

• SAINT MARY CRUSADE TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY OF BRETHREN FOUNDATION, INC., vs. HON. TEODORO T. RIEL – G.R. No. 176508, January 12, 2015
  1. the filing of the instant special civil action directly to the Supreme Court is in disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Although the Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals in issuing the writ of certiorari, direct resort is allowed only when there are special, extra-ordinary or compelling reasons that justify the same. The Court enforces the observance of the hierarchy of courts in order to free itself from unnecessary, frivolous and impertinent cases and thus afford time for it to deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution has assigned to it. There being no special, important or compelling reason, the petitioner thereby violated the observance of the hierarchy of courts, warranting the dismissal of the petition for certiorari.

1. INTRAMUROS ADMINISTRATION vs. OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, G.R. No. 196795, March 7, 2018
   1. A direct recourse to the Supreme Court can be taken for a review of the decisions, final orders or resolutions of the RTC, but only on questions of law. Under Section 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

2. This kind of direct appeal to this Court of RTC judgments, final orders or resolutions is provided for in Section 2(c) of Rule 41 as a Modes of appeal by Appeal by certiorari. – In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.

1. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS VS. GALLEGOS, G.R. No. 220832, February 28, 2018

3. Residual Prerogatives
   1. GEORGE KATON vs. MANUEL PALANCA JR., G.R. No. 151149, September 7, 2004
      1. Residual Prerogative – were the general residual powers of the courts to dismiss an action motu proprio upon the grounds mentioned in Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court and under authority of Section 2 of Rule 114 of the same rules.
   2. Concurrent Jurisdiction
      1. ALBERTO PAT-OG, SR., vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, G.R. No. 198755, June 5, 2013
         1. Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same parties or subject matter at the same time by two or more separate tribunals. When the law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.

2. Where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the body that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. In this case, it was CSC which first acquired jurisdiction over the case because the complaint was filed before it. Thus, it had the authority to proceed and decide the case to the exclusion of the DepEd and the Board of Professional Teachers.

5. Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation:
   2018. First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. vs. Phil Bank of Communications, G.R. No. 202836, June 19, 2018.
         1. To determine the nature of an action, whether or not its subject matter is capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or relief sought must be ascertained. If the principal relief is for the recovery of a sum of money or real property, then the action is capable of pecuniary estimation. However, if the principal relief sought is not for the recovery of sum of money or real property, even if a claim over a sum of money or real property results as a consequence of the principal relief, the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

1. Supreme Court
2. Courts of Appeals
3. Regional Trial Court
A. Intellectual Property Courts
B. Special Courts
4. Family Courts
5. Metropolitan Trial Courts
Municipal Trial Courts in cities
Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Courts
6. Sandiganbayan
Hannah Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, 653 SCRA (2011)
Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan, 762 SCRA (2015)
De Lima vs. Guerrero, 843 SCRA (2017)
7. Court of Tax-Appeals
City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo, February 4, 2014
CE Casecnan Water & Energy Co. vs. Prov. Of Nueva Ecija
759 CRA 180
8. Quasi-Judicial Tribunals (Sec. 1, Rule 43)
9. Sharia’h Courts: appellate, district, circuit
Lomondot vs. Balindong, 762 SCRA 494
Municipality of Tangkal vs. Balindong, 814 SCRA (2017)
10. Military Courts. Articles of War
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Mislang, 883 SCRA, Oct. 15, 2018

D. Discuss the concept, description and application of the following:
1. Delegated jurisdiction
2. Special jurisdiction
3. Limited jurisdiction
4. Primary jurisdiction
Unduran vs. Aberasturi, 823 SCRA (2017)
LBP vs. Dalauta, 835 SCRA (2017)
5. Residual jurisdiction
Dev. Bank of the Phil. Vs. Carpio, 816 SCRA (2017)
o Requisites: trial, judgment, appeal
Inc. vs. De la Cruz, 781 SCREA (2016)
6. Epistolary jurisdiction
Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes, 756 SCRA (2015)
7. Split jurisdiction
City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo (2014)
8. Expanded/Extended jurisdiction
Edcel Lagman vs. Pimentel III, 854 SCRA (2018)
9. Equity jurisdiction
Regulus Dev. Inc. vs. De la Cruz, 781 SCRA

References:
1. Section 5, Article VIII, 1986 Constitution
2. Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
3. B.P. Blg. 129
4. RA 7691
5. RA 8369 (Family Courts Act)
6. SC-AO No. 113-95- Intellectual Property Courts
7. PD 1486; 1606 (Sandiganbayan)
8. RA 7975; 8249; 10660 (Sandiganbayan)
9. RA 9282 (Court of Tax Appeals)
10. RA 9054 (Sharia’h Courts)
11. RA 11054 (Bangsamoro Basic Law, July 2018)

Other Cases On:
Jurisdictional estoppel
1. Duero vs CA – 373 SCRA 11
2. Gonzaga vs CA – 394 SCRA 472
3. Manila Bankers vs. Ng Kok Wei, 418 SCRA
4. Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. CA, 699 SCRA
Hierarchy of Courts
5. Agan vs. Piatco, 420 SCRA
6. Liga Ng Mga Barangay vs. Atienza, 420 SCRA
7. St. Mary Crusade Fndtn vs. Riel, 745 SCRA
8. Intramuros Administration vs. Offshore Construction
And Development Co., 857 SCRA (2017)
9. Bureau of Customs vs. Gallegos, 857 SCRA 57 (2017)
Residual Prerogatives
10. Katon vs. Palanca, 437 SCRA 565
Concurrent Jurisdiction:
11. Pat-og vs. CSC, 697 SCRA (2013)

Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation: First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. vs. Phil Bank of Communications, June 19, 2018,
Justice Leonen, en banc (note: for class discussion)