REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS (CIVPRO) – Tranquil Salvador III
Alcisso, Antonio, Arriola, Bernardo, Cajucom, Claudio, Dialino, Dizon, Escueta, Imperial, Martin, Martinez, Mendoza, Raso, Rosales, Sia,Venzuela
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over allmatters involving the implementation of agrarianreform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) andthe Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR) x x xSection 57. Special Jurisdiction. – The Special AgrarianCourt shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction overall petitions for the determination of just compensationto landowners, and the prosecution of all criminaloffenses under this Act. x x xClearly, under Section 50, DAR has primary jurisdictionto determine and adjudicate agrarian reform mattersand exclusive original jurisdiction over all mattersinvolving the implementation of agrarian reform,except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DA and the DENR. Further exception to the DAR'soriginal and exclusive jurisdiction are all petitions forthe determination of just compensation to landownersand the prosecution of all criminal offenses under RANo. 6657, which are within the jurisdiction of the RTCsitting as a SAC. Thus, jurisdiction on justcompensation cases for the taking of lands under RANo. 6657 is vested in the courts.Here, the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction overWycoco’s complaint for determination of justcompensation. It must be stressed that although nosummary administrative proceeding was held beforethe DARAB, LBP was able to perform its legal mandateof initially determining the value of Wycoco's landpursuant to Executive Order No. 405, Series of 1990.In accordance with settled principles of administrativelaw, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR todetermine in a
manner the justcompensation for the lands taken under the agrarianreform program, but such determination is subject tochallenge before the courts. The resolution of justcompensation cases for the taking of lands underagrarian reform is, after all, essentially a judicialfunction.
B. JURISDICTION TO ISSUE HOLDDEPARTURE ORDERS1. MONDEJAR v BUBAN
Mondejar seeks to hold Judge Buban of the TaclobanCity MTCC administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, partiality, serious irregularity and gravemisconduct, in relation to a BP 22 case againstMondejar. Judge Buban allegedly issued a “holddeparture order” against her, in violation of SC CircularNo. 39-97, which says that “hold departure orders”may only be issued in criminal cases within theexclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. She also claims thatsaid order was issued without giving her an opportunityto be heard. The judge responded, stating that he was only madeaware of said order when he instructed his staff tosecure a copy from the Executive Judge of the RTC of Tacloban. After which, he immediately issued an ordersetting aside and lifting the “hold departure order”. Asregards the supposed due process, he sent a notice of hearing to her and her counsel, but neither appeared.Court Administrator recommended a severe reprimandwith a stern warning that should it happen again, hewould be dealt with more severely.
W/N the judge is administratively liable?
YES. The judge is administratively liable.Circular No. 39-97 limits the authority to issue hold-departure orders to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of second level courts. Paragraph No. 1 of the said circular specifically provides that “hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal caseswithin the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trialcourts.” Clearly then, criminal cases within theexclusive jurisdiction of first level courts do not fallwithin the ambit of the circular, and it was an error onthe part of respondent judge to have issued one in theinstant case.
C. JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT1. FOZ v PEOPLE
Vicente Foz (columnist) and Danny Fajardo (editor-publisher) of Panay News were charged with libel forwriting and publishing an article against Dr. EdgarPortigo
.The RTC found them guilty as charged which
That a certain Lita Payunan consulted with Dr. Portigo\ that she hadrectum myoma and had to undergo an operation. Even after surgeryshe still experienced difficulty in urinating and defecating. On her 2
operation, she woke to find that her anus and vagina were closed anda hole with a catheter punched on her right side.\ she found out shehad cancer.\ they spent P150,000 for wrong diagnosis\