What is Jurisdiction?
the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
On the one hand, jurisdiction is "the power to hear and determine cases of the general
class to which the proceedings in question belong." Jurisdiction is a matter of
substantive law. Thus, an action may be filed only with the court or tribunal where the
Constitution or a statute says it can be brought. G.R. No. 227147 - RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY, INC ...
How is Jurisdiction acquired?
When a party receives a summons from an officer of the court, it is traditionally believed
that such party has been made to perceive the seriousness and consequences of the
pending legal action and the importance of participating in the court proceedings. At the
time, such a party’s right to due process is respected.
Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff in civil cases is acquired by his/her filing of
the complaint in court. The act of filing an action in court in and by itself indicates
recognition of the court’s legal power.
On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases is
acquired by proper and valid service of summons or by voluntary appearance. Speaking
in general terms, the Supreme Court has held: “Jurisdiction over the persons of the
parties is acquired by their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its
authority, or by the coercive power of legal process exerted over their persons.
In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of an accused is acquired upon either his
apprehension, with or without warrant or his submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Who Confers Jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organizes the court; it is given only by law and in the manner
prescribed by law and an objection based on the lack of such jurisdiction cannot be
waived by the parties.
In modern democracies, sovereign power rests with the people and is exercised through
representative bodies such as Congress or Parliament.
Difference between Jurisdiction and Venue
It is important now to distinguish between jurisdiction and venue. Venue simply refers to
the physical or geographical location where court proceedings will be held, while
jurisdiction is abstract and refers to the power or authority of a court to hear and decide
a case.
CLASSIFICATION OF JURISDICTION
1) GENERAL JURISDICTION
> The power to adjudicate all controversies, except those expressly withheld
from the plenary powers of the court
2) SPECIAL JURISDICTION
> Which restricts the court’s jurisdiction only to particular cases and subject to
such limitations as may be provided by the governing law
3) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
> The power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for
judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by law;
4) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
> The authority of the court higher in rank to re-examine the final order, judgment
or a lower court which tried the case now elevated for judicial review
5) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
> Power to adjudicate a case or proceeding to the exclusion of other courts at
that stage
6) CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
> Sometimes referred to as the coordinate jurisdiction which is the power
conferred upon different courts whether of the same or different ranks, to take
cognizance at the state of the same case in the same or different judicial territories
7) DELEGATED JURISDICTION
> The grant of authority to inferior courts to hear and determine cadastral and
registration cases under certain conditions
8) SPECIAL JURISDICTION
> The power of the inferior courts to hear and decide petitions for writ of habeas
corpus or applications for bail in the absence of all RTC judges in the province or city.
“Interlocutory jurisdiction”
9) TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
> Refers to the geographical area within which its powers can be exercised:
MTC – within the municipality or city where it is located as may be defined by
the SC
RTC – within the region or province where it is located
SC & CA – within the Philippine territory (nationwide)
CLASSIFICATION OF THE COURT ACCORDING TO JURISDICTION
> In the Philippines, our courts are “both courts of law and of equity”
1) COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION
> Those competent to decide their own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all kinds
of cases except those expressly withheld from the plenary powers of the court
2) COURT OF SPECIAL OR LIMITED JURISDICTION
> Those which have no power to decide their own jurisdiction and only try cases
permitted by the statute
3) COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
> Those which under the law, actions or proceedings may originally be commenced
4) COURT OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION
> Those which have the power to review on appeal the decisions or orders of a lower
court
5) SUPERIOR COURTS
> Those which have the power of review and supervision over another or lower court
6) INFERIOR COURTS
> Those which, in relation to another court, are lower in rank and subject to review
and supervision by the latter
> As used in the 1987 Constitution, the term “inferior courts” refer to all courts lower
than the Supreme Court
7) COURTS OF RECORD
> Those whose proceedings are enrolled and which are bound to keep a written
record of all trials and proceedings handled by them
> RA 6031 mandates to all MTC to be a court of record. Thus, Courts not of record,
no longer exist
8) CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS
> Those which owe their creation and existence to the constitution and therefore
cannot be legislated out of existence or deprived by law of the jurisdiction and powers
unqualifiedly vested in them by the Constitution.
Ex. SC & Sandiganbayan
9) STATUTORY COURTS
> Those created, organized and with jurisdiction exclusively determined by law.
Ex. CTA
_____________________________________________________
GENERAL RULE: Jurisdiction, once acquired, continues until the case is finally
terminated.
EXCEPTIONS:
1) When a subsequent law provides a prohibition for the continued exercise of
jurisdiction;
2) Where the law penalizing an act as punishable is repealed by a subsequent law;
3) When the accused is deprived of his constitutional rights such as where the court
fails to provide counsel for the accused who is unable to obtain one and does not
intelligently waive his constitutional right;
4) Where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it intended to
operate as to actions pending before its enactment;
5) When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned or
declared void;
6) Once appeal has been perfected.
Doctrine of Judicial Stability
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of
a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice: no court can
interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent
jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief.
This principle states that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with
each other's orders. (Lapu-lapu Dev v. Group Management) Another term for the non-
interference doctrine is "judicial stability. "Therefore, a Regional Trial Court has no
power or authority to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by
another Regional Trial Court. (Suico Industrial Corp v. Court of Appeals) The principle
also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court over
which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review. (Villamor vs. Salas)
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of
a co-equal court, as an accepted axiom in adjective law, serves as an insurmountable
barrier to the competencia of the Makati court to entertain the habeas corpus case on
account of the previous assumption of jurisdiction by the Cavite court, and the
designation of petitioners as guardians ad litem of the ward. This is based on the policy
of peaceful co-existence among courts of the same judicial plane. (Panlilio, G.R. No.
113087)
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of
a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice: no court can
interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent
jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. The rationale
for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction
over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over Its judgment, to the
exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to
control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection
with this judgment. (.R. No. 194767, October 14, 2015)
PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY
[1] This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent
jurisdiction, beginning from the lowest, on to the next highest, and ultimately to the
highest. This hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is likewise
determinative of the proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an
established policy necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court's time and
attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and
to preclude the further clogging of the Court's docket (Sec. 9[1], BP 129; Sec. 5[1], Art.
VIII, Constitution of the Philippines).
[2] The Principle of Judicial Hierarchy of Courts most certainly indicates that petitions for
the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed with the RTC
and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals. This rule, however,
may be relaxed when pure questions of law are raised (Miaque vs. Patag, GR Nos.
1790609-13).
[3] A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts. The SC is a court of last resort. It cannot and should
not be burdened with the task of deciding cases in the first instances. Its jurisdiction to
issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where
serious and important reasons exist.
[4] Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be
filed with the RTC and those against the latter with the CA. A direct invocation of the
SC's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only where there are
special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
[5] The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if warranted by the nature
and importance of the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future
litigations, or in cases of national interest and of serious implications. Under the
principle of liberal interpretations, for example, it may take cognizance of a petition for
certiorari directly filed before it.
What is the doctrine of judicial hierarchy?
Pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy, direct resort from the lower courts to the Supreme
Court will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the
lower tribunals.
What are the reasons behind this doctrine?
[1] To prevent inordinate demands upon the Supreme Court's time and attention which
are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and
[2] To prevent further overcrowding of the SC's docket.
Thus, although the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court
have CONCURRENT jurisdiction to issue:
[1] writs of certiorari
[2] prohibition
[3] mandamus
[4] quo warranto
[5] habeas corpus
[4] injunction
[xxx] such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of
court forum.
BETWEEN TWO COURTS OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, THE CASE MUST
FIRST BE FILED WITH THE LOWER COURT.
The Supreme Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired
cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling
circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the
extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary
jurisdiction (Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor, 455 SCRA 460 [2005]).
THE EXCEPTION IS WHEN THE CASE IS OF TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE.
Legal Definition of “Venue”
Venue, simply, is the place of trial or geographical location in which an action or
proceeding should be brought. In civil cases, venue is a matter of procedural law.
Venue is the legally proper place where a case should be filed and heard. It is important
to remember that there is not one "right" venue for a case to be heard; many venues
can be correct.
How Venue is acquired?
Venue of Real Actions (Rule 4, Sec. 1): The venue of real actions is the court which
has jurisdiction over area where property or any part thereof is located.
What are real actions? They are actions affecting title to property, or where plaintiff
seeks recovery of real property, or one affecting title to real property.
Venue of Personal Actions (Rule 4, Sec. 2): Personal actions are filed in the place
where plaintiff or any of principal plaintiffs reside, or where defendant or any of the
principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant, where he may
be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
What is the meaning of "residence' under the Rules?
"Residence," under the Rules, means actual residence or place of abode, which may
not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile, provided he resides therein with
continuity and consistency. It must be more than temporary.
What are personal actions?
Personal actions are those where a plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property,
enforcement of contract or recovery of damages.
What is the venue of actions against non-residents?
What is the venue of actions against nonresident defendant who is not found in the
Philippines? (Rule 4, Sec. 3) If action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, such as
a legal personal relationship which is not temporary nor terminable at the mere will of
the parties (annulment of marriage, recognition of a natural child), the venue is the court
of place where the plaintiff resides.
QUASI-IN REM: While the court acquires jurisdiction over person of defendant, it does
not preclude the court from rendering valid judgment over the issue regarding the
personal status of plaintiff in relation to defendant. This is an action quasi in rem.
If action affects any PROPERTY of defendant located in the Philippines - venue is the
court in the area where PROPERTY or portion thereof is SITUATED.
IN REM: While court acquires no jurisdiction over person of defendant, valid judgment
may be rendered against the property which is the one impleaded and is the subject of
judicial power (ex. where plaintiff is already in possession of a lien sought to be
enforced or by attachment of the property). This is an action in
rem.
In what circumstances do the Rules on Venue not apply?
The Rules on Venue do not apply where a specific rule or law provides otherwise.
For example, an offended party who is at the same time a public official can only
institute an action for damages arising from libel in two venues:
[1] the place where he holds office (if private individual, where he resided at the
time of the commission of the offense) and [
2] the place where the alleged libelous articles were printed and first published.
Note that this rule likewise applies to the criminal case.
Unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss prior to a
responsive pleading, venue cannot truly be said to have been improperly laid.
A motion to dismiss belatedly filed could no longer deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to
hear and decide the civil action for damages. Improper venue may be waived and such
waiver may occur by laches.
Objections to venue in such actions may be waived as it does not relate to jurisdiction
over the subject matter but rather over the person. Laying of venue is procedural and
not substantive. (Diaz vs. Adiong, 1993)
A court cannot motu proprio dismiss a complaint on the ground of improper venue since
improper venue may be waived for failure to object to it.
What is the difference between domicile and residence
"Residence" is used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary;
"domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the
intention of returning. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in
another.
Katarungang Pambarangay Law
A. Purpose
Katarungang pambaranggay or the Barangay Justice System designed not
merely to decongest the courts of cases but to address inequalities in access to
justice, particularly experienced by marginalized communities. The barangays,
being the basic political unit in the country , is in the most strategic position to
facilitate resolutions or mediation to community and family disputes, alongside its
mandate to deliver basic services.
B. Lupong Tagapamayapa – Is a body organized in every barangay composed of
Punong Baranggay as the chairperson and not less than ten (10) and more than
twenty from which the members of every Pangkat shall be choses.
Oath of Office ( nasa baba)
Term in office - upon appointment, each lupon member shall serve for three (3) years
unless terminated by death, resignation, transfer of residence or place of work, or
withdrawal of appointment by the punong barangay. however, the withdrawal should be
concurred with a majority of all the members of lupon.
Functions - The basic distinction in our work as lupon is that it is not a barangay court
and lupon members are not judges. It is a conciliation body and the members are
conciliators.
C. Pangkat Tagapagkasundo
1. Composition - The Three Members Shall Come from The Lupon and Will Be
Chosen By Both Parties, The Complainant And The Respondent.
Katarungang Pambaranggay Jurisdiction
ALL DISPUTES, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL IN NATURE WHERE PARTIES ACTUALLY
RESIDE IN THE SAME CITY OR MUNICIPALITY ARE SUBJECTED TO
PROCEEDINGS OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT. THERE ARE CASES THAT FALL
UNDER OUR JURISDICTION.
Venue
IN THIS CASE, THE DISPUTE WILL BE SETTLED IN THE BARANGAY WHERE THE
RESPONDENTS OR ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS RESIDE AT THE CHOICE OF
THE COMPLAINANT.
SEC. 409. Venue.
(a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be brought
for amicable settlement before the lupon of said barangay.
(b) Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same city or
municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent or any of the
respondents actually resides, at the election of the complainant.
(c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be brought in the
barangay where the real property or the larger portion thereof is situated.
(d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or at the
institution where such parties are enrolled for study shall be brought in the barangay
where such workplace or institution is located.
