jurisdiction case doctrines (compilation)

8/11/2019 Jurisdiction Case Doctrines (Compilation)

1/13

Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 1

SOLEMNIDAD M. BUAYAv.

THE HONORABLE WENCESLAO M. POLO and the

COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Allegations in the complaint or information determine

jurisdiction

In Villanueva v. Ortiz, et al . (L-15344, May 30, 1960, 108 Phil, 493)

this Court ruled that in order to determine the jurisdiction of the court

in criminal cases, the complaint must be examined for the purpose of

ascertaining whether or not the facts set out therein and the

punishment provided for by law fall within the jurisdiction of the court

where the complaint is filed. The jurisdiction of courts in criminal

cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information,

and not by the findings the court may make after the trial (People v.Mission, 87 Phil. 641).

In re: Estafa

Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: In all

criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the

court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was

committed or any of the essential elements thereof took place.

Besides, the crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which

may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elementsof the crime took place. One of the essential elements of estafa is

damage or prejudice to the offended party. The private respondent

has its principal place of business and office at Manila. The failure of

the petitioner to remit the insurance premiums she collected allegedly

caused damage and prejudice to private respondent in Manila.

ISIDRO PABLITO M. PALANA v.PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES

Law at the time of institution of the action determines jurisdiction

in criminal actionsIt is hornbook doctrine that jurisdiction to try a criminal action is

determined by the law in force at the time of the institutionof the

action and not during the arraignment of the accused.

Prospective application

The subsequent amendment of B.P. 129 by R.A. No. 7691, An Act

Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal

Circuit Trial Courts and the Metropolitan Trial Courton June 15,

1994 cannot divest the Regional Trial Court of jurisdiction over

petitioners case. Where a court has already obtained and is

exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to

the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation

placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal unless

the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is

intended to operate on actions pending before its enactment. Indeed,

R.A. No. 7691 contains retroactive provisions. However, these only

apply to civil cases that have not yet reached the pre-trial stage.

In re: BP 22In the present case, the fine imposable is P200,000.00 hence, the

Regional Trial Court properly acquired jurisdiction over the case. The

Metropolitan Trial Court could not acquire jurisdiction over the criminal

action because its jurisdiction is only for offenses punishable with a

fine of not more than P4,000.00.


2/13


| 2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEJO

TAROY yTARNATE

Jurisdiction is where the offense was committed or where any of

its essential ingredients took placeVenue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. It can neither be waived nor

subjected to stipulation. The right venue must exist as a matter of

law. Thus, for territorial jurisdiction to attach, the criminal action must

be instituted and tried in the proper court of the municipality, city, or

province where the offense was committed or where any of its

essential ingredients took place.

In re: Case

The Informations filed with the RTC of La Trinidad state that the

crimes were committed in the victim and the offenders house in City

Limit, Tuding, Municipality of Itogon, Province of Benguet. This

allegation conferred territorial jurisdiction over the subject offenses on

the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. The testimonies of Mila and Des as

well as the affidavit of arrest point to this fact. Clearly, Taroys

uncorroborated assertion that the subject offenses took place

in Baguio City is not entitled to belief. Besides, he admitted during the

pre-trial in the case that it was the RTC of La Trinidad that had

jurisdiction to hear the case. Taken altogether, that RTCs jurisdiction

to hear the case is beyond dispute.

JOSE C. MIRANDA, ET. AL v.VIRGILIO M. TULIAO

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused not required in

motion to quash warrant of arrest and other relief; Exception

Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires neither

jurisdiction over the person of the accused, nor custody of law over

the body of the accused.

Except in applications for bail, it is not necessary for the court to first

acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused to dismiss the case

or grant other relief.

Examples:1) The outright dismissal of the case even before the court

acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused is

authorized under Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules

of Criminal Procedure and the Revised Rules on Summary

Procedure (Sec. 12a).

2) In Allado vs. Diokno (232 SCRA 192), the case was dismissed

on motion of the accused for lack of probable cause without

the accused having been arrested.

Accused submits to the jurisdiction of the court upon seeking

affirmative relief

In cases not involving the so-called special appearance, the general

rule applies, i.e., the accused is deemed to have submitted himself to

the jurisdiction of the court upon seeking affirmative relief.

Notwithstanding this, there is no requirement for him to be in the

custody of the law.

Custody of the law vs. Jurisdiction over the person

Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon theapplication for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other

reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor

constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the

person of the accused.

Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary

surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is

acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. One can be under

the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the

court over his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a


3/13


| 3

warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On

the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over

his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when an

accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced. Being in the

custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is therebydeprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to

the will of the law. Custody of the law is literally custody over the body

of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.

VENANCIO FIGUEROA v.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings;

Exception

The general rule should, however, be, as it has always been, that the

issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings,

even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. Estoppel by

laches, to bar a litigant from asserting the courts absence or lack of

jurisdiction, only supervenes in exceptional cases similar to the

factual milieu of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. Indeed, the fact that a person

attempts to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of a court does not estop

him from thereafter challenging its jurisdiction over the subject matter,

since such jurisdiction must arise by law and not by mere consent ofthe parties. This is especially true where the person seeking to

invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of the court does not thereby secure

any advantage or the adverse party does not suffer any harm.

Estoppel by laches explained

True, delay alone, though unreasonable, will not sustain the defense

of estoppel by lachesunless it further appears that the party,

knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them until the condition

of the party pleading laches has in good faith become so changed that

he cannot be restored to his former state, if the rights be then

enforced, due to loss of evidence, change of title, intervention of

equities, and other causes.

In re: Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy

In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court thatrendered the questioned ruling was held to be barred by estoppel by

laches. It was ruled that the lack of jurisdiction having been raised for

the first time in a motion to dismiss filed almost fifteen (15) years after

the questioned ruling had been rendered, such a plea may no longer

be raised for being barred by laches. As defined in said case, laches

is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of

time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should

have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right

within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party

entitled to assert has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

It is noteworthy that the party questioning the jurisdiction actively

participated in the trial and even raised affirmative reliefs. It was only

when the adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that

it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. This strategy is

frowned upon because the party only challenges the jurisdiction for

the purpose of nullifying the entire proceedings.

HEIRS OF JANE HONRALES v. JONATHAN HONRALES

Requisites of double jeopardy

Thus, double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are

present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first

jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for

the same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after

a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after

arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when


4/13


| 4

the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed

or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

Court where information is filed retains jurisdiction until final

determination

In this case, the MeTC took cognizance of the Information for reckless

imprudence resulting in parricide while the criminal case for parricide

was still pending before the RTC. In Dioquino v. Cruz, Jr., we held

that once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the Information

is filed, it is there retained. Therefore, as the offense of reckless

imprudence resulting in parricide was included in the charge for

intentional parricide pending before the RTC, the MeTC clearly had no

jurisdiction over the criminal case filed before it, the RTC having

retained jurisdiction over the offense to the exclusion of all other

courts. The requisite that the judgment be rendered by a court ofcompetent jurisdiction is therefore absent.

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC.v.PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES

Accused must submit to courts jurisdiction or custody of the

law to avail the right to appeal

The second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 124 of the 2000 Revised

Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

"The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee

or motuproprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes

from prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign

country during the pendency of the appeal."

This rule is based on the rationale that appellants lose their standing

in court when they abscond. Unless they surrender or submit to the

courts jurisdiction, they are deemed to have waived their right to seek

judicial relief.

Moreover, this doctrine applies not only to the accused who jumps bail

during the appeal, but also to one who does so during the trial.

The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless they

voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the court or are otherwise

arrested within 15 days from notice of the judgment against

them. While at large, they cannot seek relief from the court, as they

are deemed to have waived the appeal. Consequently, the judgment

against him has become final and executory.

EQUI-ASIA v.DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The RTC is a regular court

There is no denying that regular courts have jurisdiction over cases

involving the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued

by administrative agencies. Such jurisdiction, however, is not limited

to the Court of Appeals or to this Court alone for even the regional trialcourts can take cognizance of actions assailing a specific rule or set

of rules promulgated by administrative bodies. Indeed, the

Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare

a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential

decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts,

including the regional trial courts.


5/13


| 5

CABRERA v.LAPID

Direct appeal from the issuances of the Ombudsman to the

Supreme Court not allowed in criminal cases; declaredunconstitutional

Clearly, this is an appeal from the questioned issuances of the

Ombudsman. However, such direct resort to this Court from a resolution

or order of the Ombudsman is not sanctioned by any rule of procedure.

Neither can petitioner avail of Sec. 27of R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known

as The Ombudsman Act of 1989. The provision allowed direct appeals in

administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to

the Supreme Court. The right to appeal is granted only in respect to

orders or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases.The

provision does not cover resolutions of the Ombudsman in criminalcases. More importantly, Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 6770 insofar as it allowed a

direct appeal to this Court was declared unconstitutional in Fabian v.

Hon. Desierto.

The purported errors in judgment can be corrected by an appeal,

although not via a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

Remedy: Petition for certiorari under Rule 65

However, an aggrieved party in criminal actions is not without any

recourse. Where grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excessof jurisdiction taints the findings of the Ombudsman on the existence of

probable cause, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under

Rule 65.

No grave abuse of discretion due to valid exercise of police

power

A careful reading of the questioned Resolution reveals that the

Ombudsman dismissed petitioners criminal complaint because

respondents had validly resorted to the police power of the State

when they effected the demolition of the illegal fishpond in question

following the declaration thereof as a nuisanceper se. Thus, the

Ombudsman was of the opinion that no violation of Section 3(e) of the

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or of Article 324 of the Revised

Penal Code was committed by respondents. In the words of the

Ombudsman, those who participated in the blasting of the subjectfishpond were only impelled by their desire to serve the best interest

of the general public; for the good and the highest good.

Grave abuse of discretion or error of jurisdiction vs. Error in

judgment

Grave abuse of discretion should be differentiated from an error in

judgment. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in

the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reversible only by an

appeal. 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. An error

of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the

court without or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible

only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

BOKINGCO v.COURT OF APPEALS

Allegations in the complaint determine jurisdiction

It is axiomatic that the nature of the action and which court has

original and exclusive jurisdiction over the same is determined by the

material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by

the plaintiff, and the law in effect when the action is filed, irrespective

of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to some or all of the claims

asserted therein. The caption of the complaint is not determinative of

the nature of the action. Nor does the jurisdiction of the court depend


6/13


| 6

upon the answer of the defendant or agreement of the parties, or to

the waiver or acquiescence of the parties.

RTC has jurisdiction over cases where money claim is only

purely incidental or a consequence of the principal relief which is

incapable of pecuniary estimationIn this connection, it is well to note that the Court had the occasion to

explain that "in determining whether an action is one the subject

matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of

the principal action, or remedy sought must first be ascertained. If it is

primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered

capable of pecuniary estimation, and jurisdiction over the action will

depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is

something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the

money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal

relief sought, the action is one where the subject of litigation may not

be estimated in terms of money, which is cognizable exclusively by

Regional Trial Courts."

GONZALES v.ABAYA

General rule: crimes or offenses committed by the members of

the AFP and other persons subject to military law fall under thejurisdiction of the proper civil court; Exception; Exception to the

exception

Section 1 of R.A. No. 7055, quoted above, is clear and unambiguous.

First, it lays down the general rule that members of the AFP and other

persons subject to military law, including members of the Citizens

Armed Forces Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses

penalized under the Revised Penal Code (like coup detat), other

special penal laws, or local ordinances shall be tried by the proper

civil court. Next, it provides the exception to the general rule, i.e.,

where the civil court, before arraignment, has determined the offense

to be service-connected, then the offending soldier shall be tried by a

court martial. Lastly, the law states an exception to the exception, i.e.,

where the President of the Philippines, in the interest of justice, directs

before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by theproper civil cour.

Service-connected crimes or offenses explained

The second paragraph of the same provision further identifies the

"service-connected crimes or offenses" as "limited to those defined

inArticles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97" of the

Articles of War. Violations of these specified Articles are triable by

court martial. This delineates the jurisdiction between the civil courts

and the court martial over crimes or offenses committed by military

personnel.

Such delineation of jurisdiction by R.A. No. 7055 is necessary to

preserve the peculiar nature of military justice system over military

personnel charged with service-connected offenses. The military

justice system is disciplinary in nature, aimed at achieving the highest

form of discipline in order to ensure the highest degree of military

efficiency.Here, petitioners are charged for violation of Article 96

(conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of

War before the court martial.

It bears stressing that the charge against the petitioners concerns the

alleged violation of their solemn oath as officers to defend the

Constitution and the duly-constituted authorities.Such violation

allegedly caused dishonor and disrespect to the military

profession. In short, the charge has a bearing on

their professionalconductor behavioras military off icers. Equally

indicative of the "service-connected" nature of the offense is the

penalty prescribed for the same dismissal from the service

imposable only by the military court.Such penalty is purely


7/13


| 7

disciplinary in character, evidently intended to cleanse the military

profession of misfits and to preserve the stringent standard of military

discipline.

Only the Constitution or the law can bestow jurisdictionnot thecourts

The RTC, in making such declaration, practically amended the law

which expressly vests in the court martial the jurisdiction over

"service-connected crimes or offenses." What the law has conferred

the court should not take away. It is only the Constitution or the law

that bestows jurisdiction on the court, tribunal, body or officer over the

subject matter or nature of an action which can do so.And it is only

through a constitutional amendment or legislative enactment that such

act can be done. The first and fundamental duty of the courts is

merely to apply the law "as they find it, not as they like it to be."

INIEGO v.PURAGANAN

Subject matter is the measure whether or not it is capable of

pecuniary estimationnot the cause of action; Subject matter

vs. Cause of action

It is crystal clear from B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No.7691, that what must be determined to be capable or incapable of

pecuniary estimation is not the cause of action, but the subject

matterof the action. A cause of action is the delict or wrongful act or

omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights

of the plaintiff.On the other hand, the subject matter of the action is

the physical facts, the thing real or personal, the money, lands,

chattels, and the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted, and

not the delict or wrong committed by the defendant.

Principal action or remedy determines whether the subject

matter is capable of pecuniary estimation

In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is

not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the

criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action orremedy sought. I f it is pr imar i ly for the recovery of a sum o f

mon ey, the claim is considered capable of p ecuniary est imat ion,

and whether jur isdict ion is in the munic ipal cour ts o r in the

cour ts of f i rst instance [now Regional Tr ia l Cour ts] would

depend on th e amount of the claim. However, where the basic

issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money,

where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of,

the principal relief sought like suits to have the defendant perform his

part of the contract (specific performance) and in actions for support,

or for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this court

has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the

litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable

exclusively by courts of first instance [now Regional Trial Courts].

Action for damages based on a quasi-delict is capable of

pecuniary estimation

Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and

effectively actions for the recovery of a sum of money for the

damages suffered because of the defendantsalleged tortious acts. The damages claimed in such actions represent

the monetary equivalent of the injury caused to the plaintiff by the

defendant, which are thus sought to be recoveredby the

plaintiff. This money claim is the principal relief sought, and is not

merely incidental thereto or a consequence thereof.

Fault or negligence is not capable of pecuniary estimation when

not accompanied by a resulting damage

Fault or negligence, which the Court of Appeals claims is not capable

of pecuniary estimation, is not actionable by itself. For such fault or


8/13


| 8

negligence to be actionable, there must be a resulting damage to a

third person. The relief available to the offended party in such cases is

for the reparation, restitution, or payment of such damage, without

which any alleged offended party has no cause of action or relief. The

fault or negligence of the defendant, therefore, is inextricablyintertwined with the claim for damages, and there can be no action

based on quasi-delict without a claim for damages.

BERNAS v.SOVEREIGN VENTURES

Service of summons required in an application for a writ of

preliminary injunction or TRO; Exception

Section 4 (c), Rule 58 of the 1997 Rulesof Civil Procedure, as

amended. The provision now reads as follows:

(c) When an application for a writ of preliminary

injunction or a temporary restraining order is included in a

complaint or any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a

multiple-sala court, shall be raffled only after notice to

and in the presence of the adverse party or the

person to be enjoined. In any event, such notice shall be

preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, byservice of summons, together with a copy of the

complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicants

affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in

the Philippines.

However, where the summons could not be served

personally or by substituted service despite diligent

efforts, or the adverse party is a resident of the

Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or is non-

resident thereof, the requirement of prior or

contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply.

Jurisdiction is acquired through service of summons orvoluntary appearance

Moreover, as held by the trial court, petitioner voluntarily submitted

himself to the jurisdiction of the said court. Records show that he

filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars, Motion to Cite Respondent and

Counsel in Contempt of Court, praying for other reliefs, just and

equitable. He filed an Omnibus Motion assailing the trial courts

order restraining the annotation of lis pendenson the titles of the

property in litigation. He participated in the hearing of this

motion. And lastly, he filed a motion to dismiss.

A court generally acquires jurisdiction over a person through either a

valid service of summons or the persons voluntary appearance in

court.

UNION BANK v.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Intra-corporate cases transferred from SEC to RTC; Pending

cases not included

Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the Securities Regulation

Code, was approved by then Pres. Estrada on July 19, 2000. The law

transferred the SEC's original and exclusive jurisdiction over intra-

corporate cases to the courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate

Regional Trial Court (RTC) except for "pending cases involving intra-

corporate disputes submitted for final resolution which should be

resolved within one (1) year from the enactment of [the] Code."


9/13


| 9

Jurisdiction includes the execution of judgment; Exception

The grant to a tribunal or agency of adjudicatory power, or the

authority to hear and adjudge cases, should normally and logically be

deemed to include the grant of authority to enforce or execute the

judgments it renders, unless the law otherwise provides. This is sobecause the authority to decide cases is inutile unless accompanied

by the authority to see to it that what has been decided is carried out.

A case at the execution stage is still considered a pending case

Petitioner's contention that the SEC does not have jurisdiction to

execute because once decided, the case ceases to be a "pending"

case and becomes a "decided" case deserves scant attention. In the

first place, we have repeatedly held that a case in which an execution

has been issued is considered as still "pending" so that all

proceedings on the execution are proceedings in the suit.

A long standing doctrine is that the tribunal which rendered the

decision or award has a general supervisory control over the process

of its execution, and this includes the power to determine every

question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution.

GOLANGCO v.FUNG

The CA does not have jurisdiction over criminal or non-

administrative cases decided by the Office of the Ombudsman

The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and

decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative

disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders,

directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or

non-administrative cases.

MISON v.NATIVIDAD

The Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure

and forfeiture proceedingsThe respondent Judge, therefore, acted arbitrarily and despotically in

issuing the temporary restraining order, granting the writ of preliminary

injunction and denying the motion to dismiss, thereby removing the

res from the control of the Collector of Customs and depriving him of

his exclusive original jurisdiction over the controversy. Respondent

Judge exercised a power he never had and encroached upon the

exclusive original jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs. By express

provision of law, amply supported by well-settled jurisprudence, the

Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and

forfeiture proceedings and regular courts cannot interfere with hisexercise thereof or stifle or put it to naught.

Neither payment of taxes and licenses (allegations of ownership)

nor the illegality of the warrant of seizure and detention divest

the Collector of Customs of jurisdiction or justify the trial courts

interference

Private respondent alleges ownership over several vehicles which are

legally registered in his name, having paid all the taxes and

corresponding licenses incident thereto, neither divests the Collector

of Customs of such jurisdiction nor confers upon the said trial court

regular jurisdiction over the case. Even the illegality of the warrant of

seizure and detention cannot justify the trial courts interference with

the Collectors jurisdiction. In the first place, there is a distinction

between the existence of the Collectors power to issue it and the

regularity of the proceeding taken under such power. In the second

place, even if there be such an irregularity in the latter, the Regional

Trial Court does not have the competence to review, modify or

reverse whatever conclusions may result therefrom.


10/13


| 10

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v.COURT OF APPEALS, ET.

AL

Trial courts cannot interfere with the Collector of Customs even

through proceedings under Rule 65

This Court again reminds all concerned that the rule is clear: the

Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and

forfeiture proceedings and trial courts are precluded from assuming

cognizance over such matters even through petitions for certiorari,

prohibition or mandamus.

Jurisdiction over the re smust be first acquiredThe Bureau of Customs had acquired jurisdiction over the resahead

and to the exclusion of the RTC of Manila. The forfeiture proceedings

conducted by the Bureau of Customs are in the nature of proceedings

in rem and jurisdiction was obtained from the moment the vessel

entered the SFLU port.

DANILO G. PUNONGBAYAN v.PERFECTO G.PUNONGBAYAN, JR., MARILOU P. VISITACION, and

SOTERO A. PUNONGBAYAN

The RTC can re-organize management committees of

corporations

Republic Act No. 8799, which became effective on August 8, 2000,

transferred the jurisdiction of the SEC over cases involving intra-

corporate disputes to the Regional Trial Courts. Thus, the RTC

assumed powers provided under Sections 5 and 6 of Presidential

Decree No. 902-A quoted earlier. As such, it has the discretion to

grant or deny an application for the creation of a management

committee. This discretion, however, must be exercised with great

caution and circumspection.

Having the power to create a management committee, it follows that

the RTC can order the reorganization of the existing managementcommittee. Here, knowing that the deadlock among the members of

the committee (appointed by the SEC) may lead to the paralyzation of

the schools business operations, the RTC removed the said

members and appointed new members.

SPOUSES EDMUNDO T. OSEA AND LIGAYA R. OSEA

v.ANTONIO G. AMBROSIO AND RODOLFO C. PEREZ

Jurisdiction of administrative agencies determined by the statute

that created or empowering it

Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1344 clarifies and spells out the quasi-

judicial dimensions of the grant of jurisdiction to the HLURB in the

following specific terms:

SEC. 1. In the exercise of its functions to

regulate the real estate trade and business and in

addition to its powers provided for in PresidentialDecree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall

have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases

of the following nature:

A. Unsound real estate business practices;

B. Claims involving refund and any other

claimsfiled by subdivision lot or condominium unit

buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer,

broker or salesman; and


11/13


| 11

C. Cases involving specific performance of

contractual and statutory obligations filed by

buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units

against the owner, developer, dealer, broker orsalesman. (Emphasis supplied)

The HLURB has quasi-judicial authority because of its technical

expertise on the subject matter

The business of developing subdivisions and corporations being

imbued with public interest and welfare, any question arising from the

exercise of that prerogative should be brought to the HLURB which

has the technical know-how on the matter. In the exercise of its

powers, the HLURB must commonly interpret and apply contracts and

determine the rights of private parties under such contracts. This

ancillary power is no longer a uniquely judicial function, exercisable

only by the regular courts.

Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction

Moreover, under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction,

courts cannot or will not determine a controversy where the issues for

resolution demand the exercise of sound administrative discretion

requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of theadministrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of

fact.

Under the circumstances attendant to the case, the HLURB has the

expertise to determine the basic technical issue of whether the

alleged deviations from the building plans and the technical

specifications affect the soundness and structural strength of the

house.

ALCARAZ v.GONZALEZ

The determination of probable cause is exclusive to the Department

of Justicethe CA cannot interfere via appealIt bears stressing that in the determination of probable cause during the

preliminary investigation, the executive branch of government has full

discretionary authority. Thus, the decision whether or not to dismiss the

criminal complaint against the private respondent is necessarily

dependent on the sound discretion of the Investigating Prosecutor and

ultimately, that of the Secretary of Justice. Courts are not empowered to

substitute their own judgment for that of the executive branch.

The resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor is subject to appeal to the

Justice Secretary who, under the Revised Administrative Code, exercisesthe power of control and supervision over said Investigating Prosecutor;

and who may affirm, nullify, reverse, or modify the ruling of such

prosecutor.

The CA can interfere only in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65

Thus, while the CA may review the resolution of the Justice Secretary, it

may do so only in a petition for certiorariunder Rule 65 of the Rules of

Court, solely on the ground that the Secretary of Justice committed grave

abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.

RIDGEWOOD ESTATE v.BELAOS

The nature of the claim determines the jurisdiction of the case; A

claim for damages falls under the jurisdiction of the regular

courts

The Court held in Roxas v. Court of Appeals,that the mere

relationship between the parties, i.e., that of being subdivision

owner/developer and subdivision lot buyer, does not automatically


12/13


13/13


| 13

Complaint must allege the assessed value of the real property

In no uncertain terms, the Court has already held that a complaint

must allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the

complaint or the interest thereon to determine which court has

jurisdiction over the action. This is because the nature of the actionand which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the same

is determined by the material allegations of the complaint, the type of

relief prayed for by the plaintiff and the law in effect when the action is

filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to some or all of

the claims asserted therein.

Jurisdiction does not depend on the answer of the defendant or

on agreement, waiver, or acquiescence of the parties

Jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the answer of the

defendant or even upon agreement, waiver or acquiescence of the

parties. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court over the nature of the

action and the subject matter thereof cannot be made to depend upon

the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to

dismiss for, otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend

almost entirely on the defendant.

****************NOTHING FOLLOWS***************

jurisdiction case doctrines (compilation)

Documents