08 February 2018

Recording 1

[00.30]
P: So, there is no appeal in small claims cases. The only way you can seek a review of the decision in a
small claims case is via?

[00:40]
S1: A petition for certiorari.

[00:41]
P: Yes, a petition for certiorari. If there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the small claims
court, meaning-

[00:49]
S: There was, uh, it’s renewable if there's a grave abuse -

[00:54]
P: Yay, so what would grave abuse be? In such a scenario?

[01:00]
S: If the small claims court decided that, that (mumbles) (class laughs) when uh... (unintelligible).

[01:27]
P: Is for example, it doesn't consider the evidence. Right? That's produced by the party and yet it decides
in favor of the victim but there's no evidence. Or it decides to dismiss the complaint so there was
evidence, uh, sufficiently [01:41] (unintelligible) plaintiff. That is capriciousness. That is arbitrariness,
right? So that is grave abuse. That, that is the only ground available to review a decision with small
claims case, okay? So, there is no jurisdiction that this case is telling us that the RTC does not have
jurisdiction over appeals(?) [2.00] from decisions in small claims cases, okay? Because small claims
are exclusively recognizable by what court?

[02:11]
S: MTC?

[02:15]
P: Yes, the MTC is the first line of course, okay? What is the value, the threshold value for a small
claims case?

[02:26]
S: It's, I think one hundred thousand?

[02:30]
P: Equals one hundred thousand would be first as the rule in 2008, okay? But then it has been amended
now, it's two hundred thousand, okay? So, two hundred thousand small claims cases exclusive
jurisdiction first level of course, okay? It's a one-day hearing and judgment day they've got. It's a
revolutionary rule. I'm very, very proud of this rule because we really cut the dockets of the first level
course, 'no? Sa umpisa, marami lahat 'no, but then, when they started disposing the one day, 'no, it
became so easy. Uhm, they prepare all the forms, even the forms for the decisions and its literally fill
in the blanks because we excluded the lawyers. There are no guards in small claims cases, okay? You
can prepare the documents and even not go to court, okay? So, only the parties and the judge are
supposed to mitigate(?) [3.29], like the barangay, but a very slow compromise then at the end of the
day, or at least within 24 hours, a decision will be issued by the judge and that decision is unappealable.
It's [03:43] (unintelligible). That is what also gives small case the success that it has, 'no, for all the
failure they get, 'no? So, kasi wala na talagang tapos na yung case doon pa lang, 'no? And the only way
to review it is via a petition of certiorari of the Rule 65 and who has jurisdiction? Over that?

[04:07]
S: The RTC.

[04:08]
P: The RTC, okay. So, this will not fall within the regular temporent(?) [4.13] jurisdiction, the RTC,
the CA and the SC over Rule 65 Petitions for Certiorari, okay? Because, well, technically, it would, it
could, valid(?) [4.26] directly with the SC, but the (unintelligible) [04:28] also know that
(unintelligible) [04:30] hierarchy, of course. What happens when there are two or more courts that have
concurrent jurisdiction? What does the doctrine of hierarchy of courts instructs us to do?

[04:41]
S: They should try in the lowest court.

[04:45]
P: In the lowest court first, okay. So, if it's a decision of the MTC, where should you go?

[04:49]
S: In the RTC.

[04:50]
P: Okay. If it's a decision or an order at the RTC, go to the?

[04:55]
S: RTCA(?)

[04:56]
P: Okay, and only for the CA, you go to the?

[04:59]
S: SC.

[05:00]
P: SC. Okay. So that is what a (unintelligible) [05:02] network teaches you. Small claims, only a rule
simplified petition for certiorari for grave abuse(?) [5.09] to the parties. Thank you. Next, Ms.
Balbalera? What is (unintelligible) [05:19] teaching us about her decision of Sharia courts?

[05:25]
S2: (unintelligible) [5.30] and one of the parties... because the jurisdiction of STC(?)... stating that and
the metropolitan... uhm, over the case... however (unintelligible; noise level high) [5.41]

[05:44]
P: What were the case again?

[05:46]
S2: Uhm, ma'am. It was an action (unintelligible) [5.50] which is filed by the respondent in which the
petitioner [05:53] (unintelligible) is stating that the Sharia court doesn't have jurisdiction due to the
enactment of BP 129 which the petitioner was stating that, it was the PBC(?) [06:04] instead that have
the jurisdiction in the case.
[06:07]
P: So, (someone coughs) [6.08] the Supreme Court said two or which of the two courts has jurisdiction
or should the defender (unintelligible) [6:10]?

[06:17]
S2: Ma'am, in this case, the Supreme Court said that the Sharia(?) [6.20] court properly exercise
jurisdiction over the case.

[06:24]
P: Because?

[06:25]
S2: Even if BP 129 was enacted, the Sharia does report this has a specific law which deals with contracts
involving Muslim parties and in this case, both parties were Muslim and, a general law such as BP 129
(unintelligible) [6.45] is said to reveal a specific law which is the law giving jurisdiction to the Sharia
(unintelligible) [6.55].

[06:55]
P: Right, because in the Muslim code of personal law, 'no? Jurisdiction is concurrent, right? With the
Sharia court and the civil court (that will be our court?) the regular courts. But then, here comes BP 129
and BP 129 gets exclusive original jurisdiction in cases of distinction in the RTCs, okay? So, that is
why the contention before the Sharia district court laws that they should be dismissed, and that the
regular court should handle it, 'no? But the Sharia judge was insistent and refuse to dismiss it and it was
elevated to the Supreme Court and [07:39] (unintelligible) we exercise the jurisdiction by the Sharia
court reasoning that the two laws should be harmonized, okay? They should not be construed as to be
irreconcilable, rather (unintelligible) [7.56]. We should try to give (unintelligible) [7.58]. There seems
to be no conflict anyway, 'no? Considering that both of the parties here (unintelligible; someone keeps
tapping and coughing over P) [8.10]. They're Muslims, ok, so under the Sharia's code of personal laws,
the one condition is that no party (unintelligible) [8.22]. Ok, and so here the courts said that the
exercising of jurisdiction by the Sharia court is proper and valid, okay? Right. Mr. Guzon, what about
the (unintelligible) [8.38]? How is this different?

[08:42]
S3: So, ma'am (stuttering and noise) in Villagracia(?) [08:43] there was a property of possession,
possession of property and then pinadala siya before the Sharia, stating that, contending that the Sharia
courts had jurisdiction over the action but then Villagracia appealed, saying that he's not a Muslim,
therefore, the Sharia court does not have jurisdiction over the case. Then the court tells that because
Villagracia(?) is not a Muslim, the Sharia court does not have convert jurisdiction over the subject
matter because with the [9:30] (unintelligible) over the Sharia courts says that it only has jurisdiction
over [09:45] (unintelligible) the two parties are Muslims. In this case, ma’am, because Villagracia is
not a Muslim, the Sharia courts does not have jurisdiction over the account(?) [09:58], ma’am.

[10:00]
P: Alright, so [10:05] (unintelligible; prof is mumbling) both parties are Muslims, but in this case, the
defendant, [10:10] (unintelligible) he was a Christian, no? And when he alleged this, he was
not contradicted by the case here. There was an admission for silence, okay, that the case involved, one
Muslim only, the other party was Christian, so the jurisdiction vested under the [10:38] (mumbling) di
natotouch, okay, by the Sharia court. Next, Ms. Buco(?)? What is the [10:50] (someone talked over the
prof; phone moved) as far as jurisdiction is concerned (unintelligible) -

[10:57]
S4: Ma’am, can you please open [11:00] (unintelligible) vs Far East Bank. Far East Bank first filed a
complaint against Insular Bank in the arbitration committee please. And before the termination of the
proceedings with the arbitrations committee, it also filed the same complaint in the RTC of Makati.
Now, in the RTC of Makati, the RTC of Makati ordered the suspension of the proceedings pending the
decision of the arbitration committee and the lamented(?) [11:28] order was given out, suspending only
the proceedings of those in the attendance/defendants(?) [11:37] of the arbitration committee. Now, the
arbitration committee rendered a decision in favour of Far Eastern Bank and, hence the Insular Savings
filed an MR with the same court, with the arbitration committee and a petition for review of the decision
in the RTC of Makati which suspended the proceedings earlier. Now, the issue in this case is with, now
the RTC of Makati dismissed the petition for review filed by the Insular Savings under they said that
they have no jurisdiction to review the decision of the arbitration committee. The issue in this case is
whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed the petition for review. The court ruled in that no, the RTC
did not correctly dismiss the petition for review because it had no jurisdiction in the first place to review
the decision of the arbitration committee as because the agreement as to where the petition for review
should be filed is only by the agreement of the parties and not conferred by law; thus, it had no
jurisdiction.

[12:59]
P: So, where does the law touch(?)13:01 such jurisdiction? Who should they file the case with, if not
the RTC? Which court is vested with that jurisdiction which they tried to give to the RTC?

[13:20]
S4: Ma’am, it’s stated in the case that it availed of a (unintelligible) [13:23] and not a petition for review
should have been an order vacating the, award by the –

[13:29]
P: We’re talking about jurisdiction, okay, and the problem is that they brought their action to review
the award right, before the RTC of Makati. RTC said that it does not have jurisdiction, but the parties
were insisting. They were citing their agreement, okay? Because we said that by agreement, it should
be the RTC and that’s why they filed it in the RTC. So, now the question is, which court really has
jurisdiction by the law, because you said, jurisdiction cannot be inferred by the agreement of the parties
which is what they tried to do here. So, which court really has jurisdiction by law over this action?

[14:09]
S4: The Court of Appeals.

[14:10]
P: Okay, the Court of Appeals Rule 423(?) (unintelligible; mumbling) [14:16]. That is what the law
says. So, the parties cannot alter what the law has decreed, okay? Even if no one will question, even if
they signed an agreement to this and they (unintelligible) [14:31] jurisdiction in any court but the court
in which the law has already given (unintelligible) [14:38], okay? Next, Mr. Algoy(?)?

[14:53]
S5: Ma’am, in this case, filed a, of just compensation (unintelligible; scraping sounds) [15:00] acting
as a special (unintelligible) [15:10] alleging that their property was put under the, was given to penance,
land was put under [15:28] (unintelligible). They asked the court to give them just compensation for the
repossession of their land (unintelligible) [15:40] (intense stuttering; can't really understand this)
alleged that, they cautioned that the dismiss was prohibited [16:15] Supreme Court... constituting the
Special Agrarian Court was already superseded by [16:35- 16:50]

[16:51]
P: Okay, actually, the issue regarding jurisdiction was [16:53] (coughs) – RTC acting as a special
agrarian court. So, it was a contention that there was non-exhaustion of administrative remedies that it
should go back to the DAR court, the Department of Agrarian Reform. But the Supreme Court said that
the time that this action was filed, no? The sanction has already been constituted by law and the RTC,
for giving special agrarian jurisdiction for purposes of (unintelligible) [17:46] just compensations in
agrarian cases including the CARP(?) cases [17:53]. So, the court has already evolved jurisprudence to
the effect that determination of just compensation is judicial in nature. So, the claim that it should be
two administrative revenues cannot prosper, because precisely the function is judiciary. So, it must be
done by the RTC acting as [18:17] (unintelligible), no? And it cannot be [18:19] (unintelligible)
administrative machinery to the DAR. So, that is the issue about jurisdiction here. In resolving that the
court will rely on the DOC(?) [18:32] (unintelligible) in the RTCs acting as special agrarian courts,
okay?

[18:46]
S6: In the case of Lang vs Sigulo (?) [18:45], the case revolves around the action of the respondent,
Sigulo. So, in 1972, petitioners adopted the respondent. However, in 1999, (unintelligible; coughing)
[19:07] 19:18 They were citing the old law that says that they can validly list in the adoption. However,
filing in their petition, there was a new law RA(?) 8552 [19:35] which said that the adoptive parents
can no longer proceed their adoption of the child. Therefore, the court had to dismiss it because they no
longer have jurisdiction due to the new law.

[19:56]
P: Alright, so it was the law during the time of the filing.
 Recording 2

[00:01]
By the time of the filing, no? So, of course, of more interest, is the history of the family, okay? Just for
purposes of our study of jurisdiction. This piece teaches you that it's the law at the time of the filing,
okay, which we look at. Right? So, by that time, there was already a promulgation against the adopter's
receipt(?) [00:34] with the adoption, because you can understand the intent of the law, di ba? There
would be no stability to the relationship if the adoptive parents can just receive the adoption anytime.
Kawawa yung child. Of course, we're always being protective of the child, no? Alright, next. Ms.
Apo(?)?

[01:03]
S1: So, ma'am, in the case of Mendoza(?) 01:06(unintelligible) petition to file the case in
court 01:09 then the respondent answered that was not the agricultural (unintelligible) 01:16 it was
actually his father. So, because of the 01:18 (unintelligible) there was a petition to transfer the case to
the DAR which the NTC granted in this case. And then the court said that, so one of the parties alleged
the transfer saying that 01:33 [unintelligble]. So, that was the issue in this case. And the court said that
the transfer to the DAR was wrong and it was the NTC who had jurisdiction over the case because
jurisdiction is determined from the material allegations and the complaint and not in the answer of the
other party. And if you look at the complaint, it was a complaint for 01:56 (unintelligible) and the
answer which regarded the 02:02 (unintelligible) and the entry was within the jurisdiction
of 02:11 (unintelligible).

[02:12]
P: Alright, okay. So, that is very basic, that you determine the jurisdiction of the court from the
allegations in the initial court reading. So, that's the complaint or the petition. You're confined with that,
okay? You're not supposed to go beyond the court of the complaint okay? So, the allegations and the
answer should be irrelevant to the determination of jurisdiction, okay? So here, the allegation
(unintelligible) [02:38] for forcible entry is ejectment, okay? But, in the answer, there was a claim of
tenancy(?) [02:50], no? And under the (unintelligible) 02:53 of the laws, if there is a tenancy relation
the regular courts does not have jurisdiction, rather it would be02:59 (unintelligible) that will have, that
will exercise jurisdiction, no? So, because of that the court dismissed the case outright, no? But under
the rule of summary procedure and 03:13 (unintelligible) to investigate, no? If there was really a tenancy
relationship 'cause it's so easy to just say that in the answer that there's a tenancy relationship to the case
transfer to the DARA(?) [03:30], di ba? And removing of the jurisdiction is like 03:34 (unintelligible)
So, that is why the court said that the NTC here acted in excess or wrongly, in excess of its jurisdiction
because it failed to follow the procedure and the allegation, in/and the answer should not have mattered
to determine its jurisdiction, okay? Mr. Havila(?)? Sante(?) [04:01]

[04:02]
S3: (mumbling) [04:12] against her and in this case [04:14] (unintelligible) jurisdiction over the case
because the damages made by the respondent was not more than 300,000 pesos but the respondent said
that the paper damage is worse, uh, 420,000 pesos. So, in this case, whether or not the NTC or the RTC
has jurisdiction over the complaint for damages. In this case, the court said that during the filing of this
case, the NTC's jurisdiction has been adjusted to 300,000 pesos but we consider the question that if
NTC complained about damages, does it consider the [04:52] (unintelligible). In this case, the court
said that all fees should be considered such as the attorney's fees, the [05:07] (unintelligible) not just
the moral damages. So, in this case, the 420,000 pesos was [05:12] (unintelligible) over the RTC and
it's something we see that has [05:20] (unintelligible).

[05:21]
P: Alright, okay. Sit down. So, you remember that ha. When you are determining which of the two
courts, the first letter or the second letter has jurisdiction in cases, for example, involving sums of
money, okay? The first thing we ask ourselves is what is the nature of the complaint or the case. If the
collection for sum of money, okay, covering sum of money, we are only looking at the case, the critical
case, because the main action is to recover the money, okay? So, incidental na lang yung recovery ng
interest, di ba? [06:05] (coughing) or if there's a claim for moral damages also, okay? Those are
incidental. So, we are only looking at the principal, actual damages or actual [06:18] (unintelligible),
okay? But, as in this case, [06:23] (unintelligible) and the main claim is for damages, no, for example,
arising from court, okay? Then, you compute everything, you compute the claim for moral, you compute
the claim for exemplary, you compute the claim for attorney's fees, okay? And that will be the basis for
you in determining whether it will fall into the NTC or RTC jurisdiction, okay? Clear 'yon, ha? So, you
will only compute the damages if the main action is for damages but for something else, that will be
excluded from the computation, okay? Gunlao?

[07:09]
S4: In this case, [07:17] (unintelligible) filed 07:23 (unintelligible) to the DENR
for [07:26] (unintelligible; voice too soft) and then during the tendency(?) [07:32] of this application,
Solido, one of the heirs, transferred his solitary(?) [07:41] rights over
his [07:43] (unintelligible) [07:54] and when the application was accepted by the DENR, the heirs now
filed a complaint against the spouses to recover the said property. The RTC said that even if the spouses
did not acquire any right over the property, [08:30] (unintelligible) was invalid, but then in the CA, the
CA said that the court actually [08:44] (unintelligible) because the complaint never alleged which
property was really the [08:49] (unintelligible). And then –

[08:53]
P: Is that the reason why the court said that the [08:57] (unintelligible)?

[08:59]
S4: I'm sorry?

[08:59]
P: Is that the main reason why the [09:03] (unintelligible) not to have court jurisdiction over the case?
What was the case anyway?

[09:15]
S4: (unintelligible; can't hear) case over the land.

[09:18]
P: What is the nature of the case file?

[09:26]
S4: (voice too soft)

[09:28]
P: So, recovery of possession of real property. It involved a question of?

[09:38]
S4: (unintelligible)

[09:41]
P: Who’s the owner or the rightful possessor, no, of the property. And that being its nature, how do we
determine jurisdiction? If an action involves, title to or [09:55] (unintelligible) review of property?
What is the basis for determining jurisdiction?

[09:59]
S4:(unintelligible) of the property.
[10:04]
P: Right, how do you determine which court has jurisdiction over the case?

[10:12]
S4: (unintelligible)

[10:12]
P: No, it's not. It's the value, the assessed value of the property, okay? And that is the reason why the
court said that the trial court here failed the court jurisdiction or to not have court jurisdiction because
there was no statement in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, no. So, the
court [10:31] (unintelligible) jurisdiction. There was no way for the court to determine if it had
jurisdiction because the basis was not stated, okay? Next, Ms. (?)? Not here? Mark(?)?

[10:49]
S5: Ma'am, for the case of [10:51] (unintelligible) [11:02] It starts with the RTC, ma'am. But then,
respondent [11:07] (unintelligible) that RTC did not have any jurisdiction because the petitioner failed
to identify the [11:17] (unintelligible) for this case. And then, when it went to the CA, the CA said that
the RTC did not have any jurisdiction because of the said failure to attach the value of the property. So,
the issue in this case is whether or not RTC had jurisdiction and the court [11:37] (unintelligible) even
if there was a failure to attach the value of the property, it was accompanied by a Declaration of Bill(?)
[11:48] Property which said that the property's value is around Php 20,900 (?) [11:54] (unintelligible).
So, the court said that this could be, uh, the application on the law should be with [12:04] (unintelligible)
application because the declaration, because the complaint was accompanied by a Declaration of the
Bill Property -

[12:15]
P: Tax Declaration.

[12:16]
S5: Tax Declaration. The Supreme Court said that the CA knew about this and should not have
dismissed the case outright.

[12:27]
P: Right, okay. So, here we have an exception to the rule that we just, you know, learned of now. And
the rule is, if there is no statement of the assessed value of the complaint then the court will not acquire
jurisdiction, correct? [12:45] (unintelligible) Speaking for the course, telling us the exception. There is
no statement in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, but attached to the complaint was
the Tax Declaration where the assessed value of the property was clearly stated, no? It
was [13:04] (unintelligible), right? So that would bring you to the jurisdiction of the RTC. And the court
said that in this case, that it was not right, or it was not judicious, okay, for the CA to have ignored the
attached Declaration of Property, no? Because it was, well, supposedly the doctrine is that if you attach
something to the complaint, it becomes an integral part of the complaint. That is why we attach an
actionable document to your complaint, correct? We will learn later on, that the defendant is duty-bound
to deny it specifically(?) [13:44] (unintelligible). Otherwise, it will be deemed [13:48], so that will
justify a summary judgment, no? Okay. So here, that's what happened. There was no
adjugation(?) [13:56] of the assessed value in the bulk of the complaint, but the assessed value was
clearly stated in the Tax Declaration which was appended or attached as an annex of the complaint and
therefore, an integral part of the complaint, okay? Next, Ms. Quito(?)?

[14:23]
S5: So, ma'am, in this case, there was a contract to sell between the [14:28] (unintelligible) [14:37] and
therefore, there was a rescission of the contract between them. And therefore [14:44] (unintelligible),
there was a [14:46] (unintelligible) confirmation of the said [14:50] (unintelligible) and then, the
service [14:54] (unintelligible) [15:00]
[15:01]
P: The summons was served on.

[15:02]
S5: The summons was served on -

[15:06]
P: Candumal's(?)

[15:07]
S5: Candumal's mother because there was failure to allocate Chandumal(?) [15:11] at the moment and
so afterwards, Chandumal [15:15] (unintelligible; sudden clank) She never read the [15:19] of
summons. And so, the issue in this case is whether or not, the service of
summons(?) [15:27] (unintelligible) the summons were served properly to Chandumal and that the
court said that no, it was not, because, in this case, one of the requirements for the proper service of
summons was that the specific circumstances of the failure to give the summons to the person was not
properly observed by the sheriff since he didn't even inquire to the specific details of Chandumal's
disappearance.

[16:03]
P: Okay, so this case [16:05] (unintelligible) instructs us regarding the effect of improper service of
summons, no? And when we speak of service of summons in ordinary civil cases, we are talking about
jurisdiction over the [16:24] (unintelligible), okay? And that is important. How does a court acquire
jurisdiction over [16:33] (unintelligible)? By filing. By filing the complaint, di ba kasi, the
claimee(?) [16:41] submits to the jurisdiction of the court by filing this complaint, okay? So now, we
need to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter, right? How does a court acquire jurisdiction over a
subject matter? (class mumbles) Well, the court has to determine whether if it can exercise jurisdiction
or if it already has jurisdiction, di ba? Because of the law, di ba? But it will determine if it can [17:13]
(unintelligible) exercise jurisdiction through? Through what? (class mumbles) How does it determine
whether it can exercise the jurisdiction?

[17:21]
C: Allegations.

[17:22]
P: The allegations of the complaint, okay. So, the court looks at the complaint, what is the nature of this
complaint? Can I exercise jurisdiction over this? So that's jurisdiction over the subject matter which is
vested by law that which the foredetermines(?) [17:36] of the basis of the allegations in the complaint,
okay? So, there is just one more thing that the court has to do. Now it has to acquire jurisdiction over
the other party, the party defendant, okay? [17:50] (unintelligible) cases we do that through? (class
mumbles) service of summons, okay? Now, this case teaches us about the proper way to resort to
substituted service, okay? Because the idea is that service of summons is done directly to the defendant,
okay? Meaning, personally. You are the defendant, you will be the one to receive the summons, okay?
But most of the time it's not going to be like that, so we have what we call substituted service of
summons, but there are rules to follow before there can be a valid substituted service of summons,
okay? And in this particular case, did the court find the service of summons to be valid or defective? It
is defective because there was no, there was no justification for resource to substituted service. You
have to show that there is must-sibility (?) [18:50] of achieving personal service within a reasonable
time, hindi naman yung impossibility kasi, you can keep doing it for years, no? If that is the requirement
but within a reasonable time, okay? So, otherwise, it will be rewarding the pagtatago of the defendant
if that will be the rule, so we have to put some limit to it so the possibility of personal service within
reasonable time, pag ganun, you can now resort to substituted service. But in jurisprudence, there should
be [19:22] (unintelligible) that what is that impossibility or how is that demonstrated? It's enough if the
process [19:29] (unintelligible) thrice, three times, to attend personal service. But on those three times,
the addressee or the attendant cannot be served or [19:41] (unintelligible), okay? Yan ang, yan na yung
lumabas na rule sa jurisprudence natin. Three times, attempted three times, on the third time, you are
already justified in serving on someone else, okay? A person of suitable age and discretion, residing in
the same...
 Recording 3

[00:00]
P: In the same address, for if it is in the office, someone who is competent and in-charge. Okay? So,
remember, you have three attempts for the (unintelligible) of the third attempt, pwede ka na mag-
substituted surveys/service (?). Now, the second, well - the third already - the third requirement is that
the return [00:19] (unintelligible) or the process for the return must take on these details, okay? I tried
on one, I tried on the second time, I tried the third time. You state the date, you state the time, you state
the reason why there was no persons [00:36] (unintelligible) and then you also state the details of the
substituted survey. I served on the other who is a person of sufficient age and discretion, residing also
at that address. I lent a copy of the summons [00:52] (unintelligible), okay? 'Yun ang proper substituted
survey/service. Here there was no such thing such a substituted survey/service. So, jurisdiction over the
person of [01:03] (unintelligible) by the trial court. Yes, no?

[01:05] (collective mumbling)

[01:09]
Not by service of summons, no. [01:13] (unintelligible) . . . voluntary submission because
(unintelligible) filed a motion to give order of default and to admit answer (?) [01:20]. So (unintelligible)
was already invoking the court's jurisdiction, not just for the purpose of rectifying the defective service
of summons but to sweep under affirmative review. Right? Which is to admit the answer kasi nag-
susubmit na siya sa jurisdiction of court kaya hindi na natin kailangan 'yung body of service of summons
kasi merong voluntary submission, okay? Remember that service of summons is just the means for the
court to accord jurisdiction to the party defendant, okay? It does not prevent acquisition of jurisdiction
through other means like the voluntary submission of the party, okay? Mr. Lim? What is this [02:09]
Boston Equity (?)?

[02:09]
S1: So, in the case of Boston Equity (?) parang Boston Equity filed a complaint against the protection
of [02:12 - 02:23] (unintelligible) respondent that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over Manuel
Toledo because Manuel Toledo passed away.

P: Passed away, before even the case at hand?

S1: Yes, Ma'am. So, Boston Equity gave the heirs of Manuel Toledo in . . . for the collection of money
and. [02:49 - 02:51] (unintelligible). However, the CA ruled against Boston Equity stating that RTC did
not acquire jurisdiction over Manuel Toledo because Manuel Toledo is already dead. So, the decision
in this case is whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case and the RTC acquired jurisdiction
because the SC differentiated foreign jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the
parties. In jurisdiction over a subject matter, contending the jurisdiction can be filed anytime during the
proceedings while the contention over questioning the jurisdiction over the parties cannot be contended
anytime between the [03:49] (unintelligible). It must be properly put into defense between the parties.
In this case, it was years before [04:02] (unintelligible) years has passed before [04:07] (unintelligible)
challenged the jurisdiction over the parties hence, he really cannot anymore, cannot question the
jurisdiction over the parties. Also, the party . . . (P: Had not participated?) Did not participated - actively
participated - in the proceeding with regard to the jurisdiction over the two of them. It was stated that
they are similar in light of the two Boston Equity, hence both of them, hence the case register, she must
seek (unintelligible) jurisdiction over her.

[04:55]
P: What did the court say about the [04:58] (unintelligible) invoking the lack of jurisdiction over the
deceased husband as per the hence? What did the court say about that?
[05:08]
S1: the court said that only the person who - it is a personal defense -

[05:17]
P: Yes, it is a personal defense, diba it goes without saying. We're talking about the service of summons
of the particular individual. So, if he, the individual, over whom jurisdiction was not acquired because
he was not served the summons, then only he can invoke that defense, no? Just because you are a called
defendant, even though you are [05:38] (unintelligible) liable, you cannot tell the court to dismiss these
cases against you because jurisdiction was acquired over you, okay? And that's jurisdiction over your
person, okay? Clear, ha? The distinction between the jurisdiction over the subject matter [05:56]
(unintelligible) jurisdiction to the person. We'll learn more about the service of summons when we get
to [06:01] (unintelligible), okay? Next. Ms. Lopez?

[06:16]
S2: So, there are a lot of [06:19] (unintelligible), but basically-

[06:20]
P: About jurisdiction, and the exercise of jurisdiction.

S2: Yes, so Ma'am, it started with - it started Ma'am with the spouse of [06:34] (unintelligible) filing an
[06:36] East Coast Pacific (?) case for specific performance against the respondent. So, Ma'am, the trial
court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners. So eventually Ma'am, the order of the RTC became
final and executory. But after several years Ma'am, the respondent failed to comply with the order, so
the petitioners here filed a revival for their case. In that petition for the revival of the case, the parties
entered into a compromise agreement. Such compromise agreement was approved by the RTC. So
eventually Ma'am, one of the heirs contested the validity of the compromise agreement which led to
several more filings of petitions in court which eventually led Abner, who was one of the heirs, to file
a petition for annulment of judgment of one of the decisions of the RTC which is I think Ma'am is for
the execution of all the other actions in the case. So, Ma'am, the court eventually said that one of the
problems of Abner here is confusion as to what the lack of jurisdiction means and the error in the
exercise of jurisdiction. So, Ma'am, the court said that lack of jurisdiction is the absence or the failure
to acquire the cause of action or failure to the lack of jurisdiction over the cause of action or lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the party. And once Ma'am jurisdiction have been acquired it cannot be
[08:40] (unintelligible) anymore from the court. However, in errors for exercise of judgment it's merely
Ma'am the errors that the court would render after it has acquired already the jurisdiction over the subject
matter or over the person of party so Ma'am it was [09:04] (unintelligible). . .

[09:05]
P: Could you [09:04 - 09:11] (unintelligible) . . . jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction?

[09:12]
S2: Ma'am no, there was jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the respondent, so
it was the exercise of the jurisdiction . . .

[09:27]
P: (simultaneous with respondent) exercise of the jurisdiction which is being questioned.

[09:30]
S2: Yes, Ma'am.

[09:31]
P: Okay because jurisdiction is defined as the power of the court to hear and decide on a case, correct?

[09:35]
S2: Yes.
[09:36]
P: Okay. So, in jurisdictions conferred by law, okay? So here, by virtue of the first case filed in the
court in the acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter, the jurisdiction of the parties. In fact, the parties
participated, there was a decision, no? It became executory. There was a writ of execution. It was
[09:53] (unintelligible), no? But then because of the compromise agreement and the failure to comply
with the compromise agreement, there were other matters that were brought before the same court post-
execution, okay? So yun yung kine-question nitong si Abner na sinasabi niya walang jurisdiction 'yang
court na 'yan, hindi rin nya yan pwedeng galawin okay? So, the court said, the Supreme Court said, do
not forget that once a court acquires jurisdiction over a subject matter of a case, it does so to the
exclusion of all other [10:30] (unintelligible) number one, and it also carries that jurisdiction until it
finally and completely resolves the case. Now final and complete resolution of the case includes
execution until full satisfaction. So kahit na meron ka nang decision dyan kahit na yung decision mo is
20 years ago, pero kung after noong naging final yung decision mo nagsasatisfy pa rin, ineenforce pa
rin paunti-unti lang yung judgment therefore your jurisdiction continues to act over those [11:04]
(unintelligible) matters, okay? Because they are accidental to the exercise of your main jurisdiction to
render a decision on that case on that merits, okay? So, kaya dito, ganun yung nangyayari kaya di ko
pwedeng sabihin na porket may final and executory wala ka nang jurisdiction. So that is jurisdiction
and exercise of jurisdiction [11:28] (unintelligible), alright? Okay? Next. Mr. Francisco?

[11:43]
P: Okay, um. . .

[11:44]
S3: So, Ma'am in this case this is about a real estate condition about the foreclosure, Ma'am. So, the
problem in this case [11:54] (unintelligible) in favor of DTI/BPI and the [12:00] (unintelligible)
foreclosed on the property of the spouses and there was a deficiency, Ma'am. So, DTI/BPI filed an
action for deficiency for the loan, Ma'am and because Ma'am in this case the properties were located in
Manila, but the DTI filed a case of deficiency in Makati. Now [12:22] (unintelligible) spouses that the
case should be dismissed because of the improper venue because as I said that the properties were
located in Manila. The Supreme Court rendered this case that first, an action for deficiency is only for
his own defense in determining venue Ma'am what is important is to determine whether the action is
real or personal. Because if it is a real action Ma'am - the case - the filing of the action should be filed
in the locality where the property is located but the Supreme Court said that what is invoked here is a
personal action. Therefore, the BPI can file it whether either where the parties reside Ma'am and the
and the Supreme Court's case is that the case should not be dismissed.

[13:27]
P: Okay because venue is not?

[13:30]
S3: Is not jurisdictional, Ma'am.

[13:32]
P: Okay. And venue is there, the rules in venue are there for what?

[13:37]
S3: It is only for procedural. . . for procedure first.

[13:44]
P: It is for the convenience of the parties, no? So, for that every rule that we have, there's a reason, no?
There's a reason why these rules are in here and the rule on venue found in Rule 4: Rules on Venue are
there for the convenience of the court, okay? Because you want as much as possible not to
inconvenience them, right? It's one of the objectives of the rules of court, diba? Speeding expensive
determination of action. So, we want to bring the cases in the venue which is most convenient to the
parties to encourage their full participation diba? So that we will not deprive any party of the fullest
offer [14:24] (unintelligible), okay? And so, because it is for the convenience of the parties, then it can
waived by the parties right? Because this is a privilege I’m giving to you if you want to waive for
privilege then so be it, okay? So, it is not jurisdictional. Meaning if you file the case in the wrong venue,
it will not automatically be reason for dismissal of the case rather if the parties decide to continue, then
they waived the objection. So, if it is one of those defenses that must be raised in a?

[15:00]
S3: In the initial proceedings Ma'am . . . it cannot be based upon [15:06] (unintelligible)

[15:07]
P: Yes, and it must be raised in the answer as an affirmative defense or in the motion to dismiss if you
want and if you don't want to file an absolute - a motion to dismiss. Because precisely you don't raise it
then you?

[15:20]
S3: Then you waive.

[15:22]
P: Okay you waive it, okay?

[15:23]
S3: Ma'am, question. (collective laughing) In criminal cases Ma'am, venue is jurisdictional?

[15:33]
P: Yes. Because in criminal cases, jurisdiction is determined by the [15:37] (unintelligible) of the
offense which is the venue also, okay? Diba I told you that?

[15:44]
S3: Yes, Ma'am. (collective laughing)

[15:49]
P: I should have given you a different grade.

[15:52]
(collective laughing)

[15:53]
P: Okay. Mr. Reyes? Sir Reyes the next is [16:02] (unintelligible).

[16:01 - 16:43]
S4: (Cannot understand answer. Words are garbled, too much background noise and coughing. Can
only hear words/phrases such as "said that", "promissory notes", "because" and "RTC") . . . these alleged
promissory notes will [16:47] (unintelligible) so in that case the response to the complaint that it should
be dismissed for not being filed in the proper venue. So, the RTC in this case (unintelligible) of the
allegations of Briones. However, the CA overturned that. So, the decision of this case is whether or not.
..

[17:17]
P: Does he overturn the RTC's denial of the motion to dismiss and dismiss the action, right, order the
dismissal of the action?

[17:27]
S4: Yes Ma'am, the CA ordered the dismissal of the case.
[17:29]
P: Okay.

[17:30]
S4: So, the decision in this case is whether or not the CA [17:35] (unintelligible) discretion [17:35]
(unintelligible) in deny [17:40] (unintelligible) Briones is . . . So, the Supreme Court in this case said
that [17:45] (unintelligible) Briones was attempting that promissory note of both parties [17:55]
(unintelligible) . . .

[17:59]
P: As you stated, between . . .

[18:00]
S4: No, no Ma'am. [18:02 - 18:08] (unintelligible) the stipulation in their contract saying that any action
arising from the petitioner’s contract should be brought exclusively in a recipient in Makati. So, in this
case, Briones . . . in the city of Manila and since that is where [18:30] (unintelligible).

[18:32]
P: Okay. So definitely, it would have been in [18:36] (unintelligible) for not weird, for Briones to accede
to the venue stipulation because that will go against his position in those concerned invalid, okay? So,
the court said that that was an unreasonable interpretation by the Court of Appeals, okay? So, what is
new, right?

[19:00]
(collective laughing) P: Okay, thank you. Okay next, Ms. Romero.

[19:09]
S5: In RTC of Makati, for collection of judges (?) because of . . . stated. However, in the petitioner here
questions the jurisdiction of the RTC of Makati saying that the complaint did not - the initial complaint
did not state the such article was printed and first was printed and was first published in Makati, so what
the RTC of Makati did was to dismiss the complaint but without. . .
 Recording 4

[00:00]
S1: But not varying that to file it in a proper venue. So what Tan did was file a motion for reconsideration
and amended his complaint to add that the article was first printed and first published in Makati. So
here, the petitioner questions the jurisdiction of RTC of Makati and the court ruled that it was the issue
here is rather - is not actually the jurisdiction but rather the venue and it was properly acquired by the
RTC of Makati upon the complaint saying that we did not - first the court differentiated what is the
difference between the jurisdiction and venue, saying that jurisdiction is the authority to hear and decide
cases while venue is the place where a person filed the case and that jurisdiction is a substantive [01:09]
(unintelligible) of statute law procedural law, while venue is a procedural law and that jurisdiction is
for the established relationship between the party and the subject matter, while venue is the establishing
relationship between the plaintiff and the respondent and that jurisdiction is listed by law and not
conferred by parties, while venue can be conferred by the maybe through the agreement of the parties.
Here, the [01:47] (unintelligible) that even though at first through the initial complaint of Tan, there
was no words printed and first published in Makati, it can still - Makati [02:11] (unintelligible) when it
amended this complaint and it is done within the [02:19] (unintelligible) period or before the finality -
before the case attains finality and that venue can be [02:28] (unintelligible) since it's just a procedural
law.

[02:39]
P: Okay, so just another illustration of the difference between venue and jurisdiction, no. It would have
made the difference if the case that was filed was criminal. Libel, and it could have been the same case.
But this involves a civil case for damages arising from the supposed libellous statements in the Inquirer,
so that is why there is a question as to whether Makati was the proper court to bring the case before, no.
And well the court upheld the - no, not the jurisdiction - there was no question that the court had
jurisdiction because it was a complaint for damages and remember, this is a civil complaint for damages
so what are we looking at if it's a complaint for damages? We're looking at what? The? The total diba,
the total value being claimed right? And since the main action is damages then you count all okay if it
exceeds P400,000 then it's RTC. So, the RTC of Makati and from RTC had jurisdiction. But which
RTC should we bring it before, and that's when we go to venue, no? So, which is the proper RTC to try
this case before and that's how we determine it's the RTC Makati, okay? Question? (mumbling) Why?
Didn't I say that we'll be three hours today?

[04:19]
(collective laughing)

[04:23]
P: Okay, just the docket. Quiz na lang.

[04:24]
(collective yay)

[04:30]
P: Kids! (laughing) Okay, Manchester tells us that payment of docket fees [04:38] (unintelligible)
jurisdiction, okay? So, non-payment of docket fees has only one result and that result is?

[04:48]
All: Dismissal.

[04:49]
P: Dismissal, because the court will not acquire jurisdiction over the action. We'll see here, okay? I've
been trying to explain what jurisdiction is and what jurisdiction is not. And we will say, how come
payment of docket [04:59] (unintelligible) jurisdictional when that is not at all touched upon in the law,
diba? Because our jurisdiction is bested by PT 129 by the jurisdiction of trial court's appease, no? The
Supreme Court's jurisdiction is in the Constitution, I hope you know that, right? So, where does the
payment of docket fees figure in, no? How does that affect jurisdiction? Why is that said to be
jurisdictional? The reason is because without the docket fees, the courts will not be able to operate,
okay? So that is why we make that jurisdictional. We insist that no court will act on an action or on a
case file before it until the proper fees are paid. Otherwise, we will not be able to operate, okay? So
that's why the jurisprudence that has devolved is that it is jurisdictional in nature, okay? So, don't pay it
then we won't touch your case. So that's the rule. And that is what in Manchester. Here, there was a case
file but then the litigant and the lawyer were being disingenuous, no? They were calling it something
else, but in reality, they were asking for huge sums of money in the body of the complaint. But they
omitted in the prayer. Because when you file your case, the clerk of court will assess the docket fees on
the basis of the prayer. The clerk will not go through the entire briefing that you will file. The clerk of
court will only look at the prayer portion and make the computation on the basis of that prayer. That's
what they did here. They included all sorts of claims in the body amounting to millions of pesos but in
the prayer, they omitted those amounts. So, they ended up paying, I think, less than a thousand pesos
or four-hundred? (mumbling) Four hundred. So, because of that, the court said, you cannot pull one
over us, no? So, you will have to suffer from the dismissal of this complaint, okay? So that's Manchester.
During Manchester in 1987, we were very strict about this. But then, later on, in the subsequent case,
two years later absolved Sun Insurance. In Sun Insurance, the court exercised a little leniency, no, and
said and developed actually a set of guidelines here that you will find in the decision. Here, there are
three and you find it in the last page of the [07:35] (unintelligible). Essentially, what the court is telling
you is that you can give the party a chance to pay. If they fail to pay, give them first a chance to pay,
okay? So, but if they still fail to pay within the period that you gave them, then you have the option to
dismiss the case or you may say that whatever fees should have been paid will constitute a [08:03]
(unintelligible) on the judgment. 'Yun ang sinabi ng court sa Sun Insurance. Of course, later decisions
of the court will further clarify this. Kasi magulo 'yon, diba? Kasi pag sinabi mong walang bayad
absolutely, dapat walang jurisdiction, diba? 'Yun 'yung doctrine eh. So, in later cases the court clarifies
that, no. So, in Sun Insurance kasi, it would seem that even if there is absolutely no payment, the court
still has the option to give the party a chance to pay, diba? You also know that it's doctrinal that if there
is no jurisdiction, the only thing that the court can do is to dismiss the case so why are we going to issue
an order directly to the party to pay, diba? You have no jurisdiction to act except to dismiss, okay? So,
but that is why Sun Insurance is clarified later on. So, the rule, as it has evolved over the years, over
these decisions is this: you don't pay absolutely anything then the case will be dismissed. That's a big
lack of jurisdiction, okay? Now, if you pay something but it's deficient, kulang, okay? The court will
give you or can give you a chance to pay the deficiency. Okay, if you are in good pay, meaning your
non-payment or the deficiency or the fact that you paid a deficient amount - not enough - even if it's
just a small amount compared to the substantial amount that's lacking, the court must determine if you
are in good pay, okay? Kung ginawa mo 'yun at nakita ng court that you were doing it clearly to evade
paying, there is malice there, then the court will dismiss your case. Okay, the court will not allow you
to pay the deficiency. But if the court sees that you know, it was really sheer error, it was a
misappreciation of the nature of the case then the court will give you a chance to pay or the court may
consider it just as a [10:02] (unintelligible) on the judgment, okay? So, 'yun na 'yung rule natin today.
[10:08] (unintelligible). Right, now Tokyo Marine has to do with it in the jet litigants, no, and the much
later reiteration is I think a piece of the [10:21] (unintelligible) vs. Albay, which says that the requisites
for suing as an indigent litigant in assessing whether a party is moving to sue as an indigent litigant
should be allowed to do so. First, you look at it in one for one. Were there very specific requirements
like you have to have an activated [10:44] (unintelligible) of indigency, you have to have a certification
from the assessor, that you have no property in Baguio in excess of P100,000, etc. So 'yun 'yun. You
find a loop for one for one all those requirements. If you fail to qualify as an indigent under Rule 141,
[11:04] (unintelligible) tells you, it's not hopeless. You can still qualify under Rule 3, okay? Under Rule
3, I think it's Section 19, no? So doon, very general lang, that if you don't have sufficient means, okay,
to support yourself, okay. 'Yun lang, very very basic, very very general application. So, it's really largely
going to be addressed to the discretion of the court, okay? So, those - that is how the Supreme Court
has harmonized those two rules which both provide for traditions in order that one may be allowed to
sue in [11:44] (unintelligible), okay? That's as far as docket fees are concerned, and then we'll start with
the next case next time, okay?

[11:57]
(collective yay)

[12:02]
S2: [12:03] (unintelligible) with spouses po.

[12:05]
P: With? (mumbling) Alright, let's do our prayer.

[12:18]
S3: In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, Amen. Glory be to the Father and to the Son and
to the Holy Spirit,

All: As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be a world without end. Amen.