Jurisdiction

- Any judgment, decision, final orders rendered by the court without jurisdiction is null and
void
- XPN: jurisdictional estoppel (boston equity resources inc v CA; lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter and over the persons)

BOSTON EQUITY v CA: if the objection to the jurisdiction is not raised either in a motion
to dismiss or in the answer, the obligation to the jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff
or of the defendant is deemed waived.

Facts: Boston Equity filed a complaint for sum of money against Sps. Toledo. Respondent
filed an answer allefing that her husband and co-defendant Manuel, is already dead.
Petitioner’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss, citing, among others the ground that the trial
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Manual pursuant to S5R86 of the
Revised Rules of Court.

PRINCIPLES in accordance with Jurisdiction over the SM/P/R/I/T

Territory: does not apply in civil cases because territoriality in civil cases is a matter of venue
SJ: it is conferred by law XPN: jurisdiction of the SC conferred by the constitution
o Traditional S5 Art.VIII
o Delegated jurisdiction (will not be asked in the exam) the court as a separate branch
of the government can look into the abuses of the legislative and executive branches
of the government under the checks and balances of principle and the only action that
can be brought against these issues is certiorari under rule 65 bc the ground is
gadalej.
o Laws: RA 11576; Expedited Rules of Procedure for First Level Courts 08-8-7-SC;
Summary Procedure (2M below) Small Claims (1M below) there can be no joinder
of causes of action under R2
o Is there a joinder of causes of action for recovery of RP an recovery of PP like
money? YES. Basta recovery hindi foreclosure. Pag foreclosure special civil action
na. Recovery of property is an ordinary civil action which can be joined.
- RULE 3
o Absence of indispensable parties will render the judgment null and void XPN: it is
not a ground for dismissal; the remedy is Amendment; when the order to amend is
not followed, dismissal is proper, not because of failure to implead indispensable
parties but failure to comply with the order of the court pursuant to S3 R17
- VENUE v JURISDICTION
o Jurisdiction – ang sagot court
o Venue – ang sagot place
o GR in Venue is in S4: that which is provided for by law OR that which is agreed
upon by the parties Pacific Consultants Inc. v ______
- KINDS OF PLEADINGS
o Diagram: YOU MUST KNOW FROM WHAT PARTY EACH PLEADING
COMES FROM
 e.g. only the Plaintiff can file a Complaint; Reply; Counter Counter-claim;
if necessary, answer to a permissive counterclaim
 defendant: counterclaim (c or P); crossclaim; third party complaint; answer
to a counter counterclaim; answer to a third party defendant; answer to a
crossclaim
 Answer-in-intervention  kung ang finilie complaint in intervention and it
includes him
 - RULE 7
o STUDY THE REVOLUTIONARY PROVISSION
- ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS v MATERIAL AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS UNDER
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION; there’s no conflict with AD and modes of discovery
o Adolfo v Adlofo
- R9 DEFAULT
o Only one ground: failure to file an answer within the period provided
o May the plaintiff be declared in default? YES, vis-à-vis Permissive Counterclaim;
o Remedy against order of default  MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF
DEFAULT (this is a litigious motion)
- R10
o Amendment as a matter of right v matter of discretion
- WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
o With special mention that the period to file Answer in Summary Procedure is no
longer 10 days but 30 days. (summary procedure 30-30-30)
- R13
o Filing v Service
o Don’t confuse it with summons; remember in summons, the principle of liberality bc
r14 has been liberalized, it is always inclined to validity of service rather than
otherwise
- R14
o Who may serve summons:
 Sheriff
 Deputy
 Other proper court officer
 Plaintiff
 Failure of service of summons by the sheriff or his deputy
 Authorized by the court
 The summons is to be served outside the judicial region of the court
where the case is pending

- R16
o
The 3-day notice rule and the 10-day notice rule no longer applies because the court
may resolve the motions now on its own discretion (motu propio) Laude v Gines-
Jabalde
- MODES OF DISCOVERY
o People v Sergio lacanilao: cases where the Court relaxed procedural rules to serve
substantial justice because of any of the following reasons
 Although the rule on deposition by written interrogatories is inscribed under
the Rules on Civil Procedure, the Court holds that it may be applied
suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling reason.
 The grant of the written interrogatories by the Indonesian Government
perceives the State’s opportunity to present all its desired witness in the
prosecution of its case against Cristina and Julius. If is afforded fair
opportunity to present witnesses and evidence is deem vital to ensure that
the injury sustained by the People in the commission of the criminal acts will
be well compensated and, most of all, that justice be achieved.

IMPT CASES:
- Imee marcos case on service of summons)
CASES:

FORTUNE LIFE INS CO. INC v COA: the fresh period rule does not apply in petitions for
certiorari under R64 of the ROC. The reglementary periods under R 42 and R64 are different. In the
former, the aggrieved party is allowed 15 days to file the petition for review from receipt of the
assailed decision or final order, or from receipt of the denial of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration. In the latter, the petition is filed within 30 days from notice of final judgment or final
order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for NW or Reconsideration, if
allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concered, interrupts the period; hence, should
the motion be denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period w/c shall
not be less than 5 days in any event, reckoned from the notice of denial.