Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 1

SOLEMNIDAD M. BUAYA v.
THE HONORABLE WENCESLAO M. POLO and the
COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Allegations in the complaint or information determine
jurisdiction
In Villanueva v. Ortiz, et al . (L-15344, May 30, 1960, 108 Phil, 493)
this Court ruled that in order to determine the jurisdiction of the court
in criminal cases, the complaint must be examined for the purpose of
ascertaining whether or not the facts set out therein and the
punishment provided for by law fall within the jurisdiction of the court
where the complaint is filed. The jurisdiction of courts in criminal
cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information,
and not by the findings the court may make after the trial (People v.
Mission, 87 Phil. 641).

In re: Estafa
Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: In all
criminal prosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the
court of the municipality or province wherein the offense was
committed or any of the essential elements thereof took place.

Besides, the crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense which
may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential elements
of the crime took place. One of the essential elements of estafa is
damage or prejudice to the offended party. The private respondent
has its principal place of business and office at Manila. The failure of
the petitioner to remit the insurance premiums she collected allegedly
caused damage and prejudice to private respondent in Manila.




ISIDRO PABLITO M. PALANA v.PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES

Law at the time of institution of the action determines jurisdiction
in criminal actions
It is hornbook doctrine that jurisdiction to try a criminal action is
determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the
action and not during the arraignment of the accused.

Prospective application
The subsequent amendment of B.P. 129 by R.A. No. 7691, An Act
Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts and the Metropolitan Trial Court on June 15,
1994 cannot divest the Regional Trial Court of jurisdiction over
petitioners case. Where a court has already obtained and is
exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to
the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation
placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal unless
the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is
intended to operate on actions pending before its enactment. Indeed,
R.A. No. 7691 contains retroactive provisions. However, these only
apply to civil cases that have not yet reached the pre-trial stage.

In re: BP 22
In the present case, the fine imposable is P200,000.00 hence, the
Regional Trial Court properly acquired jurisdiction over the case. The
Metropolitan Trial Court could not acquire jurisdiction over the criminal
action because its jurisdiction is only for offenses punishable with a
fine of not more than P4,000.00.





Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEJO
TAROY y TARNATE

Jurisdiction is where the offense was committed or where any of
its essential ingredients took place
Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. It can neither be waived nor
subjected to stipulation. The right venue must exist as a matter of
law. Thus, for territorial jurisdiction to attach, the criminal action must
be instituted and tried in the proper court of the municipality, city, or
province where the offense was committed or where any of its
essential ingredients took place.

In re: Case
The Informations filed with the RTC of La Trinidad state that the
crimes were committed in the victim and the offenders house in City
Limit, Tuding, Municipality of Itogon, Province of Benguet. This
allegation conferred territorial jurisdiction over the subject offenses on
the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. The testimonies of Mila and Des as
well as the affidavit of arrest point to this fact. Clearly, Taroys
uncorroborated assertion that the subject offenses took place
in Baguio City is not entitled to belief. Besides, he admitted during the
pre-trial in the case that it was the RTC of La Trinidad that had
jurisdiction to hear the case. Taken altogether, that RTCs jurisdiction
to hear the case is beyond dispute.



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

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused not required in
motion to quash warrant of arrest and other relief; Exception
Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires neither
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, nor custody of law over
the body of the accused.
Except in applications for bail, it is not necessary for the court to first
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused to dismiss the case
or grant other relief.
Examples:
1) The outright dismissal of the case even before the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
authorized under Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure and the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure (Sec. 12a).
2) In Allado vs. Diokno (232 SCRA 192), the case was dismissed
on motion of the accused for lack of probable cause without
the accused having been arrested.

Accused submits to the jurisdiction of the court upon seeking
affirmative relief
In cases not involving the so-called special appearance, the general
rule applies, i.e., the accused is deemed to have submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the court upon seeking affirmative relief.
Notwithstanding this, there is no requirement for him to be in the
custody of the law.

Custody of the law vs. Jurisdiction over the person
Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the
application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other
reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor
constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused.

Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary
surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. One can be under
the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the
court over his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a
Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 3

warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On
the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over
his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when an
accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced. Being in the
custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby
deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to
the will of the law. Custody of the law is literally custody over the body
of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.



VENANCIO FIGUEROA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings;
Exception
The general rule should, however, be, as it has always been, that the
issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings,
even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. Estoppel by
laches, to bar a litigant from asserting the courts absence or lack of
jurisdiction, only supervenes in exceptional cases similar to the
factual milieu of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. Indeed, the fact that a person
attempts to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of a court does not estop
him from thereafter challenging its jurisdiction over the subject matter,
since such jurisdiction must arise by law and not by mere consent of
the parties. This is especially true where the person seeking to
invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of the court does not thereby secure
any advantage or the adverse party does not suffer any harm.

Estoppel by laches explained
True, delay alone, though unreasonable, will not sustain the defense
of estoppel by laches unless it further appears that the party,
knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them until the condition
of the party pleading laches has in good faith become so changed that
he cannot be restored to his former state, if the rights be then
enforced, due to loss of evidence, change of title, intervention of
equities, and other causes.

In re: Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy
In Sibonghanoy, the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the court that
rendered the questioned ruling was held to be barred by estoppel by
laches. It was ruled that the lack of jurisdiction having been raised for
the first time in a motion to dismiss filed almost fifteen (15) years after
the questioned ruling had been rendered, such a plea may no longer
be raised for being barred by laches. As defined in said case, laches
is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of
time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should
have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right
within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party
entitled to assert has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

It is noteworthy that the party questioning the jurisdiction actively
participated in the trial and even raised affirmative reliefs. It was only
when the adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that
it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. This strategy is
frowned upon because the party only challenges the jurisdiction for
the purpose of nullifying the entire proceedings.



HEIRS OF JANE HONRALES v. JONATHAN HONRALES

Requisites of double jeopardy
Thus, double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are
present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first
jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for
the same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after
a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after
arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when
Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 4

the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed
or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Court where information is filed retains jurisdiction until final
determination
In this case, the MeTC took cognizance of the Information for reckless
imprudence resulting in parricide while the criminal case for parricide
was still pending before the RTC. In Dioquino v. Cruz, Jr., we held
that once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the Information
is filed, it is there retained. Therefore, as the offense of reckless
imprudence resulting in parricide was included in the charge for
intentional parricide pending before the RTC, the MeTC clearly had no
jurisdiction over the criminal case filed before it, the RTC having
retained jurisdiction over the offense to the exclusion of all other
courts. The requisite that the judgment be rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction is therefore absent.


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

Accused must submit to courts jurisdiction or custody of the
law to avail the right to appeal
The second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 124 of the 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
"The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee
or motuproprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes
from prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign
country during the pendency of the appeal."
This rule is based on the rationale that appellants lose their standing
in court when they abscond. Unless they surrender or submit to the
courts jurisdiction, they are deemed to have waived their right to seek
judicial relief.
Moreover, this doctrine applies not only to the accused who jumps bail
during the appeal, but also to one who does so during the trial.
The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless they
voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the court or are otherwise
arrested within 15 days from notice of the judgment against
them. While at large, they cannot seek relief from the court, as they
are deemed to have waived the appeal. Consequently, the judgment
against him has become final and executory.



EQUI-ASIA v.DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The RTC is a regular court
There is no denying that regular courts have jurisdiction over cases
involving the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued
by administrative agencies. Such jurisdiction, however, is not limited
to the Court of Appeals or to this Court alone for even the regional trial
courts can take cognizance of actions assailing a specific rule or set
of rules promulgated by administrative bodies. Indeed, the
Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare
a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential
decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts,
including the regional trial courts.


Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 5

CABRERA v. LAPID

Direct appeal from the issuances of the Ombudsman to the
Supreme Court not allowed in criminal cases; declared
unconstitutional
Clearly, this is an appeal from the questioned issuances of the
Ombudsman. However, such direct resort to this Court from a resolution
or order of the Ombudsman is not sanctioned by any rule of procedure.
Neither can petitioner avail of Sec. 27of R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known
as The Ombudsman Act of 1989. The provision allowed direct appeals in
administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to
the Supreme Court. The right to appeal is granted only in respect to
orders or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases.The
provision does not cover resolutions of the Ombudsman in criminal
cases. More importantly, Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 6770 insofar as it allowed a
direct appeal to this Court was declared unconstitutional in Fabian v.
Hon. Desierto.

The purported errors in judgment can be corrected by an appeal,
although not via a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

Remedy: Petition for certiorari under Rule 65
However, an aggrieved party in criminal actions is not without any
recourse. Where grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction taints the findings of the Ombudsman on the existence of
probable cause, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65.

No grave abuse of discretion due to valid exercise of police
power
A careful reading of the questioned Resolution reveals that the
Ombudsman dismissed petitioners criminal complaint because
respondents had validly resorted to the police power of the State
when they effected the demolition of the illegal fishpond in question
following the declaration thereof as a nuisance per se. Thus, the
Ombudsman was of the opinion that no violation of Section 3(e) of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or of Article 324 of the Revised
Penal Code was committed by respondents. In the words of the
Ombudsman, those who participated in the blasting of the subject
fishpond were only impelled by their desire to serve the best interest
of the general public; for the good and the highest good.

Grave abuse of discretion or error of jurisdiction vs. Error in
judgment
Grave abuse of discretion should be differentiated from an error in
judgment. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in
the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reversible only by an
appeal. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged
errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to
nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal
or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. An error
of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the
court without or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible
only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.



BOKINGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

Allegations in the complaint determine jurisdiction
It is axiomatic that the nature of the action and which court has
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the same is determined by the
material allegations of the complaint, the type of relief prayed for by
the plaintiff, and the law in effect when the action is filed, irrespective
of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to some or all of the claims
asserted therein. The caption of the complaint is not determinative of
the nature of the action. Nor does the jurisdiction of the court depend
Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 6

upon the answer of the defendant or agreement of the parties, or to
the waiver or acquiescence of the parties.
RTC has jurisdiction over cases where money claim is only
purely incidental or a consequence of the principal relief which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation
In this connection, it is well to note that the Court had the occasion to
explain that "in determining whether an action is one the subject
matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, the nature of
the principal action, or remedy sought must first be ascertained. If it is
primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary estimation, and jurisdiction over the action will
depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is
something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the
money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal
relief sought, the action is one where the subject of litigation may not
be estimated in terms of money, which is cognizable exclusively by
Regional Trial Courts."



GONZALES v. ABAYA

General rule: crimes or offenses committed by the members of
the AFP and other persons subject to military law fall under the
jurisdiction of the proper civil court; Exception; Exception to the
exception
Section 1 of R.A. No. 7055, quoted above, is clear and unambiguous.
First, it lays down the general rule that members of the AFP and other
persons subject to military law, including members of the Citizens
Armed Forces Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses
penalized under the Revised Penal Code (like coup detat), other
special penal laws, or local ordinances shall be tried by the proper
civil court. Next, it provides the exception to the general rule, i.e.,
where the civil court, before arraignment, has determined the offense
to be service-connected, then the offending soldier shall be tried by a
court martial. Lastly, the law states an exception to the exception, i.e.,
where the President of the Philippines, in the interest of justice, directs
before arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by the
proper civil cour.
Service-connected crimes or offenses explained
The second paragraph of the same provision further identifies the
"service-connected crimes or offenses" as "limited to those defined
in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97" of the
Articles of War. Violations of these specified Articles are triable by
court martial. This delineates the jurisdiction between the civil courts
and the court martial over crimes or offenses committed by military
personnel.
Such delineation of jurisdiction by R.A. No. 7055 is necessary to
preserve the peculiar nature of military justice system over military
personnel charged with service-connected offenses. The military
justice system is disciplinary in nature, aimed at achieving the highest
form of discipline in order to ensure the highest degree of military
efficiency.Here, petitioners are charged for violation of Article 96
(conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of
War before the court martial.
It bears stressing that the charge against the petitioners concerns the
alleged violation of their solemn oath as officers to defend the
Constitution and the duly-constituted authorities.Such violation
allegedly caused dishonor and disrespect to the military
profession. In short, the charge has a bearing on
their professional conduct or behavior as military officers. Equally
indicative of the "service-connected" nature of the offense is the
penalty prescribed for the same dismissal from the service
imposable only by the military court.Such penalty is purely
Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 7

disciplinary in character, evidently intended to cleanse the military
profession of misfits and to preserve the stringent standard of military
discipline.
Only the Constitution or the law can bestow jurisdictionnot the
courts
The RTC, in making such declaration, practically amended the law
which expressly vests in the court martial the jurisdiction over
"service-connected crimes or offenses." What the law has conferred
the court should not take away. It is only the Constitution or the law
that bestows jurisdiction on the court, tribunal, body or officer over the
subject matter or nature of an action which can do so.And it is only
through a constitutional amendment or legislative enactment that such
act can be done. The first and fundamental duty of the courts is
merely to apply the law "as they find it, not as they like it to be."



INIEGO v. PURAGANAN

Subject matter is the measure whether or not it is capable of
pecuniary estimationnot the cause of action; Subject matter
vs. Cause of action
It is crystal clear from B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No.
7691, that what must be determined to be capable or incapable of
pecuniary estimation is not the cause of action, but the subject
matter of the action. A cause of action is the delict or wrongful act or
omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights
of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the subject matter of the action is
the physical facts, the thing real or personal, the money, lands,
chattels, and the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted, and
not the delict or wrong committed by the defendant.

Principal action or remedy determines whether the subject
matter is capable of pecuniary estimation
In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is
not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the
criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or
remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of
money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation,
and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the
courts of first instance [now Regional Trial Courts] would
depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic
issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money,
where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of,
the principal relief sought like suits to have the defendant perform his
part of the contract (specific performance) and in actions for support,
or for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this court
has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the
litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable
exclusively by courts of first instance [now Regional Trial Courts].

Action for damages based on a quasi-delict is capable of
pecuniary estimation
Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and
effectively actions for the recovery of a sum of money for the
damages suffered because of the defendants
alleged tortious acts. The damages claimed in such actions represent
the monetary equivalent of the injury caused to the plaintiff by the
defendant, which are thus sought to be recovered by the
plaintiff. This money claim is the principal relief sought, and is not
merely incidental thereto or a consequence thereof.

Fault or negligence is not capable of pecuniary estimation when
not accompanied by a resulting damage
Fault or negligence, which the Court of Appeals claims is not capable
of pecuniary estimation, is not actionable by itself. For such fault or
Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 8

negligence to be actionable, there must be a resulting damage to a
third person. The relief available to the offended party in such cases is
for the reparation, restitution, or payment of such damage, without
which any alleged offended party has no cause of action or relief. The
fault or negligence of the defendant, therefore, is inextricably
intertwined with the claim for damages, and there can be no action
based on quasi-delict without a claim for damages.



BERNAS v. SOVEREIGN VENTURES

Service of summons required in an application for a writ of
preliminary injunction or TRO; Exception
Section 4 (c), Rule 58 of the 1997 Rulesof Civil Procedure, as
amended. The provision now reads as follows:

(c) When an application for a writ of preliminary
injunction or a temporary restraining order is included in a
complaint or any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a
multiple-sala court, shall be raffled only after notice to
and in the presence of the adverse party or the
person to be enjoined. In any event, such notice shall be
preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by
service of summons, together with a copy of the
complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicants
affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in
the Philippines.

However, where the summons could not be served
personally or by substituted service despite diligent
efforts, or the adverse party is a resident of the
Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or is non-
resident thereof, the requirement of prior or
contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply.


Jurisdiction is acquired through service of summons or
voluntary appearance
Moreover, as held by the trial court, petitioner voluntarily submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the said court. Records show that he
filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars, Motion to Cite Respondent and
Counsel in Contempt of Court, praying for other reliefs, just and
equitable. He filed an Omnibus Motion assailing the trial courts
order restraining the annotation of lis pendens on the titles of the
property in litigation. He participated in the hearing of this
motion. And lastly, he filed a motion to dismiss.

A court generally acquires jurisdiction over a person through either a
valid service of summons or the persons voluntary appearance in
court.



UNION BANK v.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Intra-corporate cases transferred from SEC to RTC; Pending
cases not included
Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the Securities Regulation
Code, was approved by then Pres. Estrada on July 19, 2000. The law
transferred the SEC's original and exclusive jurisdiction over intra-
corporate cases to the courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate
Regional Trial Court (RTC) except for "pending cases involving intra-
corporate disputes submitted for final resolution which should be
resolved within one (1) year from the enactment of [the] Code."

Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 9

Jurisdiction includes the execution of judgment; Exception
The grant to a tribunal or agency of adjudicatory power, or the
authority to hear and adjudge cases, should normally and logically be
deemed to include the grant of authority to enforce or execute the
judgments it renders, unless the law otherwise provides. This is so
because the authority to decide cases is inutile unless accompanied
by the authority to see to it that what has been decided is carried out.

A case at the execution stage is still considered a pending case
Petitioner's contention that the SEC does not have jurisdiction to
execute because once decided, the case ceases to be a "pending"
case and becomes a "decided" case deserves scant attention. In the
first place, we have repeatedly held that a case in which an execution
has been issued is considered as still "pending" so that all
proceedings on the execution are proceedings in the suit.

A long standing doctrine is that the tribunal which rendered the
decision or award has a general supervisory control over the process
of its execution, and this includes the power to determine every
question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution.



GOLANGCO v. FUNG

The CA does not have jurisdiction over criminal or non-
administrative cases decided by the Office of the Ombudsman
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders,
directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or
non-administrative cases.

MISON v. NATIVIDAD

The Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure
and forfeiture proceedings
The respondent Judge, therefore, acted arbitrarily and despotically in
issuing the temporary restraining order, granting the writ of preliminary
injunction and denying the motion to dismiss, thereby removing the
res from the control of the Collector of Customs and depriving him of
his exclusive original jurisdiction over the controversy. Respondent
Judge exercised a power he never had and encroached upon the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs. By express
provision of law, amply supported by well-settled jurisprudence, the
Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and
forfeiture proceedings and regular courts cannot interfere with his
exercise thereof or stifle or put it to naught.

Neither payment of taxes and licenses (allegations of ownership)
nor the illegality of the warrant of seizure and detention divest
the Collector of Customs of jurisdiction or justify the trial courts
interference
Private respondent alleges ownership over several vehicles which are
legally registered in his name, having paid all the taxes and
corresponding licenses incident thereto, neither divests the Collector
of Customs of such jurisdiction nor confers upon the said trial court
regular jurisdiction over the case. Even the illegality of the warrant of
seizure and detention cannot justify the trial courts interference with
the Collectors jurisdiction. In the first place, there is a distinction
between the existence of the Collectors power to issue it and the
regularity of the proceeding taken under such power. In the second
place, even if there be such an irregularity in the latter, the Regional
Trial Court does not have the competence to review, modify or
reverse whatever conclusions may result therefrom.

Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 10


COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v.COURT OF APPEALS, ET.
AL


Trial courts cannot interfere with the Collector of Customs even
through proceedings under Rule 65
This Court again reminds all concerned that the rule is clear: the
Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and
forfeiture proceedings and trial courts are precluded from assuming
cognizance over such matters even through petitions for certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus.

Jurisdiction over the res must be first acquired
The Bureau of Customs had acquired jurisdiction over the res ahead
and to the exclusion of the RTC of Manila. The forfeiture proceedings
conducted by the Bureau of Customs are in the nature of proceedings
in rem and jurisdiction was obtained from the moment the vessel
entered the SFLU port.



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

The RTC can re-organize management committees of
corporations
Republic Act No. 8799, which became effective on August 8, 2000,
transferred the jurisdiction of the SEC over cases involving intra-
corporate disputes to the Regional Trial Courts. Thus, the RTC
assumed powers provided under Sections 5 and 6 of Presidential
Decree No. 902-A quoted earlier. As such, it has the discretion to
grant or deny an application for the creation of a management
committee. This discretion, however, must be exercised with great
caution and circumspection.
Having the power to create a management committee, it follows that
the RTC can order the reorganization of the existing management
committee. Here, knowing that the deadlock among the members of
the committee (appointed by the SEC) may lead to the paralyzation of
the schools business operations, the RTC removed the said
members and appointed new members.



SPOUSES EDMUNDO T. OSEA AND LIGAYA R. OSEA
v.ANTONIO G. AMBROSIO AND RODOLFO C. PEREZ

Jurisdiction of administrative agencies determined by the statute
that created or empowering it
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1344 clarifies and spells out the quasi-
judicial dimensions of the grant of jurisdiction to the HLURB in the
following specific terms:

SEC. 1. In the exercise of its functions to
regulate the real estate trade and business and in
addition to its powers provided for in Presidential
Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall
have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases
of the following nature:
A. Unsound real estate business practices;
B. Claims involving refund and any other
claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit
buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer,
broker or salesman; and
Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 11


C. Cases involving specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations filed by
buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units
against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or
salesman. (Emphasis supplied)


The HLURB has quasi-judicial authority because of its technical
expertise on the subject matter
The business of developing subdivisions and corporations being
imbued with public interest and welfare, any question arising from the
exercise of that prerogative should be brought to the HLURB which
has the technical know-how on the matter. In the exercise of its
powers, the HLURB must commonly interpret and apply contracts and
determine the rights of private parties under such contracts. This
ancillary power is no longer a uniquely judicial function, exercisable
only by the regular courts.

Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction
Moreover, under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction,
courts cannot or will not determine a controversy where the issues for
resolution demand the exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of
fact.

Under the circumstances attendant to the case, the HLURB has the
expertise to determine the basic technical issue of whether the
alleged deviations from the building plans and the technical
specifications affect the soundness and structural strength of the
house.



ALCARAZ v. GONZALEZ

The determination of probable cause is exclusive to the Department
of Justicethe CA cannot interfere via appeal
It bears stressing that in the determination of probable cause during the
preliminary investigation, the executive branch of government has full
discretionary authority. Thus, the decision whether or not to dismiss the
criminal complaint against the private respondent is necessarily
dependent on the sound discretion of the Investigating Prosecutor and
ultimately, that of the Secretary of Justice. Courts are not empowered to
substitute their own judgment for that of the executive branch.
The resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor is subject to appeal to the
Justice Secretary who, under the Revised Administrative Code, exercises
the power of control and supervision over said Investigating Prosecutor;
and who may affirm, nullify, reverse, or modify the ruling of such
prosecutor.
The CA can interfere only in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
Thus, while the CA may review the resolution of the Justice Secretary, it
may do so only in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, solely on the ground that the Secretary of Justice committed grave
abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.



RIDGEWOOD ESTATE v. BELAOS

The nature of the claim determines the jurisdiction of the case; A
claim for damages falls under the jurisdiction of the regular
courts
The Court held in Roxas v. Court of Appeals, that the mere
relationship between the parties, i.e., that of being subdivision
owner/developer and subdivision lot buyer, does not automatically
Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 12

vest jurisdiction in the HLURB. For an action to fall within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB, the decisive element is the nature
of the action as enumerated in Section 1 of P.D. No. 1344. The
HLURB has jurisdiction over complaints aimed at compelling the
subdivision developer to comply with its contractual and statutory
obligations.

The complaint filed by respondent against petitioner was one for
damages. It prayed for the payment of moral, actual and exemplary
damages by reason of petitioners malicious encashment of the
checks even after the rescission of the contract to sell between
them. Respondent claimed that because of petitioners malicious and
fraudulent acts, he suffered humiliation and embarrassment in several
banks, causing him to lose his credibility and good standing among
his colleagues. Such action falls within the jurisdiction of regular
courts, not the HLURB.



SANTE v. CLARAVALL

Adjustment of jurisdictional amounts in gross value, claim, or
demand
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 PambansaBlg. 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).

When damages is the main cause of the action or one of the
causes of action, the total amount shall be the basis of
jurisdiction, which includes moral and exemplary damages, etc.
It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged
in the complaint

since the latter comprises a concise statement of the
ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs causes of action. It is clear,
based on the allegations of the complaint, that respondents main action
is for damages. Hence, the other forms of damages being claimed by
respondent, e.g., exemplary damages, attorneys fees and litigation
expenses, are not merely incidental to or consequences of the main
action but constitute the primary relief prayed for in the complaint.



VICTORINO QUINAGORANv.COURT OF APPEALS
and THE HEIRS OF JUAN DE LA CRUZ

Assessed value of real property determines jurisdiction
As things now stand, a distinction must be made between those
properties the assessed value of which is below P20,000.00, if outside
Metro Manila; and P50,000.00, if within.

In Atuel v. Valdezthe Court likewise expressly stated that:

Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in
a court of general jurisdiction. Specifically, the regional
trial court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction in all
civil actions which involve x x x possession of real
property. However, if the assessed value of the real
property involved does not exceed P50,000.00 in
Metro Manila, and P20,000.00 outside of Metro Manila,
the municipal trial court exercises jurisdiction over
actions to recover possession of real property.

Marjorie Castillo & Monica Cajucom JURISDICTION Case Doctrines

| 13

Complaint must allege the assessed value of the real property
In no uncertain terms, the Court has already held that a complaint
must allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the
complaint or the interest thereon to determine which court has
jurisdiction over the action. This is because the nature of the action
and which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the same
is determined by the material allegations of the complaint, the type of
relief prayed for by the plaintiff and the law in effect when the action is
filed, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to some or all of
the claims asserted therein.

Jurisdiction does not depend on the answer of the defendant or
on agreement, waiver, or acquiescence of the parties
Jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the answer of the
defendant or even upon agreement, waiver or acquiescence of the
parties. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the court over the nature of the
action and the subject matter thereof cannot be made to depend upon
the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to
dismiss for, otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend
almost entirely on the defendant.


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