REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER )c voluntary submission to the authority

of the court.
Part II of IX
JURISDICTION .c jurisdiction over the res – acquired by

)1 the seizure of the thing under legal process

whereby it is brought into actual custody of law,
I. Jurisdiction
or
A. Definition
)2 the institution of a legal proceeding wherein
Jurisdiction – the power granted by law to hear and decide the power of the court over the thing is
cases. recognized and made effective (ex: writ of
B. Classifications of jurisdiction attachment)

Classifications of jurisdiction C. Jurisdiction of the Courts

.1 General or Limited/special 1. SC (Art. VIII, Sec. 5 Consti)

.a General jurisdiction – power to adjudicate all
controversies except those expressly withheld from
the plenary powers of the court
.b Limited/special jurisdiction – restricts the courts
jurisdiction only to particular cases and subject to
such limitations as may be provided by the
governing law
.2 original or appellate
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, modify, or affirm on appeal on
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide,
final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

.a Original jurisdiction – power of the court to take (a) All cases in which the constitutionality
judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial or validity of any treaty, international or executive
action for the first time under conditions provided by agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation,
law order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
.b appellate jurisdiction – authority of a court higher in (b) All cases involving the legality of any
rank to re-examine the final order or judgment of a tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
lower court which tried the case now elevated for imposed in relation thereto.
judicial review
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any
.3 exclusive or concurrent lower court is in issue.
.a exclusive jurisdiction – power to adjudicate a case or (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty
proceeding to the exclusion of all other courts at that imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
stage
(e) All cases in which only an error or
.b concurrent/coordinate jurisdiction – power conferred question of law is involved.
upon different courts, whether of the same or (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to
different ranks, to take cognizance at the same other stations as public interest may require. Such
stage of the same case in the same or different temporary assignment shall not exceed six months
judicial territories without the consent of the judge concerned.
.4 over subject matter, person, or the res (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid
a miscarriage of justice.
.a jurisdiction over the subject matter – conferred by
law, determined upon the allegations made in the (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
entitled or not, to recover upon the claim asserted and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
therein of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
.b jurisdiction over the person and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
)1 plaintiff – acquired by filing of the initiatory and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
pleading and payment of the complete filing rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
fees. judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court.
)2 defendant – acquired by the
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the
)a proper service of summons judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
)b voluntary appearance in court, or Powers of the Supreme Court
.1 original jurisdiction over
.a cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls
.b petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto
.c habeas corpus
.2 appellate jurisdiction over cases of
.a constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international
or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.
.b legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or
any penalty imposed in relation thereto
.c jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
.d penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
.e only an error or question of law is involved.
.3 Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other
stations as public interest may require. Such temporary
assignment shall not exceed 6 months without the
consent of the judge concerned.
.4 Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
.5 Promulgate rules concerning
.a the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights
.b pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts
.c the admission to the practice of law
.d the Integrated Bar, and
.e legal assistance to the underprivileged
.6 Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in
accordance with the Civil Service Law.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.
2. Court of Appeals (Sec. 9, BP 129 as
amended by RA 7902)
Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. - The Court of Appeals shall
exercise:
(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto,
and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction;
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts; and
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social
Security Commission, the Employees Compensation
Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except
those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the
Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree
No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of
subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of
the Judiciary Act of 1948.
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try
cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
issues raised in cases falling within its original and
appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and
conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or
hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and
must be completed within three (3) months, unless
extended by the Chief Justice.
Jurisdiction of the CA
.1 Original jurisdiction
.a Exclusive jurisdiction – over actions for annulment of
judgment of RTC
.b Concurrent jurisdiction – to issue writs of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes
.2 Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over RTCs and quasi-
judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commissions, except COMELEC or Commission on
Audit
The CA shall have the power to
.1 try cases and conduct hearings (must be continuous and
completed within 3 months, unless extended by the Chief
Justice)
.2 receive evidence and
.3 perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
issues raised in cases falling within its original and
appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and
conduct new trials or further proceedings.
CA now has appellate jurisdiction over the NLRC.
Note: Constitutional Commission decisions should have been
appealable to the SC under the Constitution. CSC decisions
are appealable to the CA only by law.
3. Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 19, BP 129 as
amended by RA 7691)
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. - Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
(2) In all civil actions which involve the (dispute in
ownership, possession, or any interest) title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil
actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) EXCEPT actions for forcible
entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,
original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds Three
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000) or, in Metro Manila,
where such demand or claim exceeds Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000); (amount increased as per
RA7691)
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and
intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds
Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000) or, in probate
matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds
Four Hundred thousand pesos (P400,000); (amount
increased as per RA7691)
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage
and marital relations;
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction
of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings
falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court
of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
(8) In all other cases in which the demand,
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the
value of the property in controversy exceeds Three
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000) or, in such other
cases in Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of
the abovementioned items exceeds Four Hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000). (amount increased as per
RA7691)
The interest to be excluded is the interest imposed as a form
of damages as a result of default (e.g. legal interest), not
interest which the defendant must pay even if he is not in
default (cf Art. 1170, 1169 CC).
Penalties should be included in the computation of the
sum demanded.
RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years (which is 1999)
from the effectivity of this Act (effectivity: 1994), the
jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and
(8) xxx of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this
Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter (which is 2004),
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).
Sec. 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. - Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction
in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction
of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling
under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively
taken cognizance of by the latter.
Sec. 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. -
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction
which may be enforced in any part of their respective
regions; and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other
public ministers and consuls.
Sec. 22. Appellate jurisdiction. - Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their
respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be
decided on the basis of the entire record of the
proceedings had in the court of origin and such
memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the
parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts. The
decision of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall
be appealable by petition for review to the Intermediate
Appellate Court which may give it due course only when
the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has
committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a
reversal or modification of the decision or judgment
sought to be reviewed.
Jurisdiction of the RTC
.1 Civil cases – exclusive original jurisdiction.
.a actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation
.b actions involving the (dispute to ownership,
possession, or any interest) title to, or possession
of, real property, or any interest therein
)1 where the assessed value of the property
involved exceeds
)a P20,000 outside Metro Manila
)b P50,000 in Metro Manila
)2 except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
inferior courts
.c actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where
the demand or claim exceeds
)1 P300,000 outside Metro Manila
)2 P400,000 in Metro Manila
.d matters of probate, both testate and intestate, where
the gross value of the estate exceeds
)1 P300,000 outside Metro Manila
)2 P400,000 in Metro Manila
.e actions involving the contract of marriage and
marital relations;
.f cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction
of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
.g actions and special proceedings falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of
Agrarian Relations
 .h cases in which the demand (exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs) or the value of the property in
controversy exceeds NOTE: penalties shall be
included in the computation of the sum.
)1 P300,000 outside Metro Manila
)2 P400,000 in Metro Manila
.2 Criminal cases – exclusive original jurisdiction in
.a all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction
of any court, tribunal or body
.b except those now falling under the exclusive and
concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which
shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of
by the latter.
.3 Concurrent original jurisdiction
.a issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction which may be enforced in any part of their
respective regions; and
.b actions affecting ambassadors and other public
ministers and consuls.
.4 Appellate jurisdiction – all cases decided by the inferior
courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions
4. MTC, MeTC (Secs. 32-33, BP 129 as
amended by RA 7691, and Sec. 5, RA 7691)
Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
in Criminal Cases. – Except in cases falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts
and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations
of city or municipal ordinances committed within their
respective territorial jurisdiction; and
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6)
years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless
of other imposable accessory or other penalties,
including the civil liability arising from such offenses or
predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or
amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
thereof.
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
in Civil Cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions
and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including
the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where
the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of
the demand does not exceed Three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does
not exceed Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00),
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the
amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided,
That interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the
determination of the filing fees: Provided, further, That
where there are several claims or causes of actions
between the same or different parties, embodied in the
same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the
totality of the claims in all the causes of action,
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of
the same or different transactions; (amount increased as
per RA7691)
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of
forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That
when, in such cases, the defendant raises the questions
of ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the
issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be
resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions
which involve (dispute to ownership, possession, or any
interest) title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein where the assessed value of the property
or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila,
where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not
declared for taxation purposes, the value of such
property shall be determined by the assessed value of
the adjacent lots.
RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years (which is 1999)
from the effectivity of this Act (effectivity 1994), the
jurisdictional amounts mentioned in xxx Sec. 33 (1) of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall
be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter (which is 2004),
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 (1999) from the effectivity of this Act
(1994) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000,00).
Jurisdiction of the MTC
.1 Criminal Cases – (except in cases falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and
of the Sandiganbayan) exclusive original jurisdiction over
.a all violations of city or municipal ordinances
committed within their respective territorial
jurisdiction; and
.b all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding 6 years
)1 irrespective of the amount of fine, and
)2 regardless of other imposable accessory or
other penalties
)3 including the civil liability arising from such
offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of
kind, nature, value or amount thereof
.2 Civil Cases – Exclusive original jurisdiction over
.a Civil actions and probate proceedings where the
value of the personal property, estate, or amount of
the demand
)1 does not exceed
)a P300,000 outside Metro Manila
)b P400,000 in Metro Manila
)2 exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
costs, the amount of which must be specifically
alleged (but interest, damages, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs shall be included
in the determination of the filing fees)
)3 where there are several claims or causes
of actions between the same or different
parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of
the claims in all the causes of action,
irrespective of whether the causes of action
arose out of the same or different transactions
.b cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer (when,
in such cases, the defendant raises the questions of
ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the
issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be
resolved only to determine the issue of possession)
.c actions which involve (dispute to ownership,
possession, or any interest) title to, or possession
of, real property, or any interest therein where the
assessed value of the property or interest therein
)1 does not exceed
)a P20,000 outside Metro Manila
)b P50,000 in Metro Manila
)2 exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and
costs:
)3 in cases of land not declared for taxation
purposes, the value of such property shall be
determined by the assessed value of the
adjacent lots.
D. Cases
Raymundo v. CA, 213 SCRA 457 (1992):
A claim of attorney's fees is only incidental to its principal
cause of action and therefore not determinative of the
jurisdiction of the court. An action to remove the illegal and
unauthorized installation of glasses at a condominium unit is
not capable of pecuniary estimation and falls under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. In determining whether an
action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of
pecuniary estimation the criterion is first to ascertain 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 MTC or in the RTC 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, or
where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, the subject of the
litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively by the RTC.
Ortigas v. Herrera, 120 SCRA 89 (1983)
Facts: Ortigas and respondent entered into an agreement
whereby Ortigas agreed to sell to the respondent a parcel of
land with a special condition that should respondent as
purchaser complete the construction including the painting of
his residential house on said lot within 2 years from purchase,
Ortigas would refund to respondent the amount of P10 per
square meter. When the aforesaid special condition was
fulfilled, respondent notified Ortigas in writing and requested
for his refund. Upon failure of Ortigas to pay his obligation,
respondent filed a complaint for sum of money and damages
with the City Court. Ortigas fails in his attempt to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Held: The action involved in this case is one for specific
performance and not for a sum of money and therefore
incapable of pecuniary estimation because what private
respondent seeks is the performance of petitioner's obligation
under a written contract to make a refund but under certain
specific conditions still to be proven or established. In a case
for the recovery of a sum of money, as the collection of a
debt, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation
because the obligation to pay the debt is not conditioned
upon any specific fact or matter. But when a party to a
contract has agreed to refund to the other party a sum of
money upon compliance by the latter of certain conditions
and only upon compliance therewith may what is legally due
him under the written contract be demanded, the action is
one not capable of pecuniary estimation and is within the
jurisdiction of the RTC. The payment of a sum of money is
only incidental which can only be ordered after a
determination of certain acts the performance of which being
the more basic issue to be inquired into.
Counterclaim filed in MTC in excess of the MTC’s
jurisdictional amount is considered waived (Agustin v.
Bacalan, GR L-46000).
NOTE: case of specific performance for delivery of title of real
property from people engaged in the realty business is within
the primary jurisdiction of the HLURB.
Legados v. de Guzman, 170 SCRA 357 (1989):
The rule now (1989) is MTCs have jurisdiction over offenses
punishable with at most 4 years and 2 months (now [2001] 6
years), regardless of other imposable accessory penalties or
civil liability. Simple seduction is now within the MTC’s
jurisdiction even if the offender may be compelled to
acknowledge and give support to the offspring.
SEC v. CA, 201 SCRA 124 (1991)
Facts: The Uy Family owned 2 corporations: UBS Marketing
and Soon Kee. Uy-Flores and Uy-Chua were managing
directors and had custody of corporate accounting and tax
records of both corporations. As a result of a family dispute,
the family resolved to assign all their shares in UBS to
Johnny Uy, while Johnny Uy assigned all his shares in Soon
Kee to the rest of the family. Johnny Uy demanded from Uy-
Flores and Uy-Chua the UBS corporate books, funds,
properties and records. His request was denied, hence he
filed a case before the SEC. Uy-Flores and Uy-Chua filed
MTD on the ground that the SEC has no jurisdiction, because
there was no intra-corporate dispute. This was denied. CA
reverses holding that since Uy-Flores and Uy-Chua were no
longer stockholders and directors of UBS, there was no intra-
corporate relationship and hence no intra-corporate dispute.
Held: The SEC has jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes.
Intra-corporate dispute is one which arises between a
stockholder and the corporation. The SEC has no jurisdiction
over a controversy wherein one of the parties involved is not
or not yet a stockholder of the corporation. This rule negating
the jurisdiction of the SEC however, does not apply where
one of the parties was a former stockholder and the
controversy arose out of this relation.
In the case at bar, at the time of the execution of the Deeds of
Assignment the parties were all interlocking stockholders and
officers of the 2 corporations. Hence, the deeds of
assignment were intra-corporate transactions which arose
from intra-corporate relations or between and among the
stockholders of the two 2 corporations. The controversy is,
therefore, an intra-corporate controversy which falls within the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC.
The fact that when the complaint was filed with the SEC, Uy-
Flores and Uy-Chua were no longer stockholders of the UBS
did not divest the SEC of its jurisdiction. The existence of the
intra-corporate relationship at the time of the filing of the
complaint does not determine the jurisdiction of the SEC. The
fact that the intra-corporate relationship has apparently
terminated does not deprive the SEC of its jurisdiction to hear
and decide the controversy which arose from that
relationship. The determining factor is whether the
controversy arose out of intra-corporate relations.
Primero v. IAC, 156 SCRA 435 (1987):
Labor arbiters now have jurisdiction to award damages.
Failure to claim moral damages in the illegal dismissal case
before the Labor Arbiter bars the subsequent claim for moral
damages in a regular court.
Tipait v. Reyes, 218 SCRA 592 (1993)
Facts: Labor Arbiter orders employer to reinstate the
employee and to pay backwages. Decision became final and
writ of execution was issued. The employer now files an
action for prohibition to restrain enforcement of the writ of
execution.
Held: A civil case to restrain enforcement of a writ of
execution issued by labor officials is in the nature of a motion
to quash such writ of execution. It is the labor officials who
has jurisdiction over the case, not the civil courts.
Manliguez v. CA, 232 SCRA 427 (1994)
Facts: Employer was ordered in a final judgment to pay its
employees. Writ of execution was issued and enforced by
levying on property. Manliguez filed a complaint which sought
the lifting of the levy over, and annulment of the sale of, the
property on the ground that Manliguez was the owner of such
property and that the employer was just leasing it from him.
Held: Where the civil case is to lift levy over and annulment
of the sale of the property on the ground that it was not
owned by the respondent in the labor case, the civil court has
jurisdiction. Where the action attacked the regularity of the
issuance of the writ of execution in the labor case, the labor
officials have jurisdiction. If the action does not attack the
issuance, but the manner of execution, the civil courts have
jurisdiction.
***Note: In Tipait, there was an employer-employee
relationship between the plaintiff in the civil case and the
judgment obligee in the labor case. In Manliguez, there was
no such relationship.
Trade Union of the Phils. v. Coscolluela, 140
SCRA 302 (1985)
Facts: Super Garments and Rustan Commercial Corporation
have separate compartments in the same building. TUPAS
filed a notice of strike against Super Garments. Alleging that
goods of Super Garments were spirited out of its strike-bound
premises thru Rustan's warehouse, TUPAS picketed Rustan
as well. Rustan thus files a petition for injunction and
damages before the RTC and NLRC to enjoin the union from
picketing its premises. RTC after finding no employer-
employee relationship between the parties, issued the writ of
preliminary injunction. TUPAS files a case of Unlawful
delegation of Legislative Power (ULP) against both Super
Garments and Rustan alleging that the former is but the
manufacturing arm of the latter. TUPAS claims that the RTC
has no jurisdiction to issue an injunction because the case is
a labor dispute, that the prerogative belongs to the Secretary
of Labor and Employment.
Held: Where no employer-employee relation exists between
the parties, there is no labor dispute. The civil courts, not
labor officials, has jurisdiction. There is no labor dispute
between the TUPAS and Rustan. Therefore Rustan was
justified in seeking relief in before the RTC. The ULP
complaint filed by TUPAS does not prove a labor relationship.
Furthermore, it was improper for Rustan to have filed a case
with the NLRC.
Painaga v. Cortes, 202 SCRA 245 (1991)
Power and authority given to the Director of Lands to alienate
and dispose of public lands does not divest the regular courts
of their jurisdiction over possessory actions instituted by
occupants or applicants against others to protect their
respective possessions and occupations. While the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands is confined to the
determination of the respective rights of rival claimants to
public lands or to cases which involve disposition of public
lands, the power to determine who has the actual, physical
possession or occupation or the better right of possession
over public lands remains with the courts. A protest filed
before the Bureau of Lands seeking the cancellation of OCT
on the ground of fraud differs from Civil Case for injunction to
protect prior possession. The administrative protest boils
down to the question of ownership of the area in controversy,
while the court action is concerned merely with possession.
Pestanas v. Dyogi, 81 SCRA 574 (1978)
Where a party seeks the cancellation of a free patent with the
Bureau of Lands, he must pursue his action in the proper
Department and a review by the Courts will not be permitted
unless the administrative remedies are first exhausted.
Note: In Painaga, the action before the courts was for
mandatory injunction to stop invasion into its property. In
Pestanas, the action was for cancellation of patent.
Villamor v. Salas, 203 SCRA 540 (1991)
An RTC has no jurisdiction to declare as unjust a judgment of
another RTC and sentence the judge thereof liable for
damages. Only the higher appellate courts, namely, the CA
and the SC, are vested with authority to renew and correct
errors of the RTC.
Vital-Gozon v. CA, 212 SCRA 235 (1992)
The CA has jurisdiction to award moral and exemplary
damages in original special civil actions of mandamus, even
without an express grant from statute.