Judicial Power

The powers of government are generally considered divided into three branches: the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary. Each one is supreme within its own sphere and independent of the others. Because of that supremacy power to determine whether a given law is valid or not is vested in courts of justice… courts of justice determine the limits of powers of the agencies and offices of the government as well as those of its officers. The judiciary is the final arbiter on the question whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but also a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature

The court’s power of judicial review, like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, is subject to several limitations, namely: (1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have “standing” to challenge; he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota (cause or motivation of legal action) of the case. (Francisco vs House of Rep)

Under the judicial power vested by the Constitution, the "Supreme Court and ... such inferior courts as may be established by law," may settle or decide with finality, not only justiciable controversies between private individuals or entities, but, also, disputes or conflicts between a private individual or entity, on the one hand, and an officer or branch of the government, on the other, or between two (2) officers or branches of service, when the latter officer or branch is charged with acting without jurisdiction or in excess thereof or in violation of law. And so, when a power vested in said officer or branch of the government is absolute or unqualified, the acts in the exercise of such power are said to be political in nature, and, consequently, non-justiciable or beyond judicial review. Javellana vs Exec Sec.

The court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject matter of the present controversy for the purpose of determining the character, scope and extent of the constitutional grant to the Electoral Commission as "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly." (Sec 4 Art. VI 1935 Constitution). (Angara vs Electoral Comm.)

Justiciable controversy - is a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests, which may be resolved by a court of law through the application of a law.

The determination of a truly political question from a non-justiciable political question lies in the answer to the question of whether there are constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies. If there are, then our courts are duty-bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the government properly acted within such limits.

Generally, if the case is not justiciable, even if the court has the power and authority to hear and decide the case, the court will refuse to decide or exercise its jurisdiction. To be the subject of control of the court, 3 elements must be present:

1. Actual controversy

2. A case must be ripe for adjudication;

3. Parties to the case must have legal standing

Political question

In Tañada v. Cuenco, we held that political questions refer "to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular measure."

To the mind of the Court, procedural matters in the present controversy may be dispensed with, stressing that the instant case is a political question, a question which the court cannot, in any manner, take judicial cognizance. Courts will not interfere with purely political questions because of the principle of separation of powers (Tañada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051)

Certain types of cases often have been found to present political questions. One such category involves questions of foreign relations. It is well-established that “The conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative--'the political'--departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision."

In other words, the putting up of the New Cagayan Town Center by the province over the land fully owned by it and the concomitant contracts entered into by the same is within the bounds of its corporate power, an undertaking which falls within the ambit of its discretion and therefore a purely political issue which is beyond the province of the court x x x. [Consequently, the court cannot,] in any manner, take judicial cognizance over it. The act of the provincial government was in pursuance of the mandate of the Local Government Code of 1991. (Mamba v Lara)

The constitutional validity of the President’s proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first a political question in the hands of Congress before it becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the Court. (Fortun v Arroyo)

Court of Law vs Court of Equity

The prohibition against an alien from owning lands of the public domain is absolute and not even an implied trust can be permitted to arise on equity considerations.

It has been held that equity as a rule will follow the law and will not permit that to be done indirectly which, because of public policy, cannot be done directly... (Ting Ho v Teng Gui)

He who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. The latter is a frequently stated maxim which is also expressed in the principle that he who has done inequity shall not have equity. It signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue. (Muller v Muller)

Laches

Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.30 It has been repeatedly31 held by the Court that:

Laches is a doctrine in equity while prescription is based on law. Our courts are basically courts of law not courts of equity. Thus, laches cannot be invoked to resist the enforcement of an existing legal right. x x x Courts exercising equity jurisdiction are bound by rules of law and have no arbitrary discretion to disregard them.

As for equity which has been aptly described as a "justice outside legality," this is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or, as in this case, judicial rules of procedure. Aequetas nunguam contravenit legis. The pertinent positive rules being present here, they should preempt and prevail over all abstract arguments based only on equity. (Phl Carpet Mfg. Cort. vs Tagayamon)

Court of Justice vs Quasi-Judicial bodies

Quasi-judicial power has been defined as the power of the administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature

It has been said that "Quasi-judicial powers involve the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by law itself in enforcing and administering the same law."58 In simpler terms, judicial discretion is involved in the exercise of these quasi-judicial power, such that it is exclusively vested in the judiciary and must be clearly authorized by the legislature in the case of administrative agencies. (Biraogo vs Truth Comm)

Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or office. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a judicial function. To be considered as such, the act of receiving evidence and arriving at factual conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to the factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. (Pichay vs Exec Secretary)

Jurisdiction vs Exercise of Jurisdiction

"lack of jurisdiction" as a ground for the annulment of judgments pertains to lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. It does not contemplate "grave abuse of discretion" considering that "jurisdiction" is different from the exercise thereof. As ruled in Tolentino v. Judge Leviste:32

Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. (Antonino vs Reg of Deeds)

Essence of Adjudicatory Powers

The essence of the Court’s adjudicatory function is to apply the law to facts, as supported by the evidence and the records. (Heirs of Sps. Ferrer v CA)

Adherence to Jurisdiction: exception

This Court is not unmindful nor unaware of the doctrine on the adherence of jurisdiction. However, the rule on adherence of jurisdiction is not absolute and has exceptions. One of the exceptions is that when the change in jurisdiction is curative in character.

For sure, Section 30, R.A. 7653 (New Central Bank Act) is curative in character when it declared that the liquidation court shall have jurisdiction in the same proceedings to assist in the adjudication of the disputed claims against the Bank.

Contradistinguished from venue

None is more well-settled than the rule that jurisdiction, which is the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case, is conferred by law.16 It may either be over the nature of the action, over the subject matter, over the person of the defendants or over the issues framed in the pleadings.17 By virtue of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is vested in the RTC. Particularly, Section 21(1) thereof provides that the RTCs shall exercise original jurisdiction –

in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions. (Emphasis ours)

A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 was issued pursuant to Section 18 of B.P. Blg. 129, which gave the Court authority to define the territory over which a branch of the RTC shall exercise its authority. These administrative orders and circulars issued by the Court merely provide for the venue where an action may be filed. The Court does not have the power to confer jurisdiction on any court or tribunal as the allocation of jurisdiction is lodged solely in Congress. It also cannot be delegated to another office or agency of the Government. Section 18 of B.P. Blg. 129, in fact, explicitly states that the territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch concerned for purposes of determining the venue of all suits, proceedings or actions.

Venue relates only to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought and does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court. It is intended to accord convenience to the parties, as it relates to the place of trial, and does not restrict their access to the courts. (Dolot v Paje)

It is a legal truism that the rules on the venue of personal actions are fixed for the convenience of the plaintiffs and their witnesses. Equally settled, however, is the principle that choosing the venue of an action is not left to a plaintiff’s caprice; the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court

If the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the complaint in such case may only be filed in the court of the place where the defendant resides.

The Makati RTC had the erroneous impression that the Manila RTC did not have jurisdiction over the complaint of petitioners because the property involved was situated within the jurisdiction of the Makati RTC. Thereby, the Makati RTC confused venue of a real action with jurisdiction.

To be clear, venue related only to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought and does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court. It is intended to accord convenience to the parties, as it relates to the place of trial, and does not restrict their access to the courts.45 In contrast, jurisdiction refers to the power to hear and determine a cause,46 and is conferred by law and not by the parties. (Spouses Mendiola vs CA)

All members of the civil service are under the jurisdiction of the CSC, unless otherwise provided by law. Being a non-career civil servant does not remove respondent from the ambit of the CSC. Career or non-career, a civil service official or employee is within the jurisdiction of the CSC. (Civil svc Comm v Sojor)

It has been repeatedly held by this court that a writ of certiorari will not be issued unless it clearly appears that the court to which it is to be directed acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. It will not be issued to cure errors in the proceedings or to correct erroneous conclusions of law or of fact. If the court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person, decisions upon all question pertaining to the cause are decisions within its jurisdiction and, however irregular or erroneous they may be, cannot be corrected by certiorari.

Venue and jurisdiction in criminal actions

The general rule on venue of criminal cases which is the place where the crime or any of its essential elements were committed. Venue, said the RTC, is jurisdictional in penal laws and, allowing the filing of criminal actions at the place of residence of the offended parties violates their right to due process. Section 9 provides:

SEC. 9. Venue. – A criminal action arising from illegal recruitment as defined herein shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the offense was committed or where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: Provided, however, That the aforestated provisions shall also apply to those criminal actions that have already been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this Act. (Sto. Tomas v Salac)

Indeed it is fundamental that the place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction.[29] In order for the courts to acquire jurisdiction in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. If the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. (Evangelista vs People)

Venue of Action and Criminal Jurisdiction - Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases. It determines not only the place where the criminal action is to be instituted, but also the court that has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case. The reason for this rule is two-fold. First, the jurisdiction of trial courts is limited to well-defined territories such that a trial court can only hear and try cases involving crimes committed within its territorial jurisdiction.[12] Second, laying the venue in the locus criminis is grounded on the necessity and justice of having an accused on trial in the municipality of province where witnesses and other facilities for his defense are available.

the crime of perjury committed through the making of a false affidavit under Article 183 of the RPC is committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or her affidavit since it is at that time that all the elements of the crime of perjury are executed. When the crime is committed through false testimony under oath in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, venue is at the place where the testimony under oath is given. If in lieu of or as supplement to the actual testimony made in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a written sworn statement is submitted, venue may either be at the place where the sworn statement is submitted or where the oath was taken as the taking of the oath and the submission are both material ingredients of the crime committed. In all cases, determination of venue shall be based on the acts alleged in the Information to be constitutive of the crime committed. (Union Bank vs RTC)

Agbayani supplies a comprehensive restatement of the rules of venue in actions for criminal libel, following the amendment by Rep. Act No. 4363 of the Revised Penal Code:

“Article 360 in its original form provided that the venue of the criminal and civil actions for written defamations is the province wherein the libel was published, displayed or exhibited, regardless of the place where the same was written, printed or composed. Article 360 originally did not specify the public officers and the courts that may conduct the preliminary investigation of complaints for libel.

The venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited to only either of two places, namely: 1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published.

Experience had shown that under that old rule the offended party could harass the accused in a libel case by laying the venue of the criminal action in a remote or distant place. (Bonifacio vs RTC)

Classification of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law while jurisdiction over the person is acquired by his/her voluntary submission to the authority of the court or through the exercise of its coercive processes. Jurisdiction over the res is obtained by actual or constructive seizure placing the property under the orders of the court.

Exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Sandiganbayan would evidently extend not only to the principal causes of action, that is, recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, but also to all incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to such cases, including a dispute over the sale of the shares, the propriety of the issuance of ancillary writs of relative provisional remedies, and the sequestration of the shares, which may not be made the subject of separate actions or proceedings in another forum. Indeed, the issue of the ownership of the sequestered companies, UHC and PNCC, as well as IRC’s ownership of them, is undeniably related to the recovery of the alleged ill-gotten wealth and can be squarely addressed via the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. (Cuenca v PCGG)

Jurisdiction conferred by law not by the parties not by their agreement or consent

It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial officer or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs. Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the Constitution and the law, and not by the consent or waiver of the parties where the court otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the nature or subject matter of the action. Nor can it be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties. (Heirs of Santiago Nisperas vs Nisperas-Ducusin)

E.O. No. 14 conferred on the Sandiganbayan exclusive and original jurisdiction over ill-gotten wealth cases, with the proviso that "technical rules of procedure and evidence shall not be applied strictly" to the civil cases filed under the EO. (Cojuanco Jr. v Republic)

How Jurisdiction is determined

It is a basic rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The BCDA’s complaints did not contain any allegation that would, even in the slightest, imply that the issue to be resolved in this

case involved an agrarian dispute. In the action filed by the BCDA, the issue to be resolved was who between the BCDA and the private respondents and their purported predecessors-in-interest, have a valid title over the subject properties in light of the relevant facts and applicable laws. The case thus involves a controversy relating to the ownership of the subject properties, which is beyond the scope of the phrase “agrarian dispute.” This case properly falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC. (Bases conversion devt. v Provincial Agrarian Reform officer of Pampanga)

It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over such action are to be determined from the material allegations of the complaint, the law in force at the time the complaint is filed, and the character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred. Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by defendant in an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss the same.

In the present case, the material averments, as well as the character of the relief prayed for by petitioners in the complaint before the RTC, show that their action is one for cancellation of titles and reversion, not for annulment of judgment of the RTC. The complaint alleged that Lot Nos. 43 to 50, the parcels of land subject matter of the action, were not the subject of the CFI’s judgment in the relevant prior land registration case. Hence, petitioners pray that the certificates of title of RCAM be cancelled which will not necessitate the annulment of said judgment. Clearly, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court on annulment of judgment finds no application in the instant case. The RTC may properly take cognizance of reversion suits which do not call for an annulment of judgment of the RTC22 acting as a Land Registration Court. Actions for cancellation of title and reversion, like the present case, belong to the class of cases that “involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein”23 and where the assessed value of the property exceeds P20,000.00, 24 fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC

Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties. The active participation of the parties in the proceedings before the DARAB does not vest jurisdiction on the DARAB, as jurisdiction is conferred only by law. The courts or the parties cannot disregard the rule of non-waiver of jurisdiction. Likewise, estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action. The failure of the parties to challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB does not prevent this Court from addressing the issue, as the DARAB’s lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint. Issues of jurisdiction are not subject to the whims of the parties.

In a long line of decisions, this Court has consistently held that an order or decision rendered by a tribunal or agency without jurisdiction is a total nullity. (Heirs of Candido del Rosario v del Rosario)

Broadly speaking, jurisdiction is the legal power or authority to hear and determine a cause. In the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power, it refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a case.81 In the context of these petitions, we hark back to the basic principles governing the question of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

First, jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined only by the Constitution and by law. As a matter of substantive law, procedural rules alone can confer no jurisdiction to courts or administrative agencies. In fact, an administrative agency, acting in its quasi-judicial capacity, is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and, as such, could wield only such powers that are specifically granted to it by the enabling statutes. In contrast, an RTC is a court of general jurisdiction, i.e., it has jurisdiction over cases whose subject matter does not fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

Second, jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined not by the pleas set up by the defendant in his answer85 but by the allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to favorable judgment on the basis of his assertions. The reason is that the complaint is supposed to contain a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action.

Third, jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint.

the grant of quasi-judicial authority to the BSP cannot possibly extend to situations which do not call for the exercise by the BSP of its supervisory or regulatory functions over entities within its jurisdiction.

"…unless expressly empowered, administrative agencies are bereft of quasi- judicial powers. The jurisdiction of administrative authorities is dependent entirely upon the provisions of the statutes reposing power in them; they cannot confer it upon themselves. Such jurisdiction is essential to give validity to their determinations." (Bank of commerce v Planters Devt. Bank)

Allocation of powers / jurisdiction

The Power of the Legislaturevis a vis the Power of the Supreme Courtto Enact Judicial Rules

Our holding above suffices to dispose of this petition. However, the Court En Banc has recently ruled in Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the Government Service Insurance System from Payment of Legal Fees12 on the issue of legislative exemptions from court fees. We take the opportunity to reiterate our En Banc ruling in GSIS.

Until the 1987 Constitution took effect, our two previous constitutions textualized a power sharing scheme between the legislature and this Court in the enactment of judicial rules. Thus, both the 193513 and the 197314Constitutions vested on the Supreme Court the "power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law." However, these constitutions also granted to the legislature the concurrent power to "repeal, alter or supplement" such rules.15

The 1987 Constitution textually altered the power-sharing scheme under the previous charters by deleting in Section 5(5) of Article VIII Congress’ subsidiary and corrective power.16 This glaring and fundamental omission led the Court to observe in Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice17 that this Court’s power to promulgate judicial rules "is no longer shared by this Court with CongressThe 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and more independent judiciary. Among others, it enhanced the rule making power of this Court [under] Section 5(5), Article VIII18 x x x .

The rule making power of this Court was expanded. This Court for the first time was given the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. The Court was also granted for the first time the power to disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But most importantly, the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. In fine, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by this Court with Congress, more so with the Executive. ". (Baguio Market vendors v Cabato-Cortes)

The allocation of jurisdiction is vested in Congress, and cannot be delegated to another office or agency of the Government.

The Rules of Court does not define jurisdictional boundaries of the courts. In promulgating the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court is circumscribed by the zone properly denominated as the promulgation of rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts;9 consequently, the Rules of Court can only determine the means, ways or manner in which said jurisdiction, as fixed by the Constitution and acts of Congress, shall be exercised. The Rules of Court yields to the substantive law in determining jurisdiction. (Gomez-Castillo v Comelec)

It is Congress by law, not the courts by discretion, which defines the court’s jurisdiction not otherwise conferred by the Constitution. Through the same medium, Congress also draws the parameters in the exercise of the functions of administrative agencies. Section 55 of R.A. No. 9184 could not be any clearer when it mandates the manner of protesting the decision of bids and awards committees. Similarly, there can be no quibbling that, under Section 58 of the same law, courts do not have jurisdiction over decisions of the BACs unless the appropriate protest has been made and completed. (DBM Procurement v Kolonwell Trading)

It bears emphasis that Congress has the plenary power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdictions of various courts. Hence, it may, by law, provide that a certain class of cases should be exclusively heard and determined by a specific court. Section 268 of Omnibus Election Code is one such and must thus be construed as an exception to BP Blg. 129, the general law on jurisdiction of courts.

In fine, while BP Blg. 129 lodges in municipal trial courts, metropolitan trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts jurisdiction over criminal cases carrying a penalty of imprisonment of less than one year but not exceeding six years, following Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, any criminal action or proceeding which bears the same penalty, "except those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote.", falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of regional trial courts. (Comelec v Aguirre)

When act is done without jurisdiction

An act is done without jurisdiction if the public respondent does not have the legal power to act or where the respondent, being clothed with the power to act, oversteps its authority as determined by law,29 or acts outside the contemplation of law. (People vs Sandiganbayan)

It is settled that the proceedings before a court or tribunal without jurisdiction, including its decision, are null and void. Considering that the MCTC has no jurisdiction, all the proceedings conducted therein, including petitioner's arraignment, are null and void. (Taglay v Daray)

Jurisdiction as determined by the presence of essential elements

Jurisdiction over the person / Jurisdiction in Personam

Jurisdiction over the plaintiff/petitioner

Jurisdiction over the person, or jurisdiction in personam –the power of the court to render a personal judgment or to subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment and other rulings rendered in the action – is an element of due process that is essential in all actions, civil as well as criminal, except in actions in rem or quasi in rem. Jurisdiction over the defendantin an action in rem or quasi in rem is not required, and the court acquires jurisdiction over an actionas long as it acquires jurisdiction over the resthat is thesubject matter of the action. The purpose of summons in such action is not the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant but mainly to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process.12

The distinctions that need to be perceived between an action in personam, on the one hand, and an action inrem or quasi in rem, on the other hand, are aptly delineated in Domagas v. Jensen,13 thusly:

The settled rule is that the aim and object of an action determine its character. Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem for that matter, is determined by its nature and purpose, and by these only. A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Of this character are suits to compel a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him. An action in personam is said to be one which has for its object a judgment against the person, as distinguished from a judgment against the property to determine its state. It has been held that an action in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights or obligations; such action is brought against the person. As far as suits for injunctive relief are concerned, it is well-settled that it is an injunctive act in personam. In Combs v. Combs, the appellate court held that proceedings to enforce personal rights and obligations and in which personal judgments are rendered adjusting the rights and obligations between the affected parties is in personam. Actions for recovery of real property are in personam. As the initiating party, the plaintiff in a civil action voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court by the act of filing the initiatory pleading. As to the defendant, the court acquires jurisdiction over his person either by the proper service of the summons, or by a voluntary appearance in the action. When jurisdiction in personam is not acquired in a civil action through the proper service of the summons or upon a valid waiver of such proper service, the ensuing trial and judgment are void. If the defendant knowingly does an act inconsistent with the right to object to the lack of personal jurisdiction as to him, like voluntarily appearing in the action, he is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. (Macasaet v Co Jr.)

Complaint not filed by plaintiff/petitioner personally or without authority deemed as if NOT filed

What then, is the effect of a complaint filed by one who has not proven his authority to represent a plaintiff in filing an action? In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals, the Court categorically stated that "[i]f a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff [by one] who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff." This ruling was reiterated in Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Company,8 where the Court went on to say that "[i]n order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, and to be bound by a decision, a party should first be subjected to the court's jurisdiction. Clearly, since no valid complaint was ever filed with the [MeTC], the same did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent [plaintiff before the lower court]." (Palminiano-Salvador v Angeles)

Jurisdiction over the defendant/respondent

In civil cases, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be acquired either by service of summons or by the defendant’s voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority.

Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired either by the coercive power of legal processes exerted over his person, or his voluntary appearance in court. As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It is by reason of this rule that we have had occasion to declare that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction. This, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional

appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority.

Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that:

(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance;

(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and

(3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution. (Optima Realty Corp. v Hertz Phil)

It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant’s voluntary appearance in court. When the defendant does not voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void. The purpose of summons is not only to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also to give notice to the defendant that an action has been commenced against it and to afford it an opportunity to be heard on the claim made against it. The requirements of the rule on summons must be strictly followed, otherwise, the trial court will not acquire jurisdiction over the defendant.

Section 13, Rule 14 of the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure, the applicable rule on service of summons upon a private domestic corporation then, provides:

Sec. 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership.— If the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors.

The purpose is to render it reasonably certain that the corporation will receive prompt and proper notice in an action against it or to insure that the summons be served on a representative so integrated with the corporation that such person will know what to do with the legal papers served on him. (Elice Agro-Industrial v Young)

An action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry is a real action and in personam because the plaintiff seeks to enforce a personal obligation on the defendant for the latter to vacate the property subject of the action, restore physical possession thereof to the plaintiff, and pay actual damages by way of reasonable compensation for his use or occupation of the property. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant’s voluntary appearance in court. If the defendant does not voluntarily appear in court, jurisdiction can be acquired by personal or substituted service of summons. (Afdal v Carlos)

The filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction. This, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to challenge, among others, the court’s jurisdiction over his person cannot be considered to have submitted to its authority.

Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that:

(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance;

(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and

(3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution.

If there is no valid service of summons, the court can still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by virtue of the latter’s voluntary appearance. Thus Section 20 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance. – The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. (Rapid City Realty v Sps Villa)

How jurisdiction over a defendant outside of the Philippines is acquired

As a rule, Philippine courts cannot try any case against a defendant who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court; but when the case is an action in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because they have jurisdiction over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential. In the latter instance, extraterritorial service of summons can be made upon the defendant, and such extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for the purpose of complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that the defendant will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded. On the other hand, when the defendant in an action in personam does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, our courts cannot try the case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court. (Macasaet vs Co jr.)

Jurisdiction over defendant acquired by summons and filing of responsive pleading NOT by mere knowledge or information acquired by defendant or respondent of the case

Jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant or respondent cannot be acquired notwithstanding his knowledge of the pendency of a case against him unless he was validly served with summons. Such is the important role a valid service of summons plays in court actions. (Elice Agro-Industrial v Young)

Defendant’s / Respondent’s active participation in the case may be deemed as estoppel

"While jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a party’s active participation in the proceedings before a court without jurisdiction will estop such party from assailing the lack of it." It is an undesirable practice of a party to participate in the proceedings, submit his case for decision and then accept the judgment, if favorable, but attack it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse.

If Maxicare was of the position that there was no employer-employee relationship existing between Maxicare and Dr. Contreras, it should have questioned the jurisdiction of the LA right away. Surprisingly, it never did. Instead, it

actively participated in the LA proceedings without bringing to the LA’s attention the issue of employer-employee relationship.

On appeal before the NLRC, the subject issue was never raised either. Maxicare only raised the subject issue for the first time when it filed a petition in the CA challenging the adverse decision of the NLRC. It is, therefore, estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the LA and the NLRC.

It is true that questions of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage. It is also true, however, that in the interest of fairness, questions challenging the jurisdiction of courts will not be tolerated if the party questioning such jurisdiction actively participates in the court proceedings and allows the court to pass judgment on the case, and then questions the propriety of said judgment after getting an unfavorable decision. (Maxicare PCIB Cigna v Contreras)

Participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, that included invoking its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively barred the respondent by estoppel from challenging the court’s jurisdiction. The Court has consistently upheld the doctrine that while jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a litigant who participated in the court proceedings by filing pleadings and presenting his evidence cannot later on question the trial court’s jurisdiction when judgement unfavorable to him is rendered. (Heirs of Jose Fernando v De Belen)

Jurisdiction over the subject matter – JURISDICTION IN REM

Basic is the rule that the "jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs."

Clearly, not every sale or transfer of agricultural land would warrant DARAB’s exercise of its jurisdiction. The law is specific that the property must be shown to be under the coverage of agrarian reform laws. As the CA correctly ruled:

It is easily discernable that the cause of action of the DAR sufficiently established a suit for the declaration of the sale of the subject landholdings null and void. Obviously, it does not involve an agrarian suit, hence, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the DARAB. (DAR v Paramount Holdings)

The jurisdiction of a court or tribunal over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by law. The court or tribunal must look at the material allegations in the complaint, the issues or questions that are the subject of the controversy, and the character of the relief prayed for in order to determine whether the nature and subject matter of the complaint is within its jurisdiction. If the issues between the parties are intertwined with the resolution of an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court or tribunal, the dispute must be addressed and resolved by the said court or tribunal. (Valcurza v Tamparong)

Well-settled is the rule that the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter may, at any time, be raised by the parties or considered by the Court motu proprio. (Applied food ingredients vs CIR)

Pursuant to its rule-making authority conferred by the 1987 Constitution27 and existing laws, the COA promulgated the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit. Rule II, Section 1 specifically enumerated those matters falling under COA’s exclusive jurisdiction, which include "money claims due from or owing to any government agency." Rule VIII, Section 1 further provides:

Section 1. Original Jurisdiction - The Commission Proper shall have original jurisdiction over:

a) money claim against the Government; b) request for concurrence in the hiring of legal retainers by government agency; c) write off of unliquidated cash advances and dormant accounts receivable in amounts exceeding one million pesos (P1,000,000.00); d) request for relief from accountability for loses due to acts of man, i.e. theft, robbery, arson, etc, in amounts in excess of Five Million pesos (P5,000,000.00). (Province of Aklan v Jody King Construction)

Jurisdiction has several aspects, namely: (1) jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) jurisdiction over the parties; (3) jurisdiction over the issues of the case; and (4) in cases involving property, jurisdiction over the res or the thing which is the subject of the litigation.

The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a result of estoppel by laches is jurisdiction over the subject matter. Thus, in Tijam, the case relied upon by petitioner, the issue involved was the authority of the then Court of First Instance to hear a case for the collection of a sum of money in the amount of P1,908.00 which amount was, at that time, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal courts.

In subsequent cases citing the ruling of the Court in Tijam, what was likewise at issue was the jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter of the case. Accordingly, in Spouses Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals, the issue for consideration was the authority of the regional trial court to hear and decide an action for reformation of contract and damages involving a subdivision lot, it being argued therein that jurisdiction is vested in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board pursuant to PD 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree). In Lee v. Presiding Judge, MTC, Legaspi City,33 petitioners argued that the respondent municipal trial court had no jurisdiction over the complaint for ejectment because the issue of ownership was raised in the pleadings. Finally, in People v. Casuga,34 accused-appellant claimed that the crime of grave slander, of which she was charged, falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of municipal courts or city courts and the then courts of first instance, and that the judgment of the court of first instance, to which she had appealed the municipal court's conviction, should be deemed null and void for want of jurisdiction as her appeal should have been filed with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

In all of these cases, the Supreme Court barred the attack on the jurisdiction of the respective courts concerned over the subject matter of the case based on estoppel by laches, declaring that parties cannot be allowed to belatedly adopt an inconsistent posture by attacking the jurisdiction of a court to which they submitted their cause voluntarily. (Boston Equity Resources Inc. V CA)

Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.

What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.

Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property, it should be filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof.23 Since the amount alleged in the Complaint by respondents for the disputed lot is only P4,000.00, the MTC and not the RTC has jurisdiction over the action. Therefore, all proceedings in the RTC are null and void. (Padlan v Sps Dinglasan)

It is of course well-settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action—in this case the crime of rape—is and may be conferred only by law, and that jurisdiction over a given crime not vested by law upon a particular court, may not be conferred thereon by the parties involved in the offense. But the aforementioned provision of Art. 344 does not determine the jurisdiction of our courts over the offenses therein enumerated. It could not affect said jurisdiction, because the same with respect to the instant crime is governed by the Judiciary Act of 1948, not by the Revised Penal Code, which deals primarily with the definition of crimes and the factors pertinent to the punishment of the culprits. The complaint required in said Art. 344 is merely a condition precedent to the exercise by the proper authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty parties. And such condition has been imposed out of consideration for the offended woman and her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial. (People v Estrebella)

To determine whether or not the principle of res judicata applies, the following requisites must concur: (1) the presence of a final former judgment; (2) the former judgment must have been rendered by a Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the former judgment is a judgment on the merits; and (4) there is, between the first and the second action Identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.

The second requisite is likewise attendant. The Court, which rendered the judgment in Civil Case No. M-87, had jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties. A civil action for recovery of possession, annulment of partition. accounting and damages was properly within the jurisdiction of the then Court of First Instance of Capiz (Lloraña v Leonidas)

For the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. If it did not acquire jurisdiction over the private respondents as parties to Civil Case No. 116028, it cannot render any binding decision, favorable or adverse to them, or dismiss the case with prejudice which, in effect, is an adjudication on the merits. 7 The controverted orders in Civil Case No. 116028 disregarded the fundamental principles of remedial law and the meaning and the effect of jurisdiction. A judgment, to be considered res judicata, must be binding, and must be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Otherwise, the judgment is a nullity. (Republic Planters Bank v Molina)

The courts of law have no jurisdiction to act on labor cases or various incidents arising therefrom. That is basic and elementary. Jurisdiction to try and adjudicate such cases pertains exclusively to the proper labor officials of the Department of Labor.

The fact that the poultry and piggery maintained by the private respondent required close care and attention does not warrant the respondent judge's assumption of jurisdiction. It did not confer on him the competence he did not have. Jurisdiction is vested by law and not by the demands of emergency. This is not, of course, to say that the strike in question was, ergo, legal. As we said, concerted acts of labor are the do of the labor officials, not the

judiciary. Assuming, then, that the private respondent had cause for complaint and that the strike was illegal or had become illegal as a result of the strikers' resort to illegal acts the courts are not the proper forum for it. (Associated Labor Union v Borromeo)

Jurisdiction neither affected nor altered by any theory or defence of the defendant

It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. It is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.

Petitioner, however, moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction alleging that since the complaint was against the owner/developer of a condominium whose condominium project was registered with and licensed by the HLURB, the latter has the exclusive jurisdiction. In sustaining the denial of the motion to dismiss, the Court held that the dispute as to the validity of the assessments is purely an intra-corporate matter between petitioner and respondent and is thus within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a special commercial court. More so in this case as respondent repeatedly questioned his characterization as a delinquent member and, consequently, petitioner’s decision to bar him from exercising his rights to vote and be voted for. These issues are clearly corporate and the demand for damages is just incidental. Being corporate in nature, the issues should be threshed out before the RTC sitting as a special commercial court. The issues on damages can still be resolved in the same special commercial court just like a regular RTC which is still competent to tackle civil law issues incidental to intra-corporate disputes filed before it.

Clearly, condominium corporations are not covered by the amendment. Thus, the intra-corporate dispute between petitioner and respondent is still within the jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a special commercial court and not the HLURB. (Medical Plaza Makati Condominium v Cullen)

Jurisdictional amount

In its October 22, 2003 Order, the RTC declared that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case based on the supposition that the same is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Under the present state of the law, in cases involving title to real property, original and exclusive jurisdiction belongs to either the RTC or the MTC, depending on the assessed value of the subject property.28 Pertinent provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7691, provides:

Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – 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 of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where the assessed value of the property exceeds Fifty thousand pesos ([P]50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; (Maslag v Monzon)