You are on page 1of 8

BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

CIVIL PROCEDURE remedies? Which I call again for review purposes the signposts of remedial law. Diba?
In every case, at least dalawa ang magkatatunggali, the plaintiff and the defendant.
Remember that in actual practice, truth does not prevail. Diba? What prevails is the
legal truth it is not the actual truth. So that even if someone says even if someone
JURISDICTION is accused of killing somebody, but another one says I killed him. So ano pang
mangyayari, wala na. Diba?
Basic in Rem Law is that a judgment, final order or resolution rendered by a court
without jurisdiction is null and void. So pag wala kayong panagot, you assume the SO whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant, you must be concerned with
court has no jurisdiction. So bakit nagtatanong ka ng ganito wala namang jurisdiction remedies. SO ano ba ang mga remedies under Rem Law, yun lang ang pinag uusapan
yun so null and void. Because by stating that basic principle, the examiner will say, from Rule 1 to Rule 134, lahat yan about remedies. Diba? So I call them the signposts
oo nga no, he is not wrong because he is stating a very basic principle in of Rem Law, as far as Im concerned with Civ Pro.
jurisdiction. Pero wag naman na kung ang layo-layo ng tanong, tinatanong ka sa
annulment of marriage, tinatanong ka sa legal separation, yung related OK, what is the first remedy of the defendant? Rule 16 diba? Motion to Dismiss. Ok,
so what is his next remedy? Rule 33 which is.. kasi ito dapat saulado niyo lahat yung
Rules diba? Kung ngayon hindi niyo pa nasasaulo yan, a mahirap yan. Dapat alam mo
na pag tinanong sayo. Rule 34. Alam mo kung ano yon. Diba? E kung ngayon ka
The Sun of Remedial Law palang nag uumpisa ano ba yung Rule 33? Medyo the question is.. are you reviewing
for the Bar? OK, so Demurrer to Evidence, yun ang sunod. And then after that, what
Kapag typically, remedial law subject because I call jurisdiction as the Sun of
now? Your next remedy is already Rule 37 which is Motion for New Trial/Motion for
Rem Law. Why? The sun is the center of solar system. Around the sun revolve all the
Reconsideration. And if you dont succeed there, you have the remedy of Appeal
planets. And around the planets revolve satellites. Diba? Now, remove the sun, the
which is from Rules 40-45.
planets will die- will cease to exist. Ganon din sa Rem Law. So this is the Sun of Rem
Law. Around which revolve the several planets. Kaya directed don yun palagi. Yan ang
OK, when the judgment has become executory. In other words, there is already an
focal point. That is central point of your Rem Law. Its all about remedies after all, so
entry of judgment, you are only left with 2 remedies which are Petition for Relief from
why remedy when in the first place there is nothing to remedy, because the effect,
Judgment and Annulment of Judgment. Rule 38 and Rule 47, respectively.
the decision the judgment the final order the resolution is null and void. See? As
simple as that. See? Remedies. So pag presentation palang ng problem sa Bar, alam mo na kung
anong gagawin mong remedy. Supposed the presentation of the subject, the question
Alam niyo napakadali ng Rem Law. Mas lalo na sa practice. Napakahirap when you are
is mas lalo ngayon 80% questions na diba? 20 % nalang yung MCQ. Presented the
studying it in the 4th year because you talk of concepts. But when you go down to
problem like this. After judgment has been entered, ano pa? kung remedy pinag-
practice, actual practice, this is your daily bread and butter. And remember, how
uusapan niyo you are only left with 2 remedies. Doon palang sa presentation ng
many justices were telling me? Akala ko dito,,, Justice Nachura for one, hes very
problem alam mo na. Ano gagawin ko rito? Petition for Relief from Judgment or
close to us here. He was telling me when he was first appointed, sabi niya, akala ko
Annulment of Judgment? Are those two remedies available to me? It may be YES. It
ang mga kaso sa SC puro regarding the Constitution. 90% of the cases there boils
may be NO. Sasabihin mo NO because I already availed of remedy of New Trial so I
down to Rem Law, sabi niya.
can no longer avail of that because these are prerogative remedies. Diba?
Because you know substantive law answers the question what. What is the law? Is
SO kung ang presentation of problem after the plaintiff has presented evidence, o
that law applicable in this situation? Ok alam mo nga yung batas but you do not know
bakit ka mag r remedy ng Motion to Dismiss? Pag nag remedy ka ng Motion to
how to implement it. Balewala. While substantive law answers the question what is
Dismiss if I were the examiner, baka markahan ko ng.. ang papel mo ng 34, 30% ka
the law, remedial law answers the question how do you implement the law. See?
nalang tapos ka na. Kung may DQ, DQ ka na. Anong pinag uusapan nito? E mag m
Motion to Dismiss tapos na yung presentation. Unless of course yung mga exceptional
So daming substantive law, your Crim Law, Poli Law, kung alin diyan, Civ Law.
like jurisdiction, kaya ganon.. but as a general rule. SO just look at the remedies and
Everything. Lahat yon nalaman niyo na. Kung hindi mo alam i-implement, balewala.
presentation palang ng problem, alam mo na kung ano ang remedy. Im talking of the
See? So Rem Law answers the question as to how it is to be implemented.
fact that you are the defendant.

Now, if you are the plaintiff, what is your first remedy? Kung ikaw ang plaintiff bakit
The Signposts of Remedial Law ka magpapa dismiss? Diba? Pero may remedy under the Rules na pwede ka
magpadismiss. Rule 17. Take a look at Rule 17 Sections 1 and 2 are remedies

1
SO in Rem Law questions, that you will encounter in the Bar, always talk of remedies. available to the plaintiff. Bakit magpapadismiss e siya ang nag-file? He filed the case
and then he asked for the dismissal kasi nagkamali ako e. Yung hinabla ko pala

Page
Binibigyan ka ng.. ano bang solusyon dito? SO NOW, even before I go any further on
jurisdiction, because Rem Law is all about remedies. What are the fundamental former girlfriend ko. No grounds in fact. The Rules do not provide for any ground.
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

Why? Because any nobody will be prejudiced.. ikaw e.. ikaw ang nag-file.. ipapa- purposes of Rem Law, the most important Constitutional provision is of course in Art 8
dismiss so don ka kaagad. Rule 17 Sec 1 and 2, as behalf the plaintiff. Sec 5, which by this time you have already memorized. Ok? Kung hindi niyo pa na-
memorize yan, revisit it and try to memorize. Madali lang naman mag-memorize
Now, after that if you dont, you can avail of Rule 34 and Rule 35. Judgment on the pagka ganito ng panahon. Adrenaline is very high. Ang dali. Ang dali mag-memorize.
Pleading / Summary Judgment. And then you can also avail of 37 and Appeal 40-45. Pagdating ng November, wala na yan lahat. Sa ngayon madali. So titingnan niyo na
See? So pag nakita mo agad itong signpost of Rem Law, it would be very easy for you yon. Yun na yun because that is a matter of jurisdiction.
to attack problems, i-situate niyo kaagad. Saan ba ito? Problemang ito? And then how
do you resolve it? What does the Rule provide? Resolve the question. Remember that another principle in jurisdiction is that jurisdiction is conferred by law.
Exception: Supreme Court. Jurisdiction of the SC is conferred by the Constitution and
Now, you cannot remember any rule. Have I read any jurisprudence on the matter? where do you find it? It is found in Sec 5 Art 8 of the 1987 Constitution which should
Apply the jurisprudence. But never say in the case of NO! Just say in a decided case be memorized. Well go back to that much later.
by the SC, thats one. In a settled case, yon. No, dont say in the case of Ong v
Sus! E kung nagkamali ka, hindi pala si Ong yon, it was Yu. Mali, sabi, nagpapa- So these are the different kinds of court, the regular court. In your book, you always
impress, sasabihin ng examiner. Nagpapa-impress ito mali naman. Hindi ako na- speak of court of general jurisdiction, court of special jurisdiction, thats just a reading
impress of di deduct pa. matter. Sa palagay ko naman hindi naman lalabas yung mga ganon. Alright. BUT
there are certain kinds of jurisdiction which are good candidates for Bar Questions, at
So these are the signposts of Rem Law. Along the way, you can always avail of what? least in the MCQ.
Of Rule 65. So isisingit niyo yung along the way. Rule 65. Why? Certiorari Prohibition
Mandamus attack interlocutory orders diba? Only in special cases do they attack final
order. So pwede mo palaging isingit yung certiorari andon ka palang sa.. kahit anong
kuwan pwede mo gamitin to.. the signpost of Rem Law. So remember that. Let me go Classification of Jurisdiction
back now to jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine the case or decide the case. Very
fundamental. Very basic. Where lies this authority? It lies with the court. Therefore, 1. Original and Appellate
the court has jurisdiction because the authority is not with Pres Noynoy. Neither is it
Unang-una, we classify jurisdiction into two general kinds as to its nature, as to its
with Mar Roxas. Neither is it with Korina Sanchez. Neither is it with Janet Napoles. It
application. First we call, original jurisdiction as against appellate jurisdiction.
is only in the court. OK?
Pagdating sa Evidence, ang opposite ng original is what? Secondary. Pero pagdating
sa jurisidiction, original, the opposite is appellate. Sa Evidence, original-secondary.
Diba?
Kinds of Courts
Dito, original. Self-explanatory. Original, so siya yung tunay mong asawa. Original
SO you have to know the courts. What are these courts? We have what you call the diba? Your first and only wife. What is it? When the court takes cognizance of a case
regular courts and the quasi-judicial bodies and quasi-tribunals. Yun yan. for the first time it is in the exercise of original jurisdiction.

Pagdating sa regular courts, we have of course the SC. We have the CA and because If it takes cognizance of a case for the second or the third or the fourth time, it is
of 9282, we have now the Court of Tax Appeals as a regular court which did not use already ang exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
to be a regular court, but now it is a regular court. Then you have the regional trial
court and then you have the MTCs. You dont call them inferior courts. You call them So yun lang ang distinction. Original and Appellate jurisdiction. See? Original, so
lower courts. Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial parang virginal. First-timer. Diba? Pag appellate, a pangalawa na yan. Pangatlo na.
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Ito lang ang regular courts. Pang-apat. See? So dont forget it.

Others share only in their judicial power like for example the constitutional
commissions. The COA, the COMELEC, and the Civil Service Commission. They have Original
quasi-judicial power or authority, but they are not regular courts. o Exclusive and Concurrent

Now, ang unang tatandaan niyo, which is a possibility also in the Bar, would be the When we speak of original jurisdiction, it is subdivided into two. It can either be
constitutional provisions and emphasize that even in Art 6 of the Constitution, which exclusive or concurrent. Ok, so kung iisa lang, wala ng iba, ang iyong asawa, original

2
has something to do with the legislative powers, mayroong provision regarding the exclusive yan. Kung meron kang mga mistresses, concurrent. See? So when a subject

Page
judges, regarding jurisdiction. So tatandaan niyo pag nag-aral kayo don sa.. san ba matter is taken cognizance of by more than 1 court, it is in the exercise of concurrent
yan? Sa Political Law, ay it has something to do and you know that already. BUT for jurisdiction like what?
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

A petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. questions of law and fact cognizable by the SC as a remedy under Rule 45. Yun ang
These petitions are under the concurrent jurisdiction of the SC, the CA and the RTCs. exception.
Concurrent. Simply because it is cognizable by more than 1 court, thats why it is
concurrent. Thus, a party have the right to choose where to file it? NO. Because But the ratiocination of why Rule 45 the SC can take cognizance of cases on pure
concurrent jurisdiction calls for application of the 3 fundamental principles on questions of law is precisely because of that fundamental principle that the SC is not a
jurisdiction, which you are very familiar with. trier of facts so what should be brought to the SC must only pure question of law and
not question of facts. Ok!

So this is original jurisdiction which is can either be exclusive or concurrent.


o 3 Fundamental Principles on Jurisdiction in Rel. to
Concurrent Jurisdiction

The principle of hierarchy of courts. The principle of transcendental importance. The Appellate
principle that the SC is not a trier of facts.
Then appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction is of course that jurisdiction when a
And we have several cases. Jurisdiction is replete with illustrations of this basic case is taken cognizance of for the second time around. Thats why I call you dont
principle. But among the latest which is possible to be given in the Bar is a decision of call them inferior courts, but rather lower courts, because when you speak of inferior
the SC where the principle of the hierarchy of courts gives way to the principle of courts or lower courts, they do not only refer to the MTCs but any court. Where it
transcendental importance, not the other way around. exercises appellate jurisdiction, it exercises such jurisdiction against a lower court. SO
the CA can be considered a lower court vis--vis the SC. The RTC can be considered
And that is the case of GMA when she asked for TRO. [She] filed an injunction with lower court vis-a-vis or in relation to the CA, so on and so forth.
the SC, why should she file an injunction with the SC? And TRO? When that is
cognizable in the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by the CA, the SC and the RTC?
DOJ could have just questioned that petition on the principle of hierarchy of courts but
the SC said the hierarchy of courts principle gives way to the principle of 2. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter, Persons, Issues, Res, Territory
transcendental importance.
Then let me go now to another classification of jurisdiction, that is: jurisdiction over
Ano kaya itong kaso ni Napoles? Will it be given preference? Apparently, it is being the subject matter, jurisdiction over the persons of the parties in the case, jurisdiction
given preference now. Kinulong kagabi pero separate cell. So itong kasong ito kung over the issues, jurisdiction over the res and jurisdiction over the territory. Lima yan.
hindi man lumabas sa Rem Law, baka lumabas sa Poli Law. Kasi yung mga common Ill start explaining it briefly from below. Lets begin with the lowest. The fifth.
happenings yung mga nangyayari, doon kumukuha ng so dont forget to read when
you wake up in the morning, read the newspaper, at least, listen to the radio.
Nalalaman mo, at least, na yung bahay ni Pacquiao nabenta na. Diba? At least you
Jurisdiction over the Territory
must be aware of what is going on kasi kung minsan ano ba itong di ko pa nabasa
to ganyan. And this case of Napoles is a possible candidate, not so much of Rem This jurisdiction over the territory otherwise known as territorial jurisdiction does not
Law, but in Poli Law. apply where? It does not apply it does not concern Civil Cases, because in Civil
Cases regarding the place, it is not jurisdictional. It is a matter of venue. And venue
SO Concurrent jurisdiction. Principle of the hierarchy of court. Some cases that you
and jurisdiction are two different things.
must be familiar with like the case of PIATCO diba? The case of Agan v PIATCO. Ok,
thats about concurrent jurisdiction. Then, also the case of Liga ng mga Barangay v So jurisdiction over the territory applies in Criminal Cases. Why? Because in Criminal
Atienza. These are regarding exercise of concurrent jurisdiction. Cases another principle ha venue is jurisdictional. So thats another principle. Ilang
principle na ang napag-aralan natin so far? Four! Concurrent jurisdiction and on
SO tatlong principles muna ang tatandaan niyo, applicable in concurrent jurisdiction.:
territorial jurisdiction which does not apply in Civil Cases, but applies in Criminal
the principle of hierarchy of courts, the principle of transcendental importance and
Cases, because of the principle that in Criminal Cases, venue is jurisdictional.
that the SC is not a trier of facts.
Four years ago, that was one of the questions in the Bar. True or False. It said, Is
The third principle remember is illustrated that is the ratiocination of Rule 45.
venue jurisdictional? True or False? Kahit ano isagot mo don, either true or false,
Diba? Tatandaan mo ang Rule 45 that is appeal to the SC even from the RTC. You can
tama pag tama ang reasoning mo. Diba? In Civil Cases, NO OF COURSE because
go up to the SC under Rule 45 on a pure question of law.

3
venue and jurisdiction are different. But in Criminal Cases, the answer is TRUE. Venue

Page
is jurisdictional.
Ano exceptions non? The exceptions are the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas
data, where remedies are still Rule 45 but not confined to pure questions of law. Both
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

As I said, I will try to correlate it always with Crim Pro. You know, when you speak Many other you can again what? You can again ano yon? Yung Sec 36 and 37 of
that venue in Crim Pro or in Crim Cases is jurisdictional, what determines where to file Rule 39. Ano yon? Examination of the Judgment-Obligor, Examination of the Obligor
the case is the place where the crime or offense was committed. Diba? SO if an of the Judgment-Obligor, yung mga receivables, mga sale of ascertainable interests,
offense is committed in Manila, you cannot file that in QC, because venue is yung mga ganyan.
jurisdictional. BUT if it is collection for sum of money, which is Civil, well, jurisdiction
where it happened is immaterial or irrelevant, because that is a matter of venue. OK You will note, as you notice now ha, sana you can still catch up kasi pag may isa
akong topic sa jurisdiction, ine-expand ko na. expanded. Ngayon, kasi review naman
ito e. The presumption is that you know this. The presumption is that nirerefresh ko
nalang ang memory niyo. If this is something alien or greek to you, e thats
Jurisidiction over the Res dangerous. Diba? Siguro ang mga bago lang siguro rito when we go now to
jurisprudence. Kasi review nga e, Im refreshing or confirming what you learned
Then, going up, jurisdiction over the res. R-E-S. What is the res? The res is the thing already.
or the object of the case. The thing. SO how does the court acquire jurisdiction over
the res? BY LEGAL SEIZURE. And how is that known in Rem Law? By attachment, So jurisdiction over the res. Take note of the limitation ha.
under Rule 57. But the issue is, Can the court take cognizance of a case even it has
not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant? Ordinarily, NO. Diba? But,
in special cases, YES. And what is that special case? When it is possible for you to
attach the property belonging to the defendant even if the court does not acquire Jurisdiction over the Issues
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the case can still continue.
Going up, jurisdiction over the issues. Ano ang principle of jurisdiction regarding
Thats why, in cross reference to Sec 1 of Rule 57, when can you attach the property issues? Jurisdiction over the issues is determined by the allegations in the pleadings.
of the party? You are limited only to 6 instances, under Sec 1 of Rule 57. Outside of YAN yun ang principle don, jurisdiction over the issues is determined by the
those instances, you cannot attach the property of a party. SO if the defendant has allegations in the pleadings. SO if it is not alleged in the pleadings, the court has no
properties and there is a basis there is a ground for attaching that property, under jurisdiction over that issue and it is contestible in the course of the proceeding. You
Sec 1 of Rule 57, then so be it. Attach the property even if the court does not acquire can contest it. The court has no jurisdiction over that issue. It was never raised in the
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The case can continue because it has pleading.
acquired jurisdiction over the res. OVER THE RES.
The very common example that I gave. Some of you would still recall is a simple case
Now, the illustration that I gave limits the res to the thing, because in Spec Pro, the for a sum of money where in the course of the proceeding, the plaintiff is on the
thing is not limited or rather the res is not limited to the thing. It can be a status, a witness stand and he is being asked by the lawyer what happened when the
fact or a particular object. A status, a right or a particular fact. You know that that is defendant did not pay you? I wrote him a letter. I have here a letter. In what relation
Spec Pro, yan ang concept ng res. But as far as were concerned at the moment, we is this letter to what you just mentioned? Kung hindi natutulog yung counsel for the
are talking of jurisdiction, when we speak of the res, that is the thing which is the defense, he said, objection, Your Honor. It was never raised in the pleadings. The
object of the action. OK? court has no jurisdiction over that kind of demand. It was never raised in the
pleadings. See? Can that be objected to? YES. Because that thing was not raised in
SO we dispose already of two kinds of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the territory and the pleading. The court did not acquire over that kind of issue.
jurisdiction over the res.
Now, siguro more pronounced example must be in Rule 70. You know Rule 70?
The limitation: when the court acquired jurisdiction only over the res and not over the Unlawful Detainer Forcible Entry. Remember that the issue there is only possession de
person, is that when you execute the judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the facto.
defendant, you will be limited to the res. You cannot go beyond that. Why? Because
precisely the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. So BUT Sec 16 of Rule 70 says that when the issue of ownership is raised in the pleading,
you are limited only to the res. the court is not divested of its jurisdiction. Diba? The court is not divested of its
jurisdiction, because if there is no issue of ownership in an Unlawful Detainer case,
If we tie that up, for further illustration, with Rule 39, you will note than an action for the court cannot decide issue of ownership. But if it is raised in the pleading, the court
a sum of money if it is not satisfied, the next recourse is levy on execution. And when acquires jurisdiction over the issue of ownership and what the Sec 16 of Rule 70 says,
you levy, the property that is levied is sold diba? And the proceeds from the sale will it provides that the court must decide the issue of ownership only to resolve the issue
be for the satisfaction of the judgment debt. Now, if for example, the judgment debt of possession. SEE? So, it is not final. Res Judicata will not apply. But that is an
is 100K and the proceeds from the sale is only 50K, you have a balance of 50K. if the illustration of jurisdiction over the issues. That jurisdiction is determined by the

4
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person hanggang don ka nalang. OK? That allegations in the pleading. That which is not alleged- that issue is beyond the

Page
is what is meant by jurisdiction over the res. BUT had you acquired jurisdiction, over authority of the court.
the person of the defendant, still you can get the balance.
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

So tatlo na! Territory, Res, Issues. jurisprudence is replete with the fact that even if you pay the docket fee but it is
incorrect, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff. Even if it is correct,
if it was paid out of time, the court does not acquire jurisdiction. Thats why when
does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of A? Upon filing of the complaint
Jurisdiction over the Persons of the Parties and timely payment of the correct docket fee.

Lets go now higher jurisdiction over the persons of the parties in a case. Parties in a In relation to Crim Pro, tatandaan niyo, it is not upon filing of the information, but
case are provided for under Rule 3. Diba? The parties. Sa ngayon, tatandaan niyo ha. upon filing of the complaint with the prosecutors office. That is how a Crim complaint
In every Civil Case, there is only a maximum of 5 kinds of parties. Wala ng iba. Hindi is initiated in Crim Cases. NOT upon filing of the information- a thing that has been
na lalampas yon. discussed already by Fiscal Salva- but upon you might say complaint or
information siyempre may mga exceptions yan yung mga kung diretso sa court
Let me call that, for our discussion, until the end of our review, A-B-C-D-E, para
yung complaint, diba? If it is punishable by less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day.
When I say A, alam niyo na plaintiff yon.
Anyway, I am trying to adjust it. So A the plaintiff the court acquired jurisdiction over
his person upon filing of the complaint and timely payment of the correct docket fees.
When I say B, alam niyo na defendant.
Remember, that the prevailing doctrine now regarding docket fees has gone back to
When I say C, co-defendant. FGU v Alday.

When I say D, he is either the third-party, the fourth-party, or the fifth-[arty Natanggal yon because of Korean Technologies Inc. v Lerma, where it says that as of
defendant. Ok? August 16 2004. Payment of docket fees is required even for compulsory
counterclaims. That has been overturned again by Mercado v CA and we have gone
And E is the intervenor under Rule 19. Intervention. back to FGU v Alday. So the prevailing doctrine is that for counterclaims, what is
required is only for permissivedocket fees. Payment of docket fees is required only
SO ABCDE are the only parties in a Civil Case to the max. Wala ng lalampas don, for permissive counterclaim. The Lerma case, Korean Tech. Inc., was 2008 of
although Mr. D may stand for a third-party, for a fourth party or a fifth party. Diba? January, which was overturned in Oct of the same year by Mercado v CA, going back
So dalawa nag Chinese dito. Mr. C and Mr. D. ABCDE. to the old doctrine laid down in Alday v FGU, because you do not only pay for the
initial pleading. You also pay for the counterclaim. The counterclaim is actually the
In Criminal Cases, dalawa lang ang party. Its either sino? The private complainant complaint of the defendant against the plaintiff. Diba? You have also to pay docket fee
is not a party ha in a Criminal Case kaya nga under the Rule of Evidence, can we in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the counterclaim. Pero nga dalawang
exclude a private complainant in the course of the proceedings? YES. He can be klase kasi yon, permissive and compulsory. And the doctrine now says that you are
excluded. You are not a party. You are only a witness. See? only required to pay for pemissive counterclaim. Compulsory, NO. Alright.

Who are the parties? The Rep. of the Phils or People of the Phils. And the accused. Ngayon, aside from that, aside from the initiatory pleading, where docket fees are
Dalawa lang in Criminal Cases kasi under Rule 110 of Crim Pro, nou counterclaim, no required, appeal fees appeal docket fees are also required so that if it is not timely
crossclaim, no third-party complaint dito sa Crim Case. So in Crim Cases, there are paid, then, you know that old case of Brgy 24 Legaspi City v Imperial? Thats an old
only 2 parties. case, but the latest case was a 2009 case is the case of SLU v Cobarubias(?) Ano
yung mga doctrines dito? There were payments of appellate docket fees but the
In Special Proceedings, iisa lang ang party and that is the petitioner. It does not call payments were belated. Yung Brgy. 24 siyempre it emanated from Legaspi and
for a defendant. Exception to that, is what? The exception is habeas corpus. Rule 102 Legaspi is about 500 km from Manila. Finile dito sa CA, then the CA ordered the
because habeas corpus calls for a respondent kasi sino ang magbibigay ng return petitioner kulang yung docket fees mo kulang ng 2 pesos something. Kakaunti lang.
kung walang respondent. Ok? Sabi ng lawyer sa Legaspi, under the Rules, tama na yon. So hindi na siya nag-add ng
addtl fees. The next order that he got, from the CA, dismissal of the Appeal. He filed a
motion for reconsideration, denied. He wanted to pay 2 pesos lang to pero at that
Now, in a petition for a writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data, yon kelangan din time, ang 2 pesos mga isang paketeng Marlboro yan, not just 1 pack diba? E ngayon
ng respondent. But wala naman specific rules don sa writ of amparo. It is special baka itapon yan ng pulubing bibigyan mo.
administrative matter. Alright.
At any rate, the point here is that it was incorrect. The docket fees. Ngayon, that
So 5 parties. ABCDE. How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of A? became more pronounced in the latest case- 2009 o 2010 case. This case of SLU v

5
The person of A the plaintiff. Ito, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of A Cabarubias. Ito labor case ito pero nung mag-appeal si Cobarubias sa CA, diba? From
upon filing of the complaint and timely payment of the correct docket fees.

Page
Labor, diba? Illegal Dismissal case. Cobarubias was a member of the faculty of SLU
Underscore the 2 words qualifying the payment. TIMELY and CORRECT. Because Baguio and then when he filed an illegal dismissal case, yun na nga, she got it and
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

then kulang pa. She wanted more, she appealed of course to the Commission. Im whether it is a complaint-in-intervention or an answer-in-intervention. Thats how the
using the word appeal. To be very technical about it, it should not be appeal kasi sa court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the intervenor. OK!
labor cases walang appeal. Diba? Certiorari yon. But anyway just for this purposes,
lets use it as appeal. Pag-akyat niya doon sa CA, walang docket fees o yung docket So we are through now with the 4 kinds of jurisdiction. Juris over the territory, over
fees kulang. And SLU questioned that. Sabi ni Cobarubias, So let me pay. So she the res, over the issues, and jurisdiction over the persons of the parties in a case.
offered to pay.. SLU said, time na. nag-prescribe na because you can only pay
within a certain timeframe. So the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal. Lets go now to the first which is the most important. Jurisdiction over the subject
And so the decision of the appellate court was NULL and VOID. matter. Natatandaan niyo ba kung ilang principles na ang jurisdiction have we studied
so far? We have studied already about 7 jurisdiction. Dito, what is the principle
When it went up to the SC, the SC held, CA decision NULL and VOID. Why? CA has no regarding jurisdiction over the subject matter? The principle is jurisdiction over the
jurisdiction over the case. Why? Because there was no payment of the correct docket subject matter is CONFERRED BY LAW, except jurisdiction of the SC which is
fee. Timely payment of the correct docket fee. conferred by the Constitution.

So payment of docket fees is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. So that is how the So in going over in discussing jurisdiction over the subject matter, we cannot help but
court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff. go to the laws on jurisdiction and the basic and fundamental law on jurisdiction is of
course, BP 129, as amended by 7691. Mabuti hindi pa nagbabago yun pa rin ha.
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of B? B is the defendant. You 7691. But let me remind you that in reading 7691, if you have it in your right hand, in
know that. The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of B thru VALID SERVICE your left hand, read or also 8369 so that you dont get confused because in both BP
OF SUMMONS. Dont just say service of summons, because if the service is invalid, 129 as well as in 7691, it has not taken cognizance of the amendatory rules or
the court does not acquire jurisdiction. Therefore, valid service of summons. Rule 14. provision of such 7691 in 8369. Ano ba ang 8369? This is a law creating the Family
Well discuss that tomorrow siguro abutin na natin ang Rule 14. Valid service of Courts, kaya tatandaan niyo. Kasi nakalagay doon kahit tingnan niyo ang BP 129, as
summons or VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE. Thats how the court acquires jurisdiction amended by 7691, pag tiningnan niyo lang, number 5 doon nakalagay, all cases
over the person of the defendant. regarding marriage and marital relation. E wala na yan, diba? Because now the Family
Courts are different from the RTCs. Iba yon.
Tie-ing that up with Crim Cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused thru lawful arrest. Or voluntary surrender. Kasi ang iba, is still of the I was discussing with my regular class regarding guardiansip if you try to look at
impression that the court acquired jurisdiction upon arraignment. NO. the jurisdiction administrative matter 03-02-05 which took effect in 2003, this is about what?
is acquired not upon arraignment but upon lawful arrest or voluntary surrender. Guardianship over the minor nakalagay don, that guardianship over the minor is
cognizable by the Family Court. BUT guardianship over the incompetent, under Rules
Now, how about in Spec Pro? How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person 92-97, by the RTC. I was telling them, NO MORE. Because of 8369. Whether it is
of the petitioner and over the case? Thru publication. In Spec Pro, always publication. guardianship over the incompetent or guardianship over the minor, it is cognizable by
The mode. the Family Court. So pag binasa niyo yon, because this is jurisdiction over the subject
matter, pag binasa niyo yung 7691 which is the principal rule on jurisdiction, the
In Special Civil Action, how does the court acquire jurisdiction? Depende sa Rule. In principal law on jurisdiction at present, be very careful you have as well your 8369.
Certiorari for example, its not thru service of summons but rather upon order, receipt And you will find out that there are still certain subject matter under 7691, which are
of copy of the order to file a comment. Yon thats how the court acquire jurisdiction supposed to be no longer there, because of 8369. Alright, we will go to the more
over the person of the defendant. Upon receipt of the order, hindi summons. But in salient points.
other Special Civil Action, may summons.
As I said, jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and because it is
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of C? who is C? C is a co- conferred by law, the exception is that of the SC, why? Because the jurisdiction of the
defendant. Ito pareho lang. Service of summons voluntary appearance. SC is conferred by the Constitution. The SC is the only constitutional court, only ha,
the Sandiganbayan is a constitutionally mandated court, you get it? The only
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of D? who is D? D is a third-
constitutional court is the SC. It is a creation of the constitution. But the
party defendant, fourth or the fifth, considering that D is also a defendant, the
Sandiganbayan is constitutionally-mandated court. It is a creation of law as mandated
acquires jurisdiction upon summons as well or voluntary surrender which can be
by the Constitution. What law created that? PD 1606, as amended later on.
done so pare pareho dito sa defendant.
So going now first on the Constitution, I told you that you must have memorized by
Then, going to E. E is the intervenor. How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the
this time then a little explanation will be helpful. You find that in Sec 5 Art 8 of the
person of E? The court acquires jurisdiction upon approval by the court of a motion for

6
Constitution. You will note that as far this is the this was given in 1987 Bar
leave to intervene because under Rule 19, you cannot file an intervention without
question number 1 in Poli Law. What is the power of judicial review? Ang sagot

Page
being preceded by a motion for leave, so motion for leave to admit intervention
niyan ito, Sec 5 Art 8 of the Constitution. Ngayon, you please revisit that provision,
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

because thats quite important. As far as jurisdiction is concerned, anim yon diba? Tinanggal yung death penalty, natira reclusion perpetua. Life imprisonment. Will
What constitute in toto the power of judicial review is found there. Anim yon. Yung People v Mateo still apply? With more reason that it apply. Wala ng death penalty.
number 1, ang mnemonic ko kasi diyan, ERAPOA: Wala ng automatic review. So you go to the CA. If the CA affirms, what do you do?
Petition for review? [NO, but] Notice of Appeal. Pag hindi ka nag-notice of appeal,
E- exercise O-original jurisdiction over cases involving A-ambassadors, P-public nako kalaboso yung kliyente mo. Wala ng automatic review ngayon. Intermediate
ministers, and over petitions for certiorari prohibition and mandamus quo warranto review. And not to the SC but to the CA.
and habeas corpus.
Pero tatandaan niyo pa rin ha, basic yung lima: CA, Sandiganbayan bakit sinama
(nasan na yung ibang letters?) yung CTA? Because of the amendment, because of the law 9282. Elevating the CTA to
the level of CA. Kaya ngayon, appeal from the CTA will now be to the SC. That is if it
Alam mo dapat kasi alam na alam natin kasi pag pumunta na tayo sa mga specific is decided by the CTA En Banc. Tatandaan niyo yon.
provisions like Rule 66 quo warranto, pag tinanong what is the jurisdiction? This court
has the jurisdiction over quo warranto. Diba? Can you file a petition for quo warranto Sa SC, walang En Banc. You cannot as a matter of right, you go to Kahit ginagamit
with the SC? Siyempre you need to observe hierarchy of courts, transcendental ng ibang law offices yan but under the rules, wala yan. But in 9282, CTA, when you
importance, the SC is not a trier of facts because concurrent. go now to the SC, only if the decision is rendered by the CTA En Banc, because if it is
decided by division, you can appeal En Banc. And it is only an En Banc decision that
But at least you are aware because you are backed up by constitutional provision. you bring that up to the SC.
Tingnan niyo rito, exercise original jurisdiction. There two kinds of original jurisdiction
diba? Exclusive and concurrent as we have discussed a while ago. Ang sinasabi dito Now, going back to Sec 2, review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm. Diba? Either
original jurisdiction. Hindi sinasabing exclusive. appeal or certiorari. Kapag appeal, sabi ko nga 45. Kapag certiorari, 65. BUT TAKE
NOTE, that certiorari under 65 is a special civil action. It is not a mode of appeal.
Question: supposed you are asked, state the cases over which the SC has exclusive Basic is the distinction between 45 and 65. While in 65 it is a special civil action
original jurisdiction. separate and distinct, 45 is a continuation because it is a mode of appeal. While in 45,
you can only raise questions of law, in 65 you can only raise error of jurisdiction. Kaya
O, ang andon sa Constitution, exercise original jurisdiction. Hindi sinabing exclusive.
nga you have a distinction between errors of judgment and error of jurisdiction.
Now, does that mean therefore that it is concurrent? If it is not exclusive, there is no
Alright.
other choice, so this is concurrent. So you are being asked now, give me instances
where the SC has exclusive original jurisdiction. Anong mga kaso yon? Pinag-aaralan So take note, but here, under the Constitution, in going up to the SC, you have two
yan pagdating sa Appeal. Diba? Because I always guide examinees this way. You ways. You can go there by appeal or thru certiorari. Ano ba yun? Exclusive? Of course
only, at the moment, under the present dispensation, you only remember 5 tribunals. not! So what is now the exclusive jurisdiction of the SC? Exclusive original jurisdiction
Lima lang ang tatandaan niyo para hindi magulo: CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA, COA and of the SC, so kaya niyo sagutin yon. Ano nalang, edi dito nalang sa lima. Wala kang
COMELEC. Itong lima lang na to. Pag galling ka rito, wala kang ibang pupuntahan ibang pupuntahan. Diba? If the decision final order judgment emanate from any of
kundi SC. Itong lima lang na to. All the rest CA. So pag binigyan ka ng problem on the 5, exclusive yan sa SC, either by appeal or certiorari. Pag certiorari, yon ang
appeal from these 5 bodies, you will go nowhere else except to the SC. Diba? exclusive original jurisdiction of the SC. Kasi wala kang ibang pupuntahan. Otherwise,
you apply concurrent jurisdiction. Nagkakaintindihan ba tayo?
Ano? Papano? How do you go there? Kasi kung appeal yan, you go now to the second
paragraph of Sec 5 Art 8 of the Consti, because Sec 1 refers to original jurisdiction. Ito lang naman ang jurisdictional provisions, yung apat don, its different power of the
Pagdating na Sec 2, paragraph 2 of Sec 5, what does it say? Review, revise, reverse, SC. So yung number 1 ah par. A, original jurisdiction. Par. B, appellate jurisdiction
affirm or modify. OK. How? In two ways: by appeal or certiorari. Thats why you have and that appeal is limited to 5 areas. Constitutionality, illegality of tax imposed, and
now to make a distinction. By appeal how do you appeal to the SC? You appeal to then when the issue is jurisdiction. Then going to the 4, let me emphasize par 5-
the SC only under Rule 45. And under Rule 45, it is by petition for review. Is there promulgate rules concerning protection in enforcement of constitutional right,
now an appeal to the SC by notice of appeal? O sige nga. Wala? Nakooooo. pleading, practice, yan. Why do I emphasize Sec 5? Binigay na kasi sa Bar. Kaya
pwede ibigay uli. Matagal ng binigay sa Bar yan. What is the rule-making power of
Give me an illustration of an appeal to the SC by notice of appeal. Landmark yung
the SC? Constitutional. Kasi sabi nila judicial legislation. NO it is not because it is
kaso ng People v Mateo, Criminal Case. People v Mateo created another form of
precisely supported by the Constitution. This is the reason par. 5 Sec 5 Art 8 of the
appeal in criminal cases which is intermediate appeal. Remember that People v Mateo
Constitution.
took or was issued even prior to the abolition of the death penalty. Kaya nga
pagdating ng hindi dumirediretso walang tinanggal yung automatic appeal diba? In one of my final exams for example, I gave the case of Magundanao Massacre
Thats when the RTC or the Sandiganbayan you go directly to the SC. NO! Im

7
where the prosecution moved for change of venue on the ground that there might be
talking of Crim Pro ha, not Civil Procedure. You dont go directly to the SC. You have a miscarriage of justice and the RTC granted the motion for change of venue. Was the

Page
to go to the CA on intermediate review. Mandatory yan. You cannot go directly. order of the court proper? Of course not! Its only the SC that can change the venue.
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

Nasa Constitution diba? Par. 4. Order for a Change of Venue. So humingi ka ng


permission. But you cannot change venue. RTC CA. Its only the SC which has the
power. Now, will the SC grant it you ok, you ask permission and then that will be
granted kasi nilipat sa QC diba? Ewan ko itong kay Napoles kung san. Yung kay
Sanchez v Demetrio diba nilipat din. Alright.

SO, This is jurisdiction over the subject matter as far as the SC is concerned, it is
conferred by the Constitution. All the rest is conferred by law and the law the we are
going to deal with now would be 7691.

So with regard to the CA, isa lang ang tatandaan niyong original exclusive jurisdiction
of the CA. That is an action for annulment of judgment of RTC. Yun lang. Wala ng iba.
Yung iba concurrent na. Where do you find that? Rule 47 Annulment of Judgment and
you know under Rule 47, dalawa lang, limited grounds diba? Fraud, extrinsic fraud,
and jurisdiction. OK! So all the res concurrent, certiorari prohibition mandamus quo
warranto habeas corpus concurrent.

And pagdating sa appeal, all the rest appealable to the CA, except yung lima kaya
tatandaan yung lima wala kang ibang pupuntahan. Hanggang don ka nalang sa SC.

8
Page

You might also like