JURISDICTION IN GENERAL

I.A. Jurisdiction

1. Definition

Root words:
“Juris” and “dico” – I speak by the law.

It is the power, authority or capacity conferred by the Constitution or by law to a

court or tribunal to entertain, hear and determine certain controversies, and render
judgment thereon.

In its complete aspect, jurisdiction includes not only the powers to hear and
decide a case, but also the power to enforce the judgment (14 Am. Jur. 363-364)
as the judgment or decree is the end for which jurisdiction is exercised, and it
is only through the judgment and its execution that the power of the court is
made efficacious and its jurisdiction complete (21 CJS, Courts, S 9). The power
to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. It
cannot be the subject of substantial subtraction and the most important part of
the litigation is the process of execution of decisions (Echegaray vs. Sec. of
Justice, 301 SCRA 96).

2. Test of Jurisdiction

The test of jurisdiction is whether the court has the power to enter into the
inquiry and not whether the decision is right or wrong. (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25
Phil. 245)

Since jurisdiction refers to power or authority to hear, try and decide a case, it
cannot depend on the correctness or rightfulness of the decision made. (Century
Insurance Co. v. Fuentes, 2 SCRA 1168 [1961])

Correctness or rightfulness of the decision relates to the exercise of and not to the
authority itself.

3. Duty of the court to determine its jurisdiction

It is the duty of the court to consider the question of jurisdiction before it

looks at other matters involved in the case. It may, and must, do this on its
own motion without waiting for the question of jurisdiction being raised by
any of the parties involved in the proceeding (20 Am Jur. 2d, Courts, S 92).
Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and they may
act accordingly by dismissing the action even though the issue of jurisdiction
is not raised or not even suggested by counsel (Ace Publications vs.
Commissioner of Customs, 11 SCRA 147).

JBD 7
Effect if the court has no jurisdiction or absence or lack of jurisdiction over the
case-

If a court has no jurisdiction, it has no power or authority to try a case and

because it has no authority it must not exercise it. Exercise of absent authority or
power is necessarily nothing. Thus, without jurisdiction, the entire proceedings
would be null and void.

Sec. 1, Rule 9 provides: “when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, xxx the court
shall dismiss the claim.”

The only recourse for the court, absent jurisdiction, is to dismiss the case
motu proprio or on motion for without authority it cannot act.

A decision rendered by a court devoid of jurisdiction may be the subject of a

collateral attack, if that jurisdictional defect appears on the face of the record.
And where lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter appears on the face of
the record, the appellate court may, on its own initiative, dismiss the action xxx
(Am Jur 2d, &97, 1965 ed)

When if it has jurisdiction-

It is the duty of the court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by

law and to render a decision in a case properly submitted to it. Failure to do so
may be enforced by way of a mandamus proceeding (20 Am Jur. 2d, S 93).

4. Constitutional Guarantee of Access to Courts and Jurisdiction

The Constitutional guarantee of access to courts refers to courts with

appropriate jurisdiction as defined by law. It does not mean that a person can
go to any court for redress of grievances regardless of the nature or value of his
claim. (Santos III v. Northwest Airlines, 210 SCRA 256 [1992])

B. ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

When a case or controversy is raised before the court, such case or controversy
would involve the following:
1. parties or litigants or the thing involved;
2. a particular kind or nature; and
3. issues that are raised or statements or assertions made and controverted by
the other.
For the court to try, hear and decide it, it must have the power or authority
1. to handle the nature of the case filed;

JBD 8
 2. to bind the parties and/or the property involved; and
3. to resolve only the issues raised or brought before it by the parties.

Thus, the word jurisdiction as applied to the faculty of exercising judicial power
is used in different but related senses. It refers to the authority of the court:

1. to entertain a particular kind of action, or to administer a particular kind of

relief;
2. depending on the issues raised;
3. to bind the parties involved, or to bind the property which is the subject of
the litigation.

Elements of jurisdiction in civil cases:

a.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter ;

b.) Jurisdiction over the person of the parties to the case;
c.) Jurisdiction over the res; and
d.) Jurisdiction over the issues.

How applied in criminal actions:

In your study of criminal procedure where you also studied the law on
jurisdiction, we studied the power or authority of the court to try, hear decide a
criminal case which means having the power to entertain a particular kind of
crime as determined by the imposable penalty, as a rule; its authority to bind the
accused and the prosecution; its authority to grant the relief which is either
acquittal or conviction and over the place where the offense charged is alleged to
have been committed.

So the elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases are:

a. Jurisdiction over the subject matter;
b. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and
c. Territorial jurisdiction, i.e. the case should be filed in the place where the
crime was committed.

Effect if in a particular case one of the elements is missing:

The proceedings become questionable. The proceedings become void. The
judgment is not binding. The proceedings are tainted with illegality and
irregularity.

a. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

JBD 9
1. Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action-

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power of the court to hear and
determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question
belong. (Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)

In other words, it is the jurisdiction over the nature of the action.

In criminal cases you have light, less grave and grave offenses. In civil cases we
have such actions as actions for sum of money, actions not capable of pecuniary
estimation, real and personal actions, action in rem, action in personam etc. This
is what we call the NATURE or classification OF THE ACTION.

When a complaint is filed in court, the basic questions that ipso facto are to be
immediately resolved by the court on its own are:

a.)What is the nature of the action filed?

b.) Does the court have authority to try and determine that class of actions to
which the one before it belongs?

Jurisdiction over the “subject matter” is not to be confused with the term
“subject matter of the action”.

“Subject matter” in lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is the kind or
nature of the action filed and is the proper ground for a motion to dismiss. So
“real” actions, “personal”actions, “actions incapable of pecuniary estimation” are
considered as subject matters or kinds of actions.

“Subject or subject matter of the action” refers to the physical facts, the things
real or personal, the money, lands or chattels and the like, in relation to which
the suit is prosecuted or which give rise to the action, like in collection or
unlawful detainer or forcible entry or foreclosure of mortgage cases and not the
delict or wrong committed by the defendant.

So if you talk about declaration of nullity of marriage the subject matter of the
action is the marriage of the parties involved not any other contract but the
nature of the action is that it is not capable of pecuniary estimation; if it is for
foreclosure of mortgage, the thing or subject of the action is the property
mortgaged, in specific performance or rescission of contract, it is the contract
involved that is the subject matter of the action.

9. How Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter is Acquired By the Court

1. It is conferred by law applicable at the time of the commencement of the

action;

JBD 10
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, which may be either
the Constitution or a statute(Tyson’s Super Concrete, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
461 SCRA 435; de la Cruz vs. CA, 510 SCRA 103; Guy vs. CA, December 10,
2007), and is never acquired by consent or submission of the parties or by their
laches. This is a matter of legislative enactment which none but the legislature
can change. (MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523; Otibar vs. Vinson, L-18023,
May 30, 1962)

It cannot be acquired by an agreement of the parties, waiver, or failure to

object (silence).

Note: The statement that “jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law” is not

accurate because only jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by
substantive law. Jurisdiction over the parties, issues and res is governed by
procedural laws.

b. The important roles Congress play in the exercise of judicial power,

namely:

a. It creates by law the rights which are sought to be protected or enforced;

b. It confers by law jurisdiction over the subject matter.

c. Both are of course in the form of substantive laws.

The law that confers jurisdiction refers to substantive law, not a procedural
law. It likewise does not refer to an administrative order or circular (Malaloan vs.
CA, 232 SCRA 249). This is because the law on jurisdiction over the subject
matter vests, defines, regulates, authority or power.

d. No Retroactive Effect of Law on Jurisdiction over the subject matter

Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that

statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines
jurisdiction – RA 7691 has no retroactive application. (Yu Oh v. CA GR No.
125297, June 6, 2003)

This follows the general rule on application of laws.

2. By filing the complaint in the proper court-

This is another important element on how jurisdiction over the subject matter
is acquired. It is important in determining the nature of the action-

JBD 11
It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint (Baltazar vs. Ombudsman, 510 SCRA 74)
regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to his claims asserted
therein (Gocotano vs. Gocotano 469 SCRA 328; Cadimas vs. Carrion GR No.
180394, Sept. 29, 2008).

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, as successor-in-interest of Far East

Bank and Trust Company,
vs.

EDUARDO HONG, doing business under the name and style “SUPER LINE
PRINTING PRESS” and the COURT OF APPEALS,
G.R. No. 161771, February 15, 2012

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear and decide a
case. A court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action is conferred only
by the Constitution or by statute. The nature of an action and the subject matter
thereof, as well as which court or agency of the government has jurisdiction over
the same, are determined by the material allegations of the complaint in relation
to the law involved and the character of the reliefs prayed for, whether or not the
complainant/plaintiff is entitled to any or all of such reliefs. And jurisdiction being
a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the
time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court.

It does not depend upon the pleas or defenses of the defendant in his answer
or motion to dismiss. (Cardenas vs. Camus, L-19191, July 30, 1962; Edward J.
Nell Co. vs. Cubacub, L-20842, June 23, 1965; Serrano vs. Muñoz Motors, L-
25547, Nov. 27, 1967)

It is determined by facts alleged in the complaint and the law in force at the
time of the commencement of the action. (Mercado v. Ubay 187 SCRA 719)
And irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all
or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted (City of Dumaguete
v. PPA, 656 SCRA 102, 119).

This is true in criminal and civil cases.

Examples:

A case of Serious Physical Injuries was alleged in the information filed with
the CFI which was then vested with jurisdiction over this type of cases, even if
the medical certificate attached to the records shows that the injuries are only
slight which falls under the jurisdiction of the municipal court. The CFI may
JBD 12
convict for slight physical injuries. Jurisdiction was determined from the
allegations in the information. (People v. Ocaya, 83 SCRA 218[1978])

In a civil case for collection of sum of money where the complaint alleges that
the totality of the demand is P350,000.00, the case is properly filed with the RTC
even if the defendant is able to prove that it is only P50,000.00 for jurisdiction
over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint not the
defense or evidence presented. The reverse is, however, not true. In other words,
if the complaint alleges that the total amount to be collected is P50,000.00 and is
filed before the first level court but the evidence shows that it is really
P350,000.00 which falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC, the MTC cannot render
judgment for said amount proven because of lack of jurisdiction.

In Medical Plaza Makati Condominium v. Cullen, GR No. 181416, November

11, 2013 summarized thus:

“Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and

determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise
statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. The
nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is
determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff,
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some
of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character
of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in
the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the
plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.
Xxx”

Exception to the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined
by the allegations of the complaint

The general rule is not applied with rigidity in ejectment cases in which the
defendant averred the defense of the existence of tenancy relationship
between the parties.

In Ignacio vs. CFI of Bulacan (42 SCRA 89) and other ejectment cases
(Salandanan vs. Tizon 62 SCRA 388; Concepcion vs. CFI of Bulacan 119 SCRA
222), where tenancy was the defense, the court went beyond the allegations of
the complaint in determining jurisdiction over the subject matter and required
the presentation of evidence to prove or disprove the defense of tenancy. After
finding the real issue to be tenancy, the cases were dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction as it should properly be filed with the Court of Agrarian Reform
(now DARAB) [de la Cruz vs. CA 510 SCRA 103]

In Salmorin vs. Zaldivar, GR No. 169691, July 23, 2008, the plaintiff entered into
an agreement with the defendant designating him as administrator of a lot with a
JBD 13
monthly salary of P150. The defendant allegedly did not comply with the terms
of the agreement when he failed to till the vacant areas as agreed. This compelled
the plaintiff to terminate his services and eject him from the lot. When the
defendant refused to vacate the property, the plaintiff filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer against him in the MCTC.

In his Answer, the defendant alleged the existence of a tenancy relationship

between him and the plaintiff. Thus, he claimed that the case was an agrarian
matter over which the MCTC had no jurisdiction.

The Court found that the plaintiff alleged the following:

(1) That he possessed the subject lot;

(2) That he instituted the defendant as administrator thereof;
(3) That the defendant failed to administer the subject lot by not having the
vacant areas thereof planted;
(4) That for the defendant’s failure to administer the subject lot, his services as
administrator was terminated;
(5) That he advised defendant through registered mail to leave or vacate the
subject lot; and
(6) That the defendant refused to vacate the subject lot without justification.

The Court ruled that from its material allegations, the complaint concerned the
unlawful detainer by the defendant of the subject lot, a matter, which is properly
within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

The allegation of tenancy in the defendant’s answer did not automatically

deprive the MCTC of its jurisdiction because 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. Otherwise, the
Court ruled, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the
defendant. Accordingly, the MCTC does not lose its jurisdiction over an
ejectment case by the simple expedient of a party raising as defense therein
the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. It is
however, the duty of the court to receive evidence to determine the allegations
of tenancy. If after hearing, tenancy had in fact been shown to be the real
issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court further stressed that a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed.

There must be evidence to prove the tenancy relations such that all its
indispensable elements must be established, to wit:
(1) The parties are the landowner and tenant;
(2) The subject is agricultural land;
(3) There is consent by the landowner;
(4) The purpose is agricultural production;
(5) There is personal cultivation; and
JBD 14
 (6) There is sharing of the harvests.

All these requisites are necessary to create tenancy relationship, and the
absence of one or more requisites will not make the alleged tenant a de facto
tenant. All these elements must concur. It is not enough that they are alleged.

In sum:

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is:

1. The power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceeding in
question belongs.
2. Determined by the LAW IN FORCE at the time of its institution. Once the court
acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted by any subsequent law placing jurisdiction in
another tribunal, except (a) when the law itself so provides or (b) the statute is clearly
intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment.
3. Matter of legislative enactment which none but the legislature can change.
4. Once jurisdiction is acquired, court RETAINS it until the final determination of the
case
5. Never acquired by consent or acquiescence of the parties or by laches, nor by unilateral
assumption thereof by a tribunal.
6. Determined by the ALLEGATIONS in the complaint and the CHARACTER of the
relief sought.
7. Does not depend on pleas or defenses of defendant in an answer or motion to dismiss.

Related concepts:

1. Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein.
Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision in all other
questions arising in the case is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. The errors which the
court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are
the proper subject of an appeal. The errors raised by petitioners in their petition for
annulment of judgment assail the content of the decision of the trial court and
not the court’s authority to decide the suit. In other words, they relate to the
court’s exercise of its jurisdiction, but petitioners failed to show that
the trial court did not have the authority to decide the case. (Tolentino vs. Leviste, 443
SCRA 274
[2004]).

Jurisdiction pertains to the authority to hear and decide a case. Any act of the
court pursuant to such authority, including the decision and its consequences
is exercise of jurisdiction.

The authority to decide a case, not the decision rendered, is what makes up
jurisdiction. It does not depend upon the regularity of the exercise of that power

JBD 15
or upon the rightfulness of the decision made. Where there is jurisdiction over
the person and subject matter, the resolution of all other questions arising in the
case is but an exercise of jurisdiction. (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25 Phil. 245)

In Republic v. “G” Holdings Inc., 475 SCRA 608, 619, the Court declared that
where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on
all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction. The
errors, which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely
errors of judgment which are the proper subjects of an appeal.

4. Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of judgment

An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction, and which error is reversible only by an appeal. 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. Certiorari will
not be issued to cure errors
by the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions
anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law. 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. (Julie’s Franchise Corporation vs.
Ruiz, G.R. No. 180988, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 463.)

Distinctions:
1.When a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter, the decision or
order on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of
jurisdiction; Errors which the court may commit in the exercise of such
jurisdiction, like errors of procedure or mistakes in the court's findings, are
merely ERRORS OF JUDGMENT; whereas, when a court takes cognizance of a
case over the subject matter of which it has no jurisdiction, or acts in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, the court commits an ERROR OF JURISDICTION.(GSIS vs. Oliza
304 SCRA 421).

2.When the court acts without authority (error of jurisdiction) such act would
be null and void or at least voidable, but if the court has authority but commits
a mistake in the exercise of such authority (error of judgment) such mistake
will bind unless corrected. In Catindig v. Vda de Menenses, 641 SCRA 350, 362,
the Court said that “When a court, tribunal or officer has jurisdiction over the
person and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions
arising in the case is an exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently all errors
committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment.”

In Herrera v. Barreto, 25 Phil., 245, 246, 256, the Court said that it has been ruled
in a very early case that, if the court has jurisdiction, it is altogether immaterial
how grossly irregular or manifestly erroneous its proceedings may have been.
The judgment cannot be considered a nullity, and cannot, therefore, be

JBD 16
collaterally impeached. Such a judgment is binding on the parties unless it is
reversed or annulled in a direct proceeding.

On the other hand, in Suntay v. Gocolay, 470 SCRA 627, the Court ruled that any
decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down
at any time, even on appeal; the only exception is when the party raising the
issue is barred by estoppel.

A judgment rendered by a body or tribunal that has no jurisdiction over the

subject matter of the case is no judgment at all. All acts pursuant to it and all
claims emanating from it have no legal effect. The void judgment can never be
final and any writ of execution based on it is likewise void (Ga, Jr. v. Tubungan,
600 SCRA 739, 746.

Such exception was enunciated in the case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy 23 SCRA 29,
35.

2. ERRORS OF JURISDICTION are reviewable by the extraordinary writ of

certiorari; whereas, ERRORS OF JUDGMENT are reviewable by appeal.

The distinction is important to know because the procedure or remedy in case

of a mistake or error committed by the court would be dependent on whether
it is an error of jurisdiction or an error in the exercise of jurisdiction also
known as error of judgment.

EXAMPLE: A case of murder was filed in the MTC. The accused, Ken Sur,
files a motion to quash because MTC has no jurisdiction over cases of murder.
But the court denied the motion to quash. Meaning, the judge has decided to
assume jurisdiction. What is the error committed?

When the court without authority assumes authority over the case that is
called ERROR OF JURISDICTION – the court committed an error of jurisdiction.

EXAMPLE: Suppose the case for murder is filed in the RTC where the court
has jurisdiction. But in the course of the trial, it committed mistakes like the court
misinterpreted or misapplied the provision of the RPC or the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. What error is committed?

Obviously the RTC has the authority to hear and decide the case and therefore
acted with authority or jurisdiction. There is no error of jurisdiction.

However, in the exercise of such authority it committed a mistake, thus, the

error committed is error in the exercise of jurisdiction, also known as error of
judgment.

JBD 17
 Is the proceeding null and void?

NO. What is committed is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction and if not

corrected the error can become final and executory. In other words, if not
objected to, it will stay.

An error of judgment should be raised on ordinary appeal, not by certiorari

because certiorari is only confined to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion. The governing rule is that the remedy of certiorari is not
available when the remedy of appeal is available or even if available, when it
will not be a speedy and adequate remedy. And when the remedy of appeal is
lost, you cannot revive it by resorting to certiorari because certiorari is not a
substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.

3. Lack of jurisdiction and excess of jurisdiction

The respondent court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction if it does not

have the legal power to determine the case; where the respondent, being
clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as
determined by law, it is performing a function in excess of its jurisdiction
(Vette Industrial Sales Company Inc. vs. Cheng, 509 SCRA 532).

Philippine National Bank, substituted by Tranche 1 (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Rina

Parayno Lim and Puerto Azul Land, Inc., G.R. No. 171677. January 30, 2013

Special Civil Action for Certiorari (Rule 65); nature; distinction between excess
of jurisdiction, acts without jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion. A
certiorari proceeding is limited in scope and narrow in character. The special civil
action for certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Certiorari will issue only
to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings
or conclusions of the lower court. 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 43 of the Rules of Court, and not a petition for certiorari.

In a petition for certiorari, the public respondent acts without jurisdiction if it does
not have the legal power to determine the case; there is excess of jurisdiction
where the respondent, being clothed with the power to determine the case,
oversteps its authority as determined by law. There is grave abuse of discretion
where the public respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic
manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be said to be equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough.

Excess of jurisdiction, as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that

an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is not
JBD 18
authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the
conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of
it are wanting. The supervisory jurisdiction of the court to issue a certiorari writ
cannot be exercised in order to review the judgment of the lower court as to
intrinsic correctness, either upon the law or the facts of the case. In the absence
of a showing that there is a reason for the court to annul the decision of the
concerned tribunal or to substitute its own judgment, it is not the office of the
Court in a petition for certiorari to inquire into the correctness of the assailed
decision or resolution.

Example of excess of jurisdiction:

When the court does not conduct a pre-trial conference which is mandatory
under the rules.

3. Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judge. A court may be a single
sala or may have several branches (multiple sala). If the latter, each is not a
court distinct and separate from the others. So, when a case is filed before a
branch, the trial may be had or proceedings may continue before another
branch or judge. (Tagumpay vs. Moscoso, L-14723, May 29, 1959)

EXAMPLE:
The RTC of Cebu City is composed of several branches –22 all in all. But
technically, there is only one court – the RTC of Cebu City.

Q: Now, if the case is filed and is assigned to Branch 8, can that case later be
transferred and continued in Branch 9?
A: YES, because you never left the same court. You are still in the same court.
This is because jurisdiction is not with the judge. It is with the court itself.

But there is only one branch of RTC-Bogo, can RTC-Cebu City take jurisdiction
over its cases?

No because they are different courts and jurisdiction is attached to the court.

4. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined

Conferred by the LAW IN FORCE at the time of its institution. Determined by the
ALLEGATIONS in the complaint and the CHARACTER of the relief sought

5. Doctrine of primary (administrative) jurisdiction

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy
over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special
competence. (Fajardo vs. Flores, G.R. No. 167891, January 15, 2010)

Statement of the Doctrine

JBD 19
Under this doctrine, courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving
a question, which is within its jurisdiction and also of an administrative
tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge and experience of
said tribunal in determining technical and intricate matters of fact. (Villaflor
vs. CA, GR No. 95694, Oct. 8, 1997).

This means that if a case is such that its determination requires the expertise,
specialized training and knowledge of an administrative body, relief must
first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the court is
had even if the matter may well be within the latter’s proper jurisdiction (The
Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development Corporation,
GR Nos. 197592 and 202623, November 27, 2013).

Where a case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized
skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical
matters or intricate questions of fact are involved, then relief must be obtained in
an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts
even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. This is the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction. It applies “where a claim is originally
cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the
claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have
been placed within the special competence of an administrative body, in such
case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the
administrative body for its view.” (US v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 352 US
59; Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, 184 SCRA 426)

Example: Damages is claimed arising from the collision between the claimant's
vessel and that of another. Such claim can of course be determined by the courts.
But in order to enforce such claim before the courts, there must be a
determination of which vessel is at fault. This issue is placed within the special
competence of the Maritime Industry Authority or Philippine Coast Guard
which administrative body regulates sea travel. Under this situation courts
should defer to the jurisdiction of such administrative body for it has the
competence to determine which vessel is at fault. Its finding then can serve as
basis or premise for the legal consequences to be then defined by the court.

Objective of the doctrine-

In Prov. Of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp., the Court
explains that the objective of the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction is to guide the
court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction
until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some
aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court.

In Nestle Phil. Inc. v. Uniwide Sales, Inc., 634 SCRA 232, 240, the Court said:
JBD 20
“It is not for the Court to intrude, at this stage of the rehabilitation proceedings,
into the primary administrative jurisdiction of the SEC on a matter requiring its
technical expertise. Pending a decision of the SEC on SEC En Banc Case No. 12-
09-183 and SEC En Banc Case No. 01-10-193, which both seek to resolve the issue
of whether the rehabilitation proceedings in this case should be terminated, the
Court is constrained to dismiss the petition for prematurity.”

In Far East Conference v. US 342 US 570 (1952) the Court defined the primary
jurisdiction doctrine as:

A principle, now firmly established, that in cases raising issues of fact not within
the conventional expertise of judges or cases requiring the exercise of
administrative discretion, agencies created by Congress for regulating the subject
matter should not be passed over. This is even though the facts after they have
been appraised by specialized competence serve as a premise for legal
consequences to be judicially defined. Uniformity and consistency in the
regulation of business entrusted to a particular agency are secured, and the
limited functions of review by the judiciary are more rationally exercised, by
preliminary resort for ascertaining and interpreting the circumstances
underlying legal issues to agencies that are better equipped than courts by
specialization, by insight gained through experience, and by more flexible
procedure.

Since the inception of the doctrine courts have resisted

creating any fixed rules or formulas for its application, “in
every case the question is whether the reasons for the
existence of the doctrine are present and whether the
purposes it serves will be aided by its application in the
particular litigation.” As the origin and evolution of the
primary jurisdiction doctrine demonstrate, the reasons for
the existence and the purposes it serves are two-fold: (1)
the desire for the uniformity and (2) the reliance on
administrative expertise. Thus, in determining whether to
apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine, we must examine
whether doing so would serve either of these purposes.

These same tests were applied by our courts in the determination of whether or
not to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Spouses Jose Abejo and Aurora
Abejo, et a., v. Hon. Rafael de la Cruz, etc. et al., 149 SCRA 654, citing Pambujan
Sur United Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., In., 94 Phil. 932, 941 [1954])

See GMA Network, Inc., v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No.

160703, September 23, 2005.

In Paat v. CA, 266 SCRA 167 the Court said that enforcement of forestry laws,
rules and regulations and the protection, development and management of forest
JBD 21
lands fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the DENR. By the
very nature of the functions, the DENR should be given a free hand unperturbed
by judicial intrusion to determine a controversy, which is well within its
jurisdiction. The assumption therefore of the replevin suit by the trial court
filed by the private respondents constitutes an unjustified encroachment into
the domain of the administrative agency’s prerogative.

Quasi-judicial bodies like the CSC are better equipped in handling cases
involving the employment status of employees of those in the civil service
since it is within the field of its expertise. (Paloma v. Mora GR No. 157783,
Sept. 23, 2005)

Exceptions to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction (Province of Aklan v. Jody

King Construction and Development Corp.)

1. where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
2. where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to
lack of jurisdiction;
3. where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will
irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
4. where the amount involved is relatively small;
5. where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to
be decided by the courts of justice;
6. where judicial intervention is urgent;
7. when its application may cause great and irreparable damage;
8. where the controverted acts violate due process;
9. when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been
rendered moot;
10.where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
11.when strong public interest is involved; and
12. in quo warranto proceedings.

6. Doctrine of continuity or adherence of jurisdiction

Once jurisdiction attaches it cannot be ousted by the happening of subsequent events
although of such a character which should have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in
the first instance [the rule of adherence of jurisdiction] (Ramos vs.Central Bank of the
Philippines, 41 SCRA 565;. Lee vs. Presiding Judge, MTC of Legaspi City, Br I, 145
SCRA 408). Once the court acquires jurisdiction, it may not be ousted by any subsequent
law placing jurisdiction in another tribunal, except (a) when the law itself so provides or
(b) the statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its enactment. Once
jurisdiction is acquired, court RETAINS it until the final determination of the case.

The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it
finally disposes of the case (De La Rosa vs. Roldan, 501 SCRA 34).

JBD 22
 As a consequence of this principle, jurisdiction is not affected by a new law
placing a proceeding under the jurisdiction of another tribunal except when
otherwise provided in the statute or if the statute is clearly intended to apply
to actions pending even before its enactment (People vs. Cawaling, 293 SCRA
267)

Illustrations-

1. When RA No. 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of the first level courts, said
courts acquired jurisdiction over cases that under BP 129 were originally within
the jurisdiction of the RTC. But cases pending already with the RTC at the time
of the effectivity of the law were not affected by such new law unless the parties
by agreement, pursuant to Sec. 7 therein, agreed to transfer the pending cases
from the RTC to the lower courts especially those which have reached the pre-
trial stage.

2. In an action for ejectment, if the defendant voluntarily surrenders the premises

subject of the action to the plaintiff, the surrender of the property does not divest
the court of jurisdiction (Pamintuan vs. Tiglao 53 Phil. 1)

3. If the court has jurisdiction to act on a motion at the time it was filed, that
jurisdiction to resolve the motion continues until the matter is resolved and is not
lost by the subsequent filing of a notice of appeal. (Asmala vs. Comelec, 289
SCRA 746)

4. The trial court did not lose jurisdiction over the case involving a public official
by the mere fact that said official ceased to be in office during the pendency of
the case (Flores vs. Sumaljag, 290 SCRA 568). Also, the jurisdiction that the court
had at the time of the filing of the complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the
respondent judge ceased to be in office during the pendency of the case (Victory
Liner vs. Bellosillo, 425 SCRA 79).

Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of
jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses if the power to amend, modify
or alter the judgment. Even after the judgment has become final, the court
retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it (Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice, 301
SCRA 96; Republic vs. Atlas Farms, 345 SCRA 296).

Exceptions to the Rule of Adherence/Continuity of Jurisdiction

1. When there is an express provision in the statute on retroactive

application; or
2. The statute is clearly intended to apply to actions pending before its
enactment; or
3. The statute is curative. This means that even if originally there was no
jurisdiction, the lack of jurisdiction may be cured by the issuance of the
JBD 23
 amendatory decree, which is in the nature of a curative statute with
retrospective application to a pending proceeding and cures that lack of
jurisdiction. Thus, in a case, while the CFI has no jurisdiction over a
complaint for damages arising from the dismissal of a radio station
manager which was filed on August 2, 1976, PD 1367 vesting the court with
jurisdiction over such type of cases cured the lack of jurisdiction of the trial
court at the time the instant claim was filed before it. (Garcia vs. Martinez
90 SCRA 331 [1979])

Read also Atlas Fertilizer vs. Hon. Exaltacion Navarro, 149 SCRA 432)

7. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter

Raising Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter

The court may on its own initiative object to an erroneous jurisdiction and may
ex mero motu take cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the case
and has a clearly recognized right to determine its own jurisdiction (Fabian vs.
Desierto, 295 SCRA 470). “When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on
record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,…the court shall
dismiss the same” (Sec. 1, Rule 9, Rules of Court)

The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a

motion to dismiss filed before the filing or service of an answer. Lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter is a ground for a motion to dismiss (Sec. 1(b),
Rule 16, Rules of Court). If no motion is filed, the defense of lack of
jurisdiction may be raised as an affirmative defense in the answer (Sec. 6, Rule
16)

Under the Omnibus Motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading like a motion to
dismiss, shall include all grounds then available, and all objections not so
included shall be deemed waived (Sec. 8 Rule 15). The defense of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter is however, a defense not barred by the
failure to invoke the same in a motion to dismiss already filed. Even if a motion
to dismiss was filed and the issue of jurisdiction was not raised therein, a party
may, when he files an answer, raise the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative
defense because this defense is not barred under the omnibus motion rule.

Thus, the prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal
(Calimlim vs. Ramirez, 118 SCRA 399; Francel Realty Corporation vs. Sycip 469
SCRA 424).

The issue is so basic that it may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even
on appeal. In fact, courts may take cognizance of the issue even if not raised by
JBD 24
the parties. There is thus no reason to preclude the Court of Appeals, for
example, from ruling on this issue, even if, the same has not yet been resolved
by the trial court below (Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. vs. GR No.
163445, Dec. 18, 2007).

Lack of jurisdiction is one of those excepted grounds where the court may
dismiss a claim or a case at any time when it appears from the pleadings or the
evidence on record that any of those ground exists, even if they were not raised
in the answer or in a motion to dismiss. That the issue of lack of jurisdiction was
raised only by the defendants in their memorandum, filed before the trial court,
did not render them in estoppel (Vda. De Barrera vs. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi GR
No. 174346 Sept. 12, 2008).

When the court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter, should it refer or forward the case to another court with the proper
jurisdiction?

It is submitted that the court should not do so. Its only authority is to dismiss the
complaint and not to make any other order.

In sum:
When can the issue of jurisdiction be raised?
General rule – jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action may be
challenged AT ANY STAGE of the proceedings.
Exception – when there is ESTOPPEL.
Party assailing jurisdiction of court must raise it at the first opportunity. While an order or
decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be assailed at any stage, a
party’s ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in the proceedings. without questioning
the jurisdiction until later, especially when an adverse judgment has been rendered
( Soliven vs. Fastforms Phils., Inc., 440 SCRA 389 [2004]).
A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief against his
opponent and after failing to obtain such relief, repudiate such jurisdiction ( Salva vs.
CA, 304 SCRA 632 (1999).This includes the filing of a counterclaim. Such practice
cannot be tolerated for reasons of public policy ( Oca vs. CA, 278 SCRA 642 [2002]).
The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to
dismiss filed before the filing or service of an answer. Lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter is a ground for a motion to dismiss (Sec. 1[b], , Rule 16). If no motion to
dismiss is filed, the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised as an affirmative defense
in the answer (Sec. 6, Rule 16).
Under the omnibus motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading like a motion to dismiss
shall include all grounds then available, and all objections not so included shall be
deemed waived, except lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (Sec. 8, Rule 15).
Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even
for the first time on appeal (Francel Realty Corporation vs. Sycip, 469 SCRA 424 [2005])
Courts may take cognizance of the issue even if not raised by the parties themselves. No
reason to preclude the CA, for example, from ruling on this issue even if the same had
not been resolved by the trial court (Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. vs. ,G.R. No.

JBD 25
163445, December
18, 2007).

8. Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction

Estoppel means you cannot disown your act by which you have misled
another while laches means abandonment of a right for failure to assert it for a
long time.

Gen. Rule: You can raise your objection on jurisdiction over the subject matter
even for the first time on appeal.

The ONLY exception is when there is estoppel by laches, as laid down in

TIJAM vs. SIBONGHANOY ( Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy 23 SCRA 29, April 15,
1968).

In this case, a complaint for collection cognizable by the inferior court was
filed in the CFI. The jurisdiction was not questioned. The CFI issued a writ of
preliminary attachment but was dissolved when the defendant filed a
counterbond thru a surety. After trial, the court rendered a judgment against the
defendants. That decision became final and a motion for execution was filed and
granted. When implemented, the writ of execution was unsatisfied so the
plaintiff moved that the writ be executed against the counterbond. The surety
filed an opposition and sought to be relieved from liability. The motion was
denied on ground that the surety was not notified. Plaintiff then filed a second
motion for execution against the counterbond notifying the surety this time.
Since the surety failed to oppose the motion was granted. The surety moved to
quash the writ against the counterbond but was denied. The surety went to the
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the order. The surety filed a motion for
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, which the CA granted.
However, instead of filing a motion for reconsideration the surety filed this time
a motion to dismiss on ground that the CFI did not have jurisdiction over the
subject matter. Instead of deciding, the CA certified the case to the Supreme
Court because the issue raised is purely legal.
The Court emphatically declared: “The facts of the case show that from the
time the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the
question of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take
cognizance of the present action by reason of the sum of money involved which,
according to the law then in force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction
of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings,
in the court a quo as well as in the CA, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts
to obtain affirmative reliefs and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the
merits. It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the CA that it
finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Were we to sanction such
conduct on its part we would in effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings

JBD 26
had in the present case since it was commenced on July 19, 1948 and compel the
judgment creditors to go up their Calvary once more. The inequity and
unfairness of this is not only patent but revolting.”

In other words, while jurisdiction as a rule, may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings (Panganiban vs. CA, 321SCRA 51, 59 [1999]), a party may be
stopped from raising such questions if he has actively taken part in the very
proceedings which he questions, belatedly objecting to the court’s jurisdiction in
the event that the judgment or order subsequently rendered is adverse to him.
(Alday v. FGU Insurance Corporation, 350 SCRA 113, 120 [2001]).

In general sense, estoppel by laches is failure or neglect for an unreasonable

and unexplained length of time to do what ought to have been done earlier.
The failure to act warrants the presumption that one has abandoned his right or
that he had acquiesced to the correctness and fairness of what has been resolved.
The doctrine of estoppel is based on public policy intended to discourage stale
claims. Estoppel is not a question of time unlike the statute of limitations. It is
rather based on the inequity or unfairness of permitting a claim to be asserted
at a time such claim is presumed to have been abandoned. (Sps. Guillermo
Agbada and Maxima Agbada v. Inter-Urban Developers, Inc. GR 144029, Sept.
19,2002)

Lamis, et al. v. Dong-E, G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010

An action to recover an ancestral land in Baguio City was filed with the RTC. The
parties participated in the proceedings and the trial court rendered a decision
which was affirmed by the CA. The losing party went up to the Supreme Court
and questioned for the first time the jurisdiction of the RTC on ground that with
the enactment of RA 8371, or the Indigenous People’s Right Act of 1997 (IPRA)
original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving ancestral lands and
domains now lies with the National Commission of indigenous Peoples (NCIP).

Is the contention of petitioners correct? Why?

No. They are barred by laches from raising their jurisdictional objection.

In Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 131 Phil. 556 (1968), the Court ruled that the existence
of laches will prevent a party from raising the court’s lack of jurisdiction. Laches is
defined as the ”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 the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned or decline to assert it.”

The fact pattern common among those cases wherein the Court invoked
estoppel to prevent a party from questioning jurisdiction is a party’s active
participation in all stages of a case, including invoking the authority of the
JBD 27
court in seeking affirmative relief and questioning the court’s jurisdiction only
after receiving a ruling or decision adverse to his case for the purpose of
annulling everything done in the trial in which he has actively participated. As
clearly pointed out in Lao vs. Republic 479 SCRA 439: “A party who has
invoked the jurisdiction of the court over a particular matter to secure
affirmative relief cannot be permitted to afterwards deny the same jurisdiction
to escape liability.”

The Supreme Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of submitting one’s
case for decision, and then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but
attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if it is not (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs.
ALS Management and Development Corporation, 427 SCRA 564).

Bar by Estoppel Is An Exception and Not the General Rule

The doctrine laid down in Tijam is the exception , and not the general rule
(Pangilinan v. CA, 321 SCRA 51, 59 [1999]).

Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue of jurisdiction only in

cases in which the factual milieu is analogous to that of Tijam.

In Tijam, the defense of lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time in a
motion to dismiss filed by the Surety almost fifteen (15) years after the
questioned ruling had been rendered. At several stages of the proceedings, in the
court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, the Surety invoked the jurisdiction
of the said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for final
adjudication on the merits. 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 (Regalado vs. Go, GR No. 167988, February6, 2007)

Inspite of Tijam and subsequent cases which invoked it, the rule that the lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even on appeal, still remains the prevailing rule and Tijam should
be confined only to situations prevailing in a particular case viewed in the light
of the special circumstances surrounding it.

Estoppel applies to administrative proceedings-

According to the Court in Ombudsman v. Deliero, Jr. 643 SCRA 135, 148, the
active participation

The active participation of an individual before the administrative

proceedings and the belated challenge to the jurisdiction

Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog vs. Melicor,, G.R. No. 140954, April 12, 2005
After recognizing the jurisdiction of the trial court by seeking affirmative relief in their
JBD 28
motion to serve supplemental pleading upon private respondents, petitioners are
effectively barred by estoppel from challenging the trial court’s
jurisdiction. If a party invokes the jurisdiction of a court, he cannot
thereafter challenge the court’s jurisdiction in the same case. To rule
otherwise would amount to speculating on the fortune of litigation, which is against the
policy of the Court.

Salva vs. CA, 304 SCRA 632 (1999)

Facts: Squatters around San Jose Airport in Occidental Mindoro were relocated in NFA
lot. Actual occupants of lot filed forcible entry complaint against relocated families and
Mindoro Governor Josephine Sato.
.Plaintiffs won in MTC. RTC affirmed. Sato filed notice of appeal. CA dismissed appeal
for being wrong remedy and ordered entry of judgment. MTC issued writ of execution.
Sato filed certiorari and prohibition with CA which was dismissed. Sato filed MR on the
ground that MTC had no jurisdiction because the squatters were relocated on a different
lot. CA granted MR and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint for forcible enrty.
Ruling: SC reversed CA decision – issue of jurisdiction never raised before MTC, RTC
and CA. Raised for the first time in MR. Party assailing jurisdiction of court must raise it
at the first opportunity. While an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total
nullity and may be assailed at any stage, a party’s ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in
the proceedings. without
questioning the jurisdiction until an adverse resolution is issued will bar or estop such
party from attacking the court’s jurisdiction. Settled rule: a party cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after failing
to obtain such relief, repudiate such jurisdiction.

9. Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction

It involves the inherent or implied power of the court to determine issues

incidental to the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.

Under its ancillary jurisdiction, a court may

(1) determine all questions relative to the matters brought before it;
(2) regulate the manner in which a trial shall be conducted;
(3) determine the hours at which the witnesses and lawyers may be heard,
(4) direct the disposition of money deposited in court in the course of the
proceedings,
(5) appoint a receiver and grant an injunction, attachment or garnishment.

b. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON (PARTIES)

1. Define jurisdiction over the person.

Jurisdiction over the person is the power to render a personal judgment

against a party to an action or proceeding through the service of process or by

JBD 29
voluntary appearance of a party during the progress of a cause. (Banco Español-
Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)

It is the power of the court to bring before it persons to be affected by the

judgment so as to give him an opportunity to be heard, and to render a
judgment binding upon his person. (21C.J.S., Courts, Sec. 11, 1990)

How jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired in criminal cases-

Q: In criminal cases, how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the accused?
A: By having him (1) arrested; by service of the warrant of arrest; or (2) by his
voluntary surrender.

2. How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person in civil actions?

The manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the parties depends
on whether the party is the plaintiff or the defendant.

a. As to Plaintiff

Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired by his/her filing of the
complaint or petition. By doing so, he submits himself/herself to the
jurisdiction of the court. (Davao Light & Power Co. Inc. v. CA, 204 SCRA 343,
348 [1991])

Example:

X, a resident of Melbourne, Australia, presented a complaint against Y, a

resident of Manila, before the CFI of Manila for accounting and damages. X
never came to the Philippines to file the suit and is only represented in this case
by counsel. Y files a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court
acquired no jurisdiction over the person of X.

Should the complaint be dismissed on said ground? Why?

No. It is a recognized procedural rule that jurisdiction over the plaintiff is

acquired by his/her filing of the complaint in court. By filing the complaint
through his/her counsel, X invoked the jurisdiction of the court over his person.

b. As to Defendant

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in action in

personam for the court to validly try and decide the case (Asiavest Limited vs.
CA, 296 SCRA 539).

JBD 30
 Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite in an
action in rem and quasi in rem (Gomez vs. CA 425 SCRA 98; Biaco vs. Phil.
Countryside Rural Bank 515 SCRA 106. In an action in rem, jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the
court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. However,
summons must be served upon the defendant not for the purpose of vesting
the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process
requirements (Asiavest Limited v. CA, 296 SCRA 539, 554).

In Alba v. CA, 465 SCRA 495, 505-506, the Court held:

“ xxx In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of

the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided
that the latter has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired
either a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is
brought into actual custody of the law; or b) as a result of the institution of
legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made
effective. The service of summons or notice to the defendant is not for the
purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due
process requirements”.

Jurisdiction Over the Person of the Defendant in Actions in Personam, how

acquired-

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in actions in personam is

obtained either by 1.) a valid service of summons upon him or 2.) by his/her
voluntary submission to the court’s authority. (Ang Ping vs. CA, 310 SCRA
343, 349 [1999]; Davao Light vs. CA)

First Manner: UPON SERVICE ON HIM OF COERCIVE PROCESS

IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW

The first instance when a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is through service upon him of the appropriate court process, which,
in civil procedure, is called service of summons. This is the counterpart of warrant
of arrest in criminal procedure.

So if the defendant was never served with summons, any judgment rendered
by the court will not bind him. Even if he is the loser in the case, judgment
cannot be enforced because the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person.

The same principle holds true in criminal cases. A court cannot try and
convict an accused over whose person the court never acquired jurisdiction. In
criminal cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person through the
issuance and service of a warrant of arrest. The warrant cannot have its effect
JBD 31
even if it was issued, if the same had not been served, i.e. by effecting the arrest
of the accused by virtue of a warrant.

The service of summons is intended to give official notice to the defendant or

respondent that an action has been commenced against him. He is thus put on
guard as to the demands of the plaintiff as stated in the complaint. The service of
summons is an important element in the operation of a court’s jurisdiction upon
a party to a suit because it is the means by which the court acquires jurisdiction
over his person. Without service of summons, or when the service is improper,
the trial and the judgment being in violation of due process, are both null and
void. (Avon Insurance PLC v. CA, 278 SCRA 312, 325 [1997])

Second Instance: BY HIS VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO THE JURISDICTION OF

THE COURT

To constitute voluntary appearance, it must amount to a voluntary submission

to the authority of the court, thus, must be in the form that appears to seek an
affirmative relief from the court. The exception is when the relief prayed for is
precisely to question the jurisdiction of the court over one’s person.

In a criminal action, another way to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
accused even if the accused is not arrested is through VOLUNTARY
SURRENDER. Since there is no more need for the warrant, the court will recall
the same.

In civil cases, voluntary submission of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the

court can be by:
a.) waiver;
b.) consent; or
c.) lack of objection by the defendant. (MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil.
523)

Jurisdiction; personal jurisdiction in civil cases; voluntary appearance.

Optima Realty Corporation v. Hertz Phil. Exclusive Cars, Inc.,G.R. No.

183035. January 9, 2013

In civil cases, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be acquired
either by service of summons or by the defendant’s voluntary appearance in
court and submission to its authority.

In this case, the MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent Hertz
by reason of the latter’s voluntary appearance in court. In Philippine Commercial
International Bank v. Spouses Dy, we had occasion to state:

Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case is acquired

either by the coercive power of legal processes exerted over his person,
JBD 32
 or his voluntary appearance in court. As a general proposition, one
who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court. It is by reason of this rule that we have
had occasion to declare that the filing of motions to admit answer,
for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default
judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for
reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the court’s
jurisdiction. This, however, is tempered by the concept of conditional
appearance, such that a party who makes a special appearance to
challenge, among others, the court’s jurisdiction over his person cannot
be considered to have submitted to its authority.

Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that:

(1) special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on
voluntary appearance;
Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner.

Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court,

especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief
is filed and submitted to the court for resolution.

Certain actions which could be construed as voluntary appearance are:

1.) when the defendant’s counsel files the corresponding pleading thereon;
2.) when the defendant files a motion for reconsideration of the judgment
by default;
3.) when the defendant files a petition to set aside the judgment of default;
4.) when the defendant and plaintiff jointly submit a compromise
agreement for the approval of the court;
5.) when the defendant files an answer to the contempt charge;
6.) when the defendant files a petition for certiorari without questioning the
court’s jurisdiction over his person (Navale v. CA, 253 SCRA 705, 709,
710, 709-712 [1996])

In Navale v. CA, 253 SCRA 705, 708-709, the Court gave the following
illustrations of voluntary appearance: a) when the defendant files the
corresponding pleading thereon; b). when the defendant files a motion for
reconsideration of the judgment by default; c) when the defendant files a petition
to set aside the judgment of default; or d0 when the parties jointly submit a
compromise agreement for approval of the court.

In Carballo v. Encarnacion, 92 Phil. 974, 976 the Court declared that as a rule,
an appearance in whatever form without expressly objecting to the jurisdiction of
the court over the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Thus,
when an answer is filed precisely to raise objection to the jurisdiction of the court

JBD 33
over one’s person is not voluntary appearance to confer jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant.

c. The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction over the plaintiff and the

defendant applies to both ordinary and special civil actions like mandamus or
unlawful detainer cases (Bar 1994).

d. How to raise objections to jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, -

An objection to the jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be

raised as a ground for a motion to dismiss (Sec. 1(a) Rule 16). If no motion to
dismiss has been filed, the objection may be pleaded as an affirmative defense
in the answer (Sec. 6 Rule 16).

If a motion to dismiss has been filed, the objection to the lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant must be pleaded in the same motion where such
ground is available at the time the motion is filed, otherwise it is deemed waived
pursuant to the omnibus motion rule. The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not one of those defenses which are not deemed
waived if not raised in the motion to dismiss. Only lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata and prescription are not waived (Sec.
1 Rule 9 in relation to Sec. 8 Rule 15).

e. Effect of pleading additional defenses aside from lack of jurisdiction

over the person of the defendant

Under the former procedure, if the defendant raises the objection of lack of
jurisdiction over his person in a motion to dismiss, the motion must rely only on
that particular ground. If the defendant appears in court, objects to its
jurisdiction over his person and at the same time alleges other grounds, the
appearance would be deemed a general appearance which was in effect a
voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court (Republic vs. Kerr 18 SCRA
207; WANG Laboratories VS. Mendoza 156 SCRA 44).

The above rule was re-examined in La Naval Drug Corporation vs. CA 236
SCRA 78). The pronouncements in said case are now embodied in Sec. 20 of
Rule 14 which provides: ****The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other
grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall
not be deemed a voluntary appearance.

f. Omnibus Motion rule

Under this rule, it is required in every motion attacking a pleading, order,

judgment, or proceeding to include therein all objections then available, and all
JBD 34
objections not so included shall be considered waived (Sec. 8, Rule 15, Rules of
Court). A motion to dismiss a complaint is an example.

Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant one ground for
dismissal, thus, if not alleged in a motion to dismiss is deemed waived.
However, by way of exception/s Sec. 1 of Rule 9 provides:

“x x x However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on

record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is
another action pending between the same parties for the same cause (litis
pendentia), or that the action is barred by a prior judgment (res judicata), or by
statute of limitations (prescription), the court shall dismiss the claim.”

g. Distinction between jurisdiction over the subject matter and

jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be cured by waiver,
consent, silence or failure to object, whereas jurisdiction over the subject
matter cannot be cured by failure to object or by silence, waiver or consent.
(MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)

Reviewer:
1. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired
Over person of plaintiff – acquired upon filing of complaint or initiatory pleading and
paying docket or filing fees;

2. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired

Over person of defendant – service on him of coercive process in the manner provided
by law (summons) or his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal
(voluntary appearance).
What is the effect of voluntary appearance?
The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to
SERVICE OF SUMMONS.
However, inclusion in a motion to dismiss on other grounds aside from lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance
(Rule 14, Sec. 20).

NOTE:
a. Filing of a motion for reconsideration and appeal is tantamount to voluntary
submissionto the jurisdiction of the court.
b. Any mode of appearance in court by a defendant or his lawyer is equivalent to service
of summons, absent any indication that the appearance of counsel was precisely to protest
the jurisdiction of the court over the person of defendant (Delos Santos vs. Montesa, 221
SCRA 15 [1993]).

c. JURISDICTION OVER THD ISSUES

JBD 35
1.Meaning of Issue in a case-

An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have

narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of
obtaining a decision. (Black’s 5th Ed., 745 citing Muller v. Muller, 235 Cal App.
2nd 341, 45 Cal. Rptr 182, 184) If no allegation in the complaint for example, is
disputed by the defendant because the latter failed to file an answer or filed an
answer but failed to deny any, then there is no issue.

2. Define jurisdiction over the issues-

Jurisdiction over the issue is the authority to try and decide the issues
raised in the pleadings of the parties. (Reyes vs. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484)

3. What are pleadings?

A:Rule 6, Section 1 - Pleadings are the written allegation of the parties of their
respective claims and defenses submitted to the court for trial and judgment.

4. How Jurisdiction Over The Issues Is Conferred and Determined-

In order to determine whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the issue or
issues of the case, one must, therefore, examine the pleadings.

a. Jurisdiction over the issue is conferred and determined by the pleadings

of the parties.

In a civil case, pleadings are written statements of the respective positions of

the parties, namely, the claims for the plaintiff and defenses for the defendant.

EXAMPLE: X files a case for collection of sum of money against Y. The

pleading that X will file will contain the written statements of his claim. He will
narrate there for instance that Y borrowed money from him promising to pay it
on a day certain but when it became due no payment was made despite
demands so he suffered actual loss or damage aside from moral damage.
By way of response, X will file his position in writing stating his defenses like
denying the loan; the promissory note is a forgery or admitting the loan but
claiming that it had already been paid or the action has prescribed. This written
statement of his position containing his defense or defenses is a pleading called
an answer. In the answer Y can also allege claims, if he has any against the
plaintiff like the case is merely intended to harass him for which reason he
suffered damages. This is called a counterclaim, another pleading and X can in
turn file an answer to the counterclaim where he will state his defense/s as
regards the claim contained in the counterclaim.

JBD 36
 Based on their allegations and counter-allegations the court will know what
issues are to be resolved.

So, if X says that Y borrowed money, and never paid him, while Y, in
answer states that he did borrow but already paid it, what issue is being
presented to be resolved by the court?

A: The issue is, whether the obligation is still existing or is it already

extinguished by payment. So that is how the court will know what it will try
in this case.

Q: Let us suppose that in the problem above, the court, after the trial, said in
its decision that the obligation has been extinguished by condonation. Will that
bind?

A: No, because the parties did not raise condonation as the issue. So the court
decided that issue over which it never acquired jurisdiction.
In other words, the court should only rule on what the parties raised in their
pleadings. That is what we call jurisdiction over the issue.

b. Jurisdiction over the issues may also be determined and conferred by

stipulation of the parties as when in the pre-trial, the parties enter into
stipulation of facts and documents or enter into an agreement simplifying the
issues of the case (Sec. 2 Rule 18)

c. Jurisdiction over the issues may also be conferred by waiver or failure to

object to the presentation of evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings.
Here the parties try with their express or implied consent issues not raised by
the pleadings. The issues tried shall be treated in all respects as if they had
been raised in the pleadings (Sec. 5 Rule 10).

So, if in the above example, the plaintiff presented evidence to prove moral
damage not alleged in the complaint without objection from the defendant, or
the defendant proved a defense not alleged without objection from the plaintiff,
the court obtains jurisdiction over such issue by waiver or failure to object.

d. When An Issue Arises Even If Not Raised In the Pleadings

Although it is a rule that jurisdiction over the issue is to be determined by the

pleadings of the parties, an issue may arise in a case without it being raised in the
pleadings. This happens when the parties try an issue with their consent. Under
Sec. 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, when issues not raised by the pleadings are
tried with the express or the implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated
in all respects, as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Thus, if evidence on a
claim for salary differential is not objected to, the Labor Arbiter correctly
JBD 37
considered the evidence even if the claim is not mentioned in the complaint.
(Cindy and Lynsy Garment v. NLRC, 284 SCRA 38, 45 [1998])

e. Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter Distinguished from Jurisdiction

Over the Issues

Jurisdiction over the issues is conferred by the pleadings and by the express
(stipulation) or implied (failure to object to evidence) consent of the parties
because an issue not duly pleaded may be validly tried and decided by the court
as long as there is no objection from the parties. Jurisdiction over the subject
matter is conferred by law and cannot be subject to the agreement of the parties.
(Vda de Victoria v. CA, GR No. 147550, Jan. 26, 2005)

A: The following are the distinctions:

1.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and try a
particular case, while
Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court to resolve
questions involved in the case;
2.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired upon filing of the
complaint, while
Jurisdiction over the issues of the case is acquired upon filing of the
answer which joins the issues involved in the case.

Take note that jurisdiction over the issues in civil cases is acquired after
defendant has filed an answer. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the issues is
acquired when the accused enters a plea of not guilty or pleads guilty but seeks
to prove a mitigating circumstance.

For a decision to be effective, the court must acquire the jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the person, the res in case the defendant is not around, and the
last is jurisdiction over the issue.

In sum:
1. Authority to try and decide the issues raised by the pleadings of the parties.
2. Conferred by the PLEADINGS or EXPRESS CONSENT of the parties.
3. An issue not duly pleaded may be tried and decided if no timely objection is made by
the parties.
4. In certain cases, as in probate proceedings, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred by
law.

D. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES OR PROPERTY IN LITIGATION

JBD 38
 RES is the Latin word for “thing.” It is applied to an object, subject matter
(not nature of the action), status, considered as the defendant in the action or
as the object against which, directly, proceedings are taken. (Black’s 5 th Ed.,
1172)

1. Define jurisdiction over the res-

Jurisdiction over the res is the power or authority of the court over the thing or
property under litigation. (Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil. 186, 190 [1939])

It is the power to bind the “thing” necessary in in rem or quasi in rem actions.

2. How acquired-

It is acquired either by the (a) the seizure of the property under legal
process whereby it is brought into actual or constructive custody of the court,
like or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the
power of the court is recognized and made effective. (Macahilig vs. Heirs of
Grace M. Magalit, GR No. 141423, Nov. 15, 2000)

Acquisition of jurisdiction over the res by actual seizure is exemplified by an

attachment proceeding where the property is seized at the commencement of
the action or at some subsequent stage in the action.

It is also acquired through a legal provision which authorizes the court to

exercise authority over a property or subject matter such as suits involving a
person’s status or property located in the Philippines in actions in rem or quasi
in rem. (Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca 37 Phil. 921, 927 [1918]; Perkins v.
Dizon; Sec. 15, Rule 14, Rules of Court.)

In Land Registration cases or probate proceedings, jurisdiction is acquired

by compliance with procedural requisites, such as publication and service of
notice which amount to constructive seizure of the land or estate.
In a petition for change of name, the title of the petition must be complete
by including the name sought to be adopted; otherwise, the court acquires no
jurisdiction over the proceedings. (Telmo vs. Republic, 73 SCRA 29 (1976).

Q: A files a case for recovery of ownership against B over a piece of land.

What is the res of the case?
A: The piece of land is the res of the case.

What is the nature of the action?

To recover ownership of real property or real action.

JBD 39
 Q: However, res may not be tangible. For example, X is an illegitimate child.
She wants to be acknowledged by her father. Thus, she filed a case against her
father for compulsory recognition. What is the res?
A: The res is the status of the child because it is the object of the litigation.

Importance of jurisdiction over the res-

The court obtains the authority to bind the “thing”. Sometimes it is a substitute
for jurisdiction over the person. There are instances when the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction over the defendant like when he is abroad. But if the court
acquires jurisdiction over the res, the case may go on. Even if the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, jurisdiction over the res
becomes a substitute over the person.

In the example of action for compulsory recognition, even if the defendant is a

non-resident who is out of the country the object of litigation is status here in the
Philippines, then acquisition of jurisdiction over the res confers jurisdiction to the
court even if the defendant is abroad. The res here is the status against which or
in relation to which the judgment can be enforced.

In Rule 57 Section 1, among the grounds for issuance of a writ of preliminary

attachment is:
“(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publications.”

4. Relief that may be granted when jurisdiction is only over the res or in
rem or quasi in rem actions-

In Banco de Brasil v. CA, 333 SCRA 545, 558, the Court said that the court cannot
lawfully render a judgment against the defendant but must confine itself to the
res.

In an action to foreclose a real property mortgage, for example, when the court is
only able to acquire jurisdiction over the property subject of the foreclosure
because the defendant is a non-resident and not found in the Philippines, the
court cannot render a deficiency judgment if after public auction of the
foreclosed property the proceeds are not enough to cover the amount of loan
secured by the mortgage. This is because an action to collect the deficiency is a
proceeding in personam which requires jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.

In sum:
Acquired by the court over the property or thing in contest, and is obtained by seizure
under legal process of the court.
May result either from the SEIZURE of thing under legal process whereby it is brought
into actual custody of law, or INSTITUTION of legal proceedings whereby the power of

JBD 40
the court over the thing is recognized and made effective.

II. CLASSIFICATION OR TYPES OF JURISDICTION:

a. Based on the nature of cases tried

1. GENERAL JURISDICTION is the authority of the court to hear and

determine all actions and suits, whether civil, criminal, administrative,
real, personal or mixed. It is very broad – to hear and try practically all
types of cases. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)

2.SPECIAL or LIMITED JURISDICTION is the authority of the court to

hear and determine particular cases only. Its power is limited. (14 Am.
Jur. 249; Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)

Example:
In criminal cases, the MTC has jurisdiction over offenses where the penalty
imposable does not exceed 6 years while beyond 6 years they are triable before
the RTC.

If you examine the jurisdiction of the MTC, it has a limit but none for the RTC.

The same applies in civil cases as we shall learn.

b. Based on the stage of the cause:

1.ORIGINAL JURISDICTION is the power of the court to take cognizance of
a case at its inception or commencement. (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd Ed.,
pp. 91 and 917)

3. APPELLATE JURISDICTION is the power vested in a superior court to

review and revise the judicial action of a lower court. (Ballentine’s Law
Dict., 2nd Ed., pp. 91 and 917) If one court has the power to correct the
decision of a lower court, the power of this court is appellate. This is
because it is commenced somewhere else and it is just reviewing the
decision of the said lower court.

Note that in certiorari petition, the action of the superior court is not to
correct but to annul. The power exercised by the superior court is the power of
control and supervision over an inferior court, not appellate, that is, to limit the
inferior court within its jurisdiction, its authority.

c. Based on the scope or extent of exercise:

JBD 41
 1. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION is that possessed by a court to the exclusion
of all others.

2.CONCURRENT or COORDINATE JURISDICTION is that possessed by

the court together with another or other courts over the same subject matter,
the court obtaining jurisdiction first retaining it to the exclusion of the
others, but the choice of court is lodged in those persons duly authorized to
file the action. (Villanueva vs. Ortiz, 58 O.G. 1318, Feb. 12, 1962)

Exclusionary Principle
The court first acquiring jurisdiction excludes all others.

Another principle that may be relevant is the policy of judicial hierarchy.

d. Based on situs:

1. Territorial jurisdiction - exercised within the limits of the place where the
court is located.

2. Extra-territorial jurisdiction - exercised beyond the confines of the territory

where the court is located.

Examples: Writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are

enforceable only within the region where the issuing court is
located; while a writ of execution can be enforced even outside said
territory.

e. Hierarchy of courts; concurrence of jurisdiction; non-observance results

in dismissal.

Spouses Augusto Dacudao and Ofelia Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice Raul

Gonzales of the Department of Justice, G.R. No. 188056. January 8, 2013

We emphasize that the concurrence of jurisdiction among the Supreme Court,

Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts to issue the writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction did not give
petitioners the unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. An undue disregard
of this policy against direct resort to the Court will cause the dismissal of the
recourse. In Banez, Jr. v. Concepcion, we explained why, to wit:

The court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the hierarchy of courts,
and now affirms that the policy is not to be ignored without serious
consequences, the strictness of the policy is designed to shield the Court from
having to deal with causes that are also well within the competence of the lower
courts, and thus leave time to the Court to deal with the more fundamental and
more essential tasks that the Constitution has assigned to it, the Court may act
JBD 42
on petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus only when absolutely necessary or when serious and important
reasons justify an exception to the policy. Xxx

Accordingly, every litigant must remember that the Court is not the only judicial
forum from which to seek and obtain effective redress of his or her grievances.
As a rule, the Court is a court of last resort, not a court of first instance. Hence,
every litigant who brings petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus should ever be mindful of the policy on the hierarchy
of courts, the observance of which is explicitly defined and enjoined in Section 4
of Rule 65.

JBD 43