JURISDICTION the power to hear and decide cases.

In order for court to have auth ority to dispose of a case, it must have acquire jurisdiction over the subject m atter and the parties 2006 notes: Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judge, as such, juri sdiction is not attach to the judge or branch alone therefore trial may be held or continue in another branch or judge. The apportionment of cases does not invo lve a grant or limitation of jurisdiction. 2006 notes: Jurisdiction cannot be derived by implication since courts that exe rcise jurisdiction are expressly conferred either by constitution or by law (Gar cia v De Jesus). Equity of Jurisdiction: Situation where the court is called upon to decide a particular situation and re lease the parties from their correlative obligations but if it would result in a dverse consequences to the parties and the public, then court would go beyond it s powers to avoid negative consequences in the release of the parties. Limitations: 1. Equitable reasons will not control against any well settled rule of law or pu blic policy. Equity will not give validity to a void contract 2. Court has no power to make contracts for the parties or extend the life of a contract. 2006 notes: Rules of Court can be applied retroactive unless if such impairs ves ted right (BAR) In an adoption case, the wife alone filed petition w/o the husband. When F amily code took effect, they went to court seeking annulment of adoption on grou nd that under Family code, the husband and wife must jointly adopt. HELD: In Rep v CA, wife s right to file petition by herself already vested upon h er filing thereof and cannot be prejudice or impaired by the enactment of a new law. Jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the time of the comme ncement of the action. Aranas v CA: RTC still have jurisdiction even if law confer upon SEC the jurisdi ction since once jurisdiction is acquired, it continues until the end of the cas e. However, the execution of the RTC judgment should now be placed under the sup ervision and control of the SEC, even if the RTC judgment is already final and c an no longer be modified. Such law conferring to SEC the jurisdiction is consid ered as a curative Law. As a rule, once jurisdiction is acquired, it can never be lost. However, if ther e is a law that expressly divests the court of its jurisdiction, then, that cour t may be divested. Instances when court may lose jurisdiction: 1. Subsequent law provides a prohibition for continued exercise of jurisdiction. 2.Law penalizing an act w/c is punishable is repealed by a subsequent law 3.Accused is deprived of his constitutional right such as where court fails to p rovide counsel for the accused who is unable to obtain one and does not intellig ently waive his constitutional right 4. Statute expressly provides or is construed to the effect that it intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactment. 5. Proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned or d eclared void. 6.Once appeal has been perfected (Alama v Abbas) 7.Law is curative 2006 notes: Parties cannot stipulate on the jurisdiction of the court, such is d eemed void. If at all, that stipulation is valid as a stipulation on venue. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and decide a case. It cannot be conferred by consent or waive otherwise court would have no jurisdiction over the subject mat ter.

Venue is the place where the action is to be instituted and tried (as fixed by t he statute). It is a matter of procedure, so it is waivable. And an objection t hat plaintiff brought his suit in the wrong country may be waived by the failure of the defendant to make a timely objection, in either case, court may render v alid judgment. If Judgment award the claims not specified in pleading or left in determination of the court, the additional filing fee shall be considered as lien on the judgm ent. It shall be the responsibility of the clerk of court (or his authorized dep uty) to enforce said lien and assess and collect additional fee. Is it possible to cure lack of jurisdiction of a court over a case? Generally, NO. However in Co Tiamco v Diaz: There was no allegation in the com plaint that a notice to vacate was made. During trial, plaintiff offered as evid ence a notice to vacate alleged to have been served upon the defendant prior to the filing of the complaint. It was held that even supposing without conceding t hat the complaint was deficient, the deficiency was cured by the evidence. 2006 notes: The determining factor of the proper court to exercise its jurisdic tion in a consignation case is the amount to be deposited. HOW MAY COURT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER A CASE : 1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleadi ng but also the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. GRULE: where filing of initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of doc ket fee, the court may allow the payment of the fee within a reasonable time bu t in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive period (except indigent people, according to 4blue 95,pwede file now pay later) If case involves Real Property, basis for determination of docket fee is the ass essed value of the same. Moral and exemplary damages are merely incidental (Taca y v Tagum) Determinative of the court s jurisdiction is the nature not the amount of damages alleged arising from or connected w/ the value of property. Quite obviously, an action for recovery of possession of real property (such as accion plenaria de p ossession) or title or for partition or condemnation of or foreclosure of mortga ge on said real property in other words a real action may be commenced and prosecute d w/o an accompanying claim for actual, moral, nominal or exemplary damages and such action would fall within the exclusive, original jurisdiction of the RTC. 2.Same rule applies to permissive counterclaims,3rd party claims and similar ple adings w/c shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescri bed therefore is paid.(w/in the applicable prescriptive period) 3.Where trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by filing of appropriate pleading and payment of filing fee, but subsequently, the judgment awards a cl aim not specified in the pleading or if specified ,the same has been left for de termination by the court, the additional filing fee thereafter shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the clerk of court (or his authorized deputy) to enforce said lien and assess and collect additional fee. 2006 notes: When determination of damages as exemplary or corrective damages is left to the sound discretion of the court, it is the duty of parties claiming su ch damages to specify the amount sought on the basis of which the court may make a proper determination and for proper assessment of appropriate docket fee. 2006 notes: The exemption contemplated as to claims not specified or to claims a lthough specified are left for determination of the court is limited only to any damages that may arise after filing of complaint/pleading for then it will not be possible for claimant to specify nor speculate as to the amount thereof. (BAR) In an action for replevin, the plaintiff failed to pay the correct docket fee. Can it recover damages?

YES, In Replevin and for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the court, the value of the personal property involved is controlling. The damages and atto rney s fees are merely incidental. Court acquired jurisdiction on basis of origin al complaint, the increase in damages claimed did not affect it. And that the trial court had jurisdiction over the claim despite the insufficien cy of the docket fees paid. LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL: Depends upon whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction. If it had no ju risdiction, but case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdict ion, the parties are not barred on appeal from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same must exist as a matter of law. 2006 notes: Jurisdiction of the court can be raised for the first time on appeal , but there are instances where it cannot be raised anymore due to the principle of estoppel to question jurisdiction (Tijam v Sibonghanoy) An example is in Tajonera v Lamaroza: Party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of t he court to secure affirmative relief against his opponents and after failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question the same. (BAR) X filed action for damages amounting to P10000 w/ Y, who never questioned the jurisdiction of the court. Even on appeal, Y did not question. Can he questi on it before the Supreme Court? Held: No more, Any decision rendered w/o jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time even on appeal before SC, only exemption is where p arty raising the issue is barred by estoppel (since they invoke the very same ju risdiction of court w/c has no jurisdiction by filing answer and seeking affirma tive relief from it and participated in trial by cross examining respondent) What shall court do if the Complaint on its face does not confer jurisdiction up on the court? It should dismiss it since its only jurisdiction is to dismiss it. The court can not defer any action (Administrator v Alberto) Suppose on its face, court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and later on , it is proven that the court has no jurisdiction, what should court do? It should try and decide case and in so doing, if evidence shows lack of jurisdi ction, the court should dismiss it (Basilio v David). 2006 notes: Jurisdiction over the issues is acquired by the pleadings. And that it can also be conferred by law like in probate proceedings. In Principe v Phil-Singapore Transport Service: The contract of employment of X in Singapore provides that the laws of Singapore shall apply in cases of dispute s arising out of the said appointment and said disputes are to be resolved by th e courts of Singapore. HELD: An agreement to deprive court of jurisdiction conferred by law is void an d of no legal effect. As such, labor cases are within the competence of the NLRC . CLASSIFICATIONS OF JURISDICTION 1. General or Limited/special power to adjudicate all controversies except those expre a. General jurisdiction ssly withheld from the plenary powers of the court b. Limited/special jurisdiction restricts the courts jurisdiction only to partic ular cases and subject to such limitations as may be provided by the governing l aw 2. Original or Appellate a. Original jurisdiction power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a cas e instituted for judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by law b. appellate jurisdiction authority of a court higher in rank to re-examine the final order or judgment of a lower court which tried the case now elevated for j

udicial review (jurisdiction is acquired by perfection of appeal and conferred b y law) 3. Exclusive or Concurrent a. exclusive jurisdiction power to adjudicate a case or proceeding to the exclus ion of all other courts at that stage b. concurrent/coordinate jurisdiction power conferred upon different courts, whe ther of the same or different ranks, to take cognizance at the same stage of the same case in the same or different judicial territories 4. Elements of Criminal Jurisdiction: a. Territorial Jurisdiction- determined by the geographical area over which a co urt presides and the fact that the crime was committed or any of its essential i ngredients took place within said area (US v Jueves) b. Jurisdiction over the Subject matter- determined by the allegiance of the co mplaint or info in accordance w/ the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, not at the time of its commission (US v Mallari) c. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused.-acquired by voluntary appearance or surrender of the accused or by his arrest (Choc v Vera) 5. Elements of Civil Jurisdiction a. jurisdiction over the subject matter conferred by law, determined upon the al legations made in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitl ed or not, to recover upon the claim asserted therein (it is not waivable, only exception is in case of estoppel to question/raise jurisdiction) b. jurisdiction over the person 1) Plaintiff acquired by filing of the initiatory pleading (like a complaint) In Special Civil case for mandamus, it is acquired by filing of action and payment of docket fee. 2) defendant acquired by the a) proper service of summons b) voluntary appearance in court, or c) Voluntary submission to the authority of the court. 2006 notes: If defendant is not found in Phil, jurisdiction over his person cann ot be acquired, but if he has properties here in the country then jurisdiction over his res (w/c includes his status) may be acquired w/ leave of court by eff ecting service of summons out of RP thru personal service of summons or by publi cation in a newspaper of gen. circulation in such places and for such terms as t he court may order, in which case, a copy of the summon and order of the court s hall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant or in any other manner that the court may deem sufficient. c. jurisdiction over the res- acquired by (1)the seizure of the thing under legal process whereby it is brought into actua l custody of law, or (2)the institution of a legal proceeding wherein the power of the court over the thing is recognized and made effective d. jurisdiction over the issue acquired by the pleadings, but it can also be con ferred by law like in probate proceedings. Doctrine of Judicial Stability: A court can act on a case pending before it to the exclusion of other courts and that a judge has power to act on it as long as it remains in his sala. Error of Jurisdiction court takes cognizance of a case over the subject matter o f which it has no jurisdiction. Reviewable by Certiorari Error of Judgment court acquires jurisdiction over subject matter and the errors which court may commit (in deciding) in the exercise of such jurisdiction are m erely errors of judgment. Reviewable by Appeal. From Original to Appellate = NOTICE OF APPEAL; From Appellate to the Next, then it is PETITION FOR REVIEW. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT 1. Original jurisdiction over a. cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls

b. petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto c. habeas corpus 2. Appellate jurisdiction over cases of a. constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agree ment, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. b. legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in r elation thereto c. jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. d. penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher (REPEALED! It is now w/ the C A) e. only an error or question of law is involved. 3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interes t may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed 6 months without the c onsent of the judge concerned. 4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. 5. Promulgate rules concerning a. the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights b. pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts c. the admission to the practice of law d. the Integrated Bar, and e. legal assistance to the underprivileged 6. Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the C ivil Service Law. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy d isposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shal l not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effe ctive unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. 2006 notes: The limitation to the rule making power of the SC is that the rules must be uniform for all courts of the same grade and that they shall not diminis h, increase or modify substantive rights (1987 Constitution). JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 1. Original jurisdiction a. Exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of RTC b. Concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes 4blue 95:This jurisdiction with concurrent with RTC and SC, as such, even if you can file it with SC, still that is not possible since you have to file it with CA due to the hierarchy of courts. 2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over RTCs and quasi-judicial agencies, instr umentalities, boards or commissions, except COMELEC or Commission on Audit 4blue95: Party adversely affected by a decision of the CTA en banc may file with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 withi n 15 days from notice of judgment or final order or resolution appealed from or of the denial of petitioner s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of judgment. The CA shall have the power to 1. try cases and conduct hearings (must be continuous and completed within 3 mon ths, unless extended by the Chief Justice) 2. receive evidence (refers only to incidental facts and not those evidences tou ched or heard by trial court, therefore CA cannot conduct full blown trial) 3. perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to g

rant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. 2006 notes: CA now has appellate jurisdiction over the NLRC. 2006 notes: Constitutional Commission decisions and CSC decisions is appealable to the CA. 2006 notes: Automatic review of death penalty sentence is now vested in the Cour t of Appeals, not anymore in the Supreme Court (Pp v Mateo) JURISDICTION OF THE RTC 1. Civil cases exclusive original jurisdiction. a. actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary esti mation 4blue 95: incapable of pecuniary estimation involves i. specific performance (dapat it must not be a sum certain in money however in a contract of lease , even if amount is small whereby it would qualify through t hat amount that it should be filed in the MTC, still, it must be applied with th e RTC) ii. support, iii. foreclosure of mortgage (since in truth foreclosure is not about enforcemen t of a loan but to nullify a mortgage) iv. deed of sale and conveyance b. actions involving the title to, or possession of, real property, or any inter est therein 1) where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds a) P20,000 outside Metro Manila b) P50,000 in Metro Manila 2) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buil dings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the inferior courts c. actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exce eds 1) P300,000 outside Metro Manila (2006 notes) 2) P400,000 in Metro Manila d. matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds 1) P300,000 outside Metro Manila (2006 notes) 2) P400,000 in Metro Manila e. actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations; f. cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; g. actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdi ction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court .. 4blue 95:with the advent of RA 8367, it created the Family Court ,whereby an RTC has original jurisdiction to cognizance of family disputes ,or those involving children (like habeas corpus over children or adoption.. BASTA LAHAT NG ISSUE A BOUT SA BATA AND THE FAMILY like conjugal relations, constitution of family home and support) if and only if such RTC branch is designated as a FAMILY COURT. h. and of the Court of Agrarian Relations (MODIFIED!) 4blue 95: the rule right now is that it is already lodged with the DARAB However , if issue is about the determination of just compensation to lot owners or pros ecution of offenses under the CARL ,then it is lodged with the RTC. i. cases in which the demand (exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, a ttorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs) or the value of the property in controversy exceeds

1) P300,000 outside Metro Manila (2006 notes) 2) P400,000 in Metro Manila 4blue 95: damages is not included, but if damages is the main cause of action, t hen include it. 4blue 95: include Actual Value + unpaid rental (or actual damages for unpaid ren tals) 2. CRIMINAL CASES EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN a. all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribun al or body b. except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of t he Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter. 3. CONCURRENT(MEANING: IT IS SHARED W/ OTHERS) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION a. issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regi ons; and b. actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls. 4. APPELLATE JURISDICTION ALL CASES DECIDED BY THE INFERIOR COURTS IN THEIR RESP ECTIVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS 4BLUE 95 notes: A branch of the RTC cannot enjoin another branch of same court since they are co-equal and cannot restrain one another. As such, RTC also cann ot possess jurisdiction to restrain SEC since they are co-equal bodies , only th e Supreme Court can restrain SEC. APPLICATION FOR BAIL BAR: Charged with serious physical injuries in the RTC-Digos, Daniel was arreste d in Panabo. Upon Daniel s application ,the RTC Panabo fixed Daniel s bail, which Dan iel duly posted and that he was duly released by the RTC-Panabo on such bail. Wa s Daniel s released proper? HELD:NO, the application for bail can be made only with the court where the case is pending (RTC Digos). Bail may be filed in the RTC-Panabo if the RTC-Digos ha d already fixed Daniel s bail (Rule 114,sec 14b) POWER TO AFFIRM OR MODIFY CRIMINAL CHARGES BAR: Daniel is charged with attempted homicide. After trial, he is convicted of slight physical injuries ,the court finding that the alleged intent to kill had not been proved. 1.on appeal, may the RTC convict Daniel of attempted homicide? 2.of frustrated murder? ANSWER: 1.YES, RTC may reverse, affirm or modify the penalty imposed by the trial court( Rule 124 sec11). An appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review an d this includes the penalty, which may be increased. 2.NO, since the Frustrated Murder, a graver offense than attempted homicide, may not have been included in the offense charged in the information (rule 120, sec 4) 2006 notes: Commission on Human Rights cannot review decisions of the courts ot herwise the principle of separation of powers would be violated (Carino v CHR). It cannot issue injunctions since it may investigate human rights violations but fact finding is not adjudicative and cannot be likened to the judicial function of the court ( EPZA v CHR) 2006 notes: Land registration court cannot decide on validity of contracts excep t if parties agreed to submit the issue for the court s determination; parties wer e given opportunity to be heard and court has already considered that the same i s sufficient and adequate for rendering a decision upon the issues controverted. 2006 notes: POEA has jurisdiction over claims of overseas workers against employ ers including disciplinary cases

-- The doctrine of estoppel to question jurisdiction cannot apply despite parti cipation in the trial where there was error or mistake in invoking the jurisdict ion of the court (Javier v CA) 2006 notes: Action for damages for abuse of right as an incident to dismissal is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter, but it has no jurisdict ion for claim of damages on quasi-delict that has no reasonable connection with ER-EE relationship under the labor code. 2006 notes: Courts cannot assume jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings cond ucted by private entities against an employee. 2006 notes: Action to annul an NHA award should be filed by way of appeal to the office of the President , but action to annul title should be filed to the RTC. 2006 notes: HLURB has jurisdiction over: 1.Complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage filed by condominium buyers 2.Action filed by developers of a subdivision against buyers in the subdivision 2006 notes: COMELEC cannot issue writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus s ince an original special civil action of such against a RTC in an election conte st may be filed only in the CA or in the SC being the only courts given such ori ginal jurisdiction under the Constitution. JURISDICTION OF THE MTC CRIMINAL CASES exclusive original jurisdiction over(except in cases falling withi n the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandig anbayan) a. all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respect ive territorial jurisdiction; and b. all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years 1) irrespective of the amount of fine, and 2) regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties 3) including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereo n, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof CIVIL CASES --exclusive original jurisdiction over A. Civil actions and probate proceedings where the value of the personal propert y, estate, or amount of the demand 1.does not exceed a) P300,000 outside Metro Manila (2006 notes) b) P400,000 in Metro Manila 2.exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation e xpenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged (but intere st, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included i n the determination of the filing fees) 3.where there are several claims or causes of actions between the same or differ ent parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be t he totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether t he causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions B. cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer (when, in such cases, the defendant raises the questions of ownership in his ple adings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the is sue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession) C. actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any inter est therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein 1.does not exceed P20,000 outside Metro Manila P50,000 in Metro Manila 2.exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation e xpenses and costs: 3.in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such propert y shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN (Sec. 4, PD 1606 as amended by RA 8249)

5. violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Bribery under the RPC, forfeiture of properties unlawfully acquired by public officers, where one or mo re of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the governm ent, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the comm ission of the offense: a. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional directo r and higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, specifically includ ing: 1) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan , and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department hea ds; 2) City mayor, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasure rs, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads; 3) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and high er; 4) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of h igher rank; 5) Officers of the PNP while occupying the position of provincial director and t hose holding the rank of senior superintended or higher; 6) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prose cutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; 7) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of GOCCs, state universities o r educational institutions or foundations. b. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade '27' and higher c. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitut ion; d. Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commission, without prejudice to the p rovisions of the Constitution; and e. All other national and local officials classified as Grade '27' and higher. 6. Other offenses of felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes comm itted by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this se ction in relation to their office. 7. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive O rder Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final jud gments, resolutions or order of RTCs whether in the exercise of their own origin al jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided. The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, i njunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate juri sdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Suprem e Court. 4blue95:The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the impl ementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may thereafter promulg ate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall app ly to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all case s elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent th e People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order N os. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. 4blue95:In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with sa id public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclu sive jurisdiction over them.

4blue95:Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civi l liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly de termined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing such civil actio n separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: Provided, however, Th at where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but judgment ther ein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolida tion and joint determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate ci vil action shall be deemed abandoned. KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY A. Local Government Code (Secs. 399-422) Sec. 399. Lupong Tagapamayapa. (a) There is hereby created in each barangay a lupong tagapamayapa, (f) In barangays where majority of the inhabitants are members of indigenous cul tural communities, local systems of settling disputes through their councils of datus or elders shall be recognized without prejudice to the applicable provisio ns of this Code. Sec. 404. Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo. - (a) There shall be constituted for each d ispute brought before the lupon a conciliation panel to be known as the pangkat ng tagapagkasundo, xxx. Sec. 407. Legal Advice on Matters Involving Questions of Law. - The provincial, city legal officer or prosecutor or the municipal legal officer shall render leg al advice on matters involving questions of law to the punong barangay or any lu pon or pangkat member whenever necessary in the exercise of his functions in the administration of the katarungang pambarangay. Sec. 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. - The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually re siding in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes (subject to certain exceptions) Sec. 409. Venue 1. living in the same barangay said barangay 2. living in the different barangays within the same city or municipality barang ay where the/a respondent resides, at the option of the complainant 3. involving real property or any interest therein where the real property or th e larger portion thereof is situated 4. arising at the workplace or at the educational institution where such workpla ce or institution is located Sec. 410. Procedure for Amicable Settlement. 1.Complaint (need not be in writing) with filing fee to the lupon chairman of th e barangay (interrupts prescription for at most 60 days) 2.lupon chairman shall within the next working day summon the respondents, with notice to the complainants for them and their witnesses to appear before him for a mediation 3.if there is failure to mediate within 15 days from the first meeting, pangkat is constituted 4.pangkat convenes not later than 3 days from constitution, may issue summons 5.In the event that a party moves to disqualify any member of the pangkat on a g round discovered after the constitution, the matter shall be resolved by the aff irmative vote of the majority of the pangkat whose decision shall be final. Shou ld disqualification be decided upon, the resulting vacancy shall be filled. 6.The pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or resolution of the dispute within 1 5 days from the day it convenes, extendible for at most 15 days; may be extended further only in clearly meritorious cases. 7.The prescriptive periods shall resume a. upon receipt by the complainant of

1) the complaint 2) the certificate of repudiation issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary 3) the certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary b. lapse of 60 days from filing of complaint with the barangay chairman Sec. 411. Form of settlement 1.in writing 2.in a language or dialect known to the parties 3.signed by the parties, and 4.attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman Sec. 412. Conciliation. (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. - No complaint, petition, act ion, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adju dication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the l upon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been re ached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by t he parties thereto. (b) Where Parties May Go Directly to Court. xxx (compiled by SC AC 14-93) (c) Conciliation among members of indigenous cultural communities. - The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in settling disputes between members of the cultural communities. GR: Preconditions to filing a complaint in court when the cause of action withi n the authority of the lupon, either 1. There had been a. confrontation before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, b. no conciliation or settlement has been reached, and c. certification by the lupon or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon o r pangkat chairman that no conciliation or settlement has been reached 2. or, settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto Arbitration. (a) The parties may, at any stage of the proceedings, agree in writing that they shall abide by the arbitration award of the lupon chairman or the pangkat. Such agreement to arbitrate may be repudiated within five (5) days from the date the reof for the same grounds and in accordance with the procedure hereinafter presc ribed. The arbitration award shall be made after the lapse of the period for rep udiation and within ten (10) days thereafter. (b) The arbitration award shall be in writing in a language or dialect known to the parties. When the parties to the dispute do not use the same language or dia lect, the award shall be written in the language or dialect known to them. Agreement to arbitrate must be in writing. Repudiation of 1. Agreement to arbitrate within 5 days from agreement to arbitrate 2. Arbitration award within 10 days, action for annulment of arbitration award w ith the MTC (Sec. 416) 3. Amicable settlement within 10 days by an affidavit filed with the lupon chair man (Sec. 418) 4blue95:Such repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of the certi fication for filing a complaint as hereinabove provided. 4blue95:Grounds for repudiation of settlement: consent vitiated by fraud, violen ce, or intimidation Sec. 414. Proceedings Open to the Public; Exception. - All proceedings for settl ement shall be public and informal: Provided, however, That the lupon chairman o r the pangkat chairman, as the case may be, may motu proprio or upon request of a party, exclude the public from the proceedings in the interest of privacy, dec ency, or public morals. Sec. 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all katarungang pambarangay proc eedings, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel or

representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers. Sec. 416. Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award. - The amicable se ttlement and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a final judgme nt of a court upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has been made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper city or municipal court. However, this provisio n shall not apply to court cases settled by the lupon under the last paragraph o f Section 408 of this Code (non-criminal cases not within the lupon s authority re ferred by a court), in which case the compromise settlement agreed upon by the p arties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman shall be submitted to t he court and upon approval thereof, have the force and effect of a judgment of s aid court. Sec. 417. Execution. The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the lupon within six (6) months from the date of the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in the appropriate city or municipal court. Execution of an amicable settlement or arbitration award in KB 1. by motion by the lupon within 6 months from date of settlement 2. by action before the inferior courts after 6 months from date of settlement Sec. 419. Transmittal of Settlement and Arbitration Award to the Court. - The se cretary of the lupon shall transmit the settlement or the arbitration award to t he appropriate city or municipal court within five (5) days from the date of the award or from the lapse of the ten-day period repudiating the settlement and sh all furnish copies thereof to each of the parties to the settlement and the lupo n chairman. Sec. 420. Power to Administer Oaths. - The punong barangay, as chairman of the l upong tagapamayapa, and the members of the pangkat are hereby authorized to admi nister oaths in connection with any matter relating to all proceedings in the im plementation of the katarungang pambarangay. 4blue95 notes: Law applies only to dispute between natural persons and does not apply to juridical person such as the estate of the deceased. 4blue95 notes: The object of Katarungang Pambarangay is to effect an amicable se ttlement of disputes among family & barangay member at barangay level w/o judici al recourse and consequently help relieve courts of docket congestion. 4blue95 notes: Unlike in Pre-trial for amicable settlement, lawyers are prohibit ed from appearing as parties. Parties in barangay level must appear in person ex cept minors or incompetents who may be assisted by their next kin who are not la wyers. B. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 14-93 I. When prior recourse to Barangay conciliation is not a pre-condition before fi ling a complaint in court or any government offices (MEMORIZE!) 3. one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; 4. one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the per formance of his official functions; 5. dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipaliti es, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable sett lement by an appropriate Lupon; 6. complaint by or against juridical entities 7. parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalitie s, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto ag ree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon 8. Offenses punishable by more than 1 year or a fine over P5,000 9. Offenses where there is no private offended party 10. accused is under police custody or detention 11. Petitions for habeas corpus 12. Actions coupled with provisional remedies

13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations. As determined by the President CARL disputes Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise

4blue95:Cases for legal separation should be among the exceptions. It was an ove rsight. II. Under the provisions of R.A. 7160 on Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation, a s implemented by the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules and Regulations promulgated b y the Secretary of Justice, the certification for filing a complaint in court or any government office shall be issued by Barangay authorities only upon complia nce with the following requirements: Requirements for issuance of certification for filing a complaint in court or a ny government office 1. Issued by the Lupon Secretary and attested by the Lupon Chairman, certifying that a. a confrontation took place and that a conciliation settlement has been reache d, but the same has been subsequently repudiated 2. Issued by the Pangkat Secretary and attested by the Pangkat Chairman, certify ing that: a. a confrontation took place but no conciliation/settlement has been reached, o r b. no confrontation took place before the Pangkat through no fault of the compla inant 3. Issued by the Punong Barangay, as requested by the proper party on the ground of failure of settlement where a. Either 1) the dispute involves members of the same indigenous cultural community, which shall be settled in accordance with the customs and traditions of that particul ar cultural community, or 2) one or more of the parties to the aforesaid dispute belong to the minority an d the parties mutually agreed to submit their dispute to the indigenous system o f amicable settlement, and b. there has been no settlement as certified by the datu or tribal leader or eld er to the Punong Barangay of place of settlement; and The Punong Barangay shall not issue the certification to file action, but shoul d constitute the pangkat in the following cases 1. If mediation or conciliation efforts before the Punong Barangay proved unsucc essful, there having been no agreement to arbitrate, or 2. where the respondent fails to appear at the mediation proceeding before the P unong Barangay, III. xxx IV. A case filed in court without compliance with prior Barangay conciliation wh ich is a pre-condition for formal adjudication xxx may be dismissed upon motion of defendant/s, not for lack of jurisdiction of the court but for failure to sta te a cause of action or prematurity xxx, or the court may suspend proceedings up on petition of any party under Sec. 1, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court; and refer the case motu proprio to the appropriate Barangay authority, applying by analogy Sec. 408 [g], 2nd par., of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law which reads as follows: "The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the L upon under this Code are filed may at any time before trial, motu proprio refer case to the Lupon concerned for amicable settlement. Options where a case is filed in court without the required prior Barangay conc iliation 1. dismissal upon motion of defendant on failure to state a cause of action or p rematurity 2. suspension of proceedings upon petition of any party

3. refer the case motu proprio to the appropriate Barangay authority Candido v. Macapagal, 221 SCRA 328 (1993) The barangay court or Lupon has jurisd iction over disputes between parties who are actual residents of barangays locat ed in the same city or municipality or adjoining barangays of different cities o r municipalities. Where some of the other co-defendants reside in barangays of m unicipalities, cities and provinces different with that of the complainant, comp ulsory conciliation is not required. The action may be filed directly in court. Vda. de Borromeo v. Pogoy, 126 SCRA 217 (1983): Referral of a dispute to the Bar angay Lupon is required only where the parties thereto are individuals. An intes tate estate is a juridical person and not an individual. The administrator may f ile the complaint directly in court. San Miguel v. Pundogar, 173 SCRA 704 (1989): Failure of a plaintiff to comply wi th the requirements of Katarungang Pambarangay does not affect the jurisdiction of the court that tried the action. Failure of a plaintiff to go through the req uired conciliation procedure merely affects the sufficiency, or the maturity or ripeness of the cause of action and the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss, not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, but rather for want of c ause of action or for prematurity. Where, however, the defendant in an action fa ils for one reason or another to respond to a notice to appear before the Lupon, the requirement of conciliation proceedings must be regarded as having been sat isfied by the plaintiff. A defendant cannot be allowed to frustrate the requirem ents of the statute by her own refusal or failure to appear before the Lupon and then later to assail a judgment rendered in such action by setting up the very ground of non-compliance with conciliation proceedings. The alleged failure on t he part of a plaintiff to comply with conciliation proceedings must be raised in a timely manner, that is, at the first available opportunity, if such alleged f ailure is to provide legal basis for dismissal of the complaint. Such failure mu st be pleaded, in a timely motion to dismiss or in the answer. Failure to so set up that defense produces the effect of waiver of such defense. Uy v. Contreras, 237 SCRA 167 (1994): Conciliation process at the Barangay level is a condition precedent for the filing of a complaint in Court. Non-compliance with that condition precedent could effect the sufficiency of the plaintiff's c ause of action and make his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of l ack of cause of action or prematurity. Pending the first mediation, no case coul d be validly filed with the courts. Filing of complaint with the lupon tolls the prescriptive period for 60 days at most. 4blue95 notes: Labor cases are exempt from Barangay Conciliation proceedings bec ause the labor court has its own experts at arriving at an amicable settlement. Gegare v. CA, 177 SCRA 471 (1989) Where the case involves residents of the same barangay, it must comply with conciliation proceedings even if a government inst rumentality is one of the defendants. If the other only adverse party is the gov ernment or its instrumentality or subdivision, the case falls within the excepti on. But when the government instrumentality is only one of multiple adverse part ies, a confrontation should still be undertaken among the other parties. Galuba v. Laureta, 157 SCRA 627 (1988): The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the ex piration of the 10 days from the date thereof unless repudiation of the settleme nt has been made or a petition for nullification of the award has been filed bef ore the proper city or municipal court. Having failed to repudiate the amicable settlement within the 10-day period, petitioner is left with no recourse but to abide by its terms. BAR:L is the owner of 5 door apartment unit 3 doors of which he has leased to F, G and M for monthly rental of P250.00 per door. L occupies the 4th door. the 5th door is vacant. F, G & M have been his tenants for close to 30 yrs at that rate . Alleging that he needs to repossess all 3 doors for use of his son, he sued afte r the requisite letters to vacate F,G & M before the MTC for unlawful detainer. F, G &M answered the complaints and set up the defense that ejectment was not pr

oper since the 5th door was available for his son s residence. The Trial judge dec reed ejectment. On appeal to the RTC, F,G&M alleged that decision was null & voi d for lack of prior confrontation to the Lupong Tagamayapa. HELD: Lack of prior confrontation before the lupon pursuant to PD 1508 does not affect the jurisdiction of the MTC over action for unlawful detainer(it is pres umed that complaint was filed w/in 1 yr from demand to vacate) Moreover, by answ ering the complaint w/o objecting to jurisdiction of court ,they are estopped fr om raising the question of jurisdiction. However, L s failure to resort to conciliation process affects the sufficiency of his cause of action and makes his complaint subject to dismissal on ground of la ck of cause of action of prematurity. BAR:A brought an action for unlawful detainer against B in the MTC.B filed motio n to dismiss on ground of lack of cause of action for failure to first refer the dispute to the Barangay Lupon. Acting on B s motion, case was dismissed. A files petition for certiorari w/ the RTC assailing the MTC s dismissal on ground that B s motion is a prohibited motion on Summary Procedure. HELD: No, since the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure allows a motion to dismis s on ground of failure to comply with the provision on referral to Lupon (sec19A) ?? ?? ?? ??

2 Remedial Law Jurisdiction