Jurisdiction – the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide the case.
This has
been expanded to include the authority of the courts to execute its decisions.
It includes the power to determine whether or not it has the authority to hear and determine the
controversy presented, and the right to decide whether or not the statement of facts that confer
jurisdiction exists, as well as all other matters that arise in the case legitimately before the court.
Aspects of Jurisdiction
a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter
b) The issue
c) Res or thing involved
Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter – is referred to the power of a particular court to hear the
type of case that is then before it. (real actions, personal actions, actions incapable of pecuniary
interest)
Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject matter – the general rule is that proceedings
conducted or decisions rendered are legally void. A court without jurisdiction can only dismiss
the case.
Exercise of Jurisdiction – where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter
any decision on all other question regarding the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction.
Error of jurisdiction – occurs when the court exercises jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law.
It may also occur when a court or tribunal although vested with jurisdiction, acts in excess
amounting to grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction.
Error in Judgement – a court vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action but
in the process of exercising that jurisdiction makes and error in the appreciation of facts and the
evidence leading to an erroneous judgement.
Error in Jurisdiction = Certiorari RULE 65
Error in Judgement = Appeal RULE 45
Test of Jurisdiction – is whether or not under the law, the court had power and authority to
take cognizance of a particular subject matter
Lack of power to decide for lack of jurisdiction = judgement that is void
Lack of power to render and erroneous decision = valid until set aside
The SC had previously ruled that if a court has jurisdiction, it is all together immaterial how
grossly irregular or manifestly erroneous proceedings may have been. The judgement cannot
be considered a nullity or void and cannot be collaterally impeached. Such judgment is binding
unless it is reversed or annulled.
If however, there is a total want for jurisdiction in a court, its proceedings are an absolute nullity,
confer no right and afford no protection but will be pronounced void when collaterally attacked.
The only exception is when the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel. Judgment may be
struck down at any time even on appeal.
How jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred
1. Constitution
2. Statute organizing the court or tribunal
3. Special or general statute defining the jurisdiction of an existing court or tribunal
Jurisdiction cannot be:
1. Granted by agreement between the parties
2. Cannot be acquired, waived, enlarged or diminished
3. Conferred by acquiescence/assent of the courts
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by:
1. The allegations in the complaint (this determines the nature of the action and the
jurisdiction of the court)
2. The relief sought
3. The evidence presented
Amount awarded does not determine jurisdiction
100k sought award 2m actual award
Doctrines:
1. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction – the courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal,
especially where the question demand the exercise of the knowledge, experience and
services of the tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact
2. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies – where a remedy before an
administrative body is provided by statute, relief must be sought by exhausting this
remedy prior to bringing the action to court in order to give the administrative body the
opportunity to decide matters that comes within its jurisdiction.
Exceptions:
a) Estoppel
b) Challenged act is patently illegal amounting to lack of jurisdiction
c) Unreasonable delay or official inaction
d) Amount involved is small making the rule impractical and oppressive
e) Question involved is purely legal
f) May cause great irreparable damage
g) Violates due process
h) Rendered moot
i) No other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
j) Strong public interest
k) Quo warranto proceedings
3. Doctrine of Adherence to jurisdiction – once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be
ousted by subsequent happenings, although a character of which would have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court once jurisdiction has been
acquired retains it until it finally dispose of the case.
Even finality of judgement does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction. It loses the
power to amend, modify or alter but retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it.
4. Doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction – the authority of an office or tribunal to do all things
necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction, and for the
enforcement of its judgment and mandate.
5. Doctrine of Judicial Stability – a court that acquire jurisdiction over the case and
renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all
other coordinate courts.
Thus under the doctrine a RTC is precluded from issuing an injunction against a writ
issued by another RTC. The remedy is to go the a higher court if the latter refuses to
correct the error and denies any motion assailing the writ issued.
Objection to jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
- The prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the SM may be raised at any stage of the
proceeding, even for the first time on appeal. May even be tackled Motu Proprio
- Exception (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy) Doctrine of Estoppel by Latches – a belated
objection raised by a party only when an adverse decision was rendered by the lower
court against it and because it raised the issue only after 15 years and after seeking
affirmative relief from the court to actively participating in all stages of the proceedings.
Omnibus motion rule – is a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding
- All objections available must be included otherwise it shall be waived
- Exception – Res judicata, Litis pendentia, lack of jurisdiction over the SM, prescription
