The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the

2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

JURISDICTION OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

Ito ang third level, no? And by going over their jurisdiction, you will see that it is a
court of general jurisdiction and it is actually the workforce of the whole judiciary. Yan
talagang mabigat ang trabaho nitong RTC. Their workload is terrible. Before, somebody
asked me, Dean, gusto mong mag-judge sa RTC? Inyuha na na! (Burawi nyo!) Inyo na
nang trabaho na yan because there are 2 things there when you get the job of the RTC
judge: Of course, you want to excel, you want to do your job properly and efficiently, you
will die early because of the workload. Or, you end up as one who is lazy. You end up with
administrative cases for laziness, left and right. So mabuti pa, huwag ka na lang
magtrabaho diyan, kasi mabigat ang trabaho diyan.

Q: How many RTCs are there in the Philippines, from Northern Luzon to Southern
Mindanao? In your opinion?
A: You look at the opening clause of Section 13:

Section 13 (1) Creation of Regional Trial Courts There are hereby created
thirteen (13) Regional Trial Courts, one for each of the following regions: x x

So the Judiciary law has divided the country into 13 areas which is called JUDICIAL
REGION. From the 1st to the 12th, the 13th is actually in the National Capital Region
(NCR), Metro Manila. Every division is divided into branches and the number of branches
keep on increasing by law.

So, to what region do we belong? We are in the 11th judicial region. So there is one RTC
for the 11th judicial region, pero bakit yun ganoon? Davao City lang, more than 10 na?
Well, here is where you will go back to your fundamentals. A court is not the same as a
judge. Yan

Actually, what the law says is that, there are 13 RTCs, and every court is divided into
branches. So, kung branches siguro, malapit nang maging 1000 throughout the country.
So there are 13 courts with almost 1000 judges. Now, as a matter of fact, if you want to
know exactly how many there are, you refer to your Section 14. Actually, this has been
amended many times because from 1980 up to the present, Congress passed laws. In fact
when the law took effect, according to Section 14, there are originally 29 RTC judges
commissioned for the 11th judicial region 29 originally.

Now, from what I know, based on the amendment in 1991, it was increased from 29 to
41. So there are supposed to be 41 RTC judges for the 11th judicial region. As I said,
unless from 1991 to the present dinagdagan na naman nila.

So 41 RTC judges shall be commissioned for the 11th judicial region. There should be 6
branches which sits thereafter for the province of Davao del Norte, which sits at Tagum,
Nabunturan and Panabo. Four branches which sit thereat for the province of Davao
Oriental which sits at Mati, Bagangga and Butuan. Sixteen branches which sit thereat for
the province of Davao del Sur. And the City of Davao which sits at Davao City, Digos,
Malita and Bansalan. Then 10 branches whish sit thereat for the province of South
Cotabato and the City of General Santos which sit at General Santos City, Koronadal [the
City of Eumir, Francis and Mortz], Surallah, and Polomolok. And 5 branches which sit
thereat for the province of Surigao del Sur which sit at Tandag, Ginanga, Bislig and
Kantilan. So that is how they are distributed within the 11th the juridical region.

Q: So, since there are 41 of them scattered throughout the 11th judicial region, from
Surigao to South Cotabato, for example, I would like to file a case against my neighbor
based in Davao. So i-file ko sa Polomolok, anyway thats the same court, eh. Or a criminal
in Davao City file-an sa Mati. Anyway, the same court na. Are you allowed to do that?

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 28

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

A. The answer is NO! Every branch of the RTC has its own area of responsibility. Except
in Davao City, or in chartered cities, the authority of every branch here is throughout
Davao City. But sa probinsya, hati-hati yan eh, and the provision there is Section 18 of BP
129.

BP 129, Section 18 . Authority to define territory appurtenant to each

branch The Supreme Court shall define the territory over which a branch of the
Regional Trial Court shall exercise its authority. The territory thus defined
shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch concerned for purposes
of determining the venue of all suits, proceedings or actions, whether civil or
criminal, as well as determining the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over which the said branch may
exercise appellate jurisdiction. The power herein granted shall be exercised
with a view to making the courts readily accessible to the people of the
different parts of the region and making the attendants of litigants and witness
as inexpensive as possible.

Yan, so in the province every branch has its own defined area. So, for example if you
are from Nabunturan, you cannot file a case in Panabo. Kalayo-layo niyan. There is a
branch there in Nabunturan. Doon ka mag-file. Kanya-kanya ng responsibility.

Now, the law says, the SC has the power to define the area of its branch for purposes of
supervising that area and the MTC there. Now, as early as 1983, the SC has already come
out with administrative order throughout the Philippines defining the area of responsibility
of each branch. Sometimes I need that, eh, because there are cases to be filed outside
Davao City, especially Cotabato Province. And you have to be updated kung sang branch
ba ako pupunta nito. Sometimes you have a hard time, eh. For example, the case
originated in Babak, part of Davao del Norte, saan ba ito i-file? Panabo or Tagum? I need
to consult that circular. Yanthat will be very helpful. Now you please correlate Section
18 of the Judiciary Law with the Interim Rules Section 2 because Section 2 of the Interim
Rules is related to this, eh.

Interim Rules, Sec. 2. Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts. -

a) MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs shall exercise their jurisdiction in the city,
municipality or circuit for which the judge thereof is appointed or designated.
b) A Regional Trial Court shall exercise its jurisdiction within the area
defined by the SC as the territory over which the particular branch concerned
shall exercise its authority, in accordance with Sec. 18 of BP 129.

Yaan! So every RTC shall have authority. Alright, these are what you call administrative
provisions.

Now, lets go to the jurisdiction of the RTC:

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Section 19 as amended by RA 7691

CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION with other courts Section 21
APPELLATE JURISDICTION Section 22

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC

Sec. 19 Jurisdiction in civil cases Regional Trial Courts shall exercise

exclusive original jurisdiction:

[1] In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable
of pecuniary estimation.

What does it mean? When the subject of the litigation is not expressed in terms of
pesos, centavos. Alright.

In most cases that we know, the demand of the plaintiff is expressed in terms of
amount, eh. EXAMPLE: A creditor will file a case for the collection of the unpaid loan from
the defendant. Ang nakalagay sa demanda niya, that after trial that the court should
order the defendant to pay him the sum of P500,000 na utang with interest. So, the

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 29

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

subject is expressed in terms of amount of damages ba, the court shall award to the
defendant damages amounting to half a million. Karamihan ng kaso ganyan.

But here, in this civil case, the subject of the civil case is not capable of pecuniary
estimation. It cannot be estimated or calculated in pesos.

EXAMPLE is an action for annulment; rescission of contract; an action for specific

performance; an action for declaratory relief by express provision of the law now; an
action for the permanent injunction against somebody;

[2] In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real
property or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property
involved exceeds P20,000 or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value
exceeds P50,000 except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands and buildings; original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;

So real actions outside of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. The best example would
be accion publiciana, accion reinvidicatoria, quieting of title, provided the value of the
property exceeds P20,000.00 based on the assessed value of the property.

So, for a lesser value, MTC has jurisdiction. This is why MTCs now has jurisdiction over
accion publiciana when the value of the property is P20,000 or less. But kung forcible entry
and unlawful detainer, klaro yan walang RTC.

Now, if in Metro Manila, then value is P50,000. But outside Metro Manila, the assessed
value is only P20,000.

[3] In all civil actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the
demand or claim exceeds One Hundred Thousand pesos (P100,00.00) [now PhP
200,000.00] or, in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Two Hundred
Thousand pesos (P200,000.00)[now, PhP 400,000].

EXAMPLE: The shipper will ship to you in Davao goods involving common carrier.
While in transit, the goods are lost or they are totally damaged. You would like to file a
claim or a case against the carrier, what kind of a case? That is an admiralty or maritime
case.

Q: If you are going to file a case against the shipping company, where will you file it?
RTC or MTC?
A: It depends on how much is your claim. If your claim of the damaged or lost cargo
exceeds P200,000, sa RTC; if it is P200,000 or less, sa MTC. In Metro Manila, the
jurisdiction is higher it should be over P400,000. Now do not confuse this with No. 2
because that involves LAND with more than P20,000 value.

Take note that prior to August 16, 1999, the claim should exceed P100,000 or P200,000
in Metro Manila as the case may be. Now, the claim is adjusted to P200,000 and P400,000,
respectively pursuant to Section 5 of RA 7691 which took effect last August 15, 1995:

RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the
jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional
amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00):
Provided, however, That in the case of Metro Manila, the abovementioned
jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the
effectivity of this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000,00).

So after August 16, 1999 (5 years from the effectivity of RA 7691) yung P100,000.00
naging P200,000 na. Yung P200,000 in Metro Manila, naging P400,000. Then after another
5 years (2004), aakyat na naman ang jurisdiction ng MTC. So from the original
P100,000.00 magiging P300,000 na yan. Automatic ha.
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 30
The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

[4] In all matters of probate, both estate and intestate, where the gross
value of the estate exceeds One Hundred Thousand pesos (P100,000.00) [now
P200,000] or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds
Two Hundred Thousand pesos (P200,000.00) [now P400,000].

In the subject of Wills and Succession, when a person dies, his estate, his property will
be settled for the benefit of his creditors and heirs. That is what you call either as testate
or intestate proceedings depending on whether the deceased left a will or none.
Q: Where should the estate of the deceased person be settled, RTC or MTC?
A: It depends on how much is the gross value of his estate. If it exceeds P200,000, RTC.
If it is P200,000 or less, it should be with the MTC. In Metro Manila again, it is doubled, the
gross should be more than P400,000. And again, this will automatically increase after 5
years from 1999.

[5] In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations.

Most of these cases are under the Family Code.

Q: What are the possible actions which you can imagine involve the contract of
marriage and marital relations?
A: Annulment of marriage, legal separation, declaration of nullity, dissolution of the
absolute community of husband and wife, and action for support. These cases are the
ones arising under the Family Code, where it arises out of a marital relationship.

Take note that these cases are NO LONGER covered by the RTC because under RA 8369
(Family Courts Act of 1997), these cases should now be tried by the FAMILY COURTS.

RA 8369, SECTION 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. The Family Courts shall

have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
x x x x x x
d) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage
and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife
or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions
for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;
x x x x x x

Now, in areas where there are no family courts, the cases shall be adjudicated by the
RTC. So certain branches of the RTC will act as family courts (acting family courts.

We shall skip first no. 6. We will return to that later. Lets go to no. 7.

[7] In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and
of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law;

Before BP 129, these were special courts existing before 1980. Among these courts
were the so called Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts (JDRC). Then you have the
Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) which tried the cases involving tenancy, agricultural
lessor, agricultural lessee, agricultural lands. When BP 129 was enacted, the CAR and the
JDRCs were abolished. Cases which they used to handle were automatically transferred to
the RTC. That was after BP 129 took effect.

What were the cases which were usually falling within the original jurisdiction of the
former JDRC? Usually, those involving family and children, like support filed by the child
against his father, compulsory recognition, custody of children, adoption proceedings
these are the cases which are usually heard by the JDRC.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 31

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

Under BP 129, all of these are now within the jurisdiction of RTC. HOWEVER, this has
been amended again by RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) These cases are now under
the jurisdiction of the FAMILY COURTS: (See Sections 5 [b], [c], [e], [g])

RA 8369, SECTION 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. The Family Courts shall

have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
x x x x
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in
relation to the latter;
c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;
x x x x
g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent
or neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of
children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and
other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No.
56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws;
x x x x x

But the law transferring the jurisdiction of the CAR to the RTC became partially obsolete
with the enactment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or RA 6657 (June
15, 1988). Under the CARL, all agrarian disputes between landlord and tenant, lessor and
lessee were transferred to the DAR particularly the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB),
making them quasi-judicial cases . So, from CAR to RTC, from RTC to DARAB

So the RTC has NO jurisdiction, EXCEPT in the following 2 cases:

1.) Cases where the issue is PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION, f or, the property which
has been taken under CARP law;

EXAMPLE: If you are a landowner and your agricultural land is placed under
the CARP coverage, the government will fix the payment for you. The trouble is
that you did not lot agree on the amount of payment. Agrabiyado ka sa
compensation ng gobyerno. Now, you go to RTC and you ask for higher
compensation.

1.) Prosecution of criminal offenses for violation of the CARL;

So these are the only agrarian cases which still belongs to the RTC. This was explained
by the SC in the case of

QUISMUNDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

201 SCRA 609 [1991]

HELD: Wth the enactment of Executive Order No. 229, which took effect
on August 29, 1987, the Regional Trial Courts were divested of their general
jurisdiction to try agrarian reform matters. The said jurisdiction is now vested
in the Department of Agrarian Reform. Said provisions thus delimit the
jurisdiction of the regional trial courts in agrarian cases only to two instances:
1.) petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners;
and
2.) prosecution of criminal offenses under said Act.

[8] In all cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of

whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of
the property in controversy exceeds One Hundred Thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
[now P200,000] or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand,
exclusive of the above-mentioned items exceeds Two Hundred Thousand pesos
(P200,000.00)[now P400,000]

The best example is money claim. Most cases which go to court now are money claims
an action to collect sum of money.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 32

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

Q: Unpaid loan you would like to collect an unpaid loan of your debtor. Where will you
file your case?
A: It depends on how much are you collecting. If it is over P200,000 outside Metro
Manila RTC, in Metro Manila, double the amount P400,000. If the amount that you are
collecting is only P200,000 or less obviously, you file your case in the MTC.

If the value of the claim is > P200,000 RTC

If the value of the claim is = or < P200,000 MTC

So this is the same as number [3] and [4] where the jurisdiction of the MTC was raised
from P20,000 to P100,000. And under the present law, it is now P200,000. But again, this
is subject to the automatic increase in jurisdiction by 2004.

Q: Suppose the principal amount that you borrowed from me is P200,000, the interest
is P30,000. And you are collecting P10,000 for moral damages, another P10,000 for
expense of litigation, etc. So my total claim is P250,000. Where will I file the case?
A: MTC pa rin. In determining the jurisdictional limit of P200,000, do not include the
interest, damages, attorneys fees, etc. So you deduct those from the principal claim even
if you put them in your complaint because the law says, xxx exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs xxx.

Q: What are litigation expenses and costs?

A: Costs are not the same as attorneys fees and litigation expenses. Actually,
attorneys fees and litigation expenses are part of damages. Costs are governed by Rule
141, while attorneys fees and litigation expenses are governed by the Civil Code. Because
there is some confusion there, akala ang costs and litigation expense, pareho. No, they are
not the same.

ACTIONS PURELY FOR DAMAGES

SITUATION: Suppose the action is purely for damages, like breach of contract of
carriage. Instead of bringing you to your destination, you ended up in the hospital. You
now sue the common carrier for damages and your claim is P1 million for injuries, moral,
exemplary, etc. Now, because the law says the jurisdiction of the RTC is above P200,000
but do not include damages. The claim in this case is P1 million, all for damages. Now,
where will you file the case?

Somebody said it should be in the MTC because in determining the jurisdiction of the
RTC, you do not include damages. If that is the interpretation, I said, all damage suits
cannot be tried by the RTC because remember, you pay filing fee for these cases but the
jurisdiction is limited to the MTC. That is absurd! I do not believe that kung puro damages
wala ng jurisdiction ang RTC. Otherwise, all damage suits should be filed in the MTC.

This question has been clarified by SC Circular No. 09-94: Guidelines in the
Implementation of RA 7691 Extending the Jurisdiction of the MTCs where the SC said that
the provision excluding damages applies only if the damages are INCIDENTAL to the
action. If the main cause of action is 100% damages, you include it in determining tire
P200,000 jurisdictional limit of the MTC.

EXAMPLE: Ms. Pastor rode on a PAL fight. The plane crashed but she survived. She
claims for damages for breach of contract of carriage amounting to P1 million.
Q: Where will she file her case?
A: RTC because the amount of the claim for damages exceeded P200,000. Since the
case is purely for damages, it is included in determining the jurisdiction of the court.

The rule is, you only exclude the damages if it is a secondary claim. But if damages is
the primary or only claim, you determine whether the total claim for damages is above
P200,000, or equal to or less than P200,000. Yaaann!

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 33

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

The SC said in this Circular, the exclusive damages of whatever kind in determining
the jurisdiction under Section 19 paragraph [8] applies to cases where the damages are
merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, if the claim
for damages is the main cause of action, the amount of such claim should be considered in
determining the jurisdiction.

EXAMPLE: Inay will file a case against Janis to recover a piece of land worth P20,000.00
only. But her claim for damages exceeds P300,000. So, you will notice ang claim for
damages is incidental lang. Ang main action is to recover a piece of land.
Q: In what court will Inay file a civil case where she wants to recover a piece of land
with value of only P20,000?
A: MTC because of paragraph [2]. But ang damages naman is P300,000? MTC pa rin
iyan because such damages, being incidental, is not included in determining the
jurisdiction of the RTC.

However, if my actions against you is purely damages, like I will file a case against you
for damages arising from vehicular collision and I will claim P300,000 for damages, it
should be in the RTC. That is the explanation. The term excluding damages applies only
if the damages are purely incidental to the case. But if the action is purely damages, then
you observe the P200,000 jurisdictional limit.

Now, the law says, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees,
litigation expenses, and costs or THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN CONTROVERSY exceeds
P200,000.

Q: What is the property in controversy?

A: Obviously here, the property is PERSONAL PROPERTY not real. If the property sought
to be recovered is real, apply paragraph [2] of Section 19 on recovery of real property.

Q: In the subject of Sales, the unpaid seller would like to rescind the sale and get back
the unit. Where will the unpaid seller file the case?
A: If above P200,000 sa RTC ka. It if is only P200,000 or less, sa MTC. So this is an
example of the value of the [personal] property in controversy.

Q: (By a classmate, Review class) Who shall determine the value or how should the
value be determined?
A: You will learn the answer when we reach Rule 16 on Motion to Dismiss. In
determining the jurisdiction of the court, in the meantime, which will prevail? You will learn
later that the allegations of the complaint will prevail.

Like for example, I will file a case against you for an unpaid loan of P250,000. Then you
say in your motion to dismiss, No! ang utang ko sa iyo is not P150,000, but only P80,000.
Therefore, the RTC has no jurisdiction. So there is now a conflict with what Im saying and
with what you are saying.

With that, we will discuss the conflict later. Now, we do not know who is telling the
truth. For the moment, the rule is, you follow the plaintiff because jurisdiction is
determined by the allegations of the complaint. It is the complaint which will determined
whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is not based on what the
defendant is saying. That is the answer there.

Let us go to some interesting cases on this provision.

ORTIGAS AND CO., LTD PARTNERSHIP vs. HERRERA

120 SCRA 89 [1983]

FACTS: A entered into an agreement with B where A deposited the sum of

P50,000 with B. After certain conditions are complied B has to return the amount
to A. According to A the conditions are already complied with but B still refuses
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 34
The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

to return the money. So A filed a complaint which he denominated as sum of

money and since he is only asking for the return of P50,000, A filed the case in
the MTC.

ISSUE #1: Whether or note the MTC has jurisdiction over the case.
HELD: The MTC has NO jurisdiction. It should be filed in the RTC. It is not an
action to collect a loan. You are not recovering a loan. You are compelling him to
comply with the agreement to return the money after certain condition are
complied with, di ba? You are trying to enforce your agreement. therefore your
action is an action for SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE which should be tried by the RTC
under paragraph [1].
When a party to a contract has agreed to refund to the other party a sum of
money upon compliance by the latter of certain conditions and only upon
compliance therewith may what is legally due him under the written contract be
demanded, the action is one not capable of pecuniary estimation. So it is
cognizable by the RTC.

ISSUE #2: But according to the plaintiff, when he filed the complaint, it is
entitled for sum of money which should fall under paragraph [8]. Is the plaintiff
correct?
HELD: NO. The plaintiff is wrong. The title of the action is not determinative of
the court. Just like the rule on contracts where the nature of the contract is not
determined by the title but by stipulation.
The factual allegations in the complaint seeking for the performance of an
obligation of a written contract which is a matter clearly incapable of pecuniary
estimation prevail over the designation of the complaint as one for the sum of
money and damages.

[6] In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions

Practically, this makes the RTC the universal catcher what does not belong to anyone
of you, belongs to me. Thats what this provision is saying.

EXAMPLE: An employee, Inday Locsin, files a case against the employer, Kenneth Lim,
to claim non-payment of wages, overtime pay, ECOLA and reinstatement for illegal
termination. Under the Labor Code, dapat sa NLRC. So it does not belong to RTC but if
there is no vesting to NLRC, then it goes to the RTC.

A case which does not belong to any other court. Lets try to connect it with something
you know.

Q: If you want to file an action for annulment of judgment of RTC, where will you file
your action?
A: CA only an exclusive original jurisdiction of the action for annulment of the
judgment of the RTC.

Q: Suppose Karen will file an action for annulment of judgment of the MTC. Does it
belong to the CA?
A: NO! What the law says is: annulment of judgment of RTC, and not MTC. How about
Supreme Court? Lalong wala. Saan ka pupunta? There is really no provision in BP 129
which goes that way. I dont think you can go to NLRC.

Wala kang mapuntahan, saan ka tatakbo? Sa RTC because it does not belong to the
jurisdiction of any other court. It should fall under paragraph [6] That is why, this, there
are problems reaching the SC on jurisdiction whether a case belongs to this, to the
regular court or to a special quasi-judicial body. And we are going to go over some of
these cases.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 35

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

SANDOVAL vs. CANEBA

190 SCRA 77 [1990]

FACTS: The quarrel in this case involves the owner of the subdivision and the
buyer. Later on, the buyer refused to pay the unpaid installments. The
subdivision developer filed a case for the collection of unpaid installments over
the subdivision lots. Now, if you look at the law, parang money claims sa RTC or
MTC.

HELD: The regular courts have no jurisdiction. That should be decided by the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) formerly known as NHA. Under
PD 957, it is the HLURB not the RTC or MTC which has the jurisdiction to hear a
case involving non-payment of installments over subdivision lots.

The counterpart of this case was the case of

CT TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. HIBIONADA

191 SCRA 268 [1990]

FACTS: This is also the case between the buyers of a subdivision lot against
the subdivision developer. Only this time baliktad it is the subdivision lot
buyers who are suing the developer of the subdivision. The subdivision lot
owners filed against the subdivision developer for not maintaining properly the
roads of the subdivision. So they filed a case for specific performance with
damages to compel the developer to comply with the contract to maintain the
roads.

HELD: The jurisdiction is with the HLURB and not with the regular courts. But
according to the plaintiff But Im also claiming for damages so that it should be
filed before the regular courts. How can the HLURB award damages? Only the
regular courts can award the damages. Can the HLURB award damages?
According to the SC:
The argument that only courts of justice can adjudicate claims resoluble
under the provisions of the Civil Code is out of step with the fast-changing times.
There are hundreds of administrative bodies now performing this function by
virtue of a valid authorization from the legislature. This quasi-judicial function, as
it is called, is exercised by them as an incident of the principal power entrusted
to them of regulating certain activities falling under their particular expertise.
So quasi-judicial bodies are now authorized to award damages.

As a matter of fact in Labor Relations, the question is asked whether the NLRC is
authorized to grant damages also to an employee, moral and exemplary, which normally is
only awarded by courts. The Labor Code says yes. In other words, even damages now
can be awarded by administrative bodies such as NLRC.

FAJARDO vs. BAUTISTA

232 SCRA 291 [1994]

FACTS: Isabelo and Marita Jareno and the owners and developers of a
subdivision. Fajardo and others, as buyers, signed separate contracts each
designated a contract to sell under which for consideration therein stated, the
Jarenos bound themselves to sell to Fajardo et al the of subject thereof, and after
the latter shall have paid the purchase price and interest shall execute in favor
of Fajardo et al the corresponding deeds of sale.
When these contracts to sell are still ongoing the Jarenos sold these lots to
other buyers and the title was transferred to the second buyer. So when Fajardo
et al learned about it, they filed separate complaints with the RTC for annulment
of the sale to the other buyers.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 36

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

Now, according to Fajardo, the jurisdiction of the case belongs to the RTC and
not with the HLURB because the title of the lots are transferred to the other
buyers. It is no longer under the name of Jareno. Secondly, their action is for the
annulment of title to a third person. Thirdly, these third persons are not the
developers; fourthly, under the Judiciary Law, actions involving title to a real
property are to be tried by the RTC.

HELD: The RTC still has NO jurisdiction because the case involved unsound
real estate business practice on the part of the subdivision owners and
developers. Under the law, unsound real estate business practice is under the
HLURB. The practice in the case is not a sound real estate business I am a
developer, I enter into a contract with you and then later on I sold the contract to
a third person, that is unsound!
By virtue of P.D. 1344, the HLURB has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide the matter. In addition to involving unsound real estate business
practices, the complaints also involve specific performance of the contractual
and statutory obligations of the owners or developers of the subdivision. So it is
still with the HLURB and not with the regular courts.

BENGUET CORPORATION vs. LEVISTE

204 SCRA 99 [1991]

FACTS: A mining company entered into a operations agreement for

management with another mining company. Then later on, one wants to file a
case for rescission of the agreement for one reason or another. So it was filed
with the RTC.

HELD: The RTC has NO jurisdiction again because PD 1281 vested with the
Bureau of Mines with jurisdictional supervision and control over all issues on
mining claims and that the Bureau of Mines shall have the original exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving the cancellation and enforcement
of mining contracts.

The trend is to make the adjudication of mining cases a purely administrative matter.
Another case is the case of

MACHETE vs. COURT OF APPEALS

250 SCRA 176 [1995]

FACTS: This case involves the collection by the landowner of unpaid back
rentals from his leasehold tenants. The landowner filed the money claims before
the RTC.

HELD: The RTC has no jurisdiction over cases for collection of back rentals for
the leasehold tenants. This is an agrarian dispute which exclusively cognizable
by the DARAB.
The failure of petitioners to pay back rentals pursuant to the leasehold
contract with landowner is an issue which is clearly beyond the legal
competence of the trial court to resolve. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction
does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative
body of special competence.

Lets go to Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). That is the government body

which administers all government examination for professionals except members of the
law profession. Sa medicine, CPA, engineer, lahat andiyan sa kanila, including plumber

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 37

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

and marine officers. Basta lahat ng merong examination sa kanila yan except sa bar
which is under the jurisdiction of the SC. Now, this is what happened in the case of

LUPANGCO ET AL vs. COURT OF APPEALS

160 SCRA 848 [1988]

FACTS: Lupangco et al were BS Accounting graduates and reviewing to take

the CPA exams in 1985.
There were some anomalies (leakages) in the 1985 CPA Board Examination.
By next year, the PRC passed a resolution prohibiting CPA examinees to attend
review classes or conferences because of leakages. They are prohibited from
receiving any handouts, review materials or any tip from any school, college or
university. That was Resolution No. 105 of the PRC.
So petitioners Lupangco et al, all CPA reviewers filed an injunction suit
against the PRC and to declare the resolution unconstitutional. They filed it with
the RTC. The PRC moved to dismiss alleging that the RTC has no jurisdiction over
the case because the one which has the jurisdiction is the CA exclusive
jurisdiction to review any decision, order, ruling or- resolution of any
quasi-judicial body. And the PRC is a quasi-judicial body. So their resolution can
only be questioned before the CA and not with the RTC.

HELD: The PRC is WRONG because PRC is not only a quasi-judicial body, it is
also a quasi-legislative body. It also acts as legislative body by issuing rules and
regulations.
Now, what kind of resolution is being questioned here? It is a resolution
pursuant to it purely administrative function. It is a measure to preserve the
integrity of licensure examination. Therefore, it does not belong to the CA. It is
not the type of resolution contemplated by Section 9.
The authority of the CA to review all resolutions of all quasi-judicial bodies
pursuant to the law does not cover rules and regulations of general applicability
issued by the administrative body to implement its purely administrative policies
and functions like Resolution No. 105 which was adopted by the PRC as a
measure to preserve the integrity of licensure examinations. So that is not the
resolution reviewable by the CA.
Now, under what provision under Section 19 can we justify the jurisdiction of
the RTC in the case. The SC said: It is under paragraph 1 where the case is
incapable of pecuniary estimation or, it may fall under paragraph 6 where the
case is not within the exclusive jurisdiction by any court, tribunal or- body
exercising Judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

So, if it is not reviewable by the CA, in what court can you question the resolution?
Definitely, not the CA, definitely not the SC. I dont think its with the NLRC. So it will fall
under the jurisdiction of the RTC. Or, it can also fall under paragraph [1,] where the subject
matter of the suit is not capable of pecuniary estimation because what is the nature of the
demands is to declare unconstitutional this resolution. So it belongs to the jurisdiction of
the RTC.

BERNARDO vs. CALTEX PHIL. INC.

216 SCRA 170 [1992]

FACTS: Under E.O. No. 172, when there is a dispute between an operator or
dealer and an Oil company regarding dealership agreement, the case shall be
under the jurisdiction of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB). So any dispute
regarding their relationship agreement except disputes arising out of the
relationship as debtor and creditor. So if the dispute arose out of the relationship
as bebtor and creditor, it should be filed with the RTC.
Now what happened here is that on December 5, 1990, Bernardo, a dealer of
Caltex, ordered gasoline from Caltex. So he ordered in the morning. At 6:00 at
night on the same day, there was a price increase. So when the gasoline was
delivered the following day, Caltex charged Bernardo for the increased price.
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 38
The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

Bernardo refused to pay and he he filed a case before the RTC. Caltex argued
that the case should be filed with the ERB.

HELD: The RTC has jurisdiction because a contract of sale of petroleum

products was here perfected between Caltex and its operator/dealer Bernardo;
that in virtue of the payment admittedly made by Bernardo, Caltex became a
debtor to him in the sense that it was obligated to make delivery to Bernardo
of the petroleum products ordered by him; and that the only issue is the manner
by which Caltex shall perform its commitment in Bernardos favor. It is rather
one cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, as a dispute indeed arising out of
their relationship as debtor and creditor.
What the controversy is all about, to repeat, is simply the prices at which the
petroleum products shall be deemed to have been purchased from Caltex by
Bernardo in December 5, 1990. This is obviously a civil law question, one
determinable according to the provisions of the Civil Code and hence, beyond
the cognizance of the Energy Regulatory Board.

CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC

Sec. 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise original jurisdiction:

[1] In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo

warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction which may be enforced in any part of
their respective regions;

Q: What is the difference between the original jurisdiction of the RTC in Section 21 and
the original jurisdiction of the RTC in Section 19?
A: In Section 19, you have the EXCLUSIVE original jurisdiction, whereas in Section 21
you have the original jurisdiction but CONCURRENT with other courts.

Thus original jurisdiction stated in Section 21 is also shared with the SC and CA.
Therefore , the SC, CA, and RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction under Section 21. Like
issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, etc.
This is concurrent with the CA and the SC. Such writs may be issued by (a) the RTC under
Section 19; (b) CA under Section 9; and (c) SC under Article VIII Section 5 of the
Constitution. The 3 courts share concurrent jurisdiction over these cases.

However the only difference is that writs issued by an RTC can only be enforced in the
same region where the RTC belongs. Unlike writs issued by the SC and CA, they can be
enforced anywhere in the Philippines.

[2] In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.

The SC and RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction in actions affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls. Section 21 paragraph 2 states only of the concurrent
original jurisdiction of the SC and RTC. Section 19 on the jurisdiction of CA does not
include the action stated in section 21 paragraph 2 as part of its (CAs) jurisdiction.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE RTC

Sec. 22. Appellate jurisdiction. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise

appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs in their
respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis
of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such
memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the
RTCs. The decision of the RTCs in such cases shall be appealable by petition
for review to the CA which may give it due course only when the petition show
prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 39

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be

reviewed.

Now take note that the RTC also has appellate jurisdiction under Section 22. These are
cases decided by the MTC. So they act as a sort of court of appeals. The RTC exercises
appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the MTC in their respective territorial
jurisdiction.

Q: How will the RTC decide on the appeal?

A: It shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the
court of origin (MTC) such as memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted. This means
that witnesses will not be made to appear again in the appeal. It is only a matter of
reviewing the testimony, stenographic notes, evidence presented, memoranda and briefs
by the RTC judge.

Q: What are memoranda and briefs?

A: It is where the appealing party will argue that the decision is wrong and try to
convince the judge that the decision is wrong, and the other party to counter act that the
decision is correct.

Q: Assuming that the case is originated in the MTC and subsequently dismissed by the
RTC on appeal, is the decision by the RTC rendered pursuant to its appellate jurisdiction
appealable to the CA?
A: YES, but the mode of appeal is now different. The decision of the RTC in such cases
shall be appealable by petition to review to the CA. The CA may or may not give it due
course.

Q: What is the difference between an appeal made from the RTC to CA and appeal from
the MTC to RTC, which is dismissed the same and subsequently appealed to the CA?
A: The former (RTC CA) is in pursuance to the original jurisdiction of the RTC. The
latter (MTC-RTC-CA) is in pursuance to the appellate jurisdiction of the RTC. (They are
governed by different rules)

To illustrate:

Pursuant to original jurisdiction of the Pursuant to appellate jurisdiction of the

RTC: RTC:

COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS

Ordinary appeal Petition for Review

(Rule 41) (Rule 42)

RTC RTC

Ordinary Appeal
(Rule 40)

MTC

Unlike in a case under the original jurisdiction of the RTC, where an appeal to the CA is
a matter of course. Meaning, for as long as your appeal is on time and properly made, the
CA will entertain it.

It is different, however, in a case under the appellate jurisdiction of the RTC, even if
your appeal is on time and properly made, there is no assurance that the CA will entertain
the appeal. The CA may give it due course only when your petition for review shows

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 40

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2000 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Regional Trial Courts

prima facie evidence that the lower court has committed as error of fact or law that will
warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.

Now, statistically for the past 20 years, the rate of petitions for review from the RTC
which are given due course is only 15%-17%. For every 100 petitions for review, 15 are
given due course, 85 are thrown out. They did not pass the test under Section 22. It is
really a difficult process.

Summary of RTC jurisdiction:

1.) As to the EXCLUSIVE original jurisdiction Section 19 (BP 129);
2.) As to its original CONCURRENT jurisdiction Section 21 (BP 129);
3.) As to its APPELLATE jurisdiction Section 22 (BP 129)

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 41