JURISDICTION IN GENERAL

The word JURISDICTION is derived from 2 Latin words: 1.) JURIS – law; 2.) DICO –
to speak, or to say. So, in effect, when you say jurisdiction, literally translated, it means,
“I speak by the law.” It means that you are saying “I speak with authority” because when
you invoke the law, then your act is authorized. Even in old times when the
representatives of the king or the sovereign will try to arrest somebody or will try to
enter your house, they open up in the name of the law. They will always invoke “in the
name of the law.”

So when you say, “I speak by the law” I will do it in the name of the law. It connotes
authority or power. You cannot be wrong. How can you be wrong if you are doing it in
the name of the law? So more or less jurisdiction simply means authority or power. So
more or less that is the whole concept of jurisdiction. It simply means authority or
power. That is precisely what jurisdiction is all about.

JURISDICTION simply means the power of the court to hear try and decide a case.
In its complete aspect, jurisdiction includes not only the powers to hear and decide a
case, but also the power to enforce the judgment. (14 Am. Jur. 363-364)

Q: What is the effect if the court has no jurisdiction?

A: If a court has no jurisdiction, it has no power or authority to try a case and that is
a concept you already know in Criminal Procedure. Without jurisdiction, the trial is null
and void as well as the judgment.

Let’s go to a criminal case. Can you file an information for murder before the MTC?
Or can you file an information for slight physical injuries before the RTC? There is
something wrong there. If a slight physical injury case is filed against you in the RTC,
what will you do? If I’m the lawyer of the accused why will I allow my client to be
arraigned and to be tried when everything is null and void. Kapoy-kapoy lang ako. So
I’ll file a motion to quash under Rule 117. That’s the same thing in civil cases. If you file a
civil case before a court that has no jurisdiction, then it can be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.

JURISDICTION vs. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Now, let us not confuse jurisdiction with certain terms related to it.

Q: Distinguish jurisdiction from exercise of jurisdiction.

A: The authority to decide a case, not the decision rendered, is what makes up
jurisdiction. It does not depend upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon
the rightfulness of the decision made. Where there is jurisdiction over of the person and
subject matter, the resolution of all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise
of jurisdiction. (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25 Phil. 245)

In other words, JURISDICTION is the authority. If I have no authority, I cannot act.

And if I have authority, I can act. Now, if the court has authority, it will try the case and
render judgment.
 Now, what the court will do later, like try the case and render judgment is merely an
EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION. So the trial and judgment are all products of the
exercise of jurisdiction. You cannot talk of exercise without having first the authority. It is
a useless procedure when you say “I will exercise something which I do not have.”

Q: Why is it important to distinguish jurisdiction from exercise of jurisdiction?

A: Definitely, a court acting as such may commit errors or mistakes. That is why the
action of the court can be questioned later in a higher court. A court can commit an error
which is either an error of jurisdiction or an error of judgment.

EXAMPLE: A case of murder was filed in the MTC. The accused, Ken Sur, files a
motion to quash because MTC has no jurisdiction over cases of murder. Eh, ‘yong judge
iba man ‘yong libro niya, “No, I have jurisdiction.” So the court denied the motion to
quash. Meaning, the judge has decided to assume jurisdiction. So, meaning from the
very start mali na. Now what do you call that? When the court without authority
assumes authority over the case that is called ERROR OF JURISDICTION – the court
committed an error of jurisdiction.

EXAMPLE: Suppose the case for murder is filed in the RTC where the court has
jurisdiction. So walang mali, everything is correct. But in the course of the trial, you
cannot avoid mistakes being committed like for example, the court misinterpreting the
provision of the RPC saying that this is a requirement, this is not a requirement for the
crime. Meaning misapplication or misinterpretation of the RPC as well as
misinterpretation of the rules of evidence – wrong interpretation of the law. And the
accused was convicted but actually tingin mo mali man ito, di ba! Under the law, this
elements was not considered or this element was considered as present. Do you say the
decision of the judge is null and void? NO, the judgment is valid kaya lang mali. So, you
do not say the court committed an error in the exercise of jurisdiction, and that is called
an ERROR OF JUDGMENT. And that was also asked in the bar.

ERROR OF JURISDICTION vs. ERROR OF JUDGMENT

BAR QUESTION: Distinguish ERRORS OF JURISDICTION from ERRORS OF

JUDGMENT.
A: The following are the distinctions:
When a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter, the decision or order
on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction;
Errors which the court may commit in the exercise of such jurisdiction are
merely ERRORS OF JUDGMENT; whereas,
When a court takes cognizance of a case over the subject matter of which it
has no jurisdiction, the court commits an ERROR OF JURISDICTION.

ERRORS OF JURISDICTION are reviewable by certiorari; whereas,

ERRORS OF JUDGMENT are reviewable by appeal.

Meaning, when a court has no jurisdiction but insists in handling the case, that is a
mistake by the trial court. It is called an error of jurisdiction.
 Now, suppose a court has jurisdiction over the case but the decision is wrong – it
applied the wrong provision of the law, or interpretation of evidence. This is not an error
of jurisdiction because the court has authority. But in the exercise of its jurisdiction, it
committed several errors. This is now what you call an error of judgment.

Q: What is the use of distinguishing error of jurisdiction from error of judgment?

A: The difference is in the remedy taken. Actually, it is still an error. If it is an error, it
can be corrected by a higher court. The importance, however, as we will see later, is that
there is a definite procedure for correcting a mistake and other procedures which we will
know later where the court commits an error of judgment and an error of jurisdiction.

In error of judgment, if the judgment is wrong, it is a valid judgment. Your remedy is

to APPEAL the wrong judgment to a higher court. But when a court commits an error of
jurisdiction, where it insists on handling a case when it has no authority, I can question
its actuation not necessarily by appeal, but by resorting to “extraordinary remedies,”
which refer to the remedy of CERTIORARI or PROHIBITION. (Araneta vs.
Commonwealth Ins. Co., L-11584, April 28, 1958; Nocon vs. Geronimo, 101 Phil. 735)

The principle came out in the bar. This error should have been raised on ordinary
appeal, not by certiorari because certiorari is only confined to correcting errors of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The governing rule is that the remedy of
certiorari is not available when the remedy of appeal is available. And when the remedy
of appeal is lost, you cannot revive it by resorting to certiorari because certiorari is not a
substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.

So, the remedies given by the law are different. These are basic terms which you
should remember.

Q: In whom is jurisdiction is vested?

A: Jurisdiction is vested with the court, not in the judge. A court may have several
branches, and each is not a court distinct and separate from the others. So, when a case is
filed before a branch, the trial may be had or proceedings may continue before another
branch or judge. (Tagumpay vs. Moscoso, L-14723, May 29, 1959)

EXAMPLE: The RTC of Davao is composed of several branches – eleven to twelve

judges. But technically, there is only one court – the RTC of Davao. We do not consider
branches as separate courts.

Q: Now, if the case is filed and is assigned to Branch 8, can that case later be
transferred and continued in Branch 9?
A: Ah YES, because you never leave the same court. You are still in the same court.
This is because jurisdiction is not with the judge. It is with the court itself.

TYPES OF JURISDICTION:

Types of jurisdiction:
General Jurisdiction and Special or Limited Jurisdiction;
 Original Jurisdiction and Appellate Jurisdiction; and
Exclusive Jurisdiction and Concurrent or Coordinate Jurisdiction;

1. GENERAL JURISDICTION and SPECIAL OR LIMITED JURISDICTION

GENERAL JURISDICTION is the authority of the court to hear and determine

all actions and suits, whether civil, criminal, administrative, real, personal or
mixed. It is very broad – to hear and try practically all types of cases. (14 Am.
Jur. 249; Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)

SPECIAL or LIMITED JURISDICTION is the authority of the court to hear

and determine particular cases only. Its power is limited. (14 Am. Jur. 249;
Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)

So, the court is authorized to hear and try certain specified cases.
Limitado pa ang power niya. And when you go over the Judiciary Act,
studying the jurisdiction of the different courts, in civil cases you will
see that the jurisdiction of some courts like the RTC, masyadong far
ranging. It covers many things whereas the jurisdiction of the MTC,
makipot. Very narrow bah because it is a court of limited or special
jurisdiction.

2. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION and APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION is the power of the court to take cognizance of a

case at its inception or commencement. (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd Ed., pp.
91 and 917) One can file the case there for the first time.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION is the power vested in a superior court to

review and revise the judicial action of a lower court. (Ballentine’s Law Dict.,
2nd Ed., pp. 91 and 917) If one court has the power to correct the decision of a
lower court, the power of this court is appellate. This is because it
commenced somewhere else and it is just reviewing the decision of the said
lower court.

EXAMPLE: Maya Quitain will file a civil case in the RTC and that
court will take cognizance and try it. You are invoking the original
jurisdiction of the RTC. After trial, Maya lost the case, so Maya decided
to appeal the decision of the RTC to the CA. The case is now there. It is
now in the CA and you are now invoking its appellate jurisdiction.

3. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION and CONCURRENT OR COORDINATE

JURISDICTION

EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION is that possessed by a court to the exclusion of

all others.
 Q: Sugar JJ filed a collection case against John Vera, for an unpaid
loan of P5,000. The judiciary law says, if you file a civil case to collect an
unpaid loan below P200,000, you should file it with the MTC. Can
Sugar JJ file it in the RTC?
A: NO. Therefore the jurisdiction of the MTC is EXCLUSIVE. It does
not share its power with other courts.

CONCURRENT or COORDINATE JURISDICTION is that possessed by the

court together with another or other courts over the same subject matter, the
court obtaining jurisdiction first retaining it to the exclusion of the others, but
the choice of court is lodged in those persons duly authorized to file the
action. (Villanueva vs. Ortiz, 58 O.G. 1318, Feb. 12, 1962)

Example: Thaddeus Tangkad wants to file a case or petition in court.

Then, he looks at the law and the law says that you can file it in this
court or, kung ayaw mo diyan, puwede din dito, diyan or doon –
Thaddeus Tangkad can file it in this court or in other courts. Therefore,
he has the right to choose where to file. So if Thaddeus files it in court
#2, and it assumes now jurisdiction, out na ang court #1 and court #3. If
he files it in court #3, out na yong #1 and #2. Now this is what you call
CONCURRENT jurisdiction because you can file the case in two courts
or more at your choice.

Now, last time we were classifying courts and you learned that the
SC is meron palang original jurisdiction. Ito palang CA also has original
jurisdiction. Ang RTC obviously is more of an original court than an
appellate court.

Q: Are there certain types of cases or petitions where I can file it

directly with the SC or file with the CA or file it with the RTC?
A: YES and the best example is a petition for HABEAS CORPUS.
The SC, CA and RTC share concurrent jurisdiction to entertain petitions
for habeas corpus. Makapili ka. I-file mo SC, puwede. Kung gusto mo
sa CA, puwede din. Kung i–file mo sa RTC, puwede. In effect, these are
the instances when the SC, CA and RTC exercise concurrent
jurisdiction.

ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES

In your study of criminal procedure where you also studied the law on jurisdiction,
there are also some elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases. Otherwise, the proceeding
will be illegal. Jurisdiction over the subject matter; Jurisdiction over the person of the
accused; and the third is territorial jurisdiction, i.e. the case should be filed in the place
where the crime was committed. In civil cases meron din iyong counterpart.

Q: What are the elements of jurisdiction in civil cases?

 A: The following:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter ;
Jurisdiction over the person of the parties to the case;
Jurisdiction over the res; and
Jurisdiction over the issues.

Q: Now, what happens if in a particular case one of these is missing?

A: The proceedings become questionable. The proceedings become void. The
judgment is not binding. That is the effect of lack of jurisdiction. The proceedings are
tainted with illegality and irregularity. Alright, let’s go over them one by one.

A. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Q: Define jurisdiction over the subject matter.

A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power of the court to hear and
determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belongs.
(Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)

In other words, it is the jurisdiction over the nature of the action. Now, you know
already the various types of civil cases such as actions for nullity of marriage, action
publiciana, action reivindicatoria, etc. This is what we call the NATURE OF THE
ACTION.

Now, if the nature of the subject matter of the action, e.g. annulment of marriage,
where will you file it? It should not be filed in the wrong court or else it will be
dismissed. The counterpart of that in Criminal law is e.g. offenses punishable by death
penalty cannot be tried with the MTC. Annulment cases should be filed in the RTC
otherwise it will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter acquired or conferred?

A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is never acquired by
consent or submission of the parties or by their laches. This is a matter of legislative
enactment which none but the legislature can change. (MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil.
523; Otibar vs. Vinson, L-18023, May 30, 1962) It cannot be acquired by an agreement
between the parties, waiver, failure to object (silence).

Q: Now, suppose I want to file a case against you and under the law that should be
filed in the RTC. But both of us believe that the judges of the MTC like Judge Cañete
knows more, he is more competent than the other judge there. “Maganda siguro dito na
lang tayo sa MTC.” “O sige, we sign an agreement, magpirmahan tayo that we will file
the case by agreement in the MTC.” By agreement, doon sa MTC natin i-file. Did the
MTC acquire jurisdiction over the case because the parties agreed?
A: NO, agreements between parties cannot change the law. Jurisdiction is conferred
by law, not by agreements of the parties. Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be
agreed upon. It is acquired by or conferred to the court by law – either the Constitution
or the Judiciary Law. The parties cannot agree to have the case submitted to another
court.

Q: Now, suppose I will file a case against you in a wrong court. Ikaw naman hindi ka
kumibo. Actually what you should do there is file a motion to dismiss (or in criminal
cases a motion to quash.) But hindi ka nagkibo “Sige lang. I will not complain.” So is it
okey? Since you did not object, you did not file a motion to dismiss, you did not file a
motion to quash, did the ‘wrong’ court acquired jurisdiction over the case?
A: NO. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by silence of the parties or by waiver.
Estoppel or waiver or silence or failure to object cannot vest jurisdiction in the wrong
court because jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. And when the
court has no jurisdiction, the court by itself has the power to dismiss, “Why will I
burden myself for trying a case, when I have no jurisdiction?”

The ONLY exception is when there is estoppel by laches, as laid down in tile TIJAM
vs. SIBONGHANOY (April 15, 1968). The issue of jurisdiction was not questioned for an
unreasonable length of time. BUT the rule is, it can be raised at any stage of the
proceeding even for the first time on appeal. And even the parties may not raise it, the
court motu propio has the authority to dismiss it.

Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter determined?

A: It is determined by the allegations of the complaint. It does not depend upon the
pleas or defenses of the defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss. (Cardenas vs.
Camus, L-19191, July 30, 1962; Edward J. Nell Co. vs. Cubacub, L-20842, June 23, 1965;
Serrano vs. Muñoz Motors, L-25547, Nov. 27, 1967)

B. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON

Q: Define jurisdiction over the person.

A: Jurisdiction over the person is the power to render a personal judgment through
the service of process or by voluntary appearance of a party during the progress of a
cause. (Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)

Q: In criminal cases, how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
accused?
A: By having him (1) arrested; (2) by service of the warrant of arrest; or (3) by his
voluntary surrender.

Q: Even if he is not arrested, can the court try an accused without the accused being
arrested?
A: Of course not, because the court has not acquired jurisdiction over his person.
Arestuhin mo muna. Then puwede siyang mag-bail kung gusto niya. After na-arrest,
naglayas, nagsibat? Bahala ka i-try in absentia. There will be a valid decision because the
court has already acquired jurisdiction. Of course we cannot enforce the decision until
we caught him. Pero pagnahuli, ka diretso ka na sa prisuhan. You say, “I was not able to
give my side. I was not able to confront and cross-examine the witness against me.” Eh, bakit ka
naglayas? Pasensiya ka! That’s the concept of trial in absentia. But for trial in absentia to
proceed in criminal cases, you must first arrest him. You cannot try him without being
arrested. You must arrest him and arraign him first. The same thing in civil cases. It must
be that the court must acquire jurisdiction over this person.

Normally, when we say jurisdiction over the parties, we are referring to the
PLAINTIFF – the one suing, and the DEFENDAN'T – the one being sued. For the
decision to be valid, the court must obtain jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff
and the defendant. Otherwise, the decision will not bind the parties over whom the
court has not acquired jurisdiction.

That is why jurisdiction over the parties is the power of the court to render a
personal judgment which will bind the parties to the case. What is the use of rendering a
decision if the parties are not bound? It must have effect.

Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff?

A: Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired from the moment he files
his complaint. Upon filing his complaint in court, he is automatically within the
jurisdiction of the court. (MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)

Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the defendant?

A: Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired:
upon service on him of coercive process in the manner provided by law; or
by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. (MRR Co. vs
Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)

First Instance: UPON SERVICE ON HIM OF COERCIVE PROCESS

IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW

The first instance when a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
is through a service upon him of the appropriate court process which in civil law is
called service of summons. This is the counterpart of warrant of arrest in criminal
procedure.

So if the defendant was never served with summons, any judgment rendered by the
court will not bind him. Even if he is the loser in the case, judgment cannot be enforced
because the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person.

The same principle holds true in criminal cases. A court cannot try and convict an
accused over whose person the court never acquired jurisdiction. In criminal cases, the
court acquires jurisdiction over the person through the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
The warrant cannot have its effect even if it was issued, if the same had not been served,
i.e. by effecting the arrest of the accused by virtue of a warrant.

Q: In criminal cases, how can the warrant of arrest be effected?

A: Once an information has been filed in court, the court issues a warrant. Then, the
arresting officer will arrest the accused. The court acquires jurisdiction by
ENFORCEMENT OF SERVICE for effective arrest of the accused pursuant to the
warrant of arrest.

Second Instance: BY HIS VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO THE

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

Another way to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused even if the
accused is not arrested is through VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. Since there is no more
need for the warrant, the court will recall the same. In civil cases, it is the voluntary
submission of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court.

Q: Defendant was served with summons improperly or irregularly therefore, he

could question the jurisdiction of the court over his person. But instead, he did not
question the jurisdiction of the court despite the defective service of court process. Did
the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?
A: YES, because jurisdiction over the person can be acquired by:
waiver;
consent; or
lack of objection by the defendant. (MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)

This is unlike the jurisdiction over subject matter wherein the case could be
dismissed upon filing in the wrong court. The SC said that when you remained silent
despite the defects, your silence has cured the defect. Meaning, the jurisdiction over
your person was acquired by waiver, or consent, or lack of objection.

Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter from jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant?
A: Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be cured by waiver,
consent, silence or failure to object, whereas jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be
cured by failure to object or by silence, waiver or consent. (MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20
Phil. 523)

C. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES

RES is the Latin word for “thing.”

Q: Define jurisdiction over the res.

A: Jurisdiction over the res is that acquired by the court over the property or the
thing in contest, and is obtained by seizure under legal process of the court whereby it is
held to abide such order as the court may make. (Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37
Phil. 291)

Q: A and B quarreled over a piece of land. What is the res of the case?
A: The piece of land is the res of the case.

Q: However, res may not be tangible. For example, Weng Kolotski is an illegitimate
child. She wants to be acknowledged by her father. Thus, she filed a case against her
father for compulsory recognition. What is the res?
A: The res is the status of the child because it is the object of the litigation.

Q: Why is jurisdiction over the res important?

A: Sometimes it is a substitute for jurisdiction over the person. There are instances
when the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant like when he is abroad.
But if the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, the case may go on. Even if the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, jurisdiction over the res
becomes a substitute over the person.

EXAMPLE: Even if the defendant is a non-resident who is out of the country and the
object of litigation is here in the Philippines, then acquisition of jurisdiction over the res
confers jurisdiction to the court even if the defendant is abroad. The res here is where the
judgement can be enforced.

That is why in Rule 14, there is an extra-territorial service of summons. But based on
a SC ruling, the extra-territorial service of summons is not for the purpose of acquiring
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant but is merely how to comply with the due
process clause.

D. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

Q: Define jurisdiction over the issues.

A: Jurisdiction over the issue is the authority to try and decide the issues raised by
the pleadings of the parties. (Reyes vs. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484)

Q: What are pleadings?

A: They are governed by Rule 6.

Rule 6, Section 1 - Pleadings are the written allegation of the parties of their respective
claims and defenses submitted to the court for trial and judgment.

In a civil case, the parties before the trial file in court pleadings. That is where you
state your position.

EXAMPLE: Francis “Paloy” Ampig will sue you to collect a loan. So Paloy will file a
complaint in court. That is a pleading. Then you have to answer Paloy’s complaint in
court. You say that you do not owe him anything because you already paid him. So you
prepare your answer in writing in court and that is also called a pleading. Based on what
Paloy said in his complaint and your answer, we will now know what they are
quarreling about.

For example: Paloy says you borrowed money, you never paid him. Now
according to your answer, “No. I already paid him.”

Q: Now what is the issue?

A: The issue is, whether the obligation still existing or is it already extinguished by
payment. So that is the issue. So that is where we will know what we will try in this
case.

Q: Suppose after the trial, the court said that the obligation has been extinguished by
condonation. Now where did the court get that? Your defense is payment, and the
decision now it was extinguished by condonation. Is the decision correct?
A: The decision is WRONG because the parties did not raise condonation as the
issue. The case was decided on an issue that was not even raised by the parties. So the
court never acquired jurisdiction over the issue. In other words, the court should only
rule on what the parties raised in their pleadings. That is what we call jurisdiction over
the issue. The court should only rule on what the parties claim.

So, the court is supposed to rule on the issue raised and not those not raised by the
parties.

Take note that jurisdiction over the issues in civil cases is acquired after defendant
has filed an answer. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the issues is acquired upon filing
of a complaint. For a decision to be effective, the court must acquire the jurisdiction over
the subject matter, the person, the res in case the defendant is not around, and the last is
jurisdiction over the issue.

Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the issues.
A: The following are the distinctions:

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and try a particular case,
while
Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court to resolve legal questions
involved in the case;
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired upon filing of the complaint,
while
Jurisdiction over the issues of the case is acquired upon filing of the answer
which joins the issues involve in the case.

EXAMPLE: I am the plaintiff, I will file a case in court to collect an

unpaid loan. From the moment I file the case, the court has acquired
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Now, you are summoned. File ka naman
ng sagot mo, “Wala akong utang, bayad na.” Then the court has now
acquired jurisdiction over the issue. One is acquired upon filing of the
complaint and the other one is acquired after the filing of the answer by the
defendant.

HIERARCHY OF THE COURTS

In the 1996 BAR: One of the questions in Remedial Law was: State the hierarchy of
the Courts in the Philippines.

a.) Regular courts

SUPREME COURT

COURT OF APPEALS

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

MetTC MTCC MTC MCTC

Note:
MetTC- In Manila
MTCC- cities outside Manila e.g. Cebu, Davao
MTC- municipalities such as Digos, Panabo
 MCTC- circuitized areas because it is impractical and expensive to maintain one
MTC in every municipalities.

b.) Special courts

There are also Special Courts which are also considered part of the judiciary. These
are:
Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125)
Sandiganbayan (PD 1486 as amended)
Sharia District Courts and the Sharia Circuit Courts (PD 1083 , also
known as the Code of Muslim Personal Law);
Family Courts

We are concerned only of the jurisdiction of the REGULAR COURTS.

<
published by:

LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 – 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles • Glenda
Buhion • Joseph Martin Castillo • Aaron Philip Cruz • Pearly Joan Jayagan •
Anderson Lo •
Yogie Martirizar • Frecelyn Mejia • Dorothy Montejo • Rowena Panales • Regina
Sison •
Ruby Teleron • Marilou Timbol • Maceste Uy • Perla Vicencio • Liberty Wong • Jude
Zamora • Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena

SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong • Emily Aliño • Karen Allones • Joseph Apao •
Melody Penelope Batu • Gemma Betonio • Rocky Cabarroguis • Charina Cabrera •
Marlon Cascuejo •
Mike Castaños • Karen de Leon • Cherry Frondozo • Jude Fuentes • Maila Ilao • Ilai
Llena •
Rocky Malaki • Jenny Namoc • Ines Papaya • Jennifer Ramos • Paisal Tanjili

LAKAS ATENISTA 2001–2002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez • Jessamyn

Agustin • Judee Uy • Janice Joanne Torres • Genie Salvania • Pches Fernandez •
Riezl Locsin •
Kenneth Lim • Charles Concon • Roy Acelar • Francis Ampig • Karen Cacabelos •
Maying Dadula • Hannah Examen • Thea Guadalope • Myra Montecalvo • Paul
Ongkingco • Michael Pito •
Rod Quiachon • Maya Quitain • Rina Sacdalan • Lyle Santos •Joshua Tan •
Thaddeus Tuburan • John Vera Cruz • Mortmort
PAGE 10

PAGE 7
JBD