REQUISITES FOR
VALID EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION.
1.
Jurisdiction over the Person
>If this requisite is acquired, the
person concerned shall be bound by the decision of the court
a. Over
Plaintiff or Petitioner:
1. Filing the complaint or
petition
2. Filing of initiatory pleadings
before the court by the plaintiff or petitioner
b. Over
Defendant or Respondent
1. Voluntary appearance by the
defendant in court
2. Submission by the defendant to
the court
i.e.
Any overt act by which the defendant acknowledges the authority of the court
over his person which is equivalent to summons, such as the filing of a
responsive pleading
3. Coercive process issued by the
court to him generally by the service of summons
2.
Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter
*** This requisite is conferred by law
providing the class of cases which the concerned may only take cognizance of
and cannot be conferred on the court by the voluntary act or agreement of the
parties
3.
Jurisdiction Over the Issues of the Case
This requisite is either determined or
conferred by:
a. The pleadings filed in the
case by the parties or
b. Their agreement in pre-trial
order or by stipulation or
c.
Their implied consent in case of failure by the parties to object to
evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings
4.
Jurisdiction Over the Res or Thing Subject of
Litigation
*** This requisite is acquired by the
actual or constructive seizure by the court of the thing in question thus
placing it in custodia legis or by provision of law
***
As a general rule, questions of lack
of jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal even if such issue
was not raised in the lower court.
DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (tijam vs. sibonghanoy)
***
By way of an exception, where the defendant never raised
the issue of jurisdiction on lower court despite several opportunities to do so
and only after obtaining unfavorable decision therein, it is too late for the
loser to question the jurisdiction of the court. Based on equity and fair play, it is not
right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of court in a
particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards deny the same
jurisdiction.
***
It is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the
jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief,
to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape penalty. We frown 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.
***
A party is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the court after
submitting himself to its jurisdiction
>
REMEDY: MR or Motion to set aside order of default
***
Jurisdictional issues in a case can be raised only during proceedings in
said case and during appeal of said case NOT in a proceeding in another case
and another court.
***
The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations in the
complaint or information and not by the evidence presented
NOTE: The increase in the jurisdictional
amounts from P100T - P200T to P200-P400T under RA 7691 interests, costs and
damages of whatever kind are not included
in the determination of jurisdiction except
when the main action or one of the causes of action is purely for damages, the
amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the
court ( Circular 09-94).
ERRORS in the EXERCISE of JURISDICTION
1.
LACK OF JURISDICTION – this case is not
within the class of cases covered by the law granting jurisdiction
2.
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION – the act was made
outside of the limitations set by the rules or law within which jurisdiction
should be exercised
ERRORS IN THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
vs. ERRORS OF JUDGMENT
1.
As to Nature:
Errors
in the exercise of jurisdiction pertains
to acts of the court with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack
of jurisdiction
Errors
of Judgment is an act of court arising from its
decision of a case which does not amount to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
2.
As to Remedy Available:
Errors
in the exercise of jurisdiction is correctible by
petition for certiorari as special civil action under Rule 65
Errors
of Judgment is
correctible by an ordinary appeal
3.
As to Effect:
Errors
in the exercise of jurisdiction makes the decision
of the court void or voidable and causes loss of jurisdiction
Errors
of Judgment makes the
decision of the court reversible if prejudice has been caused thereby but does
not lose jurisdiction
a SEC jurisdiction over cases
falling under PD 902-A, Sec. 5 was expressly transferred to the RTC by the
Securities Regulation Code.
a Actions involving marriage
and marital relations are now with the Family Court under RA 8364.
a Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan
under RA 8249 depends on the nature of the position and nature of the offense,
but not on the penalty. (Salary Grade 27 up)
a Expanded jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals under RA7902 includes appeal from all quasi-judicial bodies,
including final resolutions of the Civil Service Commission (Revised Admin. Circular
1-95) and the NLRC ( St.
Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC)
a DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL
STABILITY- no court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the
judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction or to pass upon or
scrutinize and much less declare as unjust a judgment of another court (Industrial
Enterprises Inc. vs. CA 184 SCRA 426)
a RULE OF ADHERENCE TO
JURISDICTION – jurisdiction once it attaches cannot be ousted by the happening
of a subsequent event although of such character which could have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first place
Jurisdiction may be lost upon the
passage of curative statute (atlas fertilizer vs. Navarro)
*** By way of an exception,
jurisdiction may be lost in the event of the passage of a new law treating the
subject proceeding and its flaws where the subject law is curative statute.
***
Parties to a compromise agreement even if non-parties in the action
cannot question jurisdiction of the court over their person (Dagupan electric vs.Pano)
*** The jurisdiction of the court is
determined by the value of the demand made in the complaint and not the value
of the transaction out of which the demand arose. (Cruz vs. Tan)
***
Jurisdiction cannot be presumed. The averments of the complaint, takes as a
whole, are what determine the nature of the action and therefore, the court’s
jurisdiction. It cannot be fixed by the
agreement of the parties; it cannot be acquired through or waived, enlarged or
diminished by, any act of omission of the parties; neither it can be conferred
by acquiescence of the court.(De Jesus vs. Garcia)
***
Although a foreign corporation is not doing business here in the Philippines they may be sued for acts done
against persons in the Philippines Mendoza
Jurisdiction of Court in Partition
of Land
***
As a general rule, MTC has jurisdiction if the title is clear but in the
case of Russel vs. Bistil (304 SCRA), where partition is dependent upon
the annulment of declaration of heirs, said action is considered incapable of
pecuniary estimation and jurisdiction falls within RTC.
Jurisdiction of Court in
Expropriation of Land
***
Where there is a question of the right to expropriate before determining
just compensation, it is considered an action incapable of pecuniary estimation
and jurisdiction falls within the RTC.
Jurisdiction of Court in
Foreclosure of Mortgage Involving Land
***
As a rule in chattel mortgage, MTC has jurisdiction over it if the
amount of property and amount of mortgage debt falls within its jurisdictional
amount. By analogy, if value of land
subject of mortgage and mortgage debt falls within MTC jurisdictional amount,
it can take cognizance of case.
No comments:
Post a Comment