BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only
CIVIL PROCEDURE
JURISDICTION
Basic in Rem Law is that a judgment, final order or resolution rendered by a court
without jurisdiction is null and void. So pag wala kayong panagot, you assume the court
has no jurisdiction. So bakit nagtatanong ka ng ganito wala namang jurisdiction yun so
null and void. Because by stating that basic principle, the examiner will say, “oo nga
no,” he is not wrong because he is stating a very basic principle in jurisdiction. Pero
wag naman na kung ang layo-layo ng tanong, tinatanong ka sa annulment of marriage,
tinatanong ka sa legal separation, yung related…
The Sun of Remedial Law
Kapag typically, remedial law subject… because I call jurisdiction as the Sun of Rem
Law. Why? The sun is the center of solar system. Around the sun revolve all the planets.
And around the planets revolve satellites. Diba? Now, remove the sun, the planets will
die- will cease to exist. Ganon din sa Rem Law. So this is the Sun of Rem Law. Around
which revolve the several planets. Kaya directed don yun palagi. Yan ang focal point.
That is central point of your Rem Law. It’s all about remedies after all, so why remedy
when in the first place there is nothing to remedy, because the effect, the decision the
judgment the final order the resolution is null and void. See? As simple as that.
Alam niyo napakadali ng Rem Law. Mas lalo na sa practice. Napakahirap when you are
studying it in the 4th year because you talk of concepts. But when you go down to
practice, actual practice, this is your daily bread and butter. And remember, how many
justices were telling me? Akala ko dito,,, Justice Nachura for one, he’s very close to us
here. He was telling me when he was first appointed, sabi niya, “akala ko ang mga kaso
sa SC puro regarding the Constitution.” 90% of the cases there boils down to Rem Law,
sabi niya.
Because you know substantive law answers the question what. What is the law? Is that
law applicable in this situation? Ok alam mo nga yung batas but you do not know how
to implement it. Balewala. While substantive law answers the question what is the law,
remedial law answers the question how do you implement the law. See?
So daming substantive law, your Crim Law, Poli Law, kung alin diyan, Civ Law.
Everything. Lahat yon nalaman niyo na. Kung hindi mo alam i-implement, balewala.
See? So Rem Law answers the question as to how it is to be implemented.
The Signposts of Remedial Law
SO in Rem Law questions, that you will encounter in the Bar, always talk of remedies.
Binibigyan ka ng.. ano bang solusyon dito? SO NOW, even before I go any further on
jurisdiction, because Rem Law is all about remedies. What are the fundamental
remedies? Which I call again for review purposes the signposts of remedial law. Diba?
In every case, at least dalawa ang magkatatunggali, the plaintiff and the defendant.
Remember that in actual practice, truth does not prevail. Diba? What prevails is the
legal truth it is not the actual truth. So that even if someone says… even if someone is
accused of killing somebody, but another one says I killed him. So ano pang
mangyayari, wala na. Diba?
SO whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant, you must be concerned with
remedies. SO ano ba ang mga remedies under Rem Law, yun lang ang pinag uusapan
from Rule 1 to Rule 134, lahat yan about remedies. Diba? So I call them the signposts
of Rem Law, as far as I’m concerned with Civ Pro.
OK, what is the first remedy of the defendant? Rule 16 diba? Motion to Dismiss. Ok, so
what is his next remedy? Rule 33 which is.. kasi ito dapat saulado niyo lahat yung Rules
diba? Kung ngayon hindi niyo pa nasasaulo yan, a mahirap yan. Dapat alam mo na pag
tinanong sayo. Rule 34. Alam mo kung ano yon. Diba? E kung ngayon ka palang nag
uumpisa ano ba yung Rule 33? Medyo the question is.. are you reviewing for the Bar?
OK, so Demurrer to Evidence, yun ang sunod. And then after that, what now? Your next
remedy is already Rule 37 which is Motion for New Trial/Motion for Reconsideration.
And if you don’t succeed there, you have the remedy of Appeal which is from Rules 40-
45.
OK, when the judgment has become executory. In other words, there is already an
entry of judgment, you are only left with 2 remedies which are Petition for Relief from
Judgment and Annulment of Judgment. Rule 38 and Rule 47, respectively.
See? Remedies. So pag presentation palang ng problem sa Bar, alam mo na kung anong
gagawin mong remedy. Supposed the presentation of the subject, the question is mas
lalo ngayon 80% questions na diba? 20 % nalang yung MCQ. Presented the problem
like this. “After judgment has been entered,” ano pa? kung remedy pinag-uusapan niyo
you are only left with 2 remedies. Doon palang sa presentation ng problem alam mo
na. Ano gagawin ko rito? Petition for Relief from Judgment or Annulment of Judgment?
Are those two remedies available to me? It may be YES. It may be NO. Sasabihin mo
NO because I already availed of remedy of New Trial so I can no longer avail of that
because these are prerogative remedies. Diba?
SO kung ang presentation of problem “after the plaintiff has presented evidence,” o
bakit ka mag r remedy ng Motion to Dismiss? Pag nag remedy ka ng Motion to Dismiss
if I were the examiner, baka markahan ko ng.. ang papel mo ng 34, 30% ka nalang
tapos ka na. Kung may DQ, DQ ka na. Anong pinag uusapan nito? E mag m Motion to
Dismiss tapos na yung presentation. Unless of course yung mga exceptional like
jurisdiction, kaya ganon.. but as a general rule. SO just look at the remedies and
presentation palang ng problem, alam mo na kung ano ang remedy. I’m talking of the
fact that you are the defendant.
Now, if you are the plaintiff, what is your first remedy? Kung ikaw ang plaintiff bakit ka
magpapa dismiss? Diba? Pero may remedy under the Rules na pwede ka magpadismiss.
Rule 17. Take a look at Rule 17 Sections 1 and 2 are remedies available to the plaintiff.
Bakit magpapadismiss e siya ang nag-file? He filed the case and then he asked for the
1
dismissal kasi nagkamali ako e. Yung hinabla ko pala former girlfriend ko. No grounds
in fact. The Rules do not provide for any ground. Why? Because any… nobody will be
Page
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only
prejudiced.. ikaw e.. ikaw ang nag-file.. ipapa-dismiss so don ka kaagad. Rule 17 Sec
1 and 2, as behalf the plaintiff.
Now, after that if you don’t, you can avail of Rule 34 and Rule 35. Judgment on the
Pleading / Summary Judgment. And then you can also avail of 37 and Appeal 40-45.
See? So pag nakita mo agad itong signpost of Rem Law, it would be very easy for you
to attack problems, i-situate niyo kaagad. Saan ba ito? Problemang ito? And then how
do you resolve it? What does the Rule provide? Resolve the question.
Now, you cannot remember any rule. Have I read any jurisprudence on the matter?
Apply the jurisprudence. But never say “in the case of” NO! Just say in a decided case
by the SC, that’s one. In a settled case, yon. No, don’t say in the case of Ong v … Sus!
E kung nagkamali ka, hindi pala si Ong yon, it was Yu. Mali, sabi, nagpapa-impress,
sasabihin ng examiner. Nagpapa-impress ito mali naman. Hindi ako na-impress of di
deduct pa.
So these are the signposts of Rem Law. Along the way, you can always avail of what?
Of Rule 65. So isisingit niyo yung along the way. Rule 65. Why? Certiorari Prohibition
Mandamus attack interlocutory orders diba? Only in special cases do they attack final
order. So pwede mo palaging isingit yung certiorari andon ka palang sa.. kahit anong
kuwan pwede mo gamitin to.. the signpost of Rem Law. So remember that. Let me go
back now to jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine the case or decide the case. Very
fundamental. Very basic. Where lies this authority? It lies with the court. Therefore, the
court has jurisdiction because the authority is not with Pres Noynoy. Neither is it with
Mar Roxas. Neither is it with Korina Sanchez. Neither is it with Janet Napoles. It is only
in the court. OK?
Kinds of Courts
SO you have to know the courts. What are these courts? We have what you call the
regular courts and the quasi-judicial bodies and quasi-tribunals. Yun yan.
Pagdating sa regular courts, we have of course the SC. We have the CA and because of
9282, we have now the Court of Tax Appeals as a regular court which did not use to be
a regular court, but now it is a regular court. Then you have the regional trial court and
then you have the MTCs. You don’t call them inferior courts. You call them lower courts.
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Ito lang ang regular courts.
Others share only in their judicial power like for example the constitutional
commissions. The COA, the COMELEC, and the Civil Service Commission. They have
quasi-judicial power or authority, but they are not regular courts.
Now, ang unang tatandaan niyo, which is a possibility also in the Bar, would be the
constitutional provisions and emphasize that even in Art 6 of the Constitution, which
has something to do with the legislative powers, mayroong provision regarding the
judges, regarding jurisdiction. So tatandaan niyo pag nag-aral kayo don sa.. san ba
yan? Sa Political Law, ay it has something to do and you know that already. BUT for
purposes of Rem Law, the most important Constitutional provision is of course in Art 8
Sec 5, which by this time you have already memorized. Ok? Kung hindi niyo pa na-
memorize yan, revisit it and try to memorize. Madali lang naman mag-memorize pagka
ganito ng panahon. Adrenaline is very high. Ang dali. Ang dali mag-memorize.
Pagdating ng November, wala na yan lahat. Sa ngayon madali. So titingnan niyo na
yon. Yun na yun because that is a matter of jurisdiction.
Remember that another principle in jurisdiction is that jurisdiction is conferred by law.
Exception: Supreme Court. Jurisdiction of the SC is conferred by the Constitution and
where do you find it? It is found in Sec 5 Art 8 of the 1987 Constitution which should
be memorized. We’ll go back to that much later.
So these are the different kinds of court, the regular court. In your book, you always
speak of court of general jurisdiction, court of special jurisdiction, that’s just a reading
matter. Sa palagay ko naman hindi naman lalabas yung mga ganon. Alright. BUT there
are certain kinds of jurisdiction which are good candidates for Bar Questions, at least
in the MCQ.
Classification of Jurisdiction
1. Original and Appellate
Unang-una, we classify jurisdiction into two general kinds as to its nature, as to its
application. First we call, original jurisdiction as against appellate jurisdiction. Pagdating
sa Evidence, ang opposite ng original is what? Secondary. Pero pagdating sa
jurisidiction, original, the opposite is appellate. Sa Evidence, original-secondary. Diba?
Dito, original. Self-explanatory. Original, so siya yung tunay mong asawa. Original diba?
Your first and only wife. What is it? When the court takes cognizance of a case for the
first time… it is in the exercise of original jurisdiction.
If it takes cognizance of a case for the second or the third or the fourth time, it is
already ang exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
So yun lang ang distinction. Original and Appellate jurisdiction. See? Original, so parang
virginal. First-timer. Diba? Pag appellate, a pangalawa na yan. Pangatlo na. Pang-apat.
See? So don’t forget it.
 Original
o Exclusive and Concurrent
When we speak of original jurisdiction, it is subdivided into two. It can either be
exclusive or concurrent. Ok, so kung iisa lang, wala ng iba, ang iyong asawa, original
exclusive yan. Kung meron kang mga mistresses, concurrent. See? So when a subject
2
matter is taken cognizance of by more than 1 court, it is in the exercise of concurrent
Page
jurisdiction like what?
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only
A petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
These petitions are under the concurrent jurisdiction of the SC, the CA and the RTCs.
Concurrent. Simply because it is cognizable by more than 1 court, that’s why it is
concurrent. Thus, a party have the right to choose where to file it? NO. Because
concurrent jurisdiction calls for application of the 3 fundamental principles on
jurisdiction, which you are very familiar with.
o 3 Fundamental Principles on Jurisdiction in Rel. to
Concurrent Jurisdiction
The principle of hierarchy of courts. The principle of transcendental importance. The
principle that the SC is not a trier of facts.
And we have several cases. Jurisdiction is replete with illustrations of this basic
principle. But among the latest which is possible to be given in the Bar is a decision of
the SC where the principle of the hierarchy of courts gives way to the principle of
transcendental importance, not the other way around.
And that is the case of GMA when she asked for TRO. [She] filed an injunction with the
SC, why should she file an injunction with the SC? And TRO? When that is cognizable
in the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by the CA, the SC and the RTC? DOJ could
have just questioned that petition on the principle of hierarchy of courts but the SC said
the hierarchy of courts principle gives way to the principle of transcendental importance.
Ano kaya itong kaso ni Napoles? Will it be given preference? Apparently, it is being
given preference now. Kinulong kagabi pero separate cell. So itong kasong ito kung
hindi man lumabas sa Rem Law, baka lumabas sa Poli Law. Kasi yung mga common
happenings yung mga nangyayari, doon kumukuha ng… so don’t forget to read when
you wake up in the morning, read the newspaper, at least, listen to the radio. Nalalaman
mo, at least, na yung bahay ni Pacquiao nabenta na. Diba? At least you must be aware
of what is going on kasi kung minsan ano ba itong… di ko pa nabasa to… ganyan. And
this case of Napoles is a possible candidate, not so much of Rem Law, but in Poli Law.
SO Concurrent jurisdiction. Principle of the hierarchy of court. Some cases that you
must be familiar with like the case of PIATCO diba? The case of Agan v PIATCO. Ok,
that’s about concurrent jurisdiction. Then, also the case of Liga ng mga Barangay v
Atienza. These are regarding exercise of concurrent jurisdiction.
SO tatlong principles muna ang tatandaan niyo, applicable in concurrent jurisdiction.:
the principle of hierarchy of courts, the principle of transcendental importance and that
the SC is not a trier of facts.
The third principle remember is illustrated… that is the ratiocination… of Rule 45. Diba?
Tatandaan mo ang Rule 45 that is appeal to the SC even from the RTC. You can go up
to the SC under Rule 45 on a pure question of law.
Ano exceptions non? The exceptions are the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data,
where remedies are still Rule 45 but not confined to pure questions of law. Both
questions of law and fact cognizable by the SC as a remedy under Rule 45. Yun ang
exception.
But the ratiocination of why Rule 45… the SC can take cognizance of cases on pure
questions of law is precisely because of that fundamental principle that the SC is not a
trier of facts so what should be brought to the SC must only pure question of law and
not question of facts. Ok!
So this is original jurisdiction which is can either be exclusive or concurrent.
 Appellate
Then appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction is of course that jurisdiction when a
case is taken cognizance of for the second time around. That’s why I call you don’t call
them inferior courts, but rather lower courts, because when you speak of inferior courts
or lower courts, they do not only refer to the MTCs but any court. Where it exercises
appellate jurisdiction, it exercises such jurisdiction against a lower court. SO the CA can
be considered a lower court vis-à-vis the SC. The RTC can be considered lower court
vis-a-vis or in relation to the CA, so on and so forth.
2. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter, Persons, Issues, Res, Territory
Then let me go now to another classification of jurisdiction, that is: jurisdiction over the
subject matter, jurisdiction over the persons of the parties in the case, jurisdiction over
the issues, jurisdiction over the res and jurisdiction over the territory. Lima yan. I’ll
start explaining it briefly from below. Let’s begin with the lowest. The fifth.
 Jurisdiction over the Territory
This jurisdiction over the territory otherwise known as territorial jurisdiction does not
apply where? It does not apply… it does not concern Civil Cases, because in Civil Cases
regarding the place, it is not jurisdictional. It is a matter of venue. And venue and
jurisdiction are two different things.
So jurisdiction over the territory applies in Criminal Cases. Why? Because in Criminal
Cases… another principle ha… venue is jurisdictional. So that’s another principle. Ilang
principle na ang napag-aralan natin so far? Four! Concurrent jurisdiction and on
territorial jurisdiction which does not apply in Civil Cases, but applies in Criminal Cases,
because of the principle that in Criminal Cases, venue is jurisdictional.
Four years ago, that was one of the questions in the Bar. True or False. It said, “Is
venue jurisdictional?” True or False? Kahit ano isagot mo don, either true or false, tama
pag tama ang reasoning mo. Diba? In Civil Cases, NO OF COURSE because venue and
jurisdiction are different. But in Criminal Cases, the answer is TRUE. Venue is
jurisdictional.
3
As I said, I will try to correlate it always with Crim Pro. You know, when you speak that
Page
venue in Crim Pro or in Crim Cases is jurisdictional, what determines where to file the
case is the place where the crime or offense was committed. Diba? SO if an offense is
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only
committed in Manila, you cannot file that in QC, because venue is jurisdictional. BUT if
it is collection for sum of money, which is Civil, well, jurisdiction where it happened is
immaterial or irrelevant, because that is a matter of venue. OK
 Jurisidiction over the Res
Then, going up, jurisdiction over the res. R-E-S. What is the res? The res is the thing
or the object of the case. The thing. SO how does the court acquire jurisdiction over
the res? BY LEGAL SEIZURE. And how is that known in Rem Law? By attachment, under
Rule 57. But the issue is, “Can the court take cognizance of a case even it has not
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?” Ordinarily, NO. Diba? But, in
special cases, YES. And what is that special case? When it is possible for you to attach
the property belonging to the defendant even if the court does not acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant, the case can still continue.
That’s why, in cross reference to Sec 1 of Rule 57, when can you attach the property of
the party? You are limited only to 6 instances, under Sec 1 of Rule 57. Outside of those
instances, you cannot attach the property of a party. SO if the defendant has properties
and there is a basis… there is a ground for attaching that property, under Sec 1 of Rule
57, then so be it. Attach the property even if the court does not acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant. The case can continue because it has acquired
jurisdiction over the res. OVER THE RES.
Now, the illustration that I gave limits the res to the thing, because in Spec Pro, the
thing is not limited… or rather the res is not limited to the thing. It can be a status, a
fact or a particular object. A status, a right or a particular fact. You know that that is
Spec Pro, yan ang concept ng res. But as far as we’re concerned at the moment, we
are talking of jurisdiction, when we speak of the res, that is the thing which is the object
of the action. OK?
SO we dispose already of two kinds of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the territory and
jurisdiction over the res.
The limitation: when the court acquired jurisdiction only over the res and not over the
person, is that when you execute the judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the
defendant, you will be limited to the res. You cannot go beyond that. Why? Because
precisely the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. So you
are limited only to the res.
If we tie that up, for further illustration, with Rule 39, you will note than an action for
a sum of money if it is not satisfied, the next recourse is levy on execution. And when
you levy, the property that is levied is sold diba? And the proceeds from the sale will
be for the satisfaction of the judgment debt. Now, if for example, the judgment debt is
100K and the proceeds from the sale is only 50K, you have a balance of 50K. if the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person hanggang don ka nalang. OK? That is
what is meant by jurisdiction over the res. BUT had you acquired jurisdiction, over the
person of the defendant, still you can get the balance.
Many other… you can again what? You can again ano yon? Yung Sec 36 and 37 of Rule
39. Ano yon? Examination of the Judgment-Obligor, Examination of the Obligor of the
Judgment-Obligor, yung mga receivables, mga sale of ascertainable interests, yung
mga ganyan.
You will note, as you notice now ha, sana you can still catch up kasi pag may isa akong
topic sa jurisdiction, ine-expand ko na. expanded. Ngayon, kasi review naman ito e.
The presumption is that you know this. The presumption is that nirerefresh ko nalang
ang memory niyo. If this is something alien or greek to you, e that’s dangerous. Diba?
Siguro ang mga bago lang siguro rito when we go now to jurisprudence. Kasi review
nga e, I’m refreshing or confirming what you learned already.
So jurisdiction over the res. Take note of the limitation ha.
 Jurisdiction over the Issues
Going up, jurisdiction over the issues. Ano ang principle of jurisdiction regarding issues?
Jurisdiction over the issues is determined by the allegations in the pleadings. YAN… yun
ang principle don, jurisdiction over the issues is determined by the allegations in the
pleadings. SO if it is not alleged in the pleadings, the court has no jurisdiction over that
issue and it is contestible in the course of the proceeding. You can contest it. The court
has no jurisdiction over that issue. It was never raised in the pleading.
The very common example that I gave. Some of you would still recall is a simple case
for a sum of money where in the course of the proceeding, the plaintiff is on the witness
stand and he is being asked by the lawyer what happened when the defendant did not
pay you? I wrote him a letter. I have here a letter. In what relation is this letter to what
you just mentioned? Kung hindi natutulog yung counsel for the defense, he said,
“objection, Your Honor.” It was never raised in the pleadings. The court has no
jurisdiction over that kind of demand. It was never raised in the pleadings.” See? Can
that be objected to? YES. Because that thing was not raised in the pleading. The court
did not acquire over that kind of issue.
Now, siguro more pronounced example must be in Rule 70. You know Rule 70? Unlawful
Detainer Forcible Entry. Remember that the issue there is only possession de facto.
BUT Sec 16 of Rule 70 says that when the issue of ownership is raised in the pleading,
the court is not divested of its jurisdiction. Diba? The court is not divested of its
jurisdiction, because if there is no issue of ownership in an Unlawful Detainer case, the
court cannot decide issue of ownership. But if it is raised in the pleading, the court
acquires jurisdiction over the issue of ownership and what the Sec 16 of Rule 70 says,
it provides that the court must decide the issue of ownership only to resolve the issue
of possession. SEE? So, it is not final. Res Judicata will not apply. But that is an
illustration of jurisdiction over the issues. That jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations in the pleading. That which is not alleged- that issue is beyond the authority
of the court.
So tatlo na! Territory, Res, Issues.
4
Page
 Jurisdiction over the Persons of the Parties
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only
Let’s go now higher… jurisdiction over the persons of the parties in a case. Parties in a
case are provided for under Rule 3. Diba? The parties. Sa ngayon, tatandaan niyo ha.
In every Civil Case, there is only a maximum of 5 kinds of parties. Wala ng iba. Hindi
na lalampas yon.
Let me call that, for our discussion, until the end of our review, A-B-C-D-E, para…
When I say A, alam niyo na plaintiff yon.
When I say B, alam niyo na defendant.
When I say C, co-defendant.
When I say D, he is either the third-party, the fourth-party, or the fifth-[arty defendant.
Ok?
And E is the intervenor under Rule 19. Intervention.
SO ABCDE are the only parties in a Civil Case to the max. Wala ng lalampas don,
although Mr. D may stand for a third-party, for a fourth party or a fifth party. Diba? So
dalawa nag Chinese dito. Mr. C and Mr. D. ABCDE.
In Criminal Cases, dalawa lang ang party. It’s either… sino? The private complainant is
not a party ha in a Criminal Case kaya nga under the Rule of Evidence, can we exclude
a private complainant in the course of the proceedings? YES. He can be excluded. “You
are not a party. You are only a witness.” See?
Who are the parties? The Rep. of the Phils or People of the Phils. And the accused.
Dalawa lang in Criminal Cases kasi under Rule 110 of Crim Pro, nou counterclaim, no
crossclaim, no third-party complaint dito sa Crim Case. So in Crim Cases, there are only
2 parties.
In Special Proceedings, iisa lang ang party and that is the petitioner. It does not call for
a defendant. Exception to that, is what? The exception is habeas corpus. Rule 102
because habeas corpus calls for a respondent kasi sino ang magbibigay ng return kung
walang respondent. Ok?
Now, in a petition for a writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data, yon kelangan din
ng respondent. But wala naman specific rules don sa writ of amparo. It is special
administrative matter. Alright.
So 5 parties. ABCDE. How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of A? The
person of A the plaintiff. Ito, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of A upon
filing of the complaint and timely payment of the correct docket fees. Underscore the 2
words qualifying the payment. TIMELY and CORRECT. Because jurisprudence is replete
with the fact that even if you pay the docket fee but it is incorrect, the court does not
acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff. Even if it is correct, if it was paid out of time, the
court does not acquire jurisdiction. That’s why when does the court acquire jurisdiction
over the person of A? Upon filing of the complaint and timely payment of the correct
docket fee.
In relation to Crim Pro, tatandaan niyo, it is not upon filing of the information, but upon
filing of the complaint with the prosecutor’s office. That is how a Crim complaint is
initiated in Crim Cases. NOT upon filing of the information- a thing that has been
discussed already by Fiscal Salva- but upon… you might say… complaint or information…
siyempre may mga exceptions yan yung mga kung diretso sa court yung complaint,
diba? If it is punishable by less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day.
Anyway, I am trying to adjust it. So A the plaintiff the court acquired jurisdiction over
his person upon filing of the complaint and timely payment of the correct docket fees.
Remember, that the prevailing doctrine now regarding docket fees has gone back to
FGU v Alday.
Natanggal yon because of Korean Technologies Inc. v Lerma, where it says that as of
August 16 2004. Payment of docket fees is required even for compulsory counterclaims.
That has been overturned again by Mercado v CA and we have gone back to FGU v
Alday. So the prevailing doctrine is that for counterclaims, what is required is only for
permissive…docket fees. Payment of docket fees is required only for permissive
counterclaim. The Lerma case, Korean Tech. Inc., was 2008 of January, which was
overturned in Oct of the same year by Mercado v CA, going back to the old doctrine laid
down in Alday v FGU, because you do not only pay for the initial pleading. You also pay
for the counterclaim. The counterclaim is actually the complaint of the defendant
against the plaintiff. Diba? You have also to pay docket fee in order for the court to
acquire jurisdiction over the counterclaim. Pero nga dalawang klase kasi yon,
permissive and compulsory. And the doctrine now says that you are only required to
pay for pemissive counterclaim. Compulsory, NO. Alright.
Ngayon, aside from that, aside from the initiatory pleading, where docket fees are
required, appeal fees… appeal docket fees are also required so that if it is not timely
paid, then, you know that old case of Brgy 24 Legaspi City v Imperial? That’s an old
case, but the latest case was a 2009 case is the case of SLU v Cobarubias(?) Ano yung
mga doctrines dito? There were payments of appellate docket fees but the payments
were belated. Yung Brgy. 24 siyempre it emanated from Legaspi and Legaspi is about
500 km from Manila. Finile dito sa CA, then the CA ordered the petitioner “kulang yung
docket fees mo” kulang ng 2 pesos something. Kakaunti lang. Sabi ng lawyer sa
Legaspi, under the Rules, tama na yon. So hindi na siya nag-add ng addtl fees. The
next order that he got, from the CA, dismissal of the Appeal. He filed a motion for
reconsideration, denied. He wanted to pay… “2 pesos lang to” pero at that time, ang 2
pesos mga isang paketeng Marlboro yan, not just 1 pack diba? E ngayon baka itapon
yan ng pulubing bibigyan mo.
At any rate, the point here is that it was incorrect. The docket fees. Ngayon, that
became more pronounced in the latest case- 2009 o 2010 case. This case of SLU v
Cabarubias. Ito labor case ito pero nung mag-appeal si Cobarubias sa CA, diba? From
Labor, diba? Illegal Dismissal case. Cobarubias was a member of the faculty of SLU
Baguio and then when he filed an illegal dismissal case, yun na nga, she got it and then
kulang pa. She wanted more, she appealed of course to the Commission. I’m using the
word appeal. To be very technical about it, it should not be appeal kasi sa labor cases
walang appeal. Diba? Certiorari yon. But anyway just for this purposes, let’s use it as
5
appeal. Pag-akyat niya doon sa CA, walang docket fees o yung docket fees kulang. And
Page
SLU questioned that. Sabi ni Cobarubias, “So let me pay.” So she offered to pay.. SLU
said, “time na. nag-prescribe na” because you can only pay within a certain timeframe.
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only
So the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal. And so the decision of the
appellate court was NULL and VOID.
When it went up to the SC, the SC held, CA decision NULL and VOID. Why? CA has no
jurisdiction over the case. Why? Because there was no payment of the correct docket
fee. Timely payment of the correct docket fee.
So payment of docket fees is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. So that is how the
court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff.
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of B? B is the defendant. You
know that. The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of B thru VALID SERVICE OF
SUMMONS. Don’t just say service of summons, because if the service is invalid, the
court does not acquire jurisdiction. Therefore, valid service of summons. Rule 14. We’ll
discuss that tomorrow siguro abutin na natin ang Rule 14. Valid service of summons or
VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE. That’s how the court acquires jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant.
Tie-ing that up with Crim Cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
accused thru lawful arrest. Or voluntary surrender. Kasi ang iba, is still of the impression
that the court acquired jurisdiction upon arraignment. NO. the jurisdiction is acquired
not upon arraignment but upon lawful arrest or voluntary surrender.
Now, how about in Spec Pro? How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person
of the petitioner and over the case? Thru publication. In Spec Pro, always publication.
The mode.
In Special Civil Action, how does the court acquire jurisdiction? Depende sa Rule. In
Certiorari for example, it’s not thru service of summons but rather upon order, receipt
of copy of the order to file a comment. Yon that’s how the court acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant. Upon receipt of the order, hindi summons. But in
other Special Civil Action, may summons.
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of C? who is C? C is a co-
defendant. Ito pareho lang. Service of summons voluntary appearance.
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of D? who is D? D is a third-
party defendant, fourth or the fifth, considering that D is also a defendant, the acquires
jurisdiction upon summons as well or voluntary surrender which can be done… so pare
pareho dito sa defendant.
Then, going to E. E is the intervenor. How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the
person of E? The court acquires jurisdiction upon approval by the court of a motion for
leave to intervene because under Rule 19, you cannot file an intervention without being
preceded by a motion for leave, so motion for leave to admit intervention whether it is
a complaint-in-intervention or an answer-in-intervention. That’s how the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the intervenor. OK!
So we are through now with the 4 kinds of jurisdiction. Juris over the territory, over the
res, over the issues, and jurisdiction over the persons of the parties in a case.
Let’s go now to the first which is the most important. Jurisdiction over the subject
matter. Natatandaan niyo ba kung ilang principles na ang jurisdiction have we studied
so far? We have studied already about 7… jurisdiction. Dito, what is the principle
regarding jurisdiction over the subject matter? The principle is jurisdiction over the
subject matter is CONFERRED BY LAW, except jurisdiction of the SC which is conferred
by the Constitution.
So in going over in discussing jurisdiction over the subject matter, we cannot help but
go to the laws on jurisdiction and the basic and fundamental law on jurisdiction is of
course, BP 129, as amended by 7691. Mabuti hindi pa nagbabago yun pa rin ha. 7691.
But let me remind you that in reading 7691, if you have it in your right hand, in your
left hand, read or also 8369 so that you don’t get confused because in both BP 129 as
well as in 7691, it has not taken cognizance of the amendatory rules or provision of
such 7691 in 8369. Ano ba ang 8369? This is a law creating the Family Courts, kaya
tatandaan niyo. Kasi nakalagay doon kahit tingnan niyo ang BP 129, as amended by
7691, pag tiningnan niyo lang, number 5 doon nakalagay, all cases regarding marriage
and marital relation. E wala na yan, diba? Because now the Family Courts are different
from the RTCs. Iba yon.
I was discussing with my regular class regarding guardiansip if you try to look at
administrative matter 03-02-05 which took effect in 2003, this is about what?
Guardianship over the minor nakalagay don, that guardianship over the minor is
cognizable by the Family Court. BUT guardianship over the incompetent, under Rules
92-97, by the RTC. I was telling them, NO MORE. Because of 8369. Whether it is
guardianship over the incompetent or guardianship over the minor, it is cognizable by
the Family Court. So pag binasa niyo yon, because this is jurisdiction over the subject
matter, pag binasa niyo yung 7691 which is the principal rule on jurisdiction, the
principal law on jurisdiction at present, be very careful you have as well your 8369. And
you will find out that there are still certain subject matter under 7691, which are
supposed to be no longer there, because of 8369. Alright, we will go to the more salient
points.
As I said, jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and because it is
conferred by law, the exception is that of the SC, why? Because the jurisdiction of the
SC is conferred by the Constitution. The SC is the only constitutional court, only ha, the
Sandiganbayan is a constitutionally mandated court, you get it? The only constitutional
court is the SC. It is a creation of the constitution. But the Sandiganbayan is
constitutionally-mandated court. It is a creation of law as mandated by the Constitution.
What law created that? PD 1606, as amended later on.
So going now first on the Constitution, I told you that you must have memorized by
this time then a little explanation will be helpful. You find that in Sec 5 Art 8 of the
Constitution. You will note that as far… this is the… this was given in 1987 Bar question
number 1 in Poli Law. “What is the power of judicial review?” Ang sagot niyan ito, Sec
5 Art 8 of the Constitution. Ngayon, you please revisit that provision, because that’s
quite important. As far as jurisdiction is concerned, anim yon diba? What constitute in
toto the power of judicial review is found there. Anim yon. Yung number 1, ang
mnemonic ko kasi diyan, ERAPOA:
6
Page
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only
E- exercise O-original jurisdiction over cases involving A-ambassadors, P-public
ministers, and over petitions for certiorari prohibition and mandamus quo warranto and
habeas corpus.
(nasan na yung ibang letters?)
Alam mo dapat kasi alam na alam natin kasi pag pumunta na tayo sa mga specific
provisions like Rule 66 quo warranto, pag tinanong what is the jurisdiction? This court
has the jurisdiction over quo warranto. Diba? Can you file a petition for quo warranto
with the SC? Siyempre you need to observe hierarchy of courts, transcendental
importance, the SC is not a trier of facts because concurrent.
But at least you are aware because you are backed up by constitutional provision.
Tingnan niyo rito, exercise original jurisdiction. There two kinds of original jurisdiction
diba? Exclusive and concurrent as we have discussed a while ago. Ang sinasabi dito
original jurisdiction. Hindi sinasabing exclusive.
Question: supposed you are asked, state the cases over which the SC has exclusive
original jurisdiction.
O, ang andon sa Constitution, exercise original jurisdiction. Hindi sinabing exclusive.
Now, does that mean therefore that it is concurrent? If it is not exclusive, there is no
other choice, so this is concurrent. So you are being asked now, give me instances
where the SC has exclusive original jurisdiction. Anong mga kaso yon? Pinag-aaralan
yan pagdating sa Appeal. Diba? Because I always guide examinees this way. You only,
at the moment, under the present dispensation, you only remember 5 tribunals. Lima
lang ang tatandaan niyo para hindi magulo: CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA, COA and
COMELEC. Itong lima lang na to. Pag galling ka rito, wala kang ibang pupuntahan kundi
SC. Itong lima lang na to. All the rest CA. So pag binigyan ka ng problem on appeal
from these 5 bodies, you will go nowhere else except to the SC. Diba?
Ano? Papano? How do you go there? Kasi kung appeal yan, you go now to the second
paragraph of Sec 5 Art 8 of the Consti, because Sec 1 refers to original jurisdiction.
Pagdating na Sec 2, paragraph 2 of Sec 5, what does it say? Review, revise, reverse,
affirm or modify. OK. How? In two ways: by appeal or certiorari. That’s why you have
now to make a distinction. By appeal… how do you appeal to the SC? You appeal to the
SC only under Rule 45. And under Rule 45, it is by petition for review. Is there now an
appeal to the SC by notice of appeal? O sige nga. Wala? Nakooooo.
Give me an illustration of an appeal to the SC by notice of appeal. Landmark yung kaso
ng People v Mateo, Criminal Case. People v Mateo created another form of appeal in
criminal cases which is intermediate appeal. Remember that People v Mateo took or
was issued even prior to the abolition of the death penalty. Kaya nga pagdating ng…
hindi dumirediretso walang… tinanggal yung automatic appeal diba? That’s when the
RTC or the Sandiganbayan… you go directly to the SC. NO! I’m talking of Crim Pro ha,
not Civil Procedure. You don’t go directly to the SC. You have to go to the CA on
intermediate review. Mandatory yan. You cannot go directly.
Tinanggal yung death penalty, natira reclusion perpetua. Life imprisonment. Will People
v Mateo still apply? With more reason that it apply. Wala ng death penalty. Wala ng
automatic review. So you go to the CA. If the CA affirms, what do you do? Petition for
review? [NO, but] Notice of Appeal. Pag hindi ka nag-notice of appeal, nako kalaboso
yung kliyente mo. Wala ng automatic review ngayon. Intermediate review. And not to
the SC but to the CA.
Pero tatandaan niyo pa rin ha, basic yung lima: CA, Sandiganbayan… bakit sinama yung
CTA? Because of the amendment, because of the law 9282. Elevating the CTA to the
level of CA. Kaya ngayon, appeal from the CTA will now be to the SC. That is if it is
decided by the CTA En Banc. Tatandaan niyo yon.
Sa SC, walang En Banc. You cannot as a matter of right, you go to… Kahit ginagamit
ng ibang law offices yan but under the rules, wala yan. But in 9282, CTA, when you go
now to the SC, only if the decision is rendered by the CTA En Banc, because if it is
decided by division, you can appeal En Banc. And it is only an En Banc decision that
you bring that up to the SC.
Now, going back to Sec 2, review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm. Diba? Either appeal
or certiorari. Kapag appeal, sabi ko nga 45. Kapag certiorari, 65. BUT TAKE NOTE, that
certiorari under 65 is a special civil action. It is not a mode of appeal. Basic is the
distinction between 45 and 65. While in 65 it is a special civil action separate and
distinct, 45 is a continuation because it is a mode of appeal. While in 45, you can only
raise questions of law, in 65 you can only raise error of jurisdiction. Kaya nga you have
a distinction between errors of judgment and error of jurisdiction. Alright.
So take note, but here, under the Constitution, in going up to the SC, you have two
ways. You can go there by appeal or thru certiorari. Ano ba yun? Exclusive? Of course
not! So what is now the exclusive jurisdiction of the SC? Exclusive original jurisdiction
of the SC, so kaya niyo sagutin yon. Ano nalang, edi dito nalang sa lima. Wala kang
ibang pupuntahan. Diba? If the decision final order judgment emanate from any of the
5, exclusive yan sa SC, either by appeal or certiorari. Pag certiorari, yon ang exclusive
original jurisdiction of the SC. Kasi wala kang ibang pupuntahan. Otherwise, you apply
concurrent jurisdiction. Nagkakaintindihan ba tayo?
Ito lang naman ang jurisdictional provisions, yung apat don, it’s different power of the
SC. So yung number 1… ah par. A, original jurisdiction. Par. B, appellate jurisdiction
and that appeal is limited to 5 areas. Constitutionality, illegality of tax imposed, and
then when the issue is jurisdiction. Then going to the 4, let me emphasize par 5-
promulgate rules concerning protection in enforcement of constitutional right, pleading,
practice, yan. Why do I emphasize Sec 5? Binigay na kasi sa Bar. Kaya pwede ibigay
uli. Matagal ng binigay sa Bar yan. “What is the rule-making power of the SC?”
Constitutional. Kasi sabi nila judicial legislation. NO it is not because it is precisely
supported by the Constitution. This is the reason par. 5 Sec 5 Art 8 of the Constitution.
In one of my final exams for example, I gave the case of Magundanao Massacre where
the prosecution moved for change of venue on the ground that there might be a
miscarriage of justice and the RTC granted the motion for change of venue. Was the
order of the court proper? Of course not! It’s only the SC that can change the venue.
Nasa Constitution diba? Par. 4. Order for a Change of Venue. So humingi ka ng
permission. But you cannot change venue. RTC CA. It’s only the SC which has the
power. Now, will the SC grant it you… ok, you ask permission and then that will be
7
granted… kasi nilipat sa QC diba? Ewan ko itong kay Napoles kung san. Yung kay
Sanchez v Demetrio diba nilipat din. Alright.
Page
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

SO, This is jurisdiction over the subject matter as far as the SC is concerned, it is
conferred by the Constitution. All the rest is conferred by law and the law the we are
going to deal with now would be 7691.

So with regard to the CA, isa lang ang tatandaan niyong original exclusive jurisdiction
of the CA. That is an action for annulment of judgment of RTC. Yun lang. Wala ng iba.
Yung iba concurrent na. Where do you find that? Rule 47 Annulment of Judgment and
you know under Rule 47, dalawa lang, limited grounds diba? Fraud, extrinsic fraud, and
jurisdiction. OK! So all the res concurrent, certiorari prohibition mandamus quo
warranto habeas corpus concurrent.

And pagdating sa appeal, all the rest appealable to the CA, except yung lima kaya
tatandaan yung lima… wala kang ibang pupuntahan. Hanggang don ka nalang sa SC.

8
Page