OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION
Magdangal M. de Leon

I. SUPREME COURT

A. Original Jurisdiction

1. Exclusive

Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, and

mandamus against the following:

1.1. Court of Appeals (Republic Act No. 296 [1948], Sec. 171);

1.2. Commission on Elections2 En Banc (CONSTITUTION, Art. IX-A,

Sec. 7);

1.3. Commission on Audit (CONSTITUTION, Art. IX-A, Sec. 7);

1.4. Sandiganbayan (Presidential Decree No. 1606 [1979], Sec 7,

as amended by Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997], Sec. 5);

1.5. Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (Rep. Act No. 1125 [1954],
Sec. 19, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9282 [2004], Sec. 12); and

1.6. Ombudsman in criminal and non-administrative disciplinary

cases.3

2. Concurrent

2.1. with the Court of Appeals

2.1.1. Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and

mandamus against the Civil Service Commission
(Rep. Act No. 7902 [1995]).

2.1.2. Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and

mandamus against the National Labor Relations

1
Revised Judiciary Act of 1948.
2
CONSTITUTION, Art. IX-A Sec. 7; Aratuc v. COMELEC, No. 49705-09, February 8, 1979, 88
SCRA 251.
3
See Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 470.

A-1
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

Commission under the Labor Code4 (Batas

Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983], Sec. 9, as amended by
Rep. Act No. 7902, St. Martin’s Funeral Homes v.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
130866, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494).

2.2. with the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Courts

2.2.1 Petitions for habeas corpus5 and quo warranto.6

2.2.2 Actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of

laws concerning monopolies and combinations in
restraint of trade (Rep. Act No. 296, Sec. 17, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 5440 [1968]).

2.3. with the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Regional Trial

Courts

2.3.1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus

relating to an act or omission of a municipal trial court, or
of a corporation, a board, an officer, or person.7

2.3.2. Petitions for issuance of writ of amparo8 (Sec. 3, A.M.

No. 07-9-12-SC or “The Rule on the Writ of Amparo,”
effective October 24, 2007).

4
However, the petitions should be filed with the Court of Appeals; otherwise, they shall be
dismissed (A.M. No. 99-2-01-SC). See also Torres, et. al. v. Specialized Packaging
Development Corporation, et. al., G.R. No. 149634, August 6, 2004, 433 SCRA 455.
5
However, a petition for writ of habeas corpus involving custody of minors shall be filed with
a Family Court, or in the absence of its judge and in places where there is no Family Court,
the petition may be filed with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any of its members
(Sec. 20, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, effective May 15, 2003.)
6
However, jurisdiction for petitions for quo warranto are concurrent with the municipal courts
insofar as barangay officials are concerned. As such, any voter contesting the election of
any municipal or barangay officer on the ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of
the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the Regional Trial Court or
Metropolitan, or Municipal Trial Court, respectively, within ten days after the proclamation of
the results of the election (See Regalado, Remedial Law, Vol. III [2006], citing ELECTION CODE
[1978], Art. XVIII, Sec. 189, par. 2).
7
Although reference to the Supreme Court has been removed in the amendment to Sec. 4,
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by virtue of A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC dated
December 12, 2007, the Supreme Court still retains its jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
mandamus, and prohibition, as per CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Sec. 5 (1) and (2). It is
believed that this amendment, which underscores respect for the hierarchy of courts, will help
prevent the clogging of the Supreme Court’s dockets as litigants will be discouraged from
filing petitions directly with the Supreme Court (See Rationale for the Amendment of Rules
41, 45, 58 and 65).
8
The petition for issuance of writ of amparo may be filed with the Supreme Court or any of its
justices, the Court of Appeals, or the Sandiganbayan.

A-2
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

2.3.3. Petitions for issuance of writ of habeas data9 (Sec. 3,

A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC, effective February 2, 2008).

2.4. with the Regional Trial Courts

Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers

and consuls (CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5[1]; Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 21[2])

B. Appellate Jurisdiction

1. Ordinary Appeal by Notice of Appeal

From the Court of Appeals, in all criminal cases involving

offenses for which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment; or a lesser penalty is imposed10 for
offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose
out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more
severe offense for which the penalty of death is imposed
(Sec. 13[c], Rule 124, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC,
effective October 15, 2004, Sec. 13[b], Rule 124)

2. By Petition for Review on Certiorari

2.1. Appeals from the Court of Appeals (Rep. Act No. 296,
Sec. 17, as amended by Rep. Act No. 5440; Constitution,
Art. VIII, Sec. 5[2]; Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

2.2. Appeals from the Sandiganbayan on pure questions of

law, except cases where the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death (Pres.
Decree No. 1606, Sec. 7, as amended by Rep. Act No.

9
The petition for issuance of writ of habeas data may be filed with the Supreme Court, or the
Court of Appeals, or the Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files of
government offices.
10
The word “imposed” contemplates both situations where the Court of Appeals itself metes
out reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or a lesser penalty but for offenses committed on
the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more
serious offense for which the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed,
or where it merely affirms the imposition of said penalties by the lower courts (Sec. 3[c], Rule
122, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective October 15, 2004; People vs. Mateo,
G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640).

A-3
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

8249; Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, Nos. 50581-50617,

January 20, 1982, 111 SCRA 433; Rule 45, id.).

2.3. Appeals from judgments or final orders of the Regional

Trial Courts exercising original jurisdiction in the
following:

a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of

any treaty, international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;

b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,

assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto;

c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower

court is in issue; and

d) All cases in which only an error or question of law

is involved. (CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5[2-a, b,
c]; Rep. Act No. 296, Sec. 17, as amended; Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 9[3]; Id., Rule 45; Id., Rule
41, Sec. 2[c]; Id., Rule 122, Sec. 3[e]).

2.3.1. Appeals from decisions or final resolutions of the

Court of Tax Appeals 11 (Rule 16, Sec. 1, A.M.
No. 05-11-07-CTA, or “The Revised Rules of the
Court of Tax Appeals;” Sec. 1, Rule 45, as
amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC dated December
12, 2007; See also Rep. Act No. 9282 [2004]).

3. By Special Civil Action of Certiorari filed within thirty (30)

days from notice of the judgment/ final order/ resolution
sought to be reviewed against the following: (Rule 64, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure)

3.1. Commission on Elections (CONSTITUTION, Art. IX-A,

Sec. 7; Aratuc v. COMELEC, No. 49705-09, February 8,
1979, 88 SCRA 251).

11
The procedure in the Court of Tax Appeals reveals that only decisions of said Court en
banc shall be appealable to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari. (See
Sec. 16, A.M. No. 05-11-07-SCTA). This is because appeals from decisions and resolutions
of the Court of Tax Appeals Divisions fall under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the
Court of Tax Appeals en banc.

A-4
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

3.2. Commission on Audit (Ibid., CONSTITUTION).

II. COURT OF APPEALS

A. Original Jurisdiction

1. Exclusive

1.1. Actions for annulment of judgments of the Regional Trial

Courts (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 9[2]); 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, Rule 47).

1.2. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus involving

an act or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise
provided by law (Rule 65, Sec. 4, as amended by A.M. No. 07-
7-12-SC dated December 12, 2007).

2. Concurrent

2.1. with the Supreme Court

Refer to 2.1. above under I.A., supra

2.2. with the Supreme Court and Regional Trial Courts

Refer to Sec. 2.2. above under I.A., supra

2.3. with the Supreme Court, Sandiganbayan, and Regional

Trial Courts
Refer to 2.3. above under I.A., supra

B. Appellate Jurisdiction

1. Ordinary Appeal by Notice of Appeal or with Record on Appeal

1.1. Appeals from the Regional Trial Courts, except those

appealable to the Supreme Court under Sec. 2(3) of I.B. above.

1.2. Appeals from the Regional Trial Courts on constitutional,

tax, jurisdictional questions involving questions of fact or mixed
questions of fact and law or which should be appealed first to
the Court of Appeals (Republic Act No. 296 [1948] Sec. 17, par.
4.4, as amended, which was not intended to be excluded by
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983], Sec. 9[3]).

A-5
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

1.3. Appeals from the decisions and final orders of the Family
Courts (Republic Act No. 8369 [1997], Sec. 14).

1.4. Appeals from the Regional Trial Courts, where the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or where a
lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the
same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that
gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed (Rule 122,
Sec. 3[c], as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective
October 15, 2004; People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July
7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640)

1.5. Direct appeal from land registration and cadastral cases

decided by metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, and
municipal circuit trial courts based on their delegated
jurisdiction.12

2. Special civil action of certiorari (Rule 65) against decisions

and final resolutions of the National Labor Relations
Commission (A. M. No. 99-2-01-SC; St. Martin Funeral Homes
v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 13086,
September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494; Torres, et. al. v.
Specialized Packaging Development Corp., et. al., G.R.
No.149634, July 6, 2004, 433 SCRA 455)

3. Automatic review13 in cases where the Regional Trial Courts

impose the death penalty14 (Secs. 3[d] and 10, Rule 122, as
12
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 34, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691 states:
Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by
the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land registration
cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested
lots where the value of which does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant
or by agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than one, or
from the corresponding tax declaration of the real property. Their decisions
in these cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the
Regional Trial Courts.
13
Notice that while Rule 122, Secs. 3[d] and 10, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, use
the words “automatic review,” in People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433
SCRA 640, the Supreme Court used the words “intermediate review” and explained the
rationale for such amendment:
While the Fundamental Law requires mandatory review by the
Supreme Court of cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,

A-6
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective October 15, 2004;

People vs. Mateo, supra)

4. Petition for Review

4.1. Appeals from the Civil Service Commission (Rep. Act No.
7902 [1995]; Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).

4.2. Appeals from the Regional Trial Courts in cases

appealed from the Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts, which are not a matter of right (Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983], Sec. 22; Rule 42, 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure; Rule 122, Sec. 3[b]).

4.3. Appeals from awards, judgments, final orders, or

resolutions of, or authorized by, quasi-judicial agencies in the
exercise of their quasi-judicial functions. Among these are:

1. Securities and Exchange Commission;

2. Office of the President;
3. Land Registration Authority;
4. Social Security Commission;
5. Civil Aeronautics Board;
6. Intellectual Property Office (formerly the Bureau of
Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfer);
7. National Electrification Administration;
8. Energy Regulatory Board;
9. National Telecommunications Commission;
10. Department of Agrarian Reform under Rep. Act No.

life imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however, has it proscribed an

intermediate review. If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the
penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, the
Court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review
by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court. x
x x If the Court of Appeals should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, it could then render judgment imposing the
corresponding penalty as the circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering
judgment and elevate the entire records of the case to the Supreme Court for
its final disposition.
14
In People v. Bunaladi, G.R. No. UDK-13384, October 18, 2004, the Supreme Court stated
that no notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the death penalty is imposed by the
Regional Trial Court. In People v. Rocha, G.R. No. 173797, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 761
the Supreme Court clarified that there is no mandatory review in cases where the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Note, however, that the imposition of the death penalty has been suspended by Republic
Act No. 9346 or “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines,”
approved on June 24, 2006. 2006.

A-7
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

6657;
11. Government Service Insurance System;
12. Employees Compensation Commission;
13. Agricultural Inventions Board;
14. Insurance Commission;
15. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission;
16. Board of Investments;
17. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission;
18. Voluntary arbitrators authorized by law; and
19. Decisions of Special Agrarian Courts

4.4. Appeals from the National Commission on Indigenous

Peoples (NCIP) (Rep. Act No. 8371 [1997], Sec. 67).

4.5. Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in

administrative disciplinary cases (A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC; Fabian
v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA
470).

III. SANDIGANBAYAN

A. Original Jurisdiction

1. Exclusive

1.1. Violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 [1960] (Anti-Graft), Rep.

Act No. 1379 [1955] and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII of the
REVISED PENAL CODE; and other offenses committed by public
officials and employees in relation to their office, and private
individuals charged as co-principals, accomplices, and
accessories including those employed in government-owned-
or–controlled-corporations, where one or more of the accused
are officials occupying the following positions in government,
whether in a permanent, acting, or interim capacity, at the time
of the commission of the offense:

1. Officials of the Executive Branch xxx classified as

salary grade “27” or higher xxx specifically including xxx

2. Members of Congress xxx

3. Members of the Judiciary xxx

4. Members of Constitutional Commissions xxx

A-8
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

5. All other national and local officials classified as

salary grade “27” and higher

In cases where none of the accused is occupying the

above positions, the original jurisdiction shall be
vested in the proper Regional Trial Court or
Metropolitan Trial Court, etc., as the case may be,
pursuant to their respective jurisdictions. (Rep. Act
No. 7975 [1995], Sec. 2, as amended by Rep. Act No.
8249 [1997]).

In cases where there is no specific allegation of facts

showing that the offense was committed in relation to
the public office of the accused, the original
jurisdiction shall also be vested in the proper Regional
Trial Court or Metropolitan Trial Court, etc., as the
case may be. (Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R.
No. 128096, January 20, 1999, 310 SCRA 298).

1.2. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in

connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A. (Sec.
2, Rep. Act No. 7975, as amended by Rep. Act No. 8249).

1.3. Violations of Rep. Act No. 9160, or “Anti-Money

Laundering Act of 2001,” as amended by Rep. Act No. 9194,
when committed by public officers and private persons who are
in conspiracy with such public officers.

2. Concurrent with the Supreme Court

Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,

mandamus, habeas corpus, and injunction15 and other ancillary
writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, including quo warranto
arising in cases falling under said Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14,
and 14-A. (Id., as amended by Rep. Act No. 8249).

3. Concurrent with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and

Regional Trial Courts

3.1. Petitions for writ of amparo and writ of habeas data when
action concerns public data files of government offices (Sec. 3,

15
The petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus
referred to in this section, are all main actions. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of
Appeals has original jurisdiction over a main action for injunction.

A-9
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or “The Rule on the Writ of Amparo,”

effective October 24, 2007; Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC,
effective February 2, 2008).

3.2. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus,

relating to an act or omission of a Municipal Trial Court,
corporation, board, officer, or person (Sec. 4, Rule 65, as
amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC dated December 12, 2007).

B. Appellate Jurisdiction

Decisions and final orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the

exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction under
Presidential Decree No. 1606 [1979], as amended, shall be
appealable to the Sandiganbayan in the manner provided by
Rules of Court, Rule 122 (Rep. Act No. 8249, Sec. 5).

IV. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

A. Original16 Jurisdiction

1. Civil

1.1. Exclusive17

1.1.1. Subject of the action not capable of pecuniary

estimation;

1.1.2. Actions involving title or possession of real property or

interest therein where the assessed value exceeds
P20,000.00 or in Metro Manila P50,000.00, except for
forcible entry and unlawful detainer;

1.1.3. Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where

demand or claim exceeds P300,000.00, or in Metro Manila
P400,000.00;

16
The old rates in 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.6 were P100,000.00 outside of Metro Manila, and
P200,000.00 in Metro Manila. These rates have now been increased to P300,000.00 and
P400,000.00 respectively, based on the principle of automatic expansion under Rep. Act No.
7691, amending Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
17
Actions involving marriage and marital relations now fall within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of Family Courts.

A-10
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

1.1.4. Matters of probate, testate or intestate, where gross

value of estate exceeds P300,000.00, or in Metro Manila
P400,000.00;

1.1.5. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any

court, tribunal, person, or body exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial function;

1.1.6. Other cases where the demand, exclusive of interest,

damages,18 attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs, or
value of property in controversy exceeds P300,000.00, or in
Metro Manila P400,000.00 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec.
19, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691 [1994]). However, if
the claim for damages is the main cause of the action, the
amount thereof shall be considered in determining the
jurisdiction of the court. (Administrative Circular No. 09-94,
dated June 14, 1994).

1.1.7. Additional original jurisdiction transferred under Sec.

5.2. of the Securities Regulation Code:

a) Devices or schemes employed by, or any acts of, the

board of directors, business associates, its officers or
partnership, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation
xxx;

b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate

partnership relations xxx;

c) Controversies in the election or appointment of

directors, trustees, officers, or managers of such
corporation, partnership, or association; and

d) Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations

to be declared in a state of suspension of payments xxx
(Rep. Act No. 8799, approved July 19, 2000).

1.1.8. Application for issuance of writ of search and seizure

in civil actions for infringement of intellectual property rights
(Sec. 3, A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC, effective February 15, 2002).

18
Damages of whatever kind.

A-11
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

1.1.9. Violations of Rep. Act No. 9160, or “Anti-Money

Laundering Act of 2001,” as amended by Rep. Act No.
9194.19

1.2. Concurrent

1.2.1. with the Supreme Court

Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers

and consuls (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983], Sec.
21[1]).

1.2.2. with the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals

Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto.

1.2.3. with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and

Sandiganbayan

1.2.3.1. Petitions for writ of amparo and writ

of habeas data (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, or
“The Rule on the Writ of Amparo,” effective
October 24, 2007; Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC,
effective February 2, 2008).

1.2.3.2. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition,

and mandamus, if they relate to an act or omission
of a municipal trial court, corporation, board,
officer, or person (Sec. 4, Rule 65, as amended by
A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, dated December 12, 2007).

1.2.4. with the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Application for Protection Order under

Republic Act No. 9282, Sec. 10, unless there
is a Family Court in the residence of
petitioner.

1.2.5. with the Insurance Commission

Claims not exceeding P100,000.00 (INSURANCE

CODE [1974], Sec. 416; Pres. Decree No. 612

19
When private persons commit crimes in conspiracy with public officers, the jurisdiction
belongs to the Sandiganbayan.

A-12
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

[1975]). Applicable if subject of the action is not

capable of pecuniary estimation; otherwise,
jurisdiction is concurrent with Metropolitan Trial
Court, etc.

2. Criminal

2.1. Exclusive

Criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any

court, tribunal, or body (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983],
Sec. 20). These include criminal cases where the penalty
provided by law exceeds six (6) years imprisonment
irrespective of the fine (Republic Act No. 7691 [1994]).20
These also include criminal cases not falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, where
none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding
to salary grade “27” and higher (Rep. Act No. 7975 and Rep.
Act No. 8249).

But in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine,

the Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction if the amount of
the fine exceeds P4,000.00. (Rep. Act No. 7691 as clarified
by Administrative Circular No. 09-94 dated June 14, 1994).

Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime is lodged with the

trial court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and
most serious penalty imposable for an offense forming part
of the complex crime.21

B. Appellate Jurisdiction

All cases decided by lower courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts,

etc.) in their respective territorial jurisdictions (Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, Sec. 22).

20
However, Family Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal cases where one
or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of
age, or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the
offense (Rep. Act No. 8369 [1997], Sec. 5(a)).
21
Cuyos v. Garcia, G.R. No. 46934, April 15, 1998, 160 SCRA 302.

A-13
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

V. FAMILY COURTS

A. Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction

1. Criminal cases22 where one or more of the accused is below

eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age,23
when one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the
commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is found
guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil
liability which the accused may have incurred. The sentence,
however, shall be suspended without need of application, pursuant
to Pres. Decree No. 1903, otherwise known as “The Child and
Youth Welfare Code;”

2. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, and habeas corpus

in relation to the latter (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC, effective
May 15, 2003; Sec. 3, A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC, effective April 15,
2003);

3. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof (Secs.

A.20 and B.28, A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC, effective August 22, 2002;
See also Rep. Act No. 9523, or “An Act Requiring Certification of
the Department of Social Welfare and Development to Declare A
Child ‘Legally Available for Adoption’ as a Prerequisite for Adoption
Proceedings, Amending for this Purpose Certain Provisions of
Republic Act No. 8552, otherwise known as The Domestic
Adoption Act of 1998, Rep. Act No. 8043, otherwise known as The
Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995, Pres. Decree No. 603,
otherwise known as The Child and Youth Welfare Code, and for
Other Purposes,” approved on March 12, 2009);

4. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of

marriage, and those relating to marital status and property relations
of husband and wife or those living together under different status
and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal
partnership of gains (Sec. 2, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, effective
March 15, 2003);

22
These include acts of trafficking, where one of the trafficked persons is a “child,” as defined
by Rep. Act No. 9208 (“Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003”), approved on May 26, 2003.
23
However, note that Rep. Act No. 9344, Sec. 6, or “The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006,” approved on April 28, 2006, has set the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Thus,
a child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability but shall be subjected to an intervention program. A child above
fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal
liability and shall be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/ she has acted with
discernment, in which case he/ she shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with Rep. Act No. 9344.

A-14
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

5. Petitions for involuntary commitment of a child, for removal of

custody against child-placement or child-caring agency or
individual, and for commitment of disabled child (Secs. 4[b], 5[a][ii],
6[b], A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC, effective April 15, 2002);

6. Petitions for support and/ or acknowledgment;

7. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of

Exec. Order No. 209, otherwise known as “The Family Code of the
Philippines;”

8. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned,

dependent, or neglected children, petitions for voluntary or
involuntary commitment of children, the suspension, termination, or
restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under
Pres. Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56 (series of 1986) and
other related laws;

9. Petitions for constitution of family home;24

10. Cases against minors cognizable under Rep. Act No. 9165, or “The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” (See also A.M. No.
07-8-2-SC, effective November 5, 2007); and

11. Violation of Rep. Act No. 7610 [1991], otherwise known as the
“Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploration
and Discrimination Act,” as amended by Rep. Act No. 7658 [1993]
and as further amended by Rep. Act No. 9231 [2003].

12. Violation of Rep. Act No. 9775, otherwise known as the “Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009”

13. Cases of domestic violence against:

13.1. Women - which are acts of gender based violence that

results, or are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological
harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse
such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a
woman's personhood, integrity and freedom of movement; and

13.2. Children – which include the commission of all forms of

abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and discrimination
and all other conditions prejudicial to their development.25
24
Repealed by Exec. Order No. 209, or “The Family Code of the Philippines.”

A-15
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

14. Cases of violence against women and their children under Rep.
Act No. 9262, otherwise known as “Anti-Violence Against
Women and their Children Act of 2004,”26 including applications
for Protection Order under the same Act;27 and

15. Criminal cases involving juveniles if no preliminary investigation

is required under Sec. 1, Rule 112 of Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure28 (Sec. 1, A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, effective April 15,
2002).

VI. METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS,

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS IN CITIES

A. Original29 Jurisdiction

1. Civil

1.1. Exclusive

1.1.1. Actions involving personal property valued at not

more than P300,000.00 or in Metro Manila
P400,000.00;

1.1.2. Actions demanding sums of money not exceeding

P300,000.00 or in Metro Manila P400,000.00; in both

25
If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject to criminal
proceedings and the corresponding penalties. If any question involving any of the above
matters should arise as an incident in any case pending in the regular courts, said incident
shall be determined in that court.
26
In the absence of a Family Court in the place where the offense was committed, the case
shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was
committed at the option of the complainant.
27
Where no Family Court exists in the place of residence of petitioner, applications for
Temporary Protection Order and Permanent Protection Order are filed in the Regional Trial
Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court with
territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of petitioner.
28
“SECTION 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. –
xxxx
Except as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required to
be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty
prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to
the fine.”
29
The old rates in 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.1.6 were P100,000.00 or less, outside of Metro Manila,
and P200,000.00 or less, in Metro Manila. These rates have now been increased to
P300,000.00 and P400,000.00 respectively, based on the principle of automatic expansion
under Rep. Act No. 7691, amending Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.

A-16
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

cases, exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s fees,

litigation expenses and costs, the amount of which
must be specifically alleged, but the filing fees thereon
shall be paid. These include admiralty and maritime
cases;

1.1.3. Actions involving title or possession of real property

where the assessed value does not exceed
P20,000.00 or in Metro Manila P50,000.00;

1.1.4. Provisional remedies in principal actions within their

jurisdiction, and in proper cases, such as preliminary
attachment, preliminary injunction, appointment or
receiver and delivery of personal property; (Rule 57,
58, 59, and 60)

1.1.5. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, with jurisdiction

to resolve issue of ownership to determine issue of
possession;

1.1.6. Probate proceedings, testate or intestate, where

gross value of estate does not exceed P300,000.00 or
in Metro Manila P400,000.00 (Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, Sec. 33, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691);
and

1.1.7. Inclusion and exclusion of voters. (Sec. 38, Batas

Pambansa Blg. 881, Omnibus Election Code of the
Philippines [1985]).

1.2. Delegated30

Cadastral and land registration cases assigned by the

Supreme Court where there is no controversy or opposition
and in contested lots valued at more than P100,000.00
(Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 34, as amended by Rep.
Act No. 7691).

1.3. Special

Petition for habeas corpus in the absence of all Regional

Trial Court judges (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 35).

30
See 1.5 of B.1. under II. Court of Appeals, supra.

A-17
OUTLINE OF JURISDICTION

2. Criminal

2.1. Exclusive

2.1.1. All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed

within their respective territorial jurisdictions;

2.1.2. All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more

than six (6) years irrespective of the fine and regardless of
other imposable accessory or other penalties and the civil
liability arising therefrom; provided, however, that in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal negligence,
they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction (Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 32, as amended by Rep. Act No.
7691);31

2.1.3. All offenses committed not falling within the exclusive

original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan where none of the
accused is occupying a position corresponding to salary
grade “27” and higher (As amended by Rep. Act No. 7975
and Rep. Act No. 8249); and

2.1.4. In cases where the only penalty provided by law is a

fine not exceeding P4,000.00, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
etc. have jurisdiction (Administrative Circular No. 09-94,
dated June 14, 1994).

2.2. Special

Applications for bail in the absence of all Regional Trial

Court judges. (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Sec. 35).

31
Jurisdiction over the whole complex crime lies with the trial court having jurisdiction to
impose the maximum and most serious penalty imposable for an offense forming part of the
complex crime. (See Cuyos v. Garcia, G.R. No. 46934, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 302).
Thus, where the imposable penalty for the physical injuries charged would come within the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, while the fine for the damage to the property would
fall on the Regional Trial Court, the court that would take cognizance of the case must be
determined not by the corresponding penalty for the physical injuries charged but by the fine
imposable for the damage to the property resulting from the reckless imprudence.

A-18