New Era University

College of Law

Jurisdiction
Academic Year 2019-2020
Second Semester

Atty. Deanne Mhel C. Clemencia1

I. OVERVIEW

A. Definitions and Concepts

1. Judicial Power

a. Meaning of Judicial Power; justiciable controversy

 Belgica vs. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493 & 209251, November
19,2013
 Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. Nos. G.R. No. 160261 etc.,
November 10, 2003; 460 Phil. 830 (2003)
 Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 158 (1936)
 Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. L-34150, October 16,1971
 Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, etc., et al. G.R. Nos. L-36142, etc., March
31, 1973
 Ocampo vs. Cabañgis, 15 Phil. 626 (1910) – judicial self-restraint

b. Political question

 Lansang vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-33964, December 11,1971

 Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28,2010
 Mamba vs. Lara, et al., G.R. No. 165109, December 14,2009
 Fortun vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, et al. and consolidated cases, G.R. Nos.
190293, etc., March 20,2012

2. Courts and Judges; Definitions

a. Court of law and court of equity distinguished

1
This syllabus is largely based on that made by Dean Serafin V. Cuevas, Jr., as edited by Atty.
Alfierri E. Bayalan.
 Ting Ho, Jr., et al. vs. Teng Gui, G.R. No. 130115, July 16,2008
 In re: Petition for Separation of Property; Muller vs. Muller, G.R. No.
149615, August 29,2006
 Philippine Carpet Manufacturing Corp. vs. Tagyamon, G.R. No. 191475,
December 11,2013
 DPWH v. Quiwa, G.R. No. 183444, February 8, 2012
 LBP v. Ong, G.R. No. 190755, November 24, 2010

b. Court of Justice and Quasi-judicial bodies distinguished

 Republic of the Philippines vs. Asuncion, G.R. No. 108208, March 11,1994
 Pichay, Jr. vs. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs-
IAD, G.R. No. 196425, July 24,2012
 Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935 &
193036, December 7,2010
 Simon, Jr. vs. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 100150, January
5,1994
 Cariño vs. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 96681, December
12,1991

c. Jurisdiction distinguished from exercise of jurisdiction

 Antonino vs. Register of Deeds of Makati City, G.R. No. 185663, June 2012
 Spouses Abrenica vs. Law Firm of Abrenica, et al., G.R. No. 180572, June
18,2012
 Spouses Manila vs. Spouses Manzo, G.R. No. 163602, September 7,2011
 Navida, et al. vs. Dizon, Jr., et al. and allied cases, G.R. Nos. 125078, et al.,
May 30,2011
 Republic of the Philippines vs. Judge Mangotara, etc., et al., G.R. Nos.
170375, et al., October 13,2010

 Vide: §1 of Rules 40, 41, 43, and 45 and of Rule 65.

d. Contradistinguished from venue

1. Venue
 Dolot vs. Paje, etc., et al., G.R. No. 199199, August 27,2013
 Ang vs. Spouses Ang, G.R. No. 186993, August 22,2012
 Taglay vs. Daray, G.R. No. 164258, August 22,2012
 Spouses Mendiola vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159746, July 18,2012
 Civil Service Commission vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173121, April
3,2013

Compare with:

 Civil Service Commission vs. Alfonso, G.R. No. 179452, June 11,2009, 589
SCRA 88;
 Civil Service Commission vs. Sojos, G.R. No. 168766,May 22,2008, 554
SCRA 160
 Associated Labor Union vs. Ramolete, L-23537, March 31,1965
 De la Cruz vs. Moir, 36 Phil. 213

i. Venue and jurisdiction in criminal actions

 Sto. Tomas, et al. vs. Salac, et al., G.R. Nos. 152642, 152710, et al., November
13,2012

3. Classification of jurisdiction

a. Original concurrent jurisdiction vis-à-vis original exclusive

jurisdiction

 Civil Service Commission vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 178162, October 9,2012
 Llamas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 149588, September 29,2009
 Lastimoso vs. Asayo, G.R. No. 154243, March 6,2007
 Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. June 22,2005
 Alejandro vs. Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence
Bureau, G.R. No. 173121, April 3,2013

b. Doctrines involved affecting jurisdiction and the exercise of

jurisdiction
 i. Doctrine of PRIMARY JURISDICTION in relation to
doctrine of EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES

 Province of Aklan vs. Jody King Construction and Development

Corporation, G.R. Nos. 197592 & 202623, November 27,2013
 Smart Communications, Inc. vs. Aldecoa, G.R. No. 166330, September
11,2013
 San Miguel Properties, Inc. vs. Perez, G.R. 166836, September 4,2013
 Bank of Commerce vs. Planters Development Bank, G.R. Nos. 154470-71&
& 154589-90, September 24,2012
 Addition Hills Mandaluyong Civic & Social Organization, Inc. vs.
Megaworld Properties & Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 175039, April 18,2012
 Saavedra vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, 159 SCRA 57 (1988)
 Blue Bar Coconut Phils. vs. Tantuico, 163 SCRA 716 (1988)

ii. Doctrine of CONTINUING JURISDICTION

 Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 198554, July 30,2012

iii. Jurisdiction over the person or JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM

1. Civil actions

 Optima Realty Corp. vs. Hertz Phil. Exclusive Cars, Inc., G.R. No. 183035,
January 9,2013
 Ellice Agro-Industrial Corp. vs. Young, G.R. No. 174077, November 21,2012
 Afadal vs. Carlos, G.R. No. 173379, December 1,2010
 Rapid City Realty and Development Corp. vs. Spouses Villa, G.R. No.
184197, February 11, 2010
 Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82971, Sept.
15,1989
 Europa vs. Hunters Garments Mfg., Inc., G.R. No. 72827, July 18,1989
 Sharruf vs. Bubla, G.R. No. L-17029, Sept. 30,1964
 Aban vs. Enage, G.R. No. L-30666, Feb. 25,1983

 Vide: Rule 14
 iv. Jurisdiction over the subject matter – JURISDICTION IN REM
 Applied Food Ingredients Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No. 184266, November 11,2013
 Medical Plaza Makati Condominium Corp. vs. Cullen, G.R. No. 181416,
November 11,2013
 Province of Aklan vs. Jody King Construction and Development Corp., G.R.
No. 197592 & 202623, November 27,2013
 Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173946, June
19,2013
 Padlan vs. Spouses Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20,2013
o (application of the exception established in Sibonghanoy vs. Tijam,
131 Phil. 556 (1968)
 People of the Philippines vs. Estrebella, 164 SCRA 114
 Lloraña vs. Leonidas, 159 SCRA 332 (1988)
 Republic Planters’ Bank vs. Molina, 166 SCRA 39 (1988)
 Associated Labor Union (ALU-TUCP) vs. Borromeo, 166 SCRA 99 (1988)

II. Types of action

A. Action in rem, quasi in rem and action in personam distinguished

 Macasaet vs. Co, Jr., G.R. No. 156759. June 5, 2013

 NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Ltd. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining
Company, G.R. No. 175799, November 28, 2011
 Lucas vs. Lucas, G.R. No. 190710. June 6, 2011
 Republic of the Philippines vs. Mercadera, G.R. No. 186027. December 8,
2010
 Spouses Torres vs. Medina, et al., G.R. No. 166730. March 10, 2010
 Acosta, et al. vs. Salazar, et al., G.R. No. 161034. June 30, 2009
 Republic of the Philippines vs. Glasgow Credit and Collection Services,
Inc., G.R. No. 170281, January 18,2008
 Manotok Realty, Inc., et al. vs. CLT Development Corp., G.R. No. 123346.
December 14, 2007
 Republic of the Philippines vs. Mangotara, G.R. Nos. 170375, etc., July 7,
2010
 Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, G.R. No. 161417. February 8,
2007
 Velayo-Fong vs. Velayo, G.R. No. 155488. December 6, 2006
 B. Accion reivindicatoria and accion publiciana distinguished

 Spouses Aldover, et als. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167174. September
23, 2013
 Ganila, et als. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 150755. June 28, 2005
 Jose vs. Alfuerto, et als., G.R. No. 169380. November 26, 2012
 Vda. De Viray vs. Spouses Usi, G.R. No. 192486. November 21, 2012
 Monasterio-Pe, et al. vs. Tong, etc., G.R. No. 151369. March 23, 2011

C. Class suit

 Legaspi Towers 300, et als. vs. Muer, G.R. No. 170783. June 18, 2012
 Juana Complex I Homeowners’ Association, Inc., et als. vs. Fil-Estate Land,
Inc., et als., G.R. No. 152272. March 5, 2012
 Banda, et als. vs. Ermita, et al., G.R. No. 166620. April 20, 2010
 Public Interest Center, Inc., et als. vs. Roxas, et al., G.R. No. 125509. January
31, 2007

III. The Judiciary

A. Source of authority

1. 1987 Constitution

a. Section 1, Article VIII (Judicial Department)

b. Statutory history on the organization of the judiciary/judicial

system in the Philippines

1. Act No. 136 (1901) Act providing for the organization

of courts in the Philippine Islands including the
Supreme Court

2. Administrative Code of 1916 and 1917

3. Republic Act No. 296 (Judiciary Law of 1948 as

amended by RA Nos. 2613, 3828 and 6031)

4. Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended

 B. Organization of Courts

1. Supreme Court

a. Composition and organization – Section 4(1), Article VIII,

1987 Constitution

1. Composition - Internal Rules of the Supreme Court,

Rule 2, Sec. 8

“The composition of each Division shall be based on seniority. The Chief

Justice may, however, consider factors other than seniority in Division
assignments. The appointment of a new Member of the Court shall necessitate the
reorganization of Divisions at the call of the Chief Justice.”

2. Effect of reorganization of a division of the Supreme

Court - Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 2,
Sec. 9

"Effect of reorganization of Division on assigned cases. — In the

reorganization of Membership of Divisions, cases already assigned to a Member-
in-Charge shall be transferred to the Division to which the Member-in-Charge
moves, subject to the rule on the resolution of motions for reconsideration under
Section 7 of this Rule. The Member-in-Charge is the Member given the
responsibility of overseeing the progress and disposition of a case assigned by
raffle."

i. Qualification, appointment, tenure of office, and removal

from office

1. Qualifications, appointment and tenure

i. Section 7(1), Article VIII 1987 Constitution

ii. Section 9, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

a. Section 8, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

iii. Section 11, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

2. Removal from office - Section 2, Article XI, 1987

Constitution
 i. Removal ONLY through impeachment and not
by any other action or process

 Cuenco vs. Fernan, A.C. No. 3135, February 17,1988

3. Vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice - Section 4(1),

Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

 De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. Nos. 191002, etc., March
17,2010

b. Decisions promulgated by the Supreme Court shall form part

of the legal system

 Calderon vs. Carale, etc., et al., G.R. No. 91636, April 23,1992

1. Decisions of the Supreme Court even if decided by one

of its divisions remains a decision of the court as a
whole

“There is only one Supreme Court from whose decision all other courts should take their
bearings.”

 United States v. Lim Siongco, 41 Phil 94 (1920)

 Diaz vs. Republic, G.R. No. 181502, February 2,2010
 Commission on Higher Education v. Dasig, G.R. No. 172776, 17 December
2008, 574 SCRA 227
 Albert v. Court of First Instance of Manila, No. L-26364, 29 May 1968, 23
SCRA 948, 961
 Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. L-
58011 and L-58012, November 18,1993
 In re: Petition for Clarification as to the Validity and Forceful Effect of Two
Final and Executory But Conflicting Decisions of the Honorable Supreme
Court, G.R. No. 123780, September 24,2002

c. Supreme Court as a constitutional court

 Conchada vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. 10292, March 31,1915; 31 Phil. 94
– Supreme Court has expressly ruled as to its being a constitutional court
 Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. L-34150, October 16,1971
 Ocampo vs. Cabañgis, 15 Phil. 626 (1910) – judicial self-restraint
  Delbros Hotel Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72566,
April 12,1988
 De la Llana vs. Alba, G.R. No. 57883, March 12,1982
 In re: Aquino vs. Enrile, Jr., G.R. No. L-35546, September 17,1974
 Fuentes vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. 22449, July 28,1924; 46 Phil. 22

1. Political questions

 Belgica vs. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493 & 209251, November
19,2013
 Fortun, et al. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, etc., et al., and consolidated cases, G.R.
Nos. 190293, March 20,2012
 Vinuya vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 162230, April 28,2010
 Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. 157584
 In re: Lansang vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-33964, December 11,1971

i. When doctrine of political question not applied

or applicable

 IDEALS, Inc. vs. PSALM Corp., G.R. No. 192088, October 9,2012
 Mamba vs. Lara, G.R. No. 165109, December 14,2009

2. How the Supreme Court determine cases that shall be

tried en banc or by a division

i. Cases cognizable by the Court en banc – Section

4(2), 1987 Constitution

ii. Cases cognizable by the Court through one of its

Division – Section 4(3)

3. Internal Rules of Procedure of the Supreme Court

governing the raffle of cases either to en banc or
division

i. Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 7, Sec.

2–

"Two Raffle Committees — one for the en banc and the other for Division cases,
each to be composed of a Chairperson and two members — shall be designated by
the Chief Justice from among the Members of the Court on the basis of seniority."
 ii. Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 6,
Section 6

"A court attorney in the Docket Division shall preliminarily classify the petitions
and appeals filed as en banc or as Division Cases in accordance with law."
(Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 6, Sec. 6)

iii. Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 6,

Section 4

"The initiatory pleadings duly docketed by the Judicial Records Office shall be
classified into en banc and Division cases for purposes of the raffle. The Clerk of
Court shall forthwith make a report on the classified cases to the Chief Justice."
(Id., Sec. 4)

4. Decision by a division of the Supreme Court is a

decision by the Court

 Apo Fruits Plantation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164195, April 30, 2008
 Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc. vs. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp., G.R.
Nos. 180880-1808896-97, September 18,2012
 J.G. Summit Holdings vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124293, January
31,2005
 In re: Letters of Atty. Estelito Mendoza, A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC March 13,2012

5. Decision of the Supreme Court not reviewable by any

other body even by the other coequal branches

 In re: Joaquin Boromeo, A.M. No. 93-7-696-0, February 21,1995

ii. Authority of the Supreme Court over administrative matters

or cases within the judiciary

1. Section 5(6), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

2. Change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage

of justice - Section 5(4), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

iii. Administrative authority over courts and personnel

10
 1. Section 5(3), 1987 Constitution; Section 17, 18, BP Blg
129 as amended

2. Section 6, 1987 Constitution

 Re: Alleged Corruption in the Court of Appeals, Cagayan De Oro City,

A.M. No. 07-6-14-CA, January 18,2011
 Re: Request of Assistant Court Administrators, A.M. Nos. 03-10-05-SC &
03-11-25-SC, July 20,2006
 Ampong vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 167916, August 26, 2008

iv. Rule-making power – Section 5(5), Article VIII, 1987

Constitution; Section 24, BP Blg 129 as amended

 GSIS vs. Cancino-Erum, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2182, September 5,2012

 Macalintal vs. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191618, November
23,2010 (Decision)
 Macalintal vs. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 191618, June 7,2011
(Resolution)
 Benguet Corporation vs. DENR, G.R. No. 163101, February 13,2008
 Republic of the Philippines vs. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 166429, December
19,2005
 Tan vs. Bausch & Lomb Inc., G.R. No. 148420, December 15,2005
 Garcia, et al. vs. De Vera, A.C. No. 6052, December 11,2003

d. Supreme Court sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal Section 4,

paragraph 7, Article VII, 1987 Constitution

e. Limitation: when exercise of authority borders on judicial legislation

 People of the Philippines vs. Panfilo Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, April 1,2003
 Credit corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 169899,
February 6,2013
 Fetalino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 191890, December 4,2012

f. ORIGINAL jurisdiction over certain cases

i. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and

consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus - Section 1,
Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

11
  Liang vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 125865, March 26,2001

1. CONCURRENT jurisdiction with lower courts over

petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto and habeas corpus

i. Application of the doctrine of hierarchy of

courts

a. Relaxation of the rule

 Gerochi, et al. vs. Department of Energy, et al., G.R. No. 159796, July
17,2007
 Liga ng mga Barangay National vs. City Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. 154599,
January 21,2004
 Dy vs. Bibat-Palamos, G.R. No. 196200, September 11,2013

2. Cases involving the constitutionality or validity of any

treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question - Section 2(a),
Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

 Bayan Muna vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, February 1,2011

 People of the Philippines vs.Mercado, et al., G.R. No. 116239, November
29,2000

a. Extradition

 Government of the United States vs. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, December
17,2002 (Resolution)
 Government of the United States vs. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, September
24,2002 (Decision)

3. Cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,

assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto - Section 2(b), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

 Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corp. vs. Commissioner of

Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 159471, January 26,2011
 Smart Communications, Inc. vs. City of Davao, G.R. No. 155491, July
21,2009

12
  Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, G.R. No. 158885, April 2,2009
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine Global Communications,
Inc., G.R. No. 144696,August 16,2006

4. Cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in

issue - Section 2(c), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

5. Penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher - Section

2(d), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

 People of the Philippines vs. Mercado, et al., G.R. No. 116239, November
29,2000
 People of the Philippines vs. Espejon, G.R. No. 134767, February 22,2002
 People of the Philippines vs. Mercado, G.R. No. 116239, November 29,2000
 Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, et al., G.R. No. 132601, October 12,1998

6. Cases in which only an error or question of law is

involved - Section 2(e), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

i. Certiorari as a special civil action

contradistinguished from certiorari as a mode of
appeal

 Angalan vs. Delante, A.C. No. 7181, February 6,2009

ii. When question of law, when question of fact

 Del Prado vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 186030, March 21,2012
 Santos vs. Committee on Claims Settlement, etc., et al., G.R. No. 158071,
April 2,2009
 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 179181,
November 18,2013
 Abella y Perpetua vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 198400, October
7,2013
 Plameras vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187268, September 4,2013
 Corales vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 186613, August 27,2013
 Bases Conversion Development Authority vs. Reyes, G.R. 194247, June
19,2013
 Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Simon Enterprises, G.R. 177116, February 27,2013
 Republic of the Philippines vs. Jaralve, etc., et al., G.R. No. 175177, October
24,2012

13
  Vda. Del Prado vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 186030, March
21,2012
 F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. vs. HR Construction Corp., G.R. No. 187521, March
14,2012
 Republic of the Philippines vs. Sagun, G.R. No. 187567, February 15,2012
 Republic of the Philippines vs. Mangotara, G.R. No. 170375, July 7,2010

2. Court of Appeals

a. Composition, qualifications, appointment, tenure of office and

removal from office of members - Chapter I, Section 9, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129

i. Seniority of rank among members of the Court of Appeals

 Case: Re: Seniority Among the Recent Appointments to the Position of

Associate Justice in the Court of Appeals, A.M. No. 10-4-22-SC, September
28,2010

ii. Organization of the Court

1. When the Court of Appeals acts en banc

iii. When the Court of Appeals acts through a division

1. Who presides over sessions of a division

2. Quorum

3. Regional Trial Courts

a. Creation and Organization – Sections 13-14, BP Blg 129 as amended

b. Qualifications, appointment, tenure of office, and removal from

office

Section 7(2) & (3), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

Section 15, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended

i. Assignment of Regional Trial Judges

Section 17, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended

14
 ii. Authority to define territory appurtenant to each branch

Section 6, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution

Section 18, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended

iii. Delegation of additional powers or functions

iv. Jurisdiction

1. Civil cases – Section 19, BP Blg 129 as amended

2. Criminal cases – Section 20, BP Blg 129 as amended

3. Original jurisdiction in other cases – Section 21, BP Blg

129 as amended

4. Appellate Jurisdiction –Section 22, BP Blg 129 as

amended

5. Special jurisdiction over special cases – section 23, BP

Blg 129 as amended Administrative circulars of the
Supreme Court

a. (Supreme Court) Administrative Order No. 51-

96 – Re: Special courts for kidnapping, robbery,
dangerous drugs, carnapping and other heinous
crimes under Republic Act No. 7659

b. Republic Act No. 8369 – Family Courts Act of

1997, and amending section 15 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129

6. Special rules of procedures applicable in certain cases –

Section 24, BP Blg 129 as amended

4. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit

Trial Courts

a. Creation and organization – Section 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, BP Blg 129 as
amended

b. Qualifications, appointment, tenure of office and removal from office

– Section 26, BP Blg 129 as amended

15
 c. Jurisdiction

i. Civil cases – Section 33, BP Blg 129 as amended

ii. Criminal cases – Section 32, BP Blg 129 as amended

iii. Delegated jurisdiction – Section 34, BP Blg 129 as amended

iv. Special jurisdiction – Section 35, BP Blg 129 as amended

v. Preliminary investigation – Section 37, BP Blg 129 as amended

d. Judgments and processes – Section 38, BP Blg 129 as amended

5. Sandiganbayan

a. Creation

i. Presidential Decree No. 1486 as revised by Presidential Decree

No. 1606
b. Powers and Functions

c. Division of the Court

i. Quorum

ii. Rules of Procedure

6. Court of Tax Appeals

a. Creation and Appointment

i. Jurisdiction over certain types of tax cases

ii. Power to administer oaths, issue subpoena, punish for

contempt

iii. Violation of penal law

C. Quasi-courts of Justice

1. Constitutional Commissions

16
 a. Civil Service Commission

1. Powers and Functions

b. Commission on Elections

1. Powers and Functions

2. COMELEC rulings or decisions reviewable by the

Supreme Court

 Sahali vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 201796, January

15,2013
 Cagas vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 194139, January
24,2012
 Cayetano vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 193846, April
12,2011

3. Automated election cases

 Maliksi vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203302, April 11,2013

c. Commission on Audit

1. Powers and Functions

2. Judicial review of CBAA Decisions

2. Securities and Exchange Commission

a. Powers and functions

b. Transfer of jurisdiction of certain types of cases to the

Regional Trial Court

3. Office of the President

a. Organization

b. Powers of the President

17
 1. Exception to the appeal powers of the Office of the
President

 Phillips Seafoods (Philippines) Corp. vs. Board of Investments, G.R.

No. 175787, February 4,2009

4. Land Registration Authority

a. Purpose

1. Powers and Functions

5. Social Security Commission

a. Objective

b. Powers and Functions

6. Civil Aeronautics Board

a. Objective

b. Powers and Functions

7. Intellectual Property Office

a. Objectives

b. Powers and Functions

8. National Electrification Administration

a. Objective

b. Powers and Functions

9. Energy Regulatory Board

a. Objectives

b. Powers and Functions

10. National Telecommunications Commission

18
 a. Powers and Functions

11. Department of Agrarian Reform

a. Republic Act No. 6657, as amended

1. Program Implementation

2. Powers and Functions

3. Jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform

4. Jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board (DARAB) under the 2009 DARAB
Rules of Procedure

i. Remedies in DARAB cases

ii. Exclusive jurisdiction in agrarian dispute

i. Meaning of agrarian dispute

12. Government Service Insurance System

a. Objective

1. Powers and Function

13. Employees Compensation Commission

a. Objective

1. Powers and Functions

14. Insurance Commission

a. Powers and Functions

15. Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (formerly Philippine Atomic

Energy Commission)

a. Powers and Functions

16. Board of Investments

19
 a. Powers and Functions

1. Appeals from the order or judgment of the Board

17. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission

a. Jurisdiction

b. Powers and Functions

18. Voluntary Arbitrators authorized by law

a. Grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration

1. Jurisdiction

2. Appeal from judgment or order of the voluntary

arbitrator

D. Other quasi-judicial agencies

1. Office of the Ombudsman

a. Power and authority to conduct preliminary investigation

 Busuego vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 196842, October

9,2013

1. Jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary cases

2. Administrative complaints

i. Exceptions

ii. Officials subject to disciplinary complaint by the

Ombudsman

i. Exceptions

iii. Decisions of the Ombudsman appealable to the

Court of Appeals

2. National Labor Relations Commission

20
 1. Jurisdiction

2. Powers and functions

3. Decisions of NLRC subject of special civil action under

Rule 65 (Petition for Certiorari)

3. Bureau of Immigration

a. Matters subject to the adjudicatory powers of the Immigration

Board

4. Senate Electoral Tribunal

5. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

a. Cases falling within the jurisdiction of HRET

 Reyes vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 207264, October

22,2013

6. Military courts martial

a. Court martial also a court of law and justice

 Marcos vs. Chief of Staff, 89 Phil. 246 (1951)

 Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff, 75 Phil. 875 (1946)

1. Jurisdiction of courts martial over military personnel

 Case: People of the Philippines vs. Cawiling, et al., G.R. No. 117970,July
28,1998
 Case: People of the Philippines vs. De la Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 111568,
March 2,1995

2. Authority of civilian courts over courts martial

 People of the Philippines vs. Repiroga, G.R. No. 138451, May 17,2001
 Republic of the Philippines vs. Judge Asuncion, etc., et al., G.R. 108208,
March 11,1994
 Abadia vs. Enrile, et al., G.R. No. 105597, September 23,1994

21
  Arula vs. Espino, G.R. No. L-28949, June 23,1969

3. When courts martial retains jurisdiction over offenses

committed by military personnel
 People of the Philippines vs. Dulos, G.R. No. 107328, September 26,1994
 Abadilla, et al. vs. Ramos, et al., G.R. No. 79173, December 1,1987

i. When courts-martial deemed to exceed its

jurisdiction
 Santiago vs. Alikpala, G.R. No. L-25133, September 28,1968
 Ognir vs. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-1870, February 27,1948

22