application in the particular litigation.

” As the origin and evolution of the primary jurisdiction doctrine

demonstrate, the reasons for the existence and the purposes it serves are two-fold: the desire for the uniformity
and the reliance on administrative expertise. Thus, in determining whether to apply the primary jurisdiction
doctrine, we must examine whether doing so would serve either of these purposes.

These same tests were applied by our courts in the determination of whether or not to apply the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction. Spouses Jose Abejo and Aurora Abejo, et a., v. Hon. Rafael de la Cruz, etc. et al., 149 SCRA
654, citing Pambujan Sur United Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., In., 94 Phil. 932, 941 [1954])

See GMA Network, Inc., v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No. 160703, September 23, 2005.

In Paat v. CA, 266 SCRA 167 the Court said that enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations and the
protection, development and management of forest lands fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the
DENR. By the very nature of the functions, the DENR should be given a free hand unperturbed by judicial intrusion
to determine a controversy which is well within its jurisdiction. The assumption therefore of the replevin suit by
the trial court filed by the private respondents constitutes an unjustified encroachment into the domain of the
administrative agency’s prerogative.

Quasi-judicial bodies like the CSC are better equipped in handling cases involving the employment status of
employees of those in the civil service since it is within the field of its expertise. (Paloma v. Mora GR No. 157783,
Sept. 23, 2005)

Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction

It involves the inherent or implied power of the court to determine issues incidental to the exercise of its primary
jurisdiction.

Under its ancillary jurisdiction, a court may determine all questions relative to the matters brought before it,
regulate the manner in which a trial shall be conducted, determine the hours at which the witnesses and lawyers
may be heard, direct the disposition of money deposited incourt in the course of the proceedings, appoint a
receiver an grant an injunction, attachment or garnishment.

Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-Interference

GR: No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of another court of coordinate
jurisdiction or to pass upon or scrutinize and much less declare as unjust a judgment of another court. (Industrial
Enterprises, Inc. vs. CA GR No. 88550, April 18, 1990)

Exc: The doctrine of judicial stability does not apply where a third party claimant is involved. (Santos vs. Bayhon,
GR No. 88643, July 23, 1991).

Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter

The court may on its own initiative object to an erroneous jurisdiction and may ex mero motu take cognizance of
lack of jurisdiction at any point in the case and has a clearly recognized right to determine its own jurisdiction
(Fabian vs. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470). “When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that the court has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter,…the court shall dismiss the same” (Sec. 1, Rule 9, Rules of Court)

The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to dismiss filed before the filing
or service of an answer. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is a ground for a motion to dismiss (Sec. 1(b),
Rule 16, Rules of Court). If no motion is filed, the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised as an affirmative
defense in the answer (Sec. 6, Rule 16)

Under the Omnibus Motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading like a motion to dismiss, shall include all grounds
then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived (Sec. 8 Rule 15). The defense of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter is however, a defense not barred by the failure to invoke the same in a motion
to dismiss already filed. Even if a motion to dismiss was filed and the issue of jurisdiction was not raised therein, a
party may, when he files an answer, raise the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because this defense is
not barred under the omnibus motion rule
Thus, the prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings,
even for the first time on appeal (Calimlim vs. Ramirez, 118 SCRA 399; Francel Realty Corporation vs. Sycip 469
SCRA 424).

The issue is so basic that it may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. In fact, courts may take
cognizance of the issue even if not raised by the parties. There is thus no reason to preclude the Court of Appeals,
for example, from ruling on this issue even if the same has not yet been resolved by the trial court below (Asia
International Auctioneers, Inc. vs. GR No. 163445, Dec. 18, 2007).

Lack of jurisdiction is one of those excepted grounds where the court may dismiss a claim or a case at any time
when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that any of those ground exists, even if they were
not raised in the answer or in a motion to dismiss. That the issue of lack of jurisdiction was raised only by the
defendants in their memorandum filed before the trial court did not render them in estoppel (Vda. De Barrera vs.
Heirs of Vicente Legaspi GR No. 174346 Sept. 12, 2008).

When the court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, should it refer or forward
the case to another court with the proper jurisdiction? It is submitted that the court should not do so. Its only
authority is to dismiss the complaint and not to make any other order.