Duncano vs Sandiganbayan

TOPIC: Jurisdiction of the SB does not cover “Reg. Directors” below SG 27

FACTS:
Danilo A. Duncano is, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) with Salary
Grade 26 as classified under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6758. Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), Office of
the Ombudsman, filed a criminal case against him for violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 11 of
R.A. No. 6713. Duncano filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prayer to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest
contending that the SB has no jurisdiction to try and hear the case because he is an official of the executive
branch occupying the position of a Regional Director but with a compensation that is classified as below
Salary Grade 27.

ISSUE:
WON petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of the SB considering he is a Reg. Director with SG
26.

RULING:
Petitioner is not an executive official with Salary Grade 27 or higher. Neither does he hold any
position particularly enumerated in Section 4 (A) (1) (a) to (g). Jurisdiction over the cases falls with the
Regional Trial Court. The Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over violations of Section 3(a) and (e), Republic
Act No. 3019, as amended, unless committed by public officials and employees occupying positions of
regional director and higher with Salary Grade "27" or higher, under the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758) in relation to their office.
CE Casecnan Water and Energy Co., Inc. vs Prov. Of Nueva Ecija

Topic: Expanded Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction of the CTA

FACTS:
Nueva Ecija assessed and taxed Petitioner for real property liabilities for the years 2002-2008
amounting to P1,279,997,722.70. Petitioner assailed and later appealed through the central board of
assessment appeals but both were dismissed. After the assessment, appeals and payment in protest,
Nueva Ecija amended their assessment and increased Petitioner’s tax liabilities.

Petitioner in response, filed with the RTC a complaint for injunction(no decision) and damages(no
decision) with application of TRO(granted-20 day) and preliminary injunction(denied).

Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari. However, the CA ruled that it has no
jurisdiction because in resolving the issue of whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying petitioner's application for a writ of preliminary injunction, the issue of the validity of the
assessment and the collection of the RPT against petitioner must also be resolved. Jurisdiction over the
case lies within the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).

ISSUE:
Whether the CA has jurisdiction over the injunction case

HELD: NO
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is required for a court to act on any controversy. It is conferred
by law and not by the consent or waiver upon a court. As such, if a court lacks jurisdiction over an action,
it cannot decide the case on the merits and must dismiss it.

With respect to the CTA, its jurisdiction was expanded and its rank elevated to that of a collegiate
court with special jurisdiction by virtue of Republic Act No. 9282. This expanded jurisdiction of the CTA
includes its exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the decisions, orders or resolutions of the
RTC in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by the RTC in the exercise of its original or appellate
jurisdiction

The power of the CTA includes that of determining whether or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in issuing an interlocutory
order in cases falling within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the tax court