SYLLABUS FOR THE 2020 BAR EXAMINATIONS

REMEDIAL LAW

Notes: All Bar candidates should be guided that only laws with their respective amendments and
canonical doctrines pertinent to these topics as of June 30, 2019 will be covered in the 2020 Bar
Examinations, except when provided in this syllabus. The Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M No. 19-
10-20-SC promulgated on October 15, 2019) and the Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M No. 19-08-15-SC
promulgated on October 8, 2019) are included. Principles of law are not covered by the cut-off period.

This syllabus is only a guide for the bar examinations. It should not be mistaken for a course syllabus.

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A. Distinguish: substantive law and remedial law - Substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights
and duties regarding life, liberty or property which when violated gives rise to a cause of action.
Remedial law prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights and obligations created by substantive
law by providing a procedural system for obtaining redress for the invasion of rights and violations of
duties and by prescribing rules as to how suits are filed, tried and decided by the courts

B. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court - (1) Section 5 (5), Art. VIII of the Constitution provides that
the Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to
the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for
all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.

1. Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court - (1) The rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. (2) They shall be uniform for all courts of
the same grade. (3) They shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights (Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII,
Constitution) . (4) The power to admit attorneys to the Bar is not an arbitrary and despotic one, to be
exercised at the pleasure of the court, or from passion, prejudice or personal hostility, but is the duty of
the court to exercise and regulate it by a sound and judicial discretion. (Andres

2. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules - (1) When transcendental
matters of life, liberty or state security are involved (Mindanao Savings Loan Asso. vs. Vicenta Vda . De
Flores, 469 SCRA 416) . (2) To relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply
with the prescribed procedure and the mere invocation of substantial justice is not a magical incantation
that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules (Cu - Unjieng v s . CA, 479 SCRA
594) (3) When compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it, the Supreme
Court may suspend procedural rules. What constitutes a good and sufficient cause that would merit
suspension of the rules is discretionary upon courts (CIR v s . Migrant Pagbilao Corp., GR No. 159593, 10/
12 / 2006) . (4) Where substantial and important issues await resolution ( CIR vs. Migrant Pagbilao C
orp., GR No. 159593, 12/12/2006 ) . (5) The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate
rules of practice and procedure necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents on
points of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of Court (Pinga vs. Heirs of Santiago, GR
170354, 07/30/ 2006) . (6) Reasons that would warrant the suspension of the Rules: (a) the existence of
special or compelling circumstances (b) merits of the case (c) cause not entirely attributable to the fault
or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of rules (d) a lack of any showing that the review
sought is merely frivolous and dilatory (e) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby
(Sarmiento v s . Zatarain, GR 167471, 02/05/2007) . (7) The bare invocation of the interest of substantial
justice is not a magic wand that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules. The
rules may be relaxed only in exceptionally meritorious cases (8) Procedural rules may be relaxed for
persuasive reasons to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with
the prescribed procedure. More so, when to allow the assailed decision to go unchecked would set a
precedent that will sanction a violation of substantive law (Phil. Economic Z one Au thority vs. Carates,
GR No , 181274, 07/23/2010) . (9) In any case, this Court resolves to condone any procedural lapse in
the interest of substantial justice given the nature of business of respondent and its over-reaching
implication to society. To deny this Court of its duty to resolve the substantive issues would be
tantamount to judicial tragedy as planholders, like petitioner herein, would be placed in a state of limbo
as to its remedies under existing laws and jurisprudence. Indeed, where strong considerations of
substantive justice are manifest in the petition, the strict application of the rules of procedure may be
relaxed, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction. Thus, a rigid application of the rules of procedure will
not be entertained if it will only obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of justice in the light of
the prevailing circumstances in the case under consideration (Victorio - Aquino vs. Pacific Plans, GR N o .
1 9 3 1 0 8 , 1 2 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 4 , cited in H G L D e v elo p m e n t C o r p o r a tio n v s . J u d g e P e n u el
a , G R N o . 1 8 1 3 5 3 , 06/06/2016) . (10) In allowing the liberal application of procedural rules, We
emphasized in the case of Obut v s . Court of Appeals, et al. (162 Phil. 731 [1976]), that placing the
administration of justice in a straightjacket, i.e., following technical rules on procedure would result into
a poor kind of justice. We added that a too-rigid application of the pertinent provisions of the Rules of
Court will not be given premium where it would obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of
justice in the light of the prevailing circumstances of the case under consideration. Moreover, in the
case of CMTC International Marketing Corp. v. Bhagis International Trading Corp. (700 Phil. 575 [2012]) ,
We denied the application of the technical rules to yield to substantive justice. In said case, We ruled
that the rules of procedure should give way to strong considerations of substantive justice. Thus, a rigid
application of the rules of procedure will not be entertained if it will obstruct rather than serve the
broader interests of justice in the light of the prevailing circumstances of the case under consideration.
Likewise, in the case of Uy v. Chua (616 Phil. 768 [2009]) , We interpreted that "[t]he Rules of Court were
conceived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice but not to bind and
chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules,
short of judicial discretion." Considering the foregoing and the circumstances obtaining in this case, We
allow the application of liberality of the rules of procedure to give due course to the petition filed by
petitioners as the broader interest of justice so requires (Career Executive Service Board vs. Civil Service
Commission, GR No. 196890, 01/11/2018) .

C. Nature of Philippine courts

1. Meaning of a court- (1) A court is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department the
function of which is the application of the laws to the controversies brought before it as well as the
public administration of justice
 2. Distinguish: court and judge- (1) A court is a tribunal officially assembled under authority of law; a
judge is simply an officer of such tribunal; (2) A court is an organ of the government with a personality
separate and distinct from the person or judge who sits on it; (3) A court is a being in imagination
comparable to a corporation, whereas a judge is a physical person ; (4) A court may be considered an
office; a judge is a public officer; and (5) The circumstances of the court are not affected by the
circumstances that would affect the judge.

3. Classification of Philippine courts - (1) Philippine courts are classified as either Constitutional Court
or Statutory Court: (a) Constitutional courts are those that owe their creation and existence to the
Constitution. Their existence as well as the deprivation of their jurisdictions and power cannot be made
the subject of legislation. The Supreme Court is the only court created by the Constitution (Article VIII,
Sec. 1[1], 1987 Constitution) . (b) Statutory courts are those created by law whose jurisdiction is
determined by legislation. These may be abolished likewise by legislation. BP 129 created the Court of
Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Courts. RA 1125 as amended by RA
10660 created the Court of Tax Appeals, while PD 1083 as amended by RA 8369 created the Family
Courts, and the Shari’ah District and Circuit Courts

4. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction- (1) A court is one with original jurisdiction when actions
or proceedings are originally filed with it. A court is one with appellate jurisdiction when it has the
power of review the decisions or orders of a lower court (2) Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) and Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) are courts of original jurisdiction without
appellate jurisdiction. Regional Trial Court (RTC) is likewise a court of original jurisdiction with respect to
cases originally filed with it; and appellate court with respect to cases decided by MTCs within its
territorial jurisdiction (Sec. 22, BP 129) . (3) The Court of Appeals is primarily a court of appellate
jurisdiction with competence to review judgments of the RTCs and specified quasi-judicial agencies (Sec.
9[3], BP 129 ). It is also a court of original jurisdiction with respect to cases filed before it involving
issuance of writs of certiorari , mandamus , quo warranto , habeas corpus , and prohibition. CA is a court
of original and exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of RTCs ((4) The Supreme
Court (SC) is fundamentally a court of appellate jurisdiction but it may also be a court of original
jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, and in cases involving
petitions for certiorari , prohibition and manda mus(Sec. 5[1], Art. VIII, Constitution). The Supreme Court
En B anc is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of a division of the Supreme Court
may be appealed

5. Courts of general and special jurisdiction - (1) Courts of general jurisdiction are those with
competence to decide on their own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all cases, civil and criminal, of
a particular nature. Courts of special (limited) jurisdiction are those which have only a special jurisdiction
for a particular purpose or are clothed with special powers for the performance of specified duties
beyond which they have no authority of any kind. (2) A court may also be considered ‘general’ if it has
the competence to exercise jurisdiction over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It is in this context that the RTC is
considered a court of general jurisdiction.

6. Constitutional and statutory courts - (1) A constitutional court is one created by a direct
Constitutional provision. Example of this court is the SC, which owes its creation from the Constitution
itself. Only the SC is a Constitutional court. (2) A statutory court is one created by law other than the
Constitution. All courts except the SC are statutory courts. The Sandiganbayan (SB) was not directly
created by the Constitution but by law pursuant to a constitutional mandate.

7.court of law and equity

Courts of law- Any tribunal duly administering the laws of the land. Decides a case according to the
promulgated law

Court of equity - Any tribunal administering justice outside the law, being ethical rather than jural and
belonging to the sphere of morals rather than of law. It is grounded on the precepts of conscience and
not on any sanction of positive law, for equity finds no room for application where there is law (Herrera,
2007) Adjudicates a controversy according to the common precepts of what is right and just without
inquiring into the terms of the statutes

8. Principle of judicial hierarchy -The doctrine on hierarchy of courts is a practical judicial policy
designed to restrain parties from directly resorting to this Court when relief may be obtained before the
lower courts. The logic behind this policy is grounded on the need to prevent "inordinate demands upon
the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive
jurisdiction," as well as to prevent the congestion of the Court's dockets. Hence, for this Court to be able
to "satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter[,]" it must remain as a
"court of last resort." This can be achieved by relieving the Court of the "task of dealing with causes in
the first instance" (Aala v. Uy, EB , GR No. 202781, 01/ 1 0 /2017 ).

In a fairly recent case, we summarized other well-defined exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of
courts. Immediate resort to this Court may be allowed when any of the following grounds are present:

(a) when genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be addressed immediately; (b) when
the case involves transcendental importance; (c) when the case is novel; (d) when the constitutional
issues raised are better decided by this Court; (e) when time is of the essence; (f) when the subject of
review involves acts of a constitutional organ; (g) when there is no other plain, speedy, adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law; (h) when the petition includes questions that may affect public
welfare, public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice; (i) when the order complained of
was a patent nullity; and (j) when the appeal was considered as an inappropriate remedy (Aala v. Uy,
EB, GR No. 202781, 01/10/2017) .

9. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability - (1) Courts of equal and coordinate
jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders. Thus, the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin
the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another RTC.

Doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference, under which no court has the power to interfere by
injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. Courts and
tribunals with the same or equal authority - even those exercising concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction
- are not permitted to interfere with each other's respective cases, much less their orders or judgments
therein.
II. JURISDICTION

A. Classification of jurisdiction

1. Distinguish: original and appellate- A court is one with original jurisdiction when actions or
proceedings are originally filed with it. A court is one with appellate jurisdiction when it has the power of
review the decisions or orders of a lower court

2. Distinguish: general and special. Courts of special (limited) jurisdiction are those which have only a
special jurisdiction for a particular purpose or are clothed with special powers for the performance of
specified duties beyond which they have no authority of any kind. A court may also be considered
‘general’ if it has the competence to exercise jurisdiction over cases not falling within the jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It is in this context that
the RTC is considered a court of general jurisdiction.

3. Distinguish: exclusive and concurrent- exclusive jurisdiction – is that jurisdiction exercised by a court
or body to the exclusion of all other court. Concurrent jurisdiction – is that jurisdiction exercised over a
case or subject matter by two or more courts or bodies.

B. Doctrines of hierarchy of courts and continuity of jurisdiction

The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if warranted by the nature and importance of
the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations, or in cases of national
interest and of serious implications. Under the principle of liberal interpretations, for example, it may
take cognizance of a petition for certiorari

directly filed before it. (6) The doctrine on hierarchy of courts is a practical judicial policy designed to
restrain parties from directly resorting to this Court when relief may be obtained before the lower
courts. The logic behind this policy is grounded on the need to prevent "inordinate demands upon the
Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction," as
well as to prevent the congestion of the Court's dockets. Hence, for this Court to be able to
"satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter[,]" it must remain as a
"court of last resort." This can be achieved by relieving the Court of the "task of dealing with causes in
the first instance" (Aala v. Uy, EB , GR No. 202781, 01/ 1 0 /2017 ). (7) Unfortunately, none of these
exceptions were sufficiently established in the present petition so as to convince this court to brush
aside the rules on the hierarchy of courts. Petitioner's allegation that her case has sparked national and
international interest is obviously not covered by the exceptions to the rules on hierarchy of courts. The
notoriety of a case, without more, is not and will not be a reason for this Court's decisions. Neither will
this Court be swayed to relax its rules on the bare fact that the petitioner belongs to the minority party
in the present administration. A primary hallmark of an independent judiciary is its political neutrality.
This Court is thus loath to perceive and consider the issues before it through the warped prisms of
political partisanships. That the petitioner is a senator of the Republic does not also merit a special
treatment of her case. The right to equal treatment before the law accorded to every Filipino also
forbids the elevation of petitioner's cause on account of her position and status in the government.
C. Jurisdiction of various Philippine courts

1. Supreme Court- (1) The Supreme Court (SC) has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorar i, prohibition and
mandamus , q u o w a r r a n t o , and h a b e a s c o r p u s

( S e c tio n 5 [ 1 ], A r tic le V III, Constitution) .

(2) The SC has jurisdiction to 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 only an error or question of law is involved (Section 5(2), Article VIII, Constitution )
.

(3) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleding,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged ( S e c tio n 5 [ 5 ], A r tic le V III, Constitution) .

(4) Concurrent original jurisdiction:

(a) With Court of Appeals in petitions for certiorari , prohibition and mandamus against the RTC, CSC,
Central Board of Assessment Appeals, NLRC, Quasi-judicial agencies, and writ of kalikasan , all subject to
the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

b) With the CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC, and Shari-ah in petitions for certiorari , prohibition and mandamus
against lower courts and bodies; and in petitions for quo warranto , and writs of habeas corpus , all
subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

(c) With CA, RTC and Sandiganbayan for petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data

(d) Concurrent original jurisdiction with the RTC in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and
consuls.

(5) Appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review on certiorari (appeal by certiorari under Rule 45)
against the CA, CTA en banc , Sandiganbayan, RTC on pure questions of law; and in cases involving the
constitutionality or validity of a law or treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation, legality of a tax, impost, assessment,
toll or penalty, jurisdiction of a lower court; and CTA in its decisions rendered en banc .

(6) Exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by the Supreme Court:

(a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(c) When there is grave abuse of discretion;

(d) When the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;

(e) When the findings of facts are conflicting;

(f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to
the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;

(g) When the findings are contrary to the trial court;

(h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;

(i) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent;

(j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by
the evidence on record; and

(k) When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties,
which, if properly considered, could justify a different conclusion.

2. Court of Appeals - (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction in actions for the annulment of the judgments of
the RTC (Rule 47) .

(2) Concurrent original jurisdiction:

(a) With SC to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the RTC, CSC, CBAA, other
quasi-judicial agencies mentioned in Rule 43, and the NLRC, and writ of kalikasan.

(b) With the SC, Sandiganbayan, RTC, and Shari-ah to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against lower courts and bodies and writs of quo warranto , habeas corpus , whether or not in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction, and writ of continuing mandamus on environmental cases.

(c) With the SC, RTC and Sandiganbayan for petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data

(d) Freeze order over illegally-acquired properties (RA 1379)

(e) Cases falling under RA 4200.

(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction: (a) by way of ordinary appeal from the RTC and the Family Courts.
(b) by way of petition for review from the RTC rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction.
(c) by way of petition for review from the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of the CSC, CBAA and
other bodies mentioned in Rule 43 and of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
cases.

(d) over decisions of MTCs in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction;
this is because decisions of MTCs in these cases are appealable in the same manner as decisions of RTCs.
(4) The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions
of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases (Office of the Ombudsman vs.
Heirs of Vda. De Ventura, GR No. 151800, 1105/2009) .

(5) The CA also has concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions for issuanceof writ of amparo, writ of
h a b e a s d a t a , and writ of kalikasan ( A n a m a v s . Citib a n k , G R N o . 1 9 2 0 4 8 , 12/13/20 1 7) .
(6) 2006 Bar: Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to review the decisions in criminal and
administrative cases of the Ombudsman? (2.5%) Answer: The Supreme Court has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases (Sec. 14, RA 6770) . In administrative
and disciplinary cases, appeals from the Ombudsman must be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule
43 (Lanting vs. Ombudsman, GR No. 141426, 05/06/2005; Fabian vs. Desierto, GR No. 129742,
0916/1998; Sec. 14, RA 6770) .

(7) 2008 Bar: Give at least three instances where the Court of Appeals may act as a trial court. (3%)
Answer: The Court of Appeals may act as a trial court in the following instances:

(a) In annulment of judgments (Secs. 5 and 6, Rule 47) ;

(b) When a motion for new trial is granted by the Court of Appeals (Sec. 4, Rule 53) ;

(c) A petition for habeas corpus shall be set for hearing (Sec. 12, Rule 102) ;

(d) To resolve factual issues in cases within its original and appellate jurisdiction (Sec. 12, Rule 124) ;

(e) In cases of new trial based on newly discovered evidence (Sec. 14, Rule 124) ;

(f) In cases involving claims for damages arising from provisional remedies;

(g) In writ of amparo proceedings (AM No. 07 - 9 - 12 - SC) ;

(h) In writ of kalikasan proceedings (Rule 7, AM No. 09 - 6 - 8 - SC) ;

(i) In writ of habeas data proceedings (AM No. 08 - 1 - 16 - SC)

3. Court of Tax Appeals- (1) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal

(a) Decisions of CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or
other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws
administered by BIR;

(b) Inaction by CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of IR taxes, fees or other charges,
penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by BIR,
where the NIRC or other applicable law provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction
shall be deemed an implied denial;

(c) Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local taxes originally decided or resolved by them in
the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;

(d) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs

(1) in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other charges, seizure, detention or release of
property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or

(2) other matters arising under the Customs law or other laws, part of laws or special laws administered
by BOC;

(e) Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over
cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city
board of assessment appeals;

(f) Decision of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review from
decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the government under Sec. 2315 of the
Tariff and Customs Code;

(g) Decisions of Secretary of Trade and Industry in the case of non-agricultural product, commodity or
article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article,
involving dumping duties and counterveiling duties under Secs. 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff
and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under RA 8800, where either party may appeal the decision
to impose or not to impose said duties.

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction

(a) Over all criminal cases arising from violation of the NIRC or the TCC and other laws, part of laws, or
special laws administered by the BIR or the BOC where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive
of charges and penalties claimed is less than ₱1M or where there is no specified amount claimed (the
offenses or penalties shall be tried by the regular courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be
appellate);

(b) In tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and
penalties where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is
less than P1M tried by the proper MTC, MeTC and RTC.
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction

(a) In criminal offenses

(1) over appeals from the judgment, resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax cases originally decided by
them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction, and

(2) over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC in the exercise of their
appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs in their
respective jurisdiction;

(b) In tax collection cases

(1) over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax collection cases originally
decided by them in their respective territorial jurisdiction; and

(2) over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTC in the exercise of their
appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs in their
respective jurisdiction.
 (4) 2006 Bar: Mark filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue a complaint for refund of taxes paid, but it
was not acted upon. So, he filled a similar complaint with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) raffled to one
of its Divisions. Mark’s complaint was dismissed. Thus, he filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65. Does the CA have jurisdiction over Mark’s petition? (2.5%)

Answer: No. The procedure is governed by Sec. 11 of RA 9282. Decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals
(CTA) must be appealed to the CTA en banc. Further, the CTA now has the same rank as the CA and is no
longer considered a quasi-judicial agency. It is likewise provided in the said law that the decisions of the
CTA en banc are cognizable by the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

4. Sandiganbayan- Exclusive Original Jurisdiction in all cases involving: Under RA 10660 (2015):

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the AntiGraft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the
offense:

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic
Act No. 6758), specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads:

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors,
engineers, and other city department heads;

(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;

(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;

(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those
holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher;

(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the
Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations,

state universities or educational institutions or foundations