Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

JURISDICTION 1. GABRIEL L. DUERO vs. CA and BERNARDO A. ERADEL G.R. No.

131282 - January 4, 2002 Involves PRs occupation o petitioners lan! in "uri#ao $it% assesse! value o P&,240. 'espite repetitive !e(an!s, PR re use! to vacate t%e lan!. Petitioner ile! co(plaint or Recovery o Possession an! )$ners%ip $it% 'a(a#es an! *ttorney+s ,ees -e ore t%e R./. R./ rule! %i( in !e ault, !enie! %is (otion or ne$ trial as $ell as or relie ro( 0u!#(ent, an! !enie! li1e$ise %is t$o 2Rs. * ter t%e R./ still re use! to reconsi!er t%e !enial o PRs (otion or relie ro( 0u!#(ent, it $ent on to issue t%e or!er or entry o 0u!#(ent an! a $rit o e3ecution. PR 4 Pet. ,or /ertiorari 4 /* 5 R./ %a! no 0uris!iction an! PR $as not estoppe! ro( 6uestionin# t%e 0uris!iction o t%e lo$er court. ISSUES 1. WON THE CA GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT HELD THAT THE MTC HAD JURISDICTION

sufficient basis of estoppel. It coul! %ave -een t%e result o an %onest (ista1e, or o !iver#ent interpretations o !ou-t ul le#al provisions9:n!er t%e rules, it is t%e !uty o t%e court to !is(iss an action +$%enever it appears t%at t%e court %as no 0uris!iction over t%e su-0ect (atter.+ ;"ec. 2, Rule <, R)/= E((e*$ 1/en $/e C#")$ Rende) a J"d.,en$ W'$/#"$ J")'sd'*$'#n. "uc% 0u!#(ent (ay -e i(peac%e! or annulle! or lac1 o 0uris!iction ;"ec. 30, Rule 132, I-i!=, $it%in ten ;10= years ro( t%e inality o t%e sa(e. "ince a !ecision o a court $it%out 0uris!iction is null an! voi!, it coul! lo#ically never -eco(e inal an! e3ecutory, %ence appeal t%ere ro( -y $rit o error $oul! -e out o t%e 6uestion. Resort -y PR to a petition or certiorari -e ore t%e /* $as in or!er. 2. ANTONIO T. DONATO vs. CA G.R. No. 12<>38 - 'ece(-er 8, 2003 Petitioner ile! a co(plaint -e ore t%e 2e./-2anila or ,?:' a#ainst 43 na(e! !e en!ants an! @all un1no$n occupants@ o t%e su-0ect property. ,ollo$in# trial un!er t%e Rule on "u((ary Proce!ure, 2e./ rule! a#ainst t%e 23 non-ans$erin# !e en!ants, or!erin# t%e( to vacate t%e pre(ises. *s to t%e 20 PRs, 2e./ issue! a separate 0u!#(ent sustainin# t%eir ri#%ts un!er t%e Aan! Re or( Aa$, !eclarin# petitioners cause o action as not !uly $arrante! -y t%e acts an! circu(stances o t%e case an! !is(issin# t%e case $it%out pre0u!ice. Not satis ie! $it% t%e 0u!#(ent !is(issin# t%e co(plaint as a#ainst t%e PRs, petitioner appeale! to t%e R./ 4 sustaine! !ecision o 2./. /* !enie! Petitioners 2R. ISSUE WON THE CA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE O! DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LAC2 O! JURISDICTION IN UTTING A REMIUM ON TECHNICALITIES AT THE E3 ENSE O! A JUST RESOLUTION O! THE CASE YES.

error o 0uris!iction is one $%ere t%e act co(plaine! o $as issue! -y t%e court, o icer or a 6uasi-0u!icial -o!y $it%out or in e3cess o 0uris!iction, or $it% #rave a-use o !iscretion $%ic% is tanta(ount to lac1 or in e3cess o 0uris!iction. .%is error is correcti-le only -y t%e e3traor!inary $rit o certiorari. Ce)$'('*a$e #( N#n4!#)", S/#%%'n.5 Re6"')e,en$s. .%e re6uire(ent re#ar!in# t%e nee! or a certi ication o non- oru( s%oppin# in cases ile! -e ore t%e /* an! t%e correspon!in# sanction or non-co(pliance t%ereto are oun! in t%e t%en prevailin# Revise! /ircular No. 28-<1.22 '. Ra$'#nale !#) T/e R"le O( e)s#nal E7e*"$'#n O( T/e Ce)$'('*a$'#n B+ T/e e$'$'#ne) H',sel( . )nly t%e petitioner $%o %as actual 1no$le!#e o $%et%er or not %e %as initiate! si(ilar actions or procee!in#s in ot%er courts or tri-unalsC even counsel o recor! (ay -e una$are o suc% act. E((e*$ #( V'#la$'#n T/e)e#(. /ause or t%e su((ary !is(issal o t%e (ultiple petition or co(plaint. R"le #n S"8s$an$'al C#,%l'an*e Ma+ Be Ava'led O(. Decause t%e re6uire(ent o strict co(pliance $it% t%e rule re#ar!in# t%e certi ication o non- oru( s%oppin# si(ply un!erscores its (an!atory nature in t%at t%e certi ication cannot -e alto#et%er !ispense! $it% or its re6uire(ents co(pletely !isre#ar!e!, -ut it !oes not t%ere-y inter!ict su-stantial co(pliance $it% its provisions un!er 0usti ia-le circu(stances. 9. S S. RENE GON:AGA and LERIO GON:AGA vs. CA G.R. No. 14402& - 'ece(-er 2E, 2002 Petitioners ile! an *ction or Re or(ation o contract an! !a(a#es $it% t%e R./-Iloilo /ity or t%e re usal o PR Auc1y 8o(es, Inc. to re or( t%e contract o sale an! a ne$ ')" to -e e3ecute!. 'is(isse!. 7rit o ?3ecution ollo$e!. petitioners ile! an ur#ent (otion to recall $rit o e3ecution, alle#in# t%at t%e court a 6uo %a! no 0uris!iction to try t%e case as it $as veste! in t%e 8A:RD. Ai1e$ise, Petitioners ile! -e ore t%e /* petition or annul(ent o 0u!#(ent, pre(ise! on t%e #roun! t%at t%e trial court %a! no 0uris!iction to try an! !eci!e /ivil /ase No. 1E11&. 'enie! - relyin# (ainly on t%e 0urispru!ential !octrine o estoppel as lai! !o$n in t%e case o .i0a( vs. "i-on#%anoy. ISSUE WON CA ERRED IN DISMISSING THE ETITION BY A LYING THE RINCI LE O! ESTO EL; EVEN I! THE RTC HAD NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE SAID CIVIL CASE

''. '''.

Held NO. /* !iscusse! t%e acts on $%ic% its !ecision is #roun!e! as $ell as t%e la$ an! 0urispru!ence on t%e (atter. Its action $as neit%er $%i(sical nor capricious. 2. WON R WAS NOT ESTO ED !ROM ASSAILING THE JURISDICTION O! THE RTC A!TER HE HAD !ILED SEVERAL MOTIONS BE!ORE IT NOT ESTO ED.

Held

R"le #n Es$#%%el. 7%ile participation in all sta#es o a case -e ore t%e trial court, inclu!in# invocation o its aut%ority in as1in# or a ir(ative relie , e ectively -ars a party -y estoppel ro( c%allen#in# t%e court+s 0uris!iction, $e note t%at estoppel %as -eco(e an e6uita-le !e ense t%at is -ot% su-stantive an! re(e!ial an! its success ul invocation can -ar a ri#%t an! not (erely its e6uita-le en orce(ent. 8ence, estoppel ou#%t to -e applie! $it% caution. ,or estoppel to apply, t%e action #ivin# rise t%ereto (ust -e une6uivocal an! intentional -ecause, i (isapplie!, estoppel (ay -eco(e a tool o in0ustice. &"es$'#n #( J")'sd'*$'#n Ma+ Be Ra'sed A$ An+ T',e-S$a.e #( $/e A*$'#n. .%e un!a(ental rule is t%at, t%e lac1 o 0uris!iction o t%e court over an action cannot -e $aive! -y t%e parties, or even cure! -y t%eir silence, ac6uiescence or even -y t%eir e3press consent. ,urt%er, a party (ay assail t%e 0uris!iction o t%e court over t%e action at any sta#e o t%e procee!in#s an! even on appeal. Prece!ents tell us t%at as a GR, t%e 0uris!iction o a court is not a 6uestion o ac6uiescence as a (atter o act, -ut an issue o con er(ent as a (atter o la$. *lso, neit%er $aiver nor estoppel s%all apply to con er 0uris!iction upon a court, -arrin# %i#%ly (eritorious an! e3ceptional circu(stances Jav'e) vs. CA0 3 3 3 .%e point si(ply is t%at when a party commits error in filing his suit or proceeding in a court that lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same, such act may not at once be deemed

Held

L'$'.a$'#n Is N#$ A Ga,e O( Te*/n'*al'$'es . 7%en tec%nicality !eserts its unction o -ein# an ai! to 0ustice, t%e /ourt is 0usti ie! in e3e(ptin# ro( its operations a particular case. .ec%nical rules o proce!ure s%oul! -e use! to pro(ote, not rustrate 0ustice. 7%ile t%e s$i t unclo##in# o court !oc1ets is a lau!a-le o-0ective, #rantin# su-stantial 0ustice is an even (ore ur#ent i!eal. .%e rules on oru( s%oppin#, $%ic% $ere precisely !esi#ne! to pro(ote an! acilitate t%e or!erly a!(inistration o 0ustice, s%oul! not -e interprete! $it% suc% a-solute literalness as to su-vert its o$n ulti(ate an! le#iti(ate o-0ective $%ic% is si(ply to pro%i-it an! penaliBe t%e evils o oru(-s%oppin#. .%e su-se6uent ilin# o t%e certi ication !uly si#ne! -y t%e petitioner %i(sel s%oul! t%us -e !ee(e! su-stantial co(pliance, pro %ac vice. !"ll De$e),'na$'#n #( $/e Case Based #n Me)'$s. * ter ull opportunity to all parties or ventilation o t%eir causes an! !e enses, rat%er t%an on tec%nicality or so(e proce!ural i(per ections. In t%at $ay, t%e en!s o 0ustice $oul! -e -etter serve!. ;Repu-lic vs. /*= E))#) #( J"d.,en$ vs. E))#) #( J")'sd'*$'#n. *n error o 0u!#(ent is one $%ic% t%e court (ay co((it in t%e e3ercise o its 0uris!iction, an! $%ic% error is revie$a-le only -y an appeal. )n t%e ot%er %an!, an

Held DID NOT ERR. Pu-lic policy !ictates t%at t%is /ourt (ust stron#ly con!e(n any !ou-le-!ealin# -y parties $%o are !ispose! to tri le $it% t%e courts -y !eli-erately ta1in# inconsistent positions, in utter !isre#ar! o t%e ele(entary principles o 0ustice an! #oo! ait%.14 .%ere is no !enyin# t%at, in t%is case, petitioners never raise! t%e issue o 0uris!iction t%rou#%out t%e entire procee!in#s in t%e trial court. Instea!, t%ey voluntarily an! $illin#ly su-(itte! t%e(selves to t%e 0uris!iction o sai! court. It is no$ too late in t%e !ay or t%e( to repu!iate t%e 0uris!iction t%ey $ere invo1in# all alon#. E((e*$ #( A*$'ve %a)$'*'%a$'#n 'n $/e %)#*eed'n.s 'n $/e *#")$ 1/'*/ )ende)ed $/e #)de) #) de*'s'#n0 Ba) s"*/ %a)$+ ()#,

a$$a*<'n. '$s =")'sd'*$'#n. It %as -een %el! t%at a party cannot invo1e t%e 0uris!iction o a court to secure a ir(ative relie a#ainst %is opponent an!, a ter o-tainin# or ailin# to o-tain suc% relie , repu!iate, or 6uestion t%at sa(e 0uris!iction .%e 6uestion $%et%er t%e court %a! 0uris!iction eit%er o t%e su-0ect (atter o t%e action or o t%e parties $as not i(portant in suc% cases -ecause t%e party is -arre! ro( suc% con!uct not -ecause t%e 0u!#(ent or or!er o t%e court is vali! an! conclusive as an a!0u!ication, -ut or t%e reason t%at suc% a practice cannot -e tolerate! 44 o-viously or reasons o pu-lic policy Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy: @* party (ay -e estoppe! or -arre! ro( raisin# a 6uestion in !i erent $ays an! or !i erent reasons. .%us $e spea1 o estoppel in pais, or estoppel -y !ee! or -y recor!, an! o estoppel -y lac%es. >. ARNEL ESCOBAL vs. HON. !RANCIS GARCHITORENA G.R. No. 124>44 - ,e-ruary &, 2004 Petitioner, #ra!uate o P2* an! (e(-er o IG o PNP, $as c%ar#e! in R./-Na#a $it% (ur!er or t%e !eat% o one Nueca !urin# a surveillance operations on !ru# tra ic1in#. R./ 4 preventive suspension. Petitioner ile! (otion to 6uas% on t%e #roun! t%at t%e court (artial, not t%e R./, %a! 0uris!iction over cri(inal cases involvin# PNP (e(-ers an! o icers. Petitioner ile! 2otion to 'is(iss 4 ar#ue! t%at since %e co((itte! t%e cri(e in t%e per or(ance o %is !uties, t%e "an!i#an-ayan %a! e3clusive 0uris!iction over t%e case. 'enie!. R./ rule! t%at petitioner co((itte! t%e cri(e c%ar#e! $%ile not in t%e per or(ance o %is o icial unction. Aater, reverse! - in t%e per or(ance o %is !utiesF unctions or in relation to %is o ice 4 re(an!e! t%e case to "an!i#an-ayan. "D - R./ retaine! 0uris!iction over t%e case, consi!erin# t%at t%e petitioner %a! a salary #ra!e o @23.@ ISSUE WON THE RESIDING JUSTICE O! THE SB COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE O! HIS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO E3CESS OR LAC2 O! JURISDICTION IN ORDERING THE REMAND O! THE CASE TO THE RTC

.%e a(en!e! In or(ation ile! $it% t%e R./ a#ainst t%e petitioner !oes not contain any alle#ation s%o$in# t%e inti(ate relation -et$een %is o ice an! t%e !isc%ar#e o %is !uties. 8ence, t%e R./ %a! 0uris!iction over t%e o ense c%ar#e! $%en on Nove(-er 24, 1<<&, it or!ere! t%e re-a(en!(ent o t%e In or(ation to inclu!e t%erein an alle#ation t%at t%e petitioner co((itte! t%e cri(e in relation to o ice. .%e trial court erre! $%en it or!ere! t%e elevation o t%e recor!s to t%e "D. It -ears stressin# t%at R.*. No. E<E& a(en!in# P.'. No. 1>0> $as alrea!y in e ect. "8l'* O(('*e)s5 Sala)+ G)ade Bel#1 2?. ?ven i t%e o en!er co((itte! t%e cri(e c%ar#e! in relation to %is o ice -ut occupies a position correspon!in# to a salary #ra!e -elo$ @2E,@ t%e proper R./ or 2./, as t%e case (ay -e, s%all %ave e3clusive 0uris!iction over t%e case. Petitioner $as a Police "enior Inspector, $it% salary #ra!e @23.@ 8e $as c%ar#e! $it% %o(ici!e punis%a-le -y reclusion te(poral. 8ence, t%e R./ %a! e3clusive 0uris!iction over t%e cri(e c%ar#e! con or(a-ly to "ections 20 an! 32 o DP 12<, as a(en!e! -y "ection 2 o R.*. No. E><1. .%e petitioners contention t%at R.*. No. E<E& s%oul! not -e applie! retroactively %as no le#al -asis. It -ears stressin# t%at R.*. No. E<E& is a su-stantive proce!ural la$ $%ic% (ay -e applie! retroactively. @. ASIAAS EMERGING DRAGON COR ORATION vs.DOTC G.R. No. 1><<14 - *pril E, 200< ?ntitle(ent o PI*./) to 0ust an! e6uita-le consi!eration or its construction o N*I* IP. III an! t%e propriety o t%e Repu-lics resort to e3propriation procee!in#s /on#. Daterina ile! 2otion or Intervention -e ore t%e R./-Pasay or t%e issues5 o$ners%ip o .er(inal 3 an! t%e propriety o payin# 0ust co(pensation to PI*./) I,%#)$an*e #( a+,en$ #( D#*<e$ !ees. ,inally, t%e /ourt notes t%at /on#ress(an Daterina et.al. ;sic= never pai! ilin# ees or t%eir petition or pro%i-ition in intervention. .%is /ourt, t%ere ore, never o-taine! 0uris!iction over t%eir petition an! never ac6uire! 0uris!iction to per(it t%eir intervention..It is not si(ply t%e ilin# o t%e co(plaint or appropriate initiatory plea!in#, -ut t%e pay(ent o t%e prescri-e! !oc1et ees t%at vests a trial court $it% 0uris!iction over t%e su-0ect (atter or nature o t%e action. ;"erano v. 'elica= B. DEMOSTHENES . AGAN; JR.; vs. IATCO; MIAA AND DOTC G.R. No. 1&&001 - 2ay &, 2003 Petitioners an! petitioners-in-intervention ile! t%e instant petitions or pro%i-ition un!er Rule >& see1in# to pro%i-it t%e 2I** an! t%e ')./ an! its "ecretary ro( i(ple(entin# t%e ,, a#ree(ents e3ecute! -y t%e P%ilippine Govern(ent t%rou#% t%e ')./ an! t%e 2I** an! t%e PI*./)5 ;1= t%e /oncession *#ree(ent si#ne! on July 12, 1<<E, ;2= t%e *(en!e! an! Restate! /oncession *#ree(ent !ate! Nove(-er 2>, 1<<<, ;3= t%e ,irst "upple(ent to t%e *(en!e! an! Restate! /oncession *#ree(ent !ate! *u#ust 2E, 1<<<, ;4= t%e "econ! "upple(ent to t%e *(en!e! an! Restate! /oncession *#ree(ent !ate! "epte(-er 4, 2000, an! ;&= t%e .%ir! "upple(ent to t%e *(en!e! an! Restate! /oncession *#ree(ent !ate! June 22, 2001 ;collectively, t%e PI*./) /ontracts=.

ISSUE

WON THE SUBMISSION O! THIS CONTROVERSY TO THE SC AT THE !IRST INSTANCE IS A VIOLATION O! THE RULE ON HIERARCHY O! COURTS

Held NO. .%e rule on %ierarc%y o courts $ill not also prevent t%is /ourt ro( assu(in# 0uris!iction over t%e cases at -ar. .%e sai! rule (ay -e rela3e! $%en t%e re!ress !esire! cannot -e o-taine! in t%e appropriate courts or $%ere e3ceptional an! co(pellin# circu(stances 0usti y avail(ent o a re(e!y $it%in an! callin# or t%e e3ercise o t%is /ourt+s pri(ary 0uris!iction. E7*e%$'#n $# $/e R"le #n H'e)a)*/+ #( C#")$s. It is easy to !iscern t%at e3ceptional circu(stances e3ist in t%e cases at -ar t%at call or t%e rela3ation o t%e rule. Dot% petitioners an! respon!ents a#ree t%at t%ese *ases a)e #( $)ans*enden$al ',%#)$an*e as t%ey involve t%e construction an! operation o t%e country+s pre(ier international airport. 2oreover, t%e crucial issues su-(itte! or resolution are o (')s$ ',%)ess'#n an! t%ey entail t%e proper le#al interpretation o 1ey provisions o t%e /onstitution, t%e D). Aa$ an! its I(ple(entin# Rules an! Re#ulations. .%us, consi!erin# t%e nature o t%e controversy -e ore t%e /ourt, proce!ural -ars (ay -e lo$ere! to #ive $ay or t%e spee!y !isposition o t%e instant cases. ?. THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY NATIONAL vs. THE CITY MAYOR O! MANILA; HON. JOSE ATIEN:A; JR G.R. No. 1&4&<< - January 21, 2004 Ai#a ;national or#aniBation o all t%e -aran#ays in t%e P%ils, $%ic% pursuant to AG/, constitutes t%e !uly electe! presi!ents o %i#%lyur-aniBe! cities, provincial c%apters, t%e (etropolitan 2anila /%apter, an! (etropolitan political su-!ivision c%apters= sent respon!ent 2ayor o 2anila a letter re6uestin# %i( t%at sai! or!inance ;provi!in#, a(on# ot%er t%in#s, or t%e election o representatives o t%e 'istrict /%apters in t%e /ity /%apter o 2anila an! settin# t%e elections or -ot% c%apters t%irty !ays a ter t%e -aran#ay elections= -e vetoe! consi!erin# t%at it encroac%e! upon, or even assu(e!, t%e unctions o t%e Ai#a t%rou#% le#islation, a unction $%ic% $as clearly -eyon! t%e a(-it o t%e po$ers o t%e /ity /ouncil. 2ayor still si#ne! an! approve!. ISSUES VALIDITY O! THE BE!ORE THE SC ETITION !OR CERTIORARI !ILED

Held )es'd'n. J"s$'*e a*$ed 'n a**#)dan*e 1'$/ la1 and $/e )"l'n.s #( $/'s C#")$ 1/en /e #)de)ed $/e )e,and #( $/e *ase $# $/e RTC; $/e *#")$ #( #)'.'n. H#1 =")'sd'*$'#n #( $/e *#")$ #ve) *)','nal *ases 's de$e),'ned . Dy t%e alle#ations in t%e In or(ation or t%e /o(plaint an! t%e statute in e ect at t%e ti(e o t%e co((ence(ent o t%e action, unless suc% statute provi!es or a retroactive application t%ereo . .%e 0uris!ictional re6uire(ents (ust -e alle#e! in t%e In or(ation. "uc% 0uris!iction o t%e court ac6uire! at t%e inception o t%e case continues until t%e case is ter(inate!. E7*l"s've J")'sd'*$'#n #( $/e SB #ve) *)',es *#,,'$$ed 8+ %"8l'* #(('*e)s 'n )ela$'#n $# $/e') #(('*e. ?ssential t%at t%e acts s%o$in# t%e inti(ate relation -et$een t%e o ice o t%e o en!er an! t%e !isc%ar#e o o icial !uties (ust -e alle#e! in t%e In or(ation. It is not enou#% to (erely alle#e in t%e In or(ation t%at t%e cri(e c%ar#e! $as co((itte! -y t%e o en!er in relation to %is o ice -ecause t%at $oul! -e a conclusion o la$.

Held NOT VALID. *lt%ou#% t%e "/ %as *#n*"))en$ =")'sd'*$'#n $it% t%e R./ an! /* to issue $rits o /P2, 6uo $arranto, %a-eas corpus an! in0unction, t%is concurrence o 0uris!iction is not, %o$ever, to -e ta1en as accor!in# to parties see1in# any o t%e $rits an a-solute, unrestraine! ree!o( o c%oice o t%e court to $%ic% application t%ere or $ill -e !irecte!. H'e)a)*/+ #( C#")$s. 'eter(inative o t%e venue o appeals, an! also serves as a #eneral !eter(inant o t%e appropriate oru( or petitions or t%e e3traor!inary $rits. * !irect invocation o t%e "upre(e /ourts ori#inal 0uris!iction to issue t%ese $rits s%oul! -e allo$e! only $%en t%ere are special an! i(portant reasons t%ere or, clearly an! speci ically set out in t%e petition. .%us, $e s%all rea ir( t%e 0u!icial policy t%at t%is /ourt $ill not entertain !irect resort to it unless t%e re!ress !esire! cannot -e

o-taine! in t%e appropriate courts, an! e3ceptional an! co(pellin# circu(stances 0usti y t%e avail(ent o t%e e3traor!inary re(e!y o $rit o certiorari, callin# or t%e e3ercise o its pri(ary 0uris!iction. Re0 !#)", S/#%%'n.. ,oru(-s%oppin# e3ists $%ere t%e ele(ents o litis pen!entia are present or $%en a inal 0u!#(ent in one case $ill a(ount to res 0u!icata in t%e ot%er. Re6"'s'$es (#) L'$'s enden$'a $# E7's$. ;1= i!entity o parties, or at least suc% parties as are representin# t%e sa(e interests in -ot% actionsC ;2= i!entity o ri#%ts asserte! an! relie s praye! or, t%e relie s -ein# oun!e! on t%e sa(e actsC an! ;3= i!entity $it% respect to t%e t$o prece!in# particulars in t%e t$o cases, suc% t%at any 0u!#(ent t%at (ay -e ren!ere! in t%e pen!in# case, re#ar!less o $%ic% party is success ul, $oul! a(ount to res 0u!icata in t%e ot%er case. C. HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and EO LE G.R. No. 1>20&< - January 22, 2008 .%e renovation o GinBons 8all *nne3, upon $%ic% t%e Presi!ent #ave inancial assistance, aile! to (aterialiBe. "tu!ent councils $it%in t%e state university, ile! a co(plaint or 2alversation o Pu-lic ,un!s an! Property $it% t%e ) ice o t%e )(-u!s(an. .%e )(-u!s(an, a ter !ue investi#ation, oun! pro-a-le cause to in!ict petitioner an! %er -rot%er Ja!e Ian '. "erana or es$a(a. Petitioner (ove! to 6uas% t%e in or(ation. "%e clai(e! t%at t%e "an!i#an-ayan !oes not %ave any 0uris!iction over t%e o ense c%ar#e! or over %er person, in %er capacity as :P stu!ent re#ent. *s a stu!ent re#ent, s%e $as not a pu-lic o icer since s%e (erely represente! %er peers, in contrast to t%e ot%er re#ents $%o %el! t%eir positions in an e3 o icio capacity. "%e a!!se! t%at s%e $as a si(ple stu!ent an! !i! not receive any salary as a stu!ent re#ent. 'enie!. ISSUE CAN THE SANDIGANBAYAN TRY A GOVERNMENT SCHOLAR4ACCUSED; ALONG WITH HER BROTHER; O! SWINDLING GOVERNMENT !UNDSD

0uris!iction o t%e sai! court. Petitioner alls un!er t%e 0uris!iction o t%e "D as s%e is place! t%ere -y e3press provision o la$. C#,%ensa$'#n Is N#$ An Essen$'al Ele,en$ O( "8l'* O(('*e . *t (ost, it is (erely inci!ental to t%e pu-lic o ice. 'ele#ation o soverei#n unctions is essential in t%e pu-lic o ice. *n invest(ent in an in!ivi!ual o so(e portion o t%e soverei#n unctions o t%e #overn(ent, to -e e3ercise! -y %i( or t%e -ene it o t%e pu-lic (a1es one a pu-lic o icer E. LATINUM TOURS AND TRAVEL; INCOR ORATED vs. JOSE M. ANLILIO G.R. No. 1333>& - "epte(-er 1>, 2003 /onsoli!ation o a collection case ile! -y Panlilio a#ainst GalveB $it% application or 7rit o P* o t%e !ispute! 2anila Polo /lu- s%ares ;/ivil /ase No. <>-3>&= an! o a co(plaint or su( o (oney $it% !a(a#es ile! -y Platinu( a#ainst Pan *siatic .ravel /orporation an! its presi!ent Neli!a G. GalveB to collect pay(ent or t%e airline tic1ets $%ic% P*./ -ou#%t ro( it ;/ivil /ase No. <4-1>34=. ISSUE WON RTC4MA2ATI HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TRY CIVIL CASE NO. EB49B@ ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN JUDGE DIO2NOFS ORDER ALLOWING THE CONSOLIDATION O! THE 2 CASES WAS ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE; RTC BR. B2FS BASIS !OR AC&UIRING JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL CASE NO. EB49B@ WAS LI2EWISE E3TINGUISHED

J")'sd'*$'#n Ove) T/e e)s#n O( T/e ti(e %e iles %is co(plaintC

la'n$'(( is ac6uire! ro( t%e

J")'sd'*$'#n Ove) T/e e)s#n O( T/e De(endan$ is ac6uire! -y %is voluntary appearance in court an! %is su-(ission to its aut%ority, or -y t%e coercive po$er o le#al processes e3erte! over %is person. 1G. MANILA BAN2ERS LI!E INSURANCE COR ORATION vs. EDDY NG 2O2 WEI G.R. No. 13<E< - 'ece(-er 12, 2003 'elay in t%e !elivery o t%e con!o(iniu( unit -y t%e petitioner to t%e respon!ent. Respon!ent ile! $it% R./-2a1ati co(plaint or speci ic per or(ance an! !a(a#es. 2ean$%ile, !urin# t%e pen!ency o t%e case, respon!ent inally accepte! t%e con!o(iniu( unit an! on *pril 12, 1<<1, occupie! t%e sa(e. .%us, respon!ents cause o action %as -een li(ite! to %is clai( or !a(a#es. .rial court %el! petitioner lia-le or !a(a#es. /* a ir(e! ISSUE WON TRIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION

Held NONE. /o(plaints or speci ic per or(ance $it% !a(a#es -y a lot or con!o(iniu( unit -uyer a#ainst t%e o$ner or !eveloper alls un!er t%e e3clusive 0uris!iction o t%e HLURB. Re0 A*$'ve a)$'*'%a$'#n 'n $/e )#*eed'n.s. 7%ile it (ay -e true t%at t%e trial court is $it%out 0uris!iction over t%e case, petitioners active participation in t%e procee!in#s es$#%%ed it ro( assailin# suc% lac1 o it. 7e %ave %el! t%at it is an un!esira-le practice o a party participatin# in t%e procee!in#s an! su-(ittin# its case or !ecision an! t%en acceptin# t%e 0u!#(ent, only i avora-le, an! attac1in# it or lac1 o 0uris!iction, $%en a!verse. 8ere, petitioner aile! to raise t%e 6uestion o 0uris!iction -e ore t%e trial court an! /*. In e ect, petitioner con ir(e! an! rati ie! t%e trial courts 0uris!iction over t%is case. /ertainly, it is no$ in estoppel an! can no lon#er 6uestion t%e trial courts 0uris!iction. J")'sd'*$'#n #( SC 'n a e$'$'#n (#) Rev'e1 #n Ce)$'#)a)' "nde) R"le >@. Ai(ite! to revie$in# only errors o la$, not o act, unless t%e actual in!in#s -ein# assaile! are not supporte! -y evi!ence on recor! or t%e i(pu#ne! 0u!#(ent is -ase! on a (isappre%ension o acts. .%ese e3ceptions are not present %ere. 11. GSIS vs. EDUARDO M. SANTIAGO G.R. No. 1&&20> - )cto-er 28, 2003 'ecease! spouses Jose /. Hulueta an! "ole!a! Ra(os o-taine! various loans ro( !e en!ant G"I" ;P3,11E,000.00= secure! -y R?2 over parcels o lan!. .%e Huluetas aile! to pay t%eir loans to !e en!ant G"I" an! t%e latter oreclose! t%e R?2. Petitioner consoli!ate! o$ners%ip an! cause! t%e issuance o titles in its na(e over t%e su-0ect lots not$it%stan!in# t%at t%ese $ere e3pressly e3clu!e! ro( t%e oreclosure sale. *ntonio Gic Hulueta, represente! -y ?!uar!o 2. "antia#o, ile! $it% t%e R./-Pasi#, a co(plaint or reconveyance o real estate a#ainst t%e G"I". R./ ren!ere! 0u!#(ent a#ainst t%e petitioner or!erin# it to reconvey to t%e respon!ent. /* a ir(e!.

Held WITH JURISDICTION. "ince 0uris!iction is t%e po$er to %ear an! !eter(ine a particular case, it !oes not !epen! upon t%e re#ularity o t%e e3ercise -y t%e court o t%at po$er or on t%e correctness o its !ecisions. .%ere is no !ou-t t%at Panlilios collection case !oc1ete! as /ivil /ase No. <>-3>& alls $it%in t%e 0uris!iction o t%e R./ o 2a1ati, Dranc% >2. .%e act t%at t%e /* su-se6uently annulle! Ju!#e 'io1nos or!er #rantin# t%e consoli!ation o /ivil /ase No. <>-3>& an! /ivil /ase No. <4-1>34, !i! not a ect t%e 0uris!iction o t%e court $%ic% issue! t%e sai! or!er. J")'sd'*$'#n vs. E7e)*'se #( J")'sd'*$'#n. Juris!iction re ers to t%e aut%ority to !eci!e a case, not t%e or!ers or t%e !ecision ren!ere! t%erein. *ccor!in#ly, $%ere a court %as 0uris!iction over t%e person an! t%e su-0ect (atter, as in t%e instant case, t%e !ecision on all 6uestions arisin# ro( t%e case is -ut an e3ercise o suc% 0uris!iction. *ny error t%at t%e court (ay co((it in t%e e3ercise o its 0uris!iction is (erely an error o 0u!#(ent $%ic% !oes not a ect its aut%ority to !eci!e t%e case, (uc% less !ivest t%e court o t%e 0uris!iction over t%e case. J")'sd'*$'#n5 Na$")e. Juris!iction is t%e po$er an! aut%ority o t%e court to %ear, try an! !eci!e a case. In #eneral, 0uris!iction (ay eit%er -e over t%e nature o t%e action, over t%e su-0ect (atter, over t%e person o t%e !e en!ants or over t%e issues ra(e! in t%e plea!in#s. J")'sd'*$'#n Ove) T/e Na$")e O( T/e A*$'#n And S"8=e*$ Ma$$e) Is C#n(e))ed B+ La1. It is !eter(ine! -y t%e alle#ations o t%e co(plaint, irrespective o $%et%er or not t%e plainti is entitle! to recover upon all or so(e o t%e clai(s asserte! t%erein.

Held YES. "ection 4;*=;1=;#= o P.'. No. 1>0> e3plictly veste! t%e "an!i#an-ayan $it% 0uris!iction over Presi!ents, !irectors or trustees, or (ana#ers o G)//s, state universities or e!ucational institutions or oun!ations. A U S$"den$ Re.en$ Is A "8l'* O(('*e). .%e 1<8E /onstitution !oes not !e ine $%o are pu-lic o icers. Rat%er, t%e varie! !e initions an! concepts are oun! in !i erent statutes an! 0urispru!ence. * pu-lic o ice is t%e ri#%t, aut%ority, an! !uty create! an! con erre! -y la$, -y $%ic% or a #iven perio!, eit%er i3e! -y la$ or en!urin# at t%e pleasure o t%e creatin# po$er, an in!ivi!ual is investe! $it% so(e portion o t%e soverei#n unctions o t%e #overn(ent, to -e e3ercise -y %i( or t%e -ene it o t%e pu-lic. I$ Is N#$ Onl+ T/e Sala)+ G)ade T/a$ De$e),'nes T/e J")'sd'*$'#n O( T/e Sand'.an8a+an. .%e "D also %as 0uris!iction over ot%er o icers enu(erate! in P.'. No. 1>0>. In Geduspan v. People, 7e %el! t%at $%ile t%e irst part o "ection 4;*= covers only o icials $it% "alary Gra!e 2E an! %i#%er, its secon! part speci ically inclu!es ot%er e3ecutive o icials $%ose positions (ay not -e o "alary Gra!e 2E an! %i#%er -ut $%o are -y e3press provision o la$ place! un!er t%e

ISSUE

WON ETITIONER IS GUILTY O! BAD !AITH IN CONSOLIDATING OWNERSHI OVER THE !ORECLOSED RO ERTIES

Held IN BAD !AITH. .%e acts o G"I" in concealin# ro( t%e Huluetas It%e e3istence o t%ese lots, in ailin# to noti y or apprise t%e spouses Hulueta a-out t%e e3clu!e! lots ro( t%e ti(e it consoli!ate! its titles on t%eir oreclose! properties in 1<E&, in ailin# to in or( t%e( $%en it entere! into a contract o sale o t%e oreclose! properties to Jor1sto$n 'evelop(ent /orporation in 1<80 as $ell as $%en t%e sai! sale $as revo1e! -y t%en Pres. 2arcos !urin# t%e sa(e year !e(onstrate! a clear e ort on its part to !e rau! t%e spouses Hulueta an! appropriate or itsel t%e su-0ect properties. ?ven i titles over t%e lots %a! -een issue! in t%e na(e o t%e !e en!ant-appellant, still it coul! not le#ally clai( o$ners%ip an! a-solute !o(inion over t%e( -ecause in!e easi-ility o title un!er t%e .orrens syste( !oes not attac% to titles secure! -y rau! or (isrepresentation. .%e rau! co((itte! -y !e en!ant-appellant in t%e or( o conceal(ent o t%e e3istence o sai! lots an! ailure to return t%e sa(e to t%e real o$ners a ter t%eir e3clusion ro( t%e oreclosure sale (a!e !e en!ant-appellant %ol!ers in -a! ait%. It is $ell-settle! t%at a %ol!er in -a! ait% o a certi icate o title is not entitle! to t%e protection o t%e la$ or t%e la$ cannot -e use! as a s%iel! or rau!. J")'sd'*$'#n #( SC 'n a e$'$'#n (#) Rev'e1 #n Ce)$'#)a)' "nde) R"le >@. Ai(ite! to revie$in# only errors o la$. .%is /ourt is not a trier o acts. /ase la$ %as it t%at t%e in!in#s o t%e trial court especially $%en a ir(e! -y t%e /* are -in!in# an! conclusive upon t%is /ourt. *lt%ou#% t%ere are e3ceptions to t%e sai! rule, $e in! no reason to !eviate t%ere ro(. Dy assailin# t%e in!in#s o acts o t%e trial court as a ir(e! -y t%e /*, t%at it acte! in -a! ait%, t%e petitioner t%ere-y raise! 6uestions o acts in its petition. 12. GEORGE 2ATON vs. MANUEL ALANCA JR G.R. No. 1&114< - "epte(-er E, 2004 Petitioner sou#%t to nulli y t%e %o(estea! patents an! ori#inal certi icates o title issue! in avor o t%e respon!ents coverin# certain portions o t%e "o(-rero Islan! as $ell as t%e reconveyance o t%e $%ole islan! in %is avor. .%e petitioner clai(s t%at %e %as t%e e3clusive ri#%t to ile an application or %o(estea! patent over t%e $%ole islan! since it $as %e $%o re6ueste! or its conversion ro( orest lan! to a#ricultural lan!. R./ !is(isse!. /* a ir(e! -ecause o prescription an! lac1 o 0uris!iction - , %e $as alrea!y -arre! -y lac%es or %avin# slept on %is ri#%t or al(ost 23 years ro( t%e ti(e Respon!ent Palancas title %a! -een issue!. ISSUE WON THE CA ERRONEOUSLY INVO2ED ITS HRESIDUAL REROGATIVESI UNDER SEC. 1 RE WHEN IT MOTU RO RIO DISMISSED THE ETITION !OR LAC2 O! JURISDICTION AND RESCRI TION

.%e /*s (otu proprio !is(issal o petitioners /o(plaint coul! not %ave -een -ase!, t%ere ore, on resi!ual 0uris!iction un!er Rule 41. :n!enia-ly, suc% or!er o !is(issal $as not one or t%e protection an! preservation o t%e ri#%ts o t%e parties, pen!in# t%e !isposition o t%e case on appeal. 7%at t%e /* re erre! to as resi!ual prero#atives $ere t%e #eneral resi!ual po$ers o t%e courts to !is(iss an action (otu proprio upon t%e #roun!s (entione! in "ection 1 o Rule < an! un!er aut%ority o "ection 2 o Rule 114. Res'd"al )e)#.a$'ves #( $/e CA. Se*$'#n 1 #( R"le E . 'e enses an! o-0ections not plea!e! eit%er in a (otion to !is(iss or in t%e ans$er are !ee(e! $aive!, e3cept $%en ;1= lac1 o 0uris!iction over t%e su-0ect (atter, ;2= litis pen!entia, ;3= res 0u!icata an! ;4= prescription are evi!ent ro( t%e plea!in#s or t%e evi!ence on recor!. In t%e our e3cepte! instances, t%e court s%all (otu proprio !is(iss t%e clai( or action Res'd"al J")'sd'*$'#n #( $)'al *#")$s #ve) *ases a%%ealed $# $/e CA. Se*$'#n E #( R"le >1. *vaila-le at a sta#e in $%ic% t%e court is nor(ally !ee(e! to %ave lost 0uris!iction over t%e case or t%e su-0ect (atter involve! in t%e appeal. .%is sta#e is reac%e! upon t%e per ection o t%e appeals -y t%e parties or upon t%e approval o t%e recor!s on appeal, -ut prior to t%e trans(ittal o t%e ori#inal recor!s or t%e recor!s on appeal. In eit%er instance, t%e trial court still retains its so-calle! resi!ual 0uris!iction to issue protective or!ers, approve co(pro(ises, per(it appeals o in!i#ent liti#ants, or!er e3ecution pen!in# appeal, an! allo$ t%e $it%!ra$al o t%e appeal. 19. ROMULO !. ECSON vs. COMELEC; DILG AND LYNDON A. CUNANAN G.R. No. 1828>& - 'ece(-er 24, 2008 ?lection contest -et$een Pecson an! /unanan, t%e proclai(e! $inner in t%e 200E (ayoralty election in 2a#alan#, Pa(pan#a. Pecson ile! an election protest $it% t%e R./ 4 a ir(ative. /unanan ile! Notice o *ppeal. .%e R./ #rante! Pecson+s (otion or e3ecution pen!in# appeal via a "pecial )r!er. ISSUE WON COMELEC ERRED IN NULLI!YING THE RTCFS S ECIAL ORDER IN A MANNER SU!!ICIENTLY GROSS TO A!!ECT ITS E3ERCISE O! JURISDICTION

Held DID NOT ERR. 7%ere prescription, lac1 o 0uris!iction or ailure to state a cause o action clearly appear ro( t%e co(plaint ile! $it% t%e trial court, t%e action (ay -e !is(isse! (otu proprio -y t%e /ourt o *ppeals, even i t%e case %as -een elevate! or revie$ on !i erent #roun!s. Gerily, t%e !is(issal o suc% cases appropriately en!s useless liti#ations.

S-ar putea să vă placă și