You are on page 1of 6

SAMSON v DAWAY I: did RA 8369 repeal the power of the CA to

take cognizance of petitions for HC?
I: which court has jurisdiction over cases for
violations of intellectual property rights? R: no. a careful reading of the law reveals that
family courts are vested with exclusive
R: the RTC. RA 8293 and RA 166 are special
jurisdiction in custody cases, not habeas
laws conferring jurisdiction over violations of
corpus cases; writs of HC which may be
intellectual property rights to the RTC, while
issued exclusively by the family courts
RA 7691, expanding the jurisdiction of the
pertain only to the ancillary remedy which
MTC, is a general law. Hence, jurisdiction
may be availed of in conjunction with
over cases for unfair competition is lodged in
petition for custody of minors.
the RTC even if the penalty is imprisonment
for less than six years and a fine ranging from
50,000 to 200,000.
Garcia v Drilon

I: whether or not family courts have
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR THE jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of
ISSUANCE OF A WIRT OF HABEAS CORPUS a statute.

I: did the passage of RA 8369 revoke the R: yes. Family courts, as special courts, are of
power of the CA to take cognizance of the same level as RTC. In spite of the
petitions for habeas corpus, when it vested designation of an RTC as a family court, the
such power “only” to family courts? RTC still remains to be a court of general
jurisdiction with authority to pass upon all
R: no, to follow such reasoning would result
cases, including the power of judicial review
to iniquitous situations, whereby individuals
or the power to declare the constitutionality
would be left without legal recourse in
of a law, treaty, international or exec
obtaining custody of their children if the
agreement, presidential order, instruction,
latter are moved from one place to another,
oridnance, etc.
as they cannot seek redress from the family
courts whose writs are enforceable only
within their territorial jurisdiction.
PEPSI COLA DISTRIBUTORS OF THE PHILS v
I: who then has the juris to issue writs of HC? GAL-LANG

R: family courts have concurrent jurisdiction I: what is the extent of the jurisdiction of the
with the CA and the SC in petitions for labor arbiters?
habeas corpus where the custody of minors
R: all cases where there is a reasonable causal
is at issue.
connection between the claim asserted and
the employer-employee relationship; absent
such a link, the complaint is cognizable by
MADRINAN v MADRINAN
the regular courts of justice in the exercise of
their civil and crim jurisdiction. In other

GAYOSO v TWENTY-TWO REALTY PIONEER CONCRETE PHILIPINES v TODARO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Concept: where there is no employer- I: does the MTC have jurisdiction over issues employee relationship. regarding termination of an employee and termination of a corporate officer? TOLOSA v NLRC R: jurisdiction over the first lies with the NLRC. which is cognizable by the same intrinsically a civil dispute. but a breach of contractual obligation is claimed. the labor arbiters only have MATING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL competence to resolve matters wherein the CORP v COROS applicable law is the Labor Code. it is considered as an intra-corporate relationships. other labor officers/positions in a corporation? statutes. EVIOTA v CA LOCSIN v NISSAN I: is every dispute between employers and its employees a labor dispute and is thus I: who are the corporate officers by virtue of cognizable by the labor arbiter? the corporation code? R: no. as amended by law). but not the I: what is the difference between cases RPC. R: by reference to the Corporation Code and the by-laws of the corporation. whereby the principal relief dispute. as an to the resolution of cases involving action for breach of contractual obligation is possession. court (the question of ownership shall only be resolved to determine the issue of possession) .words. sought therein may only be granted by I: how does one know the corporate reference to the Labor Code. R: yes. or their collective bargaining agreement. cause of action precedes from a different Concept: a corporate officer’s dismissal is source of obligation is within the jurisdiction always an intra-corporate controversy. of the regular courts. while the second. in the SEC (in the I: what is the jurisdiction of the NLRC? RTC. or no relief by of ownership? reference to the Labor Code is sought. secretary and all employees where the employer-employee other officers provided as such in the by- relationship is merely incidental and the laws. since in the latter R: disputes arising from employer-employee case. actions between employers and R: the President. treasurer. provided that the same is a requisite the regular courts have jurisdiction.

and the case was party seeking to invoke liberal construction. from assailing such jurisdiction. no right it comes to estoppel in terms of jurisdiction. I: does the rule that questions of jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal admit of any exceptions? ERISTINGCOL v CA R: yes. and may not be conferred by consent of the R: the same is inapplicable when there is parties or by estoppel. appeal. and attacking it for lack of Concept: Tijam is again. the parties are not barred. for instance. as when the party proceeded action. MEDINA INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY CORPORATION v CA METROMEDIA TIMES CORP v PASTORIN Concept: remedial statutes do not create or Concept: Tijam is not the general rule when take away vested rights. jurisdiction? with the trial and only after unfavorable judgment did it raise the issue of jurisdiction. R: no. and consequently. and application of it requires that the party from raising jurisdiction (not merely a factual milieu surrounding the case be matter of time but is a question of inequity substantially the same as of Tijam. an exception to the jurisdiction if it is not. cause of action and jurisdiction is the court frowns upon the undesirable determined by the allegations in the practice of submitting one’s case for decision complaint. or unfairness in permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted). can be violated.BPI v ALS MANAGEMENT AND DEVT CORP that the lower court had jurisdiction. if the lower inexcusable negligence in the part of the court had jurisdiction. and thus. Here. to assume an inconsistent position . However. equity is only jurisdiction. Laches may also bar a rule. on substitute for law. for the rules of procedure. heard and decided upon a given theory. and is not affected by the theories and then accepting the decision only when of the defendant favorable. rules of procedure are meant for the orderly such. the party who induced it to available in the absence of and not as a adopt such theory will not be permitted. its retroactivity is limited to but is the exception. the same must exist as a matter of law. as that the court had no administration of justice. estoppel may bar a party from raising I: is caption determinative of the cause of the same issue. its application to actions pending and Concept: the operation of estoppel in undetermined at the time of its passage. jurisdiction depends on whether the latter actually had jurisdiction or not. on I: limitations as to the liberal construction of appeal. the principle of estoppel applies. If it had no jurisdiction. but the case was tried and HEIRS OS SPOUSES JULIAN DELA CRUZ v decided upon the theory that it had HEIRS OF FLORENTINO QUINTOS jurisdiction.

unlike in actions in personam. parties. estoppel venues or jurisdictions. quasi in rem. NM Rothschild and Sons v Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company (c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different Concept: lack of cause of action. the petition is directed against the thing itself. and actions in personam. when Exception: when the party so transacting with the corporation is barred by estoppel (eg . and is not separate nor independent therefrom. (literal application lang nung requisites itong case na ito) Merrill lynch Futures.DECENA v PIQUERO it comes to acquisition of jurisdiction over the case by the courts. as when the other “cause of not a requisite. action” is merely incidental to the first. whereby it is brought under actual custody of PEREZ v HERMANO the law. or by institution of legal I: what are the requisites of a valid joinder of proceedings. and I: exception to the rule that a motion to (d) Where the claims in all the causes of dismiss admits hypothetically all allegations action are principally for recovery of money. therein. conclusions of law. I: limitations on the applicability of the provisions of joinder of a cause of action R: in actions in rem and quasi in rem. causes of action? I: what is the purpose of summons in actions R: (a) The party joining the causes of action in rem? shall comply with the rules on joinder of R: to satisfy the requirements of due process. (b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules. in the complaint the aggregate amount claimed shall be the R: when the allegations refer to mere test of jurisdiction. I: how is jurisdiction over the res acquired? R: by seizure of the res under legal process. the joinder may be and in pari delicto claims are not grounds for allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided a motion to dismiss. they relate to the validity one of the causes of action falls within the of the cause of action and must be threshed jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies out during the trial. R: it cannot apply when there is only one and thus jurisdiction over the defendant is cause of action. Inc v CA General rule: a corporation transacting in the Alba v CA PH without legal license to do so cannot I: difference between actions in rem and institute actions before domestic courts.

as in a case where the cause of action of one is dependent upon Concept: the courts may acquire jurisdiction a contract and another dependent upon a over a corporation doing business in the PH quasi-delict. Concept: “doing business” does not include appointing a representative or distributor in SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS. It must be decided on a case to case be prosecuted and defended in the name of basis. this is to prevent a person contracting with a corporation from later taking advantage over the latter’s non-compliance LITONJUA GROUP OF COMPANIES V VIGAN with the statutes. R. is must not be a single or isolated transaction or merely occasional. determining won a corporation is “doing only natural or juridical persons may be business” in the PH? parties to a civil action and every action must R: none. provided that the group of companies COMMUNICATION MATERIALS AND has a juridical personality separate and DESIGN INC v CA distinct from that of the individual companies comprising it. especially when such I: won a group of companies may be person had benefited from such contract.when the party had acknowledged the the latter as the former’s agent falls within corporation by entering into a contract with the ambit of “doing business” in the PH it). . incidental or casual. as a rule. It does not apply when the causes of action HAHN V CA arose from different bases. impleaded as a defendant in an action. yes. But a helpful distinction would be that the real parties in interest. but when such single transaction indicates intent IMSON v CA to do other business in the PH. such General rule: dismissal of a case against one constitutes “doing business” in the PH indispensable party thereto operates as a Concept: one who has dealt with a dismissal against all parties corporation as a corporate entity is stopped Elements for application of the rule: there from denying its corporate existence and must be a common cause of action and all capacity. by service of summons through the DTI. and is legally I: is there a hard and fast (he he) rule in recognized under domestic laws. INC v CA the PH which transacts under his own name I: won a mortgagor must be impleaded in a and for his own account. the fact that a case where the chattel mortgagee seeks to foreign corporation has complete control recover possession of the encumbered over the representative so as to constitute property. the defendants are indispensable parties.

Another test. . INC V STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY I: how to determine whether or not there can be a valid permissive joinder of parties (elements) R: Permissive joinder of parties requires that: (a) the right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions. The mortgagor then is a actuality a case not between the petitioner party without which the judgment of the and defendant. SIOK PING TANG v SUBIC BAY DISRIBUTION. in determining the same. R: no. it is in of the mortgagor. The elements of foreclosure are: original and independent action seeking to (1) existence of the mortgage. as the case is primarily a case for A petition for certiorari is not part of the replevin seeking to enforce foreclosure of the proceedings before the trial court. such as the agreement of the banks to abide by the decision of the court and its lack of action when the petition was initiated. INC I: won banks are indispensable parties in a case of petition for certiorari.R: yes. but between the petitioner court cannot attain finality. PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS. regarding unity of cause of action. factual circumstances could be considered. but an mortgage. and (2) default annul the decisions of the lower court. (b) there is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants. and (c) such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and venue. is that it must be ascertained whether the same evidence which is necessary to sustain the second cause of action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first. and the judge the decision of whom is sought to be annulled.