CIVIL PROCEDURE
Thus
By: Luis Raphael Capulong
Reference: Civil Procedure by Dean Willard
Riano
Chapter 1: Jurisdiction and Venue
A. Jurisdiction in General
1 the judge presiding over it.
- Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the
court to hear, try and decide a case or a
controversy.
- It includes the following:
a. The power to determine whether or not it has
the authority to hear and determine the
controversy presented.
b. The right to decide whether or not the statement
of facts that confer jurisdiction exists, as well as
all other matters that arise in the case legitimately
before the court.
c. It imports the power and authority to declarethe
law, to expound or to apply the laws, to hear and
determine issues of law and of fact.
d. The power to hear, determine, and pronounce
judgment on the issues before the court,
e. The power to inquire into facts, to apply the law
and to pronounce the judgment.
2.
- It includes the authority and the power of the
court to execute its decision or control the
execution of decision whether civil or criminal.
- According to jurisprudence, execution of
decision or judgement is incidental to the
jurisdiction already acquired by the trial court.
Note:
- When legal treatise makes reference to the term
“jurisdiction” without specifying the type or
aspect of jurisdiction, it should be construed as
referring to jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Jurisdiction is not the power of the judge
- It is the court not the judge, which by law, is
vested with jurisdiction.
- The judge merely presides the court.
jurisprudence holds that jurisdiction is not the
authority of the judge but the court.
- Jurisdiction does not attach to the court but to the
judge. Hence, the continuity of a court and the
efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by the
death, resignation, or cessation from the service of
Jurisdiction does not refer to the decision itself
- Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case, and
not the decision rendered therein.
- According to jurisprudence, the authority to
decide a case at all and not the decision rendered
therein, is what makes up jurisdiction. The fact
that the decision is erroneous does not divest the
court that rendered it of the jurisdiction conferred
by law to try the case. Since jurisdiction is the
power to hear and determine a particular case, or
the jurisdiction over the subject matter, it does not
depend upon the regularity of the exercise by the
court of its power.
Aspects of jurisdiction
- The following are aspects of jurisdiction:
a. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
b. Jurisdiction over the parties
c. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case
d. Jurisdiction over the res or thing involved in the
litigation
B. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
- According to jurisprudence, jurisdiction over the
subject matter is referred to as the power of a
particular court to hear the type of case that is then
before it. The term also refers to the jurisdiction of
the court over the class of cases to which a
particular case belongs.
- Following this definition, ‘real’ actions,
‘personal’ actions or actions “incapable of
pecuniary estimation” are to be considered as
subject matters.
- The term, “subject matter” also refers to the item
with respect to which the controversy has arisen,
or concerning which the wrong has been done,
and it is ordinarily the right, the thing, or the
contract under dispute.
 Under this extended definition, the matters giving
rise to ‘unlawful detainer,’ or ‘forcible entry,’ are
subject matters. So are those giving rise to accion
publiciana, accion reivindicatoria, partition of
property, foreclosure of mortgage, expropriation,
habeas corpus, and action for damages, among
others.
Duty of a court to dismiss an action for lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
1.
- When a complaint is filed in court, the basic
questions that ipso facto are to be immediately
resolved by the court on its own are:
a. What is the subject matter of the complaint filed
before the court?
b. Does the court have jurisdiction over the said
subject matter?
It requires the applicable laws conferring
jurisdiction to answer this questions.
- It is important that a court or tribunal shouldfirst
determine whether or not it has jurisdiction over
the subject matter presented before it, considering
that any act that it performs without jurisdiction
shall be null and void, and without any binding
legal effect.
2.
- Under the Rules of Court, it is the duty of the
court to dismiss an action whenever it appears on
the pleadings or evidence on record that the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
3.
- Even if the question of jurisdiction over the
subject matter was not raised by either of the
parties the Court will first address such question
before delving into the procedural and substantive
issues of the instant petition. After all, it is the
duty of the courts to consider the question of
jurisdiction before they look into other matters
involved in the case, even though such question is
not raised by any of the parties.29 Courts are
bound to take notice of the limits of their authority
and, even if such question is neither raised by the
pleadings nor suggested by counsel, they may
recognize the want of jurisdiction and act
accordingly by staying pleadings, dismissing the
action, or otherwise noticing the defect, at any
stage of the proceedings.
Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject
Matter
1.
- The general rule is that proceedings conducted or
decisions made by a court are legally void where
there is an absence of jurisdiction over the subject
matter. This is true even where the court in good
faith believes that the subject matter is within its
jurisdiction.
- A court devoid of jurisdiction over the case
cannot make a decision in favor of either party. It
can only dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
- A decision rendered by a court devoid of
jurisdiction may be the subject of a collateral
attack, if that jurisdictional defect appears on the
face of the record.
- If lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
appears on the face of the record, an appellate
court may, on its own initiative, dismiss the
action.
2.
- According to jurisprudence, a void judgment for
want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot
be the source of any right nor the creator of any
obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and
all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.
Hence, it can never become final and any writ of
execution based on it is void.
- If a complaint should have been filed before the
MTC, but the RTC took cognizance of the case
erroneously filed with it, the RTC erred in
proceeding with the case.
- When the court dismisses the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is
performing the only authority that it has under the
circumstances. It would be error for that court to
refer or forward the case to another court with the
proper jurisdiction
Jurisdiction versus the Exercise of Jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of
jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of
jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide
a case.
- Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the
court.
- Exercise of Jurisdiction if the exercise of such
power or authority and 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 that jurisdiction.
Ex:
a. When a complaint of unlawful detainer is filed
with the MTC, the question as to why it was files
with such court is a matter of jurisdiction.
When the court acts according to such jurisdiction,
renders a decision and executes its decision,
constitutes exercise of jurisdiction.
Exercise of jurisdiction presupposes that the court
exercising jurisdiction has jurisdiction over the
nature of the action.
Error of Jurisdiction v. Error of Judgment
1.
- Errors of jurisdiction occur when the court
exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon it by
law. It may also occur when the court or tribunal
although with jurisdiction, acts in excess of its
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction
Ex:
a. A MTC which assumed jurisdiction over a
criminal information for murder, tried the accused
and subsequently rendered judgment thereon.
It is immaterial whether the judgment is acquittal
or conviction because by assuming jurisdiction the
court committed an error of jurisdiction because
under the law, MTC has no exclusive original
jurisdiction offenses punishable by imprisonment
of exceeding 6 years. Therefore, the MTC has lack
of jurisdiction since it is not vested by the law
with authority or power to take cognizance of the
case.
b. In this case the court is deemed to have acted
without jurisdiction, when in the exercise of its
jurisdiction, it acted beyond the power conferred
upon it by law.
The RTC took cognizance of a case to be one
incapable of pecuniary estimation which is under
its jurisdiction.
However, during the course of the proceedings,
the court issued order clearly contrary to the facts
and the law, and whimsically and capriciously
refused to reconsider said orders despite having
the opportunity of doing so. Due to this act, the
court is deemed to have been deprived of the
jurisdiction it original had since its acts are
deemed to be tainted with a grave abuse of
discretion “amounting to lack of jurisdiction”
2.
- Error of Judgement is not to be equated with an
error of jurisdiction.
- Error of Judgement presupposes that the court is
vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter of
action but, in the process of exercising that
jurisdiction, it committed mistakes in the
appreciation of facts and the evidence leading to
an erroneous judgment. The mistakes are mere
errors of judgment and not errors of jurisdiction
because the decision, although erroneous, was
rendered by a court vested with jurisdiction over
the subject matter.
- According to jurisprudence, as long as the court
acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors
committed in the exercise of its discretion will
amount to nothing more than mere errors of
judgment, correctible by an appeal or a Petition
for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- According to jurisprudence, the mere fact that
the court misapplied the facts and the evidence
and made erroneous conclusions, does not
necessarily give rise to errors of jurisdiction, it is
merely an error in judgment.
- Errors of Jurisdiction are correctable by
Certiorari while Errors of judgment are
correctable by an Appeal.
Test of Jurisdiction
- It is not whether or not the judgment of the court
is legally correct. The test is whether or not, under
the law, it has the power or authority to take
cognizance of a particular subject matter. If the
court has such authority, then the court has
jurisdiction even if its conclusions turns out to be
erroneous. The erroneous conclusion of the court
would be merely an error of judgment, not an
error of jurisdiction.
- According to jurisprudence, the test of
jurisdiction is whether or not the court or tribunal
had the power to enter on the inquiry, not whether
or not its conclusions in the course thereof were
correct, for the power to decide necessarily carries
with it the power to decide wrongly as well as
rightly. In a manner of speaking, the lack of the
power to act at all results in a judgment that is
void; while the lack of the power to render an
erroneous decision results in a judgment that is
valid until set aside.27 That the decision is
erroneous does not divest the court or tribunal that
rendered it of the jurisdiction conferred by law to
try the case.28 Hence, if the court or tribunal has
jurisdiction over the civil action, whatever error
may be attributed to it is simply one of judgment,
not of jurisdiction; appeal, not certiorari, lies to
correct the error.
An Erroneous judgment is not void
- If the court has jurisdiction, an erroneous
decision cannot be deemed void, although the
error may be subject of an appeal brought by the
aggrieved party.
-According to jurisprudence, if the court or
tribunal has jurisdiction, it is immaterial how
grossly or irregular or manifestly erroneous its
proceedings may have been. The judgment cannot
be considered nullity and cannot be collaterally
impeached. Such judgment is binding on the
parties unless it is reversed or annulled in a direct
proceeding.
2.
- According to jurisprudence, if there is a total
want of jurisdiction in a court, its proceedings are
an absolute nullity, confer no right and afford no
protection but will be pronounced void when
collaterally attack.
- According to jurisprudence, any decision
rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and
may be struck down at any time, even on appeal
before this Court; the only exception is when the
party raising the issue is barred by estoppel.
Jurisdiction and cause of action
1.
- According to jurisprudence, Jurisdiction is the
power or the authority of a court, it is the authority
to hear and determine a cause and the right to act
in a case.
2.
- A cause of action does not refer to the authority
of the court. A cause of action is the act or
omission of a person violative of the rights of
others. Under Sec. 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court,
a cause of action “is the act or omission by which
a party violates a right of another.”
How jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred
1.
- Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred
by law which may be either the Constitution or a
statute organizing the court or tribunal, or the
statute organizing it, or the special or general
statutes defining the jurisdiction of an existing
court or tribunal. The law must be in force at the
time of the commencement of the action.
2.
- If one wants to know the court if it has
jurisdiction over a complaint such as forcible
entry, accion publiciana, or partition of real
property, one must look into the laws on
jurisdiction, not the Rules of Court or any
procedural rules.
Consequences of the rule that jurisdiction is
conferred by law
1.
- According to jurisprudence, since jurisdiction
over the subject matter is conferred only by the
Constitution or by law, its existence does not
depend upon the regularity of its exercise by the
court or tribunal.
- According to jurisprudence, it is not dependent
on the consent or objection or the acts or
omissions of the parties or anyone of them.
- According to jurisprudence, it cannot be:
a. Granted by the agreement of the parties
b. Acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by
any act or omission of the parties
c. Conferred by the acquiescence of the courts.
- According to jurisprudence, jurisdiction cannot
be conferred by the administrative policy of any
court
- According to jurisprudence, jurisdiction cannot
be conferred by a court’s unilateral assumption of
jurisdiction.
- According to jurisprudence, jurisdiction may not
be changed by the mere agreement of the parties
nor can it be the subject matter of a contract.
2.
- According to jurisprudence, jurisdiction cannot
be presumed or implied, but must appear clearly
from the law or it will not be held to exist, but it
may be conferred on a court or tribunal by
necessary implication as well as by terms.
- According to jurisprudence, it cannot be
conferred by the agreement of the parties, or by
the court’s acquiescence, or by the erroneous
belief of the court that it had jurisdiction or by
waiver of objections; or by the silence of the
parties.
The Law applicable to the case
- According to jurisprudence, jurisdiction being a
matter of substantive law, the established rule is
that the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action determines the
jurisdiction of the court.
How jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined
1.
- According to jurisprudence, while jurisdiction is
conferred by law, jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations in the complaint, as well as by the
character of the relief sought.
- According to jurisprudence, the allegations in the
complaint determine both the nature of the action
and the jurisdiction of the court.
- According to jurisprudence, for the purpose of
determining jurisdiction, the trial court must
interpret and apply the law on jurisdiction in
relation to averments or allegations of ultimate
facts in the complaint regardless of whether or not
the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of
the claims or reliefs sought therein.
2.
- Since it is axiomatic that what determines the
nature of the action and which the court has
jurisdiction over said action is determined by the
allegations in the complaint and the character of
the relief sought, in ascertaining.
Ex:
a. In an action for forcible entry, only such
averments of the complaint and the relief sought
are to be examined.
If the requisite elements are averred in the
complaint then it is within the jurisdiction of the
MTC, even if the evidence during the proceedings
indicates that it is some other cause of action.
- In determining whether or not a court has
jurisdiction over the complaint before it, the court
should not into the truth of such allegations.
It should only consider the material allegations in
the complaint in relation to the relief sought.
The truth shall be determined during the trial.
Ex:
a. If the complaint avers that the defendant owes
the plaintiff an amount within the jurisdiction of
the RTC, then it is that court that has jurisdiction
over the matter based on the allegations of the
complaint, even if later on it is proven that the
debt is way below the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Caption of the Case is not Controlling
1.
- According to jurisprudence, the cause of action
in a complaint is not what the designation of the
complaint states, but what the allegations in the
body of the complaint define and describe. The
designation or caption is not controlling, more
than the allegations in the complaint themselves
are, for it is not even an indispensable part of the
complaint.
- According to jurisprudence, jurisdiction does not
depend on the complaint’s caption, although the
complaint bears the caption "recovery of
possession,", is actually an unlawful detainer case
if it contains the jurisdictional facts of the said
action.
Ex:
a. Even an alleged action for a sum of money may
also be an action for unlawful detainer based on
the material allegations of the complaint.
In a case, a complaint was titled "Collection of
Sum of Money with Damages" filed with the
RTC.
The complaint arose out of the failure of the
defendant to pay the rental in arrears, amounting
to more than P900k, on certain commercial
spaces.
A reading of the complaint showed that the
demand made upon the defendant was for the
latter to pay and vacate the premises. The
complaint constitutes an Action for Unlawful
Detainer, not a mere collection of a sum of
money.
It is considered as an Action for Unlawful because
whether or not the defendant pays the complaint
sought for an order to have said defendant vacate
the property.
Hence, it is a complaint for ejectment. The result
would have been different had the demand been,
“to pay or vacate”, in this type of demand. The
defendant needs not to vacate if he is able to pay
the amount he owed to the plaintiff.
2.
- According to jurisprudence, 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 plaintiffs 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”
The defenses and the evidence do not
determine jurisdiction
1.
- According to jurisprudence, the court’s
jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon
defenses set up in the answer or in a motion to
dismiss or motion for reconsideration. This has to
be so for otherwise; the ends of justice would be
frustrated by making the sufficiency of this kind
of action dependent upon the defendant in all
cases. The defendant may easily delay a case by
raising other issues, then, claim lack of
jurisdiction.
- The settled rule is that jurisdiction is based on
the allegations in the initiatory pleading and the
defenses in the answer are deemed irrelevant and
immaterial in its determination, otherwise, the
question the question of jurisdiction would almost
entirely depend upon the defendant.
Ex:
a. In a case, because jurisdiction is determined by
the allegations of the complaint and is not affected
by the pleas or theories set up by the defendant in
his motion to dismiss or answer the Municipal
Trial Court does not lose its jurisdiction over an
ejectment case by the mere allegation that the
defendant asserts ownership over the litigated
property.
In the same vein, the MTC does not automatically
lose its exclusive original jurisdiction over
ejectment cases by the mere allegations of a
tenancy relationship
However, while the Municipal Trial Court does
not lose its jurisdiction over an ejectment case by
the simple expedient of a party raising as a
defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy
relationship between the parties, yet if after
hearing, tenancy had in fact been shown to be the
real issue, the court should dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction, it was held that while the
allegation in the complaint make out a case for
forcible entry, where tenancy is averred by way of
defense and is proved to be the real issue, the case
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the
case should properly be filed with the then Court
of Agrarian Reform (now DARAB).
The MTC does not automatically lose its
jurisdiction over ejectment cases by mere
allegation of the defense of tenancy relationship
between the parties.
The court continues to have authority to hear and
evaluate the evidence, precisely to determine
whether or not it has jurisdiction, and if, after
hearing, tenancy is shown to exist, it shall dismiss
the case for lack of jurisdiction. The rule is, still,
is that jurisdiction of the court is determined by
the allegation in the complaint.
The amount awarded does not determine
jurisdiction (Bar 1998)
1.
- According to jurisprudence, si nce it is a basic rule
that jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by the allegations in the complaint,
jurisdiction does not depend on the amount
ultimately substantiated and awarded by the tried
court.
Ex:
a. A complaint seeking for the payment of
P1million is filed in the Regional Trial Court, but
after considering the evidence presented, the court
rendered a judgment for only P300,000, an
amount within the jurisdiction of the Municipal
Trial Court if originally filed, the Regional Trial
Court did not lose jurisdiction over the action. It
therefore, has the authority to render a judgment
for P300k.
It is submitted however, that the above rule does
not apply in the reverse. Where a complaint for
the recovery of a loan of P300k is filed in the
Municipal Trial Court, but after consideration of
the evidence, it is shown that the amount
recoverable is PI million, an amount within the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court if
originally filed, the Municipal Trial Court cannot
render judgment for PI million for lack of
jurisdiction.
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction (primary
administrative jurisdiction)
1.
-Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts
cannot and will not resolve a controversy
involving a question within the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal, especially when the
question demands the sound exercise of
administrative discretion requiring special
knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and
intricate matters of fact.
2.
- The objective of the Doctrine of Primary
jurisdiction is to guide the court in determining
whether it should refrain from exercising its
jurisdiction until after an administrative agency
has determined some question or some aspect of
some question arising in the proceeding before the
court.
Ex:
a. In agrarian reform cases primary jurisdiction is
vested in the DAR, more specifically, in the
DARAB as provided for in Section 50 of R.A. No.
6657.
b. Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as
amended by Section 26 of Presidential Decree No.
1445, it is the COA which has primary jurisdiction
over money claims against government agencies
and instrumentalities. This power includes the
examination, audit, and settlement of all debts and
claims of any sort due from or owing to the
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies,
and instrumentalities. Thus, the COA, not the
RTC which has primary jurisdiction to pass upon
money claims against a local government unit.
c. The Supreme Court recognized that the MWSS
was in the best position to evaluate and decide
which bid for a waterworks project was
compatible with its development plan.
d. The Civil Service Commission is better
equipped in handling cases involving the
employment status of employees as it is within its
field of expertise.
e. The determination of factual issues is vested in
the Mediator-Arbiter and the Department of Labor
and Employment. Pursuant to the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction, the Court should refrain from
resolving such controversies unless the case falls
under recognized and well-established exceptions.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not
warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority
to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over
which is initially lodged with an administrative
body of special competence.
f. Dispute regarding the validity of a circular
implementing the GSIS Law should first be
brought to the GSIS Board and not the courts for
resolution as required by law. Under the doctrine
of Primary Jurisdiction, courts are precluded from
resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction
has initially been lodged with an administrative
body of special competence.
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies and Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
- The Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies may be considered corollary to the
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or vice versa.
- The doctrines complement each other, the only
difference lies on what the doctrine five more
emphasis.
1. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
- The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction emphasizes
the initial conferment of jurisdiction over a
particular matter to an administrative body before
a court could exercise jurisdiction over the same.
- It is based on the theory that some controversies
which demand the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring the special
knowledge, experience and service of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and
intricate matters of fact, before passing on the
controversy to the courts of adjudication.
Ex:
a. In Agrarian Reform Cases, primary jurisdiction
is vested in the DAR, more specifically in the
DARAB as provided in Sec. 50 of RA6657.
The provision gives the DARAB quasi-judicial
powers to determine and adjudicate land reform
matters.
2. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies
- The Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies., although may also involve
administrative jurisdiction over a specific matter,
gives emphasis to procedural requirements which
a party should follow before seeking judicial
relief.
-According to jurisprudence, under the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, it is
mandated that where a remedy before an
administrative body is provided by statute, relief
must be sought by exhausting this remedy prior to
bringing an action in court in order to give the
administrative body every opportunity to decide a
matter that comes within its jurisdiction.
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Primary
Jurisdiction
a.Where there is estoppel on the part of the party
invoking the doctrine.
b.Where the challenged administrative act is
patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction
c.Where there is unreasonable delay or official
inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
complainant.
d.Where the amount involved is relatively small
so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive
e.Where the question involved is purely legal and
will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of
justice.
f.Where judicial intervention is urgent.
g.When its application may cause great irreparable
damage.
h.Where the controverted acts violate due process
i.When the issue of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies has been rendered moot.
j.When there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy.
k.When strong public interest is involved
j.In quo warranto proceedings
Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction
(Continuity of Jurisdiction)
1.
- According to jurisprudence, this doctrine means
that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be
ousted by subsequent happenings or events,
although of a character which would have
prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first
instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been
acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally
disposes of the case
2.
- Because of the doctrine, if in action for
ejectment, the defendant voluntarily surrenders the
premises subject of the action to the plaintiff, the
surrender of property does not divest the court of
jurisdiction.
- If the court has jurisdiction to act on a motion at
the time it was filed, that jurisdiction to resolve
the motion continues until the matter is resolved
and is not lost by the subsequent filling of a notice
of appeal.
3.
- It was ruled that the jurisdiction which the court
had at the time of the filing of the complaint is not
lost by the mere fact that the respondent judge
ceased to be in office during the pendency of the
case.
4.
- According to jurisprudence, jurisdiction, once
acquired, is not lost by the resignation of the
complaining party or the defending party in an
administrative complaint because jurisdiction had
already been acquire in the case.
- Cessation from office of respondent by
resignation or retirement neither warrants the
dismissal of the administrative complaint filed
against him while he was still in the service nor
does it render said administrative case moot and
academic.
Thus, from the strictly legal point of view and as
we have held in a long line of cases, jurisdiction,
once it attaches, cannot be defeated by the acts of
the respondent save only where death intervenes
and the action does not survive.
5.
- According to jurisprudence, even the finality of
the judgment does not totally deprive the court of
jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses is
the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment.
Even after the judgment has become final, the
court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it.
6. According to jurisprudence, once the court
acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted from
the case by any subsequent events, such as a new
legislation placing such proceedings under the
jurisdiction of another tribunal. The only
recognized exceptions to the rule arise when: (1)
there is an express provision in the statute, or (2)
the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions
pending before its enactment.
Doctrine of Ancillary (Incidental) Jurisdiction
1.
- This power refers to the authority of an office or
tribunal to do all things necessary for the
administration of justice within the scope of its
jurisdiction and for the enforcement of its
judgment and mandate.
- It refers to the power of every court to adopt
such means and perform such acts necessary to
carry its jurisdiction into effect. The tenor of Sec.6
Rule 135 of the Rules of Court is explicit:
Means to carry jurisdiction into effect. — When
by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or
judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and
other means necessary to carry it into effect may
be employed by such court or officer; and if the
procedure to be followed in the exercise of such
jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law
or by these rules, any suitable process or mode of
proceeding may be adopted which appears
comfortable to the spirit of the said law or rules
2.
- Corollary to the abovementioned provision is
Sec. 5 of Rule Rule 135 which enumerates the
inherent powers of a court, among are: “To
compel obedience to its judgments, orders and
processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out
of court, in a case pending therein” and “To
amend and control its process and orders so as to
make them conformable to law and justice”
Doctrine of Judicial Stability
1.
- The doctrine of judicial stability or non-
interference is one which precludes a court from
interfering by injunction with the regular orders of
a co-equal court.
- The rationale for the rule is founded on the
concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires
jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment
therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the
exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its
execution and over all its incidents, and to control,
in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial
officers acting in connection with this judgment.
2.
- If a court violates the law or the rules on the
issuance of a writ the appropriate action is to
assail the writ before the issuing court. Upon
failure to seek redress from the said court, the
remedy is not to resort to a co-equal body but to a
higher court with authority to nullify the action of
the issuing court.
- Thus, under the doctrine, a RTC is precluded
from issuing an injunction against a writ issued by
another RTC. The remedy is to go to a higher
court to enjoin the acts of the court if the latter
refuses to correct its error and denies any motion
assailing the writ it issued.
Objections to jurisdiction over the subject
matter
1.
- The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the
issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to dismiss filed
before the filing of the answer because lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter is a ground for
a motion to dismiss.
2.
- Jurisprudence explains that the prevailing rule is
that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the
first time on appeal.
- Even if the parties did not raise the issue of
jurisdiction, the reviewing court, on appeal is not
precluded from ruling that the lower court had no
jurisdiction over the case. Hence, the issue may
even be tackled motu proporio for the first time on
appeal.
- Whenever it appears that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action
shall be dismissed. This defense may be
interposed at any time, during appeal or even after
final judgment.
- The reason for the above rule is that jurisdiction
is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very
authority of the court to take cognizance of and
render judgment on the action.
- Jurisdiction over the subject matter, being
conferred by law, is not for the courts or the
parties to conveniently set aside.
Effect of Estoppel on Objections to Jurisdiction
1.
- According to jurisprudence, While it is true that
jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised
at any stage of the proceedings since it is
conferred by law, it is nevertheless settled that a
party may be barred from raising it on the ground
of estoppel
- The doctrine of estoppel by laches in relation to
objections to jurisdiction was initially emphasized
by the court in the leading case of Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy.
Here, the Supreme Court barred a belated
objection to jurisdiction that was raised only after
an adverse decision was rendered by the court
against the party raising the issue of jurisdiction
and after seeking affirmative relief from the court
and after participating in all stages of the
proceedings.
The doctrine of estoppel by laches said the
Supreme Court in Tijam is “based upon grounds
of public policy x x x and is principally a question
of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right
or claim to be enforced or asserted.”
2.
- The Court, however, cautioned that estoppel by
laches may only be invoked to bar the defense of
lack of jurisdiction if the factual milieu is
analogous to the Tijam case.
- The contention that the defense of lack of
jurisdiction may be waived by estoppel through
active participation in the trial is not the general
rule, but an exception, best characterized by the
circumstance in the Tijam case.
- Where the factual setting is attendant in the
Tijam case are not present, the application of
estoppel by laches would not be justified.
3.
- Aside from a belated objection to jurisdiction,
one fact patter common among the cases, wherein
the court invoked estoppel to prevent aparty from
questioning jurisdiction, is a party’s active
participation in all stages of the case.
This participation includes invoking the authority
of the court in seeking affirmative relief, and
questioning the court’s jurisdiction only after
receiving a ruling or decision adverse to his case,
for the purpose of annulling everything done in
the trial in which he has actively participated.
- According to jurisprudence, after voluntarily
submitting a cause and encountering an adverse
decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to
question the jurisdiction or power of the court.
The Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of
a party submitting his case for decision and then
accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and
attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse.
- According to jurisprudence, it is settled that the
active participation of a party before a court is
tantamount to recognition of that court's
jurisdiction and willingness to abide by the court's
resolution of the case.
Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter and
Omnibus motion rule
1.
- An Omnibus Motion is a motion attacking the
pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding.
Ex:
a. A motion to dismiss which seeks the dismissal
of a claim definitely attacks the pleading. Under
this motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion under
Sec. 8 of Rule 15.
- Under Sec. 8 of Rule 15 an Omnibus Motion
must include all objections then available, and all
objections not so included shall be deemed
waived. Hence, pursuant to the Omnibus Motion
Rule, when a motion to dismiss is filed, all
objections and defenses available to the movant, at
the time of the filing shall be invoked. Those not
invoked despite their unavailability, shall be
deemed waived.
Ex:
a. For instance, if a motion to dismiss is filed by
the defendant on certain grounds but failed to
include therein an available defense like improper
venue, said ground can no longer be invoked later
as an affirmative defense in the answer.
2.
- The omnibus motion rule however, is, by the
terms of Sec. 8 of Rule 15, “Subject to the
provisions of Section 1 of Rule 9.”
The pertinent provision declares:
“x x x However, when it appears from the
pleadings or the evidence on record that the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that
there is another action pending between the same
parties for the same cause, or that the action is
barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of
limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.”
- Sec. 8 of Rule 15, clearly spells out the corollary
rule that there are certain defenses which are not
waived even if not invoked in the motion to
dismiss.
The following are non-waivable defenses:
a. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
b. Litis pendencia
c. Res Judicata
d. Prescription.
Hence, if a motion to dismiss was filed and the
issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
was not raised herein, a party may, when he files
and answer, still raise the lack of jurisdiction as an
affirmative defense because this defense is not
barred by the Omnibus Motion Rule.
C. Jurisdiction over the Parties
Meaning of Jurisdiction over the Person or
Jurisdiction in Personam
- Jurisprudence dictates that jurisdiction over the
parties refers to the power of the court to make
decisions that are binding on persons.
- It is the legal power of the court to render
personal judgment against a party to an action or
proceeding.
- It is the power of a court has over the
defendant’s person which is required before a
court can enter a personal or an in personam
judgment.
- Jurisprudence dictates that 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 person of a litigant is vital
for the enforcement of an order or judgment of the
court against such person. A person not within the
jurisdiction of the court is not bound by its
judgment.
Ex:
a. When the partnership that is sued for money
and a partner was not impleaded in the action and
never made a party to the case, the property of
said partner could not be the object of execution to
satisfy a judgment rendered against the
partnership.
b. Jurisprudence dictates that the power of the
court in executing judgments extends only to
properties unquestionably belonging to the
judgment debtor alone. An execution can be
issued only against a party and not against one
who did not have his day in court.
c. An action filed against the stockholder of a
corporation in a suit for the recovery of ill-gotten
wealth, the failure to implead the corporation,
cannot bind said corporation since the court did
not have jurisdiction over it which could result to
the violation of the fundamental right to due
process.
This ruling is a recognition of the separate
personalities of a partnership and corporation,
such that the liability of the partnership or a
corporation is not the liability of the partner or
stockholder, vice-versa.
How jurisdiction over the persons of the parties
is acquired (Bar 2009, 1981, 1994)
1.
- The manner by which the court acquires
jurisdiction over the parties depends on whether
the party is the plaintiff or the defendant.
2. Plaintiff
- Jurisprudence dictates that jurisdiction over the
plaintiff is acquired as soon as he files his
complaint or petition because the mere filing of
the complaint, the plaintiff, in a civil action,
voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of
the court.
3. Defendant
- Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in
civil cases is acquired either by his voluntary
appearance in court and his submission to its
authority or by service of summons.
Voluntary appearance of the defendant (Bar
2017)
1.
- The court may acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant without service of
summons or despite a defective service of
summons.
- Jurisdiction is acquired when the defendant
voluntarily appears in the court. “The defendant’s
voluntary appearance in the action shall be
equivalent to service of summons” (Sec. 20, Rule
14, Rules of Court).
2.
- To constitute voluntary appearance, it must be
the kind that amounts to a voluntary submission to
the jurisdiction of the court. Submission to the
court’s jurisdiction takes the form of an
appearance that seeks affirmative relief except
when the relief sought is for the purpose of
objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the defendant.
3.
- Jurisprudence dictates that generally, a person
voluntarily submits to the court’s jurisdiction
when he or she participates in the trial despite
improper service of summons.
- Jurisprudence dictates that as a general
proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is
deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
court like the filing of motions to admit answer,
for additional time to file an answer, for
reconsideration of a default judgment or to lift the
order of default. This rule, 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.
The objection, however, must be explicitly made
or made in an unequivocal manner. Failure to do
so constitutes a 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.
4.
- Jurisprudence dictates that the active
participation of a party before a court is
tantamount to recognition of that court’s
jurisdiction and willingness to abide by the court’s
resolution.

Effect of pleading additional defenses aside

from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant; prior rule examined
1.
- Under the former procedure if the defendant
raises the objection of lack of jurisdiction over his
person in a motion to dismiss, the motion must
rely on that particular ground.

- Jurisprudence dictates that if the defendant

appears in court, object to its jurisdiction over his
person and, at the same time, alleges other
grounds, the appearance would be deemed a
general appearance which was, in effect, a
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court.

- In a case, the Cout ruled that

Duero v. CA