The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the

2002 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Supreme Court

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The highest court of the land is the Supreme Court. It was not affected by the Judiciary Law (BP
129) which reorganized the judiciary in 1983. Being a constitutional court, its jurisdiction is found in
the fundamental law itself. The SC is both an original and appellate court.

a.) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Article VIII, Section 5 , paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution enumerates the ORIGINAL
jurisdiction of the SC:

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

[1] Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto , and habeas corpus.

Now, it is still premature for us to discuss now what do you mean by certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto because that is discussed exhaustively in the study of Special Civil
Actions. But you are more acquainted with habeas corpus. It is a special proceeding. If you are
illegally detained, you can file a petition for habeas corpus directly before the SC because it has
original jurisdiction.

So that is the first provision in the Constitution dealing with the jurisdiction of the SC.
However, the SC is not only an original court, it is also an appellate court.

b.) APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The appellate jurisdiction is found in Section 5, Paragraph (2), Article VIII 1987 Constitution:

2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
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.
d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
e) All cases in which an error or question of law is involved.

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.

So if the RTC in a certain civil case declares the law as unconstitutional since it has the power to
do so, the same has to be appealed directly to the SC. It cannot pass through the CA because the SC
has exclusive appellate jurisdiction regarding the matter.

b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.

This is related to the legality of tax cases – whether a tax or tax penalty is legal or not. However,
whatever decision the lower court gives, it has to be appealed directly to the SC.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 18

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2002 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Supreme Court

EXAMPLE: The RTC or the MTC says it has jurisdiction or it has no jurisdiction over a case.
The aggrieved party, it if wants to raise that joint, it must go to the SC. When the issue is purely
jurisdiction, the SC shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction.

Now, when the law says all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue, the
cases involve 100% pure jurisdiction as an issue. There are no factual issues involved. If the issue of
jurisdiction is mixed with a factual issue, the appeal should be in the CA without prejudice to the
filing of the same with the SC later. So, this is 100% issue of jurisdiction. No factual issue is
involved.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

We will not dwell on this. This is more on Criminal Procedure. We are only interested in civil
cases.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

Take note that ONLY an error or question of law is involved. So, if there is a mixed question of
law and a question of fact, appeal must be filed with the CA. You only go to the SC if the appeal is
100% legal. That applies to both criminal and civil cases.

QUESTIONS OF LAW and QUESTIONS OF FACT

The best example of questions of law where the issues are purely legal are classroom problems.
The question is: Who is right? A or B? Reasons. You apply the law. But as to what happened, the
facts are already given. Based on these facts who is correct? Yun ang tinatawag na question of law.

Pero if the facts are still vague, that is not a question of law, that is a question of fact. Example:
Lyle filed a case against Aivy to collect an unpaid loan. According to Lyle, Aivy borrowed money
from him and it’s already overdue and she has not paid. Aivy admits she borrowed money from
Lyle but says she has already paid. Now, the question in the exam: Who is telling the truth?

My golly! How can you answer the question who is telling the truth? In other words, I have to
hear them. Yun ang tinatawag na question of fact – what happened, pinag-aawayan pa. When you
go to SC in civil cases, you are not there to ask the SC to determine who is telling the truth. You are
asking who is right under the law.

OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Article IX, Section 7, paragraph (a), 1987 Constitution:

“Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote x x x. Unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.”

The COMELEC, COA and the CSC act also as courts of justice. They have powers to decide
certain cases within their jurisdiction. Election cases, sa COMELEC man yan ba. Claims against the
government – COA. Or disallowance on disbursement by government officers or removal from
government service – CSC.

Now, according to Section 7, any decision, order or ruling of these commissions may be brought
to the SC on certiorari, etc. So you will see that the decisions of the constitutional commissions are
reviewable by the SC.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 19

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2002 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Supreme Court

However, Congress amended the Judiciary Law particularly Section 9 on the jurisdiction of the
CA by now making decisions of the CSC no longer appealable to the SC directly but appealable to
the CA. So based on the present law, out of the three constitutional commissions, the only ones
whose decisions are appealable directly to the SC are those of the COMELEC and the COA

When that law was passed where the decisions of the CSC are appealable to the CA, first I was
stunned. I said there is something queer here because the CSC is a constitutional body and the CA
is not. So why will a decision of a constitutional body be reviewable by a non-constitutional body?
And I said parang it might violate the Constitution. Under the Constitution, decisions of the
constitutional commissions are appealable to the SC. Does Congress have the power to change that
by making it appealable to the CA?

So I had to look at the provision again to find out whether this is possible. But pwede naman
pala. You look at the provision, “Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law..” Meaning,
the decisions are appealable to the SC unless otherwise provided by law. The Constitution itself
gave Congress the power to change it. So there is no problem.

Article VII, Section 4, last paragraph, 1987 Constitution:

“The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.”

If there’s an electoral protest for the President and Vice-President, the matter is not to be
decided by the COMELEC but by the SC. This is what is called as the SC acting as the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal. The only case so far was that filed by Defensor-Santiago but which was
dismissed, the SC ruled that when she ran for the Senate, she has already technically abandoned
her interest for the Presidency.

Article VII, Section 18 (3), 1987 Constitution – Commander-in-Chief Clause

“The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of
the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or
extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.”

So, the SC, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen review the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation of martial law. Meaning, the SC can inquire into the basis on why martial
law is declared.

Which therefore abandons the Political Question doctrine laid down in many earlier cases that it
is the prerogative of the President to determination, at his discretion, the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the
extension thereof.

So this particular provision of the Constitution came about in 1987 to check the supposed
excesses during the time of Marcos, though it came too late. It may well take another 100 years to
produce another Marcos.

Article VIII, Section 2, 1987 Constitution:

The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various
courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5
hereof.

Congress may change or even remove the jurisdiction of the RTC or CA. The law can change
them because jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. However, Congress does not
have the power to lessen or deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction under Section 5, Article
VIII.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 20

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2002 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Supreme Court

However Article VI, Section 30 states:

“No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
Constitution without its advice and concurrence.”

Thus , Congress cannot lessen but it can increase the SC’s powers and jurisdiction, PROVIDED
it is with the latter's advice and concurrence.

The provision under the Ombudsman Law (RA) with regards to the Ombudsman’s disciplining
power appealable directly to the SC, was declared unconstitutional by the SC because it increased
the SC’s jurisdiction and was passed without the advise and concurrence of the SC.

So more or less, these are the scattered provisions of the Constitution dealing with the SC’s
jurisdiction.

[Note: PLEASE REFER TO THE HANDOUT HEREIN ATTACHED FOR A COMPLETE

OUTLINE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S JURISDICTION.]

The ORIGINAL EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the SC refers to petitions for the issuance of writs of
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus as defined in Rule 65 against the following: the CA, the
COMELEC, COA, Sandiganbayan, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, NLRC or the Secretary of
Labor under the Labor Code.

The cases where its original jurisdiction is CONCURRENT with the CA are likewise petitions
for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus against the following: the SEC, the
CSC, the different boards, tribunals or agencies which replaced the old Public Service Commission
(e.g. LTFRB). Also, issuance of writ of certiorari against the RTC and other quasi-judicial agencies,
courts, instrumentalities and commissions.

CONCURRENT with the RTC are those actions affecting ambassadors and other public
ministers and consuls. This is based on the Judiciary Law and the Constitution.

CONCURRENT with the CA and RTC are those involving habeas corpus, quo warranto, and
writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against inferior courts and bodies. For example, a
petition for mandamus against the MTC of Davao City can be filed with the SC, CA, or RTC
although the policy of the Supreme Court is that it should be filed with the RTC based on the
hierarchy of the courts. (Vergara vs. Suelto, 156 SCRA 758)

Finally, with the advent of the new law (RA 8249), there is now a CONCURRENCE between the
SC and the Sandiganbayan in so far as petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas
corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of the Sandiganbayan's APPELLATE
JURISDICTION.

b.) APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

1.) Automatic review of death penalty. So when the RTC imposes the death penalty, whether
the accused appeals or not, the case will be elevated to the SC;
2.) Ordinary appeal from the RTC direct to the SC. This only applies to criminal cases where
the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed or other offenses which
arise out of the same occurrence or committed by the accused on the same occasion;
3.) Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45. When it comes to appeal by Certiorari, there are three
types:

3.1.) From the CA or all appeals from the CA are certiorari which is different from the
certiorari in Rule 65.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 21

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of the
2002 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Pls. check for errors > Supreme Court

3.2.) From the RTC direct to the SC. Now, this is not ordinary appeal because this only
applies to criminal cases. In civil cases, if you want to go directly to the SC, you can do
so by appeal by certiorari, provided that the following conditions are met:

a.) If no question of fact is involved and the case involves the constitutionality or
legality validity of any tax, impost, etc., or jurisdiction of the lower courts is in issue (
Article VIII, section 5 par.(2)
b.) only an error or question of law involved (supra);
c.) a judgment rendered upon an award under the Arbitration Law (RA 876)
d.) appeal on pure questions of law in cases of appeal to the RTC from inferior courts.
So, from the MTC to the RTC – ordinary appeal. From the RTC, on pure questions of
law, to the SC – appeal by certiorari.

3.3.) Appeal from other courts or administrative agencies liked appeal from the
Sandiganbayan to the SC, from the Central Board of Assessment Appeal or from the
Ombudsman.


published by

LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 – 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles • Glenda Buhion •
Joseph Martin Castillo • Aaron Philip Cruz • Pearly Joan Jayagan • Anderson Lo •
Yogie Martirizar • Frecelyn Mejia • Dorothy Montejo • Rowena Panales • Regina Sison •
Ruby Teleron • Marilou Timbol • Maceste Uy • Perla Vicencio • Liberty Wong • Jude Zamora •
Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena

SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong • Emily Aliño • Karen Allones • Joseph Apao • Melody
Penelope Batu • Gemma Betonio • Rocky Cabarroguis • Charina Cabrera • Marlon Cascuejo •
Mike Castaños • Karen de Leon • Cherry Frondozo • Jude Fuentes • Maila Ilao • Ilai Llena •
Rocky Malaki • Jenny Namoc • Ines Papaya • Jennifer Ramos • Paisal Tanjili

LAKAS ATENISTA 2001–2002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez • Jessamyn

Agustin • Judee Uy • Janice Joanne Torres • Genie Salvania • Pches Fernandez • Riezl Locsin
•
Kenneth Lim • Charles Concon • Roy Acelar • Francis Ampig • Karen Cacabelos •
Maying Dadula • Hannah Examen • Thea Guadalope • Myra Montecalvo • Paul Ongkingco
• Michael Pito • Rod Quiachon • Maya Quitain • Rina Sacdalan • Lyle Santos •Joshua Tan •
Thaddeus Tuburan • John Vera Cruz • Mortmort

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 22