REMEDIAL LAW GENERAL PRINCIPLES 1. Classification of courts in the Philippines: a. Courts of general jurisdiction: Those competent to decide their own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all kinds of cases, unless otherwise provided by the law or Rules. Example: Regional Trial Courts. Courts of special or limited jurisdiction: Those which have no power to decide their own jurisdiction and can only try cases permitted by statute. Example: Municipal Trial Courts. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts had the rank of Courts of First Instance but were courts of special jurisdiction. Under B.P. Blg. 129, they have been integrated into the Regional Trial Courts as branches thereof. b. Courts of original jurisdiction: Those courts in which, under the law, actions or proceedings may originally be commenced. Courts of appellate jurisdiction: Courts which have the power to review on appeal the decisions or orders of a lower court. c. Superior courts: Courts which have the power of review or supervision over another and lower court. Inferior courts: Those which, in relation to another court, are lower in rank and subject to review and super- vision by the latter. While, in a generic sense, a court is considered an inferior court in relation to the powers of another tribunal higher in rank, in its technical sense and unless otherwise intended, it was formerly provided that the phraseREMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM “inferior court” referred to the then municipal or city courts (former Sec. 1, Rule 5, in relation to R.A. 3820 and R.A. 3828), now called Metropolitan, Municipal, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Note, also, that under Sec. 2, Rule 5, the term “municipal trial court” as used in these revised Rules includes all other courts of the same rank. In legal circles, they are also called “courts of the first level.” In some official issuances, the Supreme Court refers to them as “first level courts.” However, the “inferior courts” whose decisions are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Sec. 17, R.A. 296) refer to all the courts lower than the Supreme Court. The term “lower courts” is now used for that purpose in the 1987 Constitution (Sec. 5/2], Art. VIII), in lieu of “inferior courts” used in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. d. Courts of record: Those whose proceedings are enrolled and which are bound to keep a written record of all trials and proceedings handled by them (see Luzano us. Romero, et al., L-33245, Sept. 30, 1971). Courts not of record: Courts which are not required to keep a written record or franscript of proceedings held therein. Prior to the effectivity of R.A. 6031 on August 4, 1969, inferior courts were not of record; but if a municipal court of the capital of a province or a city court tried a criminal case wherein the imposable penalty is imprisonment of more than 6 months but not exceeding 6 years and/or a fine of more than P200 but not exceeding P6,000, its proceedings were required to be recorded as its decisions were appealable to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court (R.A. 296, as amended by R.A. 2613 and R.A. 3828, Sec. 87{c], last paragraph). However, under R.A. 2613, amending Sec. 45, R.A. 296, all inferior courts are now required to record their proceedings and are accordingly courts of record. 2GENERAL PRINCIPLES e. Constitutional courts: Those which owe their creation and existence to the Constitution and, therefore cannot be legislated out of existence or deprived by law of the jurisdiction and powers unqualifiedly vested in them by the Constitution. The Supreme Court and the Sandiganbayan are the only courts specifically provided for in the Constitution. With regard to the latter, the better view is that the Sandiganbayan is only a constitutionally-mandated court since, although its existence is provided for in the Constitution, its creation was by statutory enactment. Statutory courts: Those created, organized and with jurisdiction exclusively determined by law. Accordingly, all other courts in the Philippines are statutory courts. 2. The Court of Tax Appeals created by R.A. 1125 has been held to be a part of the judicial system vested with special jurisdiction to act only on protests of private persons adversely affected by the tax, customs or assessment laws (Ursal us. CTA, et al., 101 Phil. 209). On March 30, 2004, said law was amended by R.A. 9282 expanding the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and elevating its rank to the level of a collegiate court with special jurisdiction, of the same level as the Court of Appeals, and consisting of a Presiding Justice and 5 Associate Justices who shall sit en banc or in 2 divisions of 3 justices each. The court shall, inter alia, have exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in disputes arising from the tax law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases, the Commissioner of Customs in matters administered by the Bureau of Customs, the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in assessments of real property, the Secretary of Finance and the Secretary of Trade and Industry in matters specified therein. The decision 3REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM of said court en banc may be reviewed by the Supreme Court on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (see Appendix CC). 3. The distinction obtaining in other jurisdictions between courts of law and courts of equity, and among civil, criminal and probate courts, does not apply in the Philippines wherein all courts are courts both of law and equity (Rustia vs. Franco, 41 Phil. 280; Roa, et al. vs. CA, et al., L-27294, June 28, 1983; Galman, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 72670, Sept. 12, 1986); and Regional! Trial Courts and, to a limited extent, the lower courts, exercise jurisdiction, according to the case involved, as civil, criminal or probate courts or courts of land registration. Before B.P. Blg. 129 became operative, there were special courts, such as the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, the Circuit Criminal Courts and the Courts of Agrarian Relations, which were courts exercising only limited and special jurisdiction. 4. Under our present statutory and jurisprudential taxonomy, jurisdiction is classified, based on its nature, as follows: a. General jurisdiction, or the power to adjudicate all controversies except those expressly withheld from the plenary powers of the court; and special or limited jurisdiction, which restricts the court’s jurisdiction only to particular cases and subject to such limitations as may be provided by the governing law. b. Original jurisdiction, or the power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by law; and appellate jurisdiction, or the authority of a court higher in rank to reexamine the final order or judgment of a lower court which tried the case now elevated for judicial review. c. Exclusive jurisdiction, or the power to adjudicate a case or proceeding to the exclusion of all other courts 4GENERAL PRINCIPLES at that stage; and concurrent jurisdiction, sometimes referred to as confluent or coordinate jurisdiction, which is the power conferred upon different courts, whether of the same or different ranks, to take cognizance at the same stage of the same case in the same or different judicial territories. Concurrent original jurisdiction between trial courts of different ranks has in the main been eliminated by B.P. Blg. 129. For instance, there is no more concurrent jurisdiction in adoption or guardianship proceedings between inferior courts and the present Regional Trial Courts as was provided by the Judiciary Act with respect to the former Courts of First Instance, which Act also provided for concurrence in criminal cases and special civil actions. However, as among courts of the same rank, it appears that a phase of concurrent original jurisdiction still obtains in some instances as, for example, in civil and criminal cases for libel or the settlement of the estate of a nonresident with properties in different judicial regions. Withal, in point of strict law, these situations are matters of venue except in criminal cases for libel, since in criminal procedure, venue is, as a rule, jurisdictional. For a discussion of other criminal cases covered by the same rule, see the Preliminary Considerations in Criminal Procedure in Volume Two of this work. Where such concurrence exists, the court first taking cognizance of the case does so to the exclusion of the other courts, although the Supreme Court may order a transfer of venue or place of trial to another court of competent jurisdiction. At any rate, B.P. Blg. 129 provides for concurrent original jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and either the Court of Appeals or the Regional Trial Courts, or among all three courts in certain cases. To illustrate, the Supreme Court has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals in petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against 5REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM the Regional Trial Courts; with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts over the same petitions against the inferior courts; and with the Regional Trial Courts in actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls. 5. Also, under B.P. Blg. 129, delegated jurisdiction is provided for, i.e., the grant of authority to inferior courts to hear and determine cadastral and land registration cases under certain conditions (see Sec. 34, infra); and special jurisdiction, which is the power of inferior courts to hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for bail in the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in the province or city (see Sec. 35, infra). This latter type of jurisdiction was formerly included, with variations, in what was known as the interlocutory jurisdiction of inferior courts under the Judiciary Act. 6. Mention must also be made of the territorial jurisdiction of a court, which refers to the geographical area within which its powers can be exercised. As already stated, this assumes importance in criminal cases wherein considerations of the territory vis-d-vis the locus of the crime determine not only the venue of the case but the jurisdiction of the court; and, in civil cases, the venue of real or mixed actions. In all cases, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have national jurisdiction; the Regional Trial Courts have regional jurisdiction; and the inferior courts have such territorial jurisdiction as may be defined by the Supreme Court pursuant to Secs. 25, 28 and 31, B.P. Blg. 129. Other classifications of original jurisdiction are based on the subject-matter or the nature of the action being tried by the court, such as civil, criminal, probate, admiralty and maritime, juvenile and domestic relations, agrarian, and land registration. Most of these different areas of jurisdiction are exercised by the regular trial 6GENERAL PRINCIPLES courts, since the special courts like the circuit criminal courts and the juvenile and domestic relations courts have been abolished. With respect to the latter, domestic cases are now generally handled by the newly created Family Courts, hereinafter discussed. Other subjects of controversies requiring special training and knowledge, such as taxation, labor and securities, are handled by quasi-judicial agencies, subject to the power of judicial review by the appellate courts. 7. Jurisdiction and venue are distinguished as follows: a. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case; venue is the place where the case is to be heard or tried. b. Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue, of procedural law. c. Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject-matter; venue, a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent. d. Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties (Manila Railroad Co. vs. Attorney-General, 20 Phil. 523). In criminal cases, the venue of the crime goes into the territorial jurisdiction of the court (Lopez us. Paras, L-25795, Oct. 29, 1966), hence where the criminal action is instituted not in the place specified by the Rules and declared by the substantive law as within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, the motion to quash should be grounded on lack of jurisdiction, and not improper venue. 8, The authority to decide a case and not the decision rendered therein is what makes up jurisdiction. Where there is jurisdiction, the decision of all questions arising in the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction (De la Cruz 7REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM us. Moir, 36 Phil. 213; Associated Labor Union vs. Ramolete, L-23527, Mar. 31, 1965). Consequently, a court may have jurisdiction over the case but at the same time act in excess of such jurisdiction. 9. The errors which a court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction differ from errors of judgment. The former is reviewable in an original action for certiorari, while the latter is correctible by appeal (Henderson, et al. vs. Tan, etc., et al., 87 Phil. 466; Maritime Co. of the Phil. vs. Paredes, L-24811, Mar. 3, 1967; Bulan vs. Masakayan, L-24428, June 26, 1968; Palma us. Q & S, Inc., L-20366, May 19, 1986). Errors of jurisdiction render a judgment void or, at least voidable (see Sec. Ifa] and [b], Rule 16; Rule 65), while errors of judgment are grounds for reversal only if it is shown that prejudice has been caused thereby (Banco Espanol-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 821; Bimeda us. Perez, et al., 93 Phil. 636). 10. Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction and how the court acquires such jurisdiction: a. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner: This is acquired by the filing of the complaint, petition or initiatory pleading before the court by the plaintiff or petitioner. b. Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent: This is acquired by the voluntary appearance or submission by the defendant or respondent to the court or by coercive process issued by the court to him, generally by the service of summons (Sharuff vs. Bubla, L-17029, Sept. 30, 1964; Aban vs. Enage, L-30666, Feb. 25, 1983). c. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter: This is con- ferred by law and, unlike jurisdiction over the parties, cannot be conferred on the court by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties.GENERAL PRINCIPLES d. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case: This is determined and conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or by their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation, or, at times, by their implied consent as by the failure of a party to object to evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in Sec. 5, Rule 10 (see Lazo, et al. vs. Republic Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., L-27365, Jan. 30, 1970). e. Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or thing which is the subject of the litigation): This is acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by the court of the thing in question, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment or garnishment; or by provision of law which recognizes in the court the power to deal with the property or subject-matter within its territorial juris- diction, as in land registration proceedings or suits involving civil status or real property in the Philippines of a nonresident defendant. In two instances, the court acquires jurisdiction to try the case, even if it has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of a nonresident defendant, as long as it has jurisdiction over the res, as when the action involves the personal status of the plaintiff or property in the Phil- ippines in which the defendant claims an interest (see Sec. 15, Rule 14). In such cases, the service of summons by publication and notice to the defendant is merely to comply with due process requirements (Banco Espanol-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921; De Midgely us. Ferandos, et al., L-34314, May 13, 1975). Under Sec. 133 of the Corporation Code, while a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without a license cannot sue or intervene in any action here, it may be sued or proceeded against before our courts or administrative tribunals. 11. As a general proposition, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action (People vs. Paderna, 9REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM L-28518, Jan. 29, 1968; People vs. Mariano, et al., L-40527, June 30, 1976; Lee, et al. vs. Presiding Judge, etc., et al., G.R. No. 68789, Nov. 10, 1986), unless such statute provides for its retroactive application, as where it is a curative legislation (Atlas Fertilizer Corp. us. Navarro, etc., et al., G.R. No. 72074, April 30, 1987). 12. The settled rule is that the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter is determined by the alle- gations of the complaint (Edward J. Nell & Co. us. Cubacub, L-20843, June 23, 1965; Time, Inc. us. Reyes, et al., L-28882, May 31, 1971; Ganadin us. Ramos, et al., L-23547, Sept. 11, 1980), but this rule is not without exceptions. Thus, it was held that while the allegations in the complaint make out a case for forcible entry, where tenancy is averred by way of defense and is proved to be the real issue, the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the case should properly be filed with the then Court of Agrarian Relations (Ignacio vs. CFI of Bulacan, L-27897, Oct. 29, 1971). However, with the integration of the courts of agrarian relations as branches of the Regional Trial Courts under B.P. Blg. 129, the case was required to be filed with the corresponding Regional Trial Court if it was within the jurisdiction thereof, for assignment to the appropriate branch. Also, although the allegations in the complaint make out a case cognizable by a Regional Trial Court, where, however, the acts complained of are shown at the trial to be interwoven with an unfair labor practice case, the action should be dismissed since jurisdiction is vested in the National Labor Relations Commission. This is so since the Rules now permit a motion to dismiss based upon facts not alleged in the complaint (Mindanao Rapid Co., Inc. vs. Omandam, et al., L-23058, Nov. 27, 1971, jointly deciding therein L-23473, 23871, 24232, 24718 and 24956). 13. Where the complaint is for actual damages of P978, but the other claims for damages and attorney's 10