Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Brondial's lecture
by: Gretch
yong sa marine mamals represented sya ng owners. Kasi sa enviromental law ito.
As to the nature:
1. Original the court take cognizance for the first time.
Exclusive:
Concurrent:
2. Appellate second time to bring a case. That court execises the jurisdiction in
its appellate.
Exclusive Original
Exclusive Appellate
Agam vs. PIATCO, Liga ng mga Barangay vs. Atienza, these are cases on
concurrent jurisdiction and many others.
Case Doctrine: There is a latest case decided in June 2013, Pat-og vs. Civil
Service Commission. Yan ang latest sa concurrent jurisdiction. May isang
teacher ditto, highschool teacher. Mayroong mga studyante na may PE
class. Yung isang class na may PE rin, together with the other class, may
teacher. Yung mga studyante, sumama doon. Sabi ng teacher, di naman
kayo dito. May 1 studyanteng pasaway. Ang ginawa ng teacher, sinikmuraan
nya yung bata. Nagreklamo yung bata. Saan nagreklamo? Civil Service
Commission Cordillera Chapter. In short, natalo yung teacher. Dismissal
yung penalty according to the rule. Only that it was reduced later on. But
the issue here regarding concurrent jurisdiction, is the fact that the issue on
jurisdiction was contested on appeal saying that it should have been filed
with the Department of Education. The Supreme Court held that the Civil
Service Commission AND the Department of Education HAVE concurrent
jurisdiction over cases involving PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS.
Residual Prerogative
Residual prerogatives is different from residual jurisdiction. Residual
prerogative is the authority of the appellate court to dismiss a case motu
propio. So the appellate court can dismiss a case motu propio and that is
emphasizing residual prerogatives. Basis? Caton vs. Palanca, that is the
case. But you can also use Tecson vs. COMELEC.
Where do you find dismissal of a case motu propio allowed? That is only
allowed under Sec. 3 of Rule 17, dismissal of actions. 3 lang ang grounds
nyan
1) failure to present evidence for unreasonable period of time,
2) failure to appear at the presentation of evidence in chief and
3) failure to comply either any order of the cour
Primary jurisdiction
This primary jurisdiction as early as Omictin vs. CA, refers to the jurisdiction
of quasi-judicial bodies in taking cognizance of administrative cases.
Regular courts cannot take cognizance of certain case unless, it has been
taken cognizance of these administrative cases. Halimbawa, under PD 1957,
ito yung mga subdivisions. You are a subdivision lot buyer and buimili ka sa
developer. Nagkaron kayo ng problema. You cannot file that to the regular
court. You have to file that with the HLURB in the exercise of the primary
jurisdiction. In other words, you cannot go directly to the regular courts
without having exhausted administrative remedies. That is the usual and
ordinary regular concept of primary jurisdiction. Primary jurisdiction
therefore is the authority of administrative bodies to take
cognizance of certain cases before it can be brought to the regular
courts.
New rule by virtue of MOA. They have agreed that all cases cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of their original jurisdiction
must be investigated by means of preliminary investigation by the
Office of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his primary jurisdiction.
So that even if a case is already being investigated by the DOJ for
Preliminary Investigation, at any time, in the course of proceeding,
the Ombudsman can take it out from the DOJ and conduct the
investigation. Bago yan ha. Because doctrinally, the DOJ and the
Ombudsman have concurrent jurisdiction to conduct Preliminary
Investigation in cases cognizable by the SB
In the case of Garchitorena vs. Escobal. Remember 3 possible questions
1) WHAT offense was committed?
who committed the offense? Any public officer with a salary grade of 27
2) WHO committed the offense?
3) HOW was it committed.
Illustration:
An action for sum of money. It is a personal action. When you file an action
for a collection of sum of money, the court must acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant. But if the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant because the defendant has already left for
abroad, halimbawa, and the defendant has to have properties located in the
Philippines, the court must acquire jurisdiction over the properties of the
defendant. And once the court acquires jurisdiction over the property of the
defendant, then, the case can continue even if the court was not able to
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
And how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the properties of the defendant?
Through Rule 57Attachment
There are certain cases incidentally that the res in not an object per se. the
subject matter or the object of the action or status of the person.
Halimbawa, annulment of marriage. The subject matter there is the
marriage and the object is the status of the person.and it happens that the
defendant lives abroad. So, do you have to acquire jurisdiction over the
status? YES. And how? You go now to the other mode of service of
summons, particularly Sec. 15 and 16 of Rule 14. But still, the principle
there, while the court does not have jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant acquires jurisdiction over the res. And the res there is the status
of the persons. Status dyan ay married.
Illustrations:
Rule 70. Unlawful detainer and forcible entry. You very well know that
the only issue in unlawful detainer and forcible entry is possession de facto.
Ownership is not an issue in forcible entry and unlawful detainer. It is only
possession and not ownership and now these are 2 different matters.
Possession is not ownership and vice versa. So when one files a case of
unlawful detainer the court automatically acquires jurisdiction over the
parties of the action. But if you try to look at Sec. 16 of Rule 70, it says there
that when the issue of ownership is raised in the pleading the court is not
divested by its jurisdiction and must resolve on the issue of ownership. Only
to resolve the issue of possession. In other words, if the issue of possession
is never raised in the pleadings, the court has no jurisdiction over the issue
of ownership. It is only when it is raised in the pleading that the courts
acquire jurisdiction and in fact even goes further that the court is bound to
render a decision on the issue of ownership but not to resolve it with finality
but only in connection with the issue of possession. Remember that the
decision of the court as to the issue of ownership in an unlawful detainer
case is not a subject of res judicata. In other words, can you still file a case
of accion reinvindicatoria? YES, because the issue there on ownership in
unlawful detainer is only to resolve the issue on possession.
Case Doctrines:
Alday vs. FGU docket fees are required only are the permissive
countercliams. Not only sa initiaory pleading. On appeal klangan din ng
docket fees. Not equated to filing fees only, all other fess din.
Proton vs. BNP the principle of lineincy was applied bec. It was not the
error of the plaintiff. Per com. Of the clerk of court, later on it was found out
of docket fess it was already out of time. Pero not fault of the plaintiff.
Rubi Shelters
SLU vs. Cobarubias Appeal ito. Si Cobarubias employee ng SLU. Terminated
sya. CA said you have not paid the docket fees. Kelangan ba ng docket fees
sa labor case? Sa Coba paid. SLU, prescribed na yan. Bec. The non- payment
did not toll the running of prescriptioin. The Sc the court did not acquire
jurisdciton bec. Of the non-payment of the docket fees.
Gipa vs. SLI Sli files againt Gipa, recovery of property. SLI won sa RTC of
sorsogon. Gipa appaled by mail. Then pinadal yong pera. Sa CA timely
namn bbut the CA said kulang ang docket fees. Kulang 30 pesos research
fee ito. SC did not acuire jurisdiciton bec. The payment is incorrect.
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?
1. by valid service of summons
2. by voluntary appearance.
Wag nyong sabihing service of summons ha, always write it down
VALID service of summons. Wag nyo ng sabihin appeanrace, it must
be VOLUNTARY appearance.
this is settled already. When you enter special appeanrce for the
purpose of questioning jurisdiction, there is NO voluntary appeanrace.
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over C, the person of the co-defendant?
SAME with the defedant.
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the 3rd/4th/5th party defendant?
SAME
How doe sthe court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the intervenor?
You have to qualify
You have to file a motion for leave to intervene. Upon approval of the
motion for leave to intervene.
BUT what if it is capable of pecuniary estimation? When the pleadings and the
prayer in the complaint asks for money?
Look at the jurisdictional amount
1. P300,000 and above or above P300,000 outside Metro
Manila (RTC),
2. above P400,000 within Metro Manila (RTC).
If the conjunction is OR then it is capable of pecuniary estimation.
But if the conjunction is AND in the prayer then it is only incidental
to the principal action which is not measurable in terms of money and
therefore, not capable of pecuniary estimation
In actions for sum of money. Ano ang determinant? The amount. But
take note the exclusionary clause. Exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind and attorneys fees. So if the claim, for example, is
P250,000 as principal obligation, P50,000 moral damages, P50,000
exemplary damages, P50,000 attorneys fees. So P450,000 na yun.
Which court now has jurisdiction? It is still the MTC because of the
exclusionary clause.
A files a case aginst B for P250,000 but before he filed the case, he
wrote a demand letter to B saying, O, meron din akong moral
damages dyan. Im also asking from you exemplary damages. And if
ever you will not pay, I will be forced to hire a counsel and I
will be charging you P50,000. (there is contract) And he is in the
province, outside of Metro Manila. So the total claim is P400,000. And
so he made that demand letter. And B said, Ok, Im going to pay
that. (meeting of the minds) However, he did not pay his obligation
based on that and his conformity. So he filed now an action. The
principal action is P250,00 moral damages is P50,000, exemplary
damages is P50,000, attorneys fees is P50,000 or a total of P400,000
outside of Metro Manila. He filed that with the RTC. And then the
defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter because the principal claim is only
P250,000. What is your decision? Will the case be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction? NO. Because in that particular case, what was actually
filed was NOT for sum of money but for breach of contract. Therefore,
it is already INCAPABLE of pecuniary estimation. What Im trying to tell
you is dont be misled by the basic principle without going to the
presentation of the problem.
Settlement of estate. The jurisdiction now depends on the GROSS VALUE of the estate.
Jurisdictional amount pa rin. P300,000 or P400,000 above or below, as the case may be.
So if the gross of the estate is P300,000 then MTC(outisdie MM) above P300,000 -
RTC. Witin MM, If it is above P400,000 then RTC, P400,000 below , MTC.
In all cases of unlawful detainer and forcible entry are exclusively and
originally cognizable by the MTC. You know the requirements to file an
unlawful detainer? There must be a demand to pay AND vacate.
But the plaintiff filed the case more than one year from the demand, so it is no
longer and accion interdictal but already accion publiciana. For a long, long time,
it has been settled that every accion publiciana is cognizable by the RTC. That no
longer holds. Hindi na po yan. As early as about 5 years ago. Vda. De Barreira
doctrine. And that has been reiterated in recent cases that accion publiciana is
not automatically cognizable by the RTC. It all depends now on the ASSESSED
VALUE. So that is another provision thereany action involving title to or
possession pf property, the jurisdiction is determined by the ASSESSED VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY.
P20,000 and P50,000. Less than P20,000 outside Metro Manila, less
than P50,000 within Metro Manila (MTC), above that RTC.
When the MTC dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction and the
dismissal is appealed to the RTC, and the RTC in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction has, in fact, jurisdiction over the case, shall not
dismiss it but shall assume the case as if it has been originally filed
with it.
Probate Proceedings:
When is it considered under summary procedure and when is it covered under the
regular procedure? The key amount is P200,000 within Metro Manila, P100,000
outside Metro ManilaSUMMARY PROCEDURE yan.
Exceptions.
1. If the party is a government official, whether provincial or national
1. If a party is a juridical person, a corporation, there is no need for
barangay conciliation proceeding.
1. And if the party is a resident of a separate or a different municipality
or city
Exception to the exceptionUnless, the barangays in which these 2 residentcities
or municiplaities are adjacent to each other
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
Special Jurisdction of the lower court in handling pets for bail and HB in the
absence of RTC judges.
Limited jurisdiction is the juris' of the court specif subject matter, like a probate
court. Unlawful dtainer, sa MTC
Primary Jurisdcition Ominting vs. CA reers to the juris o fthe quasi judicial in
handling asministratibe pursuant to the priniple exhasituion od administrative
ramedy.