JURISDICTION IN GENERAL

The word JURISDICTION is derived from 2 Latin

words: 1.) JURIS – law; 2.) DICO – to speak, or to say.
So, in effect, when you say jurisdiction, literally
translated, it means, “I speak by the law.” It means that
you are saying “I speak with authority” because when
you invoke the law, then your act is authorized. Even in
old times when the representatives of the king or the
sovereign will try to arrest somebody or will try to enter
your house, they open up in the name of the law. They
will always invoke “in the name of the law.”

So when you say, “I speak by the law” I will do it in
the name of the law. It connotes authority or power. You
cannot be wrong. How can you be wrong if you are
doing it in the name of the law? So more or less
jurisdiction simply means authority or power. So more
or less that is the whole concept of jurisdiction. It simply
means authority or power. That is precisely what
jurisdiction is all about.

JURISDICTION simply means the power of the court
to hear try and decide a case. In its complete aspect,
jurisdiction includes not only the powers to hear and
decide a case, but also the power to enforce the
judgment. (14 Am. Jur. 363-364)
JBD

Q: What is the effect if the court has no jurisdiction?
A: If a court has no jurisdiction, it has no power or
authority to try a case and that is a concept you already
!7


know in Criminal Procedure. Without jurisdiction, the
trial is null and void as well as the judgment.

Let’s go to a criminal case. Can you file an information
for murder before the MTC? Or can you file an
information for slight physical injuries before the RTC?
There is something wrong there. If a slight physical
injury case is filed against you in the RTC, what will you
do? If I’m the lawyer of the accused why will I allow my
client to be arraigned and to be tried when everything is
null and void. Kapoy-kapoy lang ako. So I’ll file a
motion to quash under Rule 117. That’s the same thing
in civil cases. If you file a civil case before a court that
has no jurisdiction, then it can be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.

JURISDICTION vs. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Now, let us not confuse jurisdiction with certain terms
related to it.

Q: Distinguish jurisdiction from exercise of jurisdiction.
A: The authority to decide a case, not the decision
rendered, is what makes up jurisdiction. It does not
depend upon the regularity of the exercise of that power
or upon the rightfulness of the decision made. Where
there is jurisdiction over of the person and subject
matter, the resolution of all
JBDother questions arising in the
case is but an exercise of jurisdiction. (Herrera vs.
Barreto, 25 Phil. 245)

!8


In other words, JURISDICTION is the authority. If I
have no authority, I cannot act. And if I have authority, I
can act. Now, if the court has authority, it will try the
case and render judgment.

Now, what the court will do later, like try the case and
render judgment is merely an EXERCISE OF ITS
JURISDICTION. So the trial and judgment are all
products of the exercise of jurisdiction. You cannot talk
of exercise without having first the authority. It is a
useless procedure when you say “I will exercise
something which I do not have.”

Q: Why is it important to distinguish jurisdiction from
exercise of jurisdiction?
A: Definitely, a court acting as such may commit errors
or mistakes. That is why the action of the court can be
questioned later in a higher court. A court can commit an
error which is either an error of jurisdiction or an error of
judgment.

EXAMPLE: A case of murder was filed in the MTC.
The accused, Ken Sur, files a motion to quash because
MTC has no jurisdiction over cases of murder. Eh, ‘yong
judge iba man ‘yong libro niya, “No, I have jurisdiction.”
So the court denied the motion to quash. Meaning, the
judge has decided to assume jurisdiction. So, meaning
from the very start mali na.
JBD Now what do you call that?
When the court without authority assumes authority
over the case that is called ERROR OF JURISDICTION –
the court committed an error of jurisdiction.

!9


EXAMPLE: Suppose the case for murder is filed in the
RTC where the court has jurisdiction. So walang mali,
everything is correct. But in the course of the trial, you
cannot avoid mistakes being committed like for
example, the court misinterpreting the provision of the
RPC saying that this is a requirement, this is not a
requirement for the crime. Meaning misapplication or
misinterpretation of the RPC as well as misinterpretation
of the rules of evidence – wrong interpretation of the
law. And the accused was convicted but actually tingin
mo mali man ito, di ba! Under the law, this elements was
not considered or this element was considered as
present. Do you say the decision of the judge is null and
void? NO, the judgment is valid kaya lang mali. So, you
do not say the court committed an error in the exercise
of jurisdiction, and that is called an ERROR OF
JUDGMENT. And that was also asked in the bar.


ERROR OF JURISDICTION vs. ERROR OF
JUDGMENT

BAR QUESTION: Distinguish ERRORS OF
JURISDICTION from ERRORS OF JUDGMENT.
A: The following are the distinctions:
1) When a court acquires jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the decision or order on all
other questionsJBDarising in the case is but an
exercise of jurisdiction; Errors which the court
may commit in the exercise of such jurisdiction
are merely ERRORS OF JUDGMENT; whereas,

!10


When a court takes cognizance of a case over the
subject matter of which it has no jurisdiction,
the court commits an ERROR OF
JURISDICTION.

2) ERRORS OF JURISDICTION are reviewable by
certiorari; whereas,
ERRORS OF JUDGMENT are reviewable by
appeal.

Meaning, when a court has no jurisdiction but insists
in handling the case, that is a mistake by the trial court.
It is called an error of jurisdiction.

Now, suppose a court has jurisdiction over the case
but the decision is wrong – it applied the wrong
provision of the law, or interpretation of evidence. This
is not an error of jurisdiction because the court has
authority. But in the exercise of its jurisdiction, it
committed several errors. This is now what you call an
error of judgment.

Q: What is the use of distinguishing error of jurisdiction
from error of judgment?
A: The difference is in the remedy taken. Actually, it is
still an error. If it is an error, it can be corrected by a
higher court. The importance, however, as we will see
later, is that there is a definite
JBD procedure for correcting a
mistake and other procedures which we will know later
where the court commits an error of judgment and an
error of jurisdiction.

!11


In error of judgment, if the judgment is wrong, it is a
valid judgment. Your remedy is to APPEAL the wrong
judgment to a higher court. But when a court commits
an error of jurisdiction, where it insists on handling a
case when it has no authority, I can question its actuation
not necessarily by appeal, but by resorting to
“extraordinary remedies,” which refer to the remedy of
CERTIORARI or PROHIBITION. (Araneta vs.
Commonwealth Ins. Co., L-11584, April 28, 1958; Nocon
vs. Geronimo, 101 Phil. 735)

The principle came out in the bar. This error should
have been raised on ordinary appeal, not by certiorari
because certiorari is only confined to correcting errors of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The governing
rule is that the remedy of certiorari is not available when
the remedy of appeal is available. And when the remedy
of appeal is lost, you cannot revive it by resorting to
certiorari because certiorari is not a substitute for the lost
remedy of appeal.

So, the remedies given by the law are different. These
are basic terms which you should remember.

Q: In whom is jurisdiction is vested?
A: Jurisdiction is vested with the court, not in the
judge. A court may have several branches, and each is
not a court distinct and JBD
separate from the others. So,
when a case is filed before a branch, the trial may be had
or proceedings may continue before another branch or
judge. (Tagumpay vs. Moscoso, L-14723, May 29, 1959)

!12


EXAMPLE: The RTC of Davao is composed of several
branches – eleven to twelve judges. But technically, there
is only one court – the RTC of Davao. We do not
consider branches as separate courts.

Q: Now, if the case is filed and is assigned to Branch 8,
can that case later be transferred and continued in
Branch 9?
A: Ah YES, because you never leave the same court.
You are still in the same court. This is because
jurisdiction is not with the judge. It is with the court
itself.


TYPES OF JURISDICTION:

Types of jurisdiction:
1) General Jurisdiction and Special or Limited
Jurisdiction;
2) Original Jurisdiction and Appellate Jurisdiction;
and
3) Exclusive Jurisdiction and Concurrent or
Coordinate Jurisdiction;

1. GENERAL JURISDICTION and SPECIAL OR
LIMITED JURISDICTION

a) GENERAL JURISDICTION
JBD is the authority of the
court to hear and determine all actions and suits,
whether civil, criminal, administrative, real,
personal or mixed. It is very broad – to hear and

!13


try practically all types of cases. (14 Am. Jur. 249;
Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)

b) SPECIAL or LIMITED JURISDICTION is the
authority of the court to hear and determine
particular cases only. Its power is limited. (14
Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)

So, the court is authorized to hear and try
certain specified cases. Limitado pa ang power
niya. And when you go over the Judiciary Act,
studying the jurisdiction of the different courts,
in civil cases you will see that the jurisdiction of
some courts like the RTC, masyadong far
ranging. It covers many things whereas the
jurisdiction of the MTC, makipot. Very narrow
bah because it is a court of limited or special
jurisdiction.


2. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION and APPELLATE
JURISDICTION

a) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION is the power of the
court to take cognizance of a case at its inception
or commencement. (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd
Ed., pp. 91 and 917) One can file the case there
for the first time. JBD

b) APPELLATE JURISDICTION is the power vested
in a superior court to review and revise the
judicial action of a lower court. (Ballentine’s Law
!14


Dict., 2nd Ed., pp. 91 and 917) If one court has
the power to correct the decision of a lower
court, the power of this court is appellate. This is
because it commenced somewhere else and it is
just reviewing the decision of the said lower
court.

EXAMPLE: Maya Quitain will file a civil case
in the RTC and that court will take cognizance
and try it. You are invoking the original
jurisdiction of the RTC. After trial, Maya lost
the case, so Maya decided to appeal the
decision of the RTC to the CA. The case is now
there. It is now in the CA and you are now
invoking its appellate jurisdiction.


3. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION and CONCURRENT
OR COORDINATE JURISDICTION

a) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION is that possessed by
a court to the exclusion of all others.

Q: Sugar JJ filed a collection case against John
Vera, for an unpaid loan of P5,000. The
judiciary law says, if you file a civil case to
collect an unpaid loan below P200,000, you
should file it withJBD
the MTC. Can Sugar JJ file it
in the RTC?
A: NO. Therefore the jurisdiction of the MTC
is EXCLUSIVE. It does not share its power with
other courts.
!15



b) C O N C U R R E N T o r C O O R D I N A T E
JURISDICTION is that possessed by the court
together with another or other courts over the
same subject matter, the court obtaining
jurisdiction first retaining it to the exclusion of
the others, but the choice of court is lodged in
those persons duly authorized to file the action.
(Villanueva vs. Ortiz, 58 O.G. 1318, Feb. 12, 1962)

Example: Thaddeus Tangkad wants to file a
case or petition in court. Then, he looks at the
law and the law says that you can file it in this
court or, kung ayaw mo diyan, puwede din
dito, diyan or doon – Thaddeus Tangkad can
file it in this court or in other courts. Therefore,
he has the right to choose where to file. So if
Thaddeus files it in court #2, and it assumes
now jurisdiction, out na ang court #1 and court
#3. If he files it in court #3, out na yong #1 and
#2. Now this is what you call CONCURRENT
jurisdiction because you can file the case in two
courts or more at your choice.

Now, last time we were classifying courts and
you learned that the SC is meron palang
original jurisdiction. Ito palang CA also has
original jurisdiction.
JBD Ang RTC obviously is
more of an original court than an appellate
court.

!16


Q: Are there certain types of cases or petitions
where I can file it directly with the SC or file
with the CA or file it with the RTC?
A: YES and the best example is a petition for
HABEAS CORPUS. The SC, CA and RTC share
concurrent jurisdiction to entertain petitions for
habeas corpus. Makapili ka. I-file mo SC,
puwede. Kung gusto mo sa CA, puwede din.
Kung i–file mo sa RTC, puwede. In effect, these
are the instances when the SC, CA and RTC
exercise concurrent jurisdiction.



ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES


In your study of criminal procedure where you also
studied the law on jurisdiction, there are also some
elements of jurisdiction in criminal cases. Otherwise, the
proceeding will be illegal. Jurisdiction over the subject
matter; Jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and
the third is territorial jurisdiction, i.e. the case should be
filed in the place where the crime was committed. In
civil cases meron din iyong counterpart.

Q: What are the elements of jurisdiction in civil cases?
A: The following: JBD
a) Jurisdiction over the subject matter ;
b) Jurisdiction over the person of the parties to the
case;
c) Jurisdiction over the res; and
!17


d) Jurisdiction over the issues.

Q: Now, what happens if in a particular case one of
these is missing?
A: The proceedings become questionable. The
proceedings become void. The judgment is not binding.
That is the effect of lack of jurisdiction. The proceedings
are tainted with illegality and irregularity. Alright, let’s
go over them one by one.

A. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Q: Define jurisdiction over the subject matter.
A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power of
the court to hear and determine cases of the general class
to which the proceedings in question belongs. (Banco
Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)

In other words, it is the jurisdiction over the nature of
the action. Now, you know already the various types of
civil cases such as actions for nullity of marriage, action
publiciana, action reivindicatoria, etc. This is what we
call the NATURE OF THE ACTION.

Now, if the nature of the subject matter of the action,
e.g. annulment of marriage, where will you file it? It
should not be filed in the wrong court or else it will be
dismissed. The counterpart JBDof that in Criminal law is e.g.
offenses punishable by death penalty cannot be tried
with the MTC. Annulment cases should be filed in the
RTC otherwise it will be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
!18



Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter acquired
or conferred?
A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by
law and is never acquired by consent or submission of
the parties or by their laches. This is a matter of
legislative enactment which none but the legislature can
change. (MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523; Otibar vs.
Vinson, L-18023, May 30, 1962) It cannot be acquired by
an agreement between the parties, waiver, failure to
object (silence).

Q: Now, suppose I want to file a case against you and
under the law that should be filed in the RTC. But both
of us believe that the judges of the MTC like Judge
Cañete knows more, he is more competent than the
other judge there. “Maganda siguro dito na lang tayo sa
MTC.” “O sige, we sign an agreement, magpirmahan
tayo that we will file the case by agreement in the MTC.”
By agreement, doon sa MTC natin i-file. Did the MTC
acquire jurisdiction over the case because the parties
agreed?
A: NO, agreements between parties cannot change the
law. Jurisdiction is conferred by law, not by agreements
of the parties. Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot
be agreed upon. It is acquired by or conferred to the
court by law – either the Constitution or the Judiciary
Law. The parties cannot agree
JBD to have the case submitted
to another court.

Q: Now, suppose I will file a case against you in a
wrong court. Ikaw naman hindi ka kumibo. Actually
!19


what you should do there is file a motion to dismiss (or
in criminal cases a motion to quash.) But hindi ka
nagkibo “Sige lang. I will not complain.” So is it okey?
Since you did not object, you did not file a motion to
dismiss, you did not file a motion to quash, did the
‘wrong’ court acquired jurisdiction over the case?
A: NO. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by silence of
the parties or by waiver. Estoppel or waiver or silence or
failure to object cannot vest jurisdiction in the wrong
court because jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by law. And when the court has no
jurisdiction, the court by itself has the power to dismiss,
“Why will I burden myself for trying a case, when I have
no jurisdiction?”

The ONLY exception is when there is estoppel by
laches, as laid down in tile TIJAM vs. SIBONGHANOY
(April 15, 1968). The issue of jurisdiction was not
questioned for an unreasonable length of time. BUT the
rule is, it can be raised at any stage of the proceeding
even for the first time on appeal. And even the parties
may not raise it, the court motu propio has the authority
to dismiss it.

Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter
determined?
A: It is determined by the allegations of the complaint.
It does not depend uponJBDthe pleas or defenses of the
defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss. (Cardenas
vs. Camus, L-19191, July 30, 1962; Edward J. Nell Co. vs.
Cubacub, L-20842, June 23, 1965; Serrano vs. Muñoz
Motors, L-25547, Nov. 27, 1967)
!20



B. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON

Q: Define jurisdiction over the person.
A: Jurisdiction over the person is the power to render
a personal judgment through the service of process or by
voluntary appearance of a party during the progress of a
cause. (Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)

Q: In criminal cases, how does the court acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the accused?
A: By having him (1) arrested; (2) by service of the
warrant of arrest; or (3) by his voluntary surrender.

Q: Even if he is not arrested, can the court try an
accused without the accused being arrested?
A: Of course not, because the court has not acquired
jurisdiction over his person. Arestuhin mo muna. Then
puwede siyang mag-bail kung gusto niya. After na-
arrest, naglayas, nagsibat? Bahala ka i-try in absentia.
There will be a valid decision because the court has
already acquired jurisdiction. Of course we cannot
enforce the decision until we caught him. Pero
pagnahuli, ka diretso ka na sa prisuhan. You say, “I was
not able to give my side. I was not able to confront and cross-
examine the witness against me.” Eh, bakit ka naglayas?
Pasensiya ka! That’s the concept of trial in absentia. But
for trial in absentia to proceed
JBD in criminal cases, you
must first arrest him. You cannot try him without being
arrested. You must arrest him and arraign him first. The
same thing in civil cases. It must be that the court must
acquire jurisdiction over this person.
!21



Normally, when we say jurisdiction over the parties,
we are referring to the PLAINTIFF – the one suing, and
the DEFENDAN'T – the one being sued. For the
decision to be valid, the court must obtain jurisdiction
over the person of the plaintiff and the defendant.
Otherwise, the decision will not bind the parties over
whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction.

That is why jurisdiction over the parties is the power
of the court to render a personal judgment which will
bind the parties to the case. What is the use of rendering
a decision if the parties are not bound? It must have
effect.

Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the
plaintiff?
A: Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is
acquired from the moment he files his complaint. Upon
filing his complaint in court, he is automatically within
the jurisdiction of the court. (MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20
Phil. 523)

Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the
defendant?
A: Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
acquired:
1) upon service on him
JBD of coercive process in the
manner provided by law; or
2) by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of
the court. (MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)

!22


First Instance: UPON SERVICE ON HIM OF COERCIVE
PROCESS
IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW

The first instance when a court acquires jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant is through a service
upon him of the appropriate court process which in civil
law is called service of summons. This is the counterpart of
warrant of arrest in criminal procedure.

So if the defendant was never served with summons,
any judgment rendered by the court will not bind him.
Even if he is the loser in the case, judgment cannot be
enforced because the court did not acquire jurisdiction
over his person.

The same principle holds true in criminal cases. A
court cannot try and convict an accused over whose
person the court never acquired jurisdiction. In criminal
cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person
through the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The warrant
cannot have its effect even if it was issued, if the same
had not been served, i.e. by effecting the arrest of the
accused by virtue of a warrant.

Q: In criminal cases, how can the warrant of arrest be
effected?
A: Once an information JBDhas been filed in court, the
court issues a warrant. Then, the arresting officer will
arrest the accused. The court acquires jurisdiction by
ENFORCEMENT OF SERVICE for effective arrest of the
accused pursuant to the warrant of arrest.
!23



Second Instance: BY HIS VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION
TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

Another way to acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the accused even if the accused is not arrested is through
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. Since there is no more
need for the warrant, the court will recall the same. In
civil cases, it is the voluntary submission of the
defendant to the jurisdiction of the court.

Q: Defendant was served with summons improperly
or irregularly therefore, he could question the
jurisdiction of the court over his person. But instead, he
did not question the jurisdiction of the court despite the
defective service of court process. Did the court acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?
A: YES, because jurisdiction over the person can be
acquired by:
a) waiver;
b) consent; or
c) lack of objection by the defendant. (MRR Co. vs.
Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)

This is unlike the jurisdiction over subject matter
wherein the case could be dismissed upon filing in the
wrong court. The SC saidJBDthat when you remained silent
despite the defects, your silence has cured the defect.
Meaning, the jurisdiction over your person was acquired
by waiver, or consent, or lack of objection.

!24


Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter
from jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?
A: Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant may be cured by waiver, consent, silence or
failure to object, whereas jurisdiction over the subject
matter cannot be cured by failure to object or by silence,
waiver or consent. (MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)

C. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES

RES is the Latin word for “thing.”

Q: Define jurisdiction over the res.
A: Jurisdiction over the res is that acquired by the
court over the property or the thing in contest, and is
obtained by seizure under legal process of the court
whereby it is held to abide such order as the court may
make. (Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)

Q: A and B quarreled over a piece of land. What is the
res of the case?
A: The piece of land is the res of the case.

Q: However, res may not be tangible. For example,
Weng Kolotski is an illegitimate child. She wants to be
acknowledged by her father. Thus, she filed a case
against her father for compulsory recognition. What is
the res? JBD
A: The res is the status of the child because it is the
object of the litigation.

Q: Why is jurisdiction over the res important?
!25


A: Sometimes it is a substitute for jurisdiction over the
person. There are instances when the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction over the defendant like when he is
abroad. But if the court acquires jurisdiction over the res,
the case may go on. Even if the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant,
jurisdiction over the res becomes a substitute over the
person.

EXAMPLE: Even if the defendant is a non-resident
who is out of the country and the object of litigation is
here in the Philippines, then acquisition of jurisdiction
over the res confers jurisdiction to the court even if the
defendant is abroad. The res here is where the judgement
can be enforced.

That is why in Rule 14, there is an extraterritorial
service of summons. But based on a SC ruling, the
extraterritorial service of summons is not for the
purpose of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant but is merely how to comply with the due
process clause.


D. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

Q: Define jurisdiction over the issues.
A: Jurisdiction over the JBDissue is the authority to try
and decide the issues raised by the pleadings of the
parties. (Reyes vs. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484)

Q: What are pleadings?
!26


A: They are governed by Rule 6.

Rule 6, Section 1 Pleadings are the written
allegation of the parties of their respective claims and
defenses submitted to the court for trial and judgment.

In a civil case, the parties before the trial file in court
pleadings. That is where you state your position.

EXAMPLE: Francis “Paloy” Ampig will sue you to
collect a loan. So Paloy will file a complaint in court.
That is a pleading. Then you have to answer Paloy’s
complaint in court. You say that you do not owe him
anything because you already paid him. So you prepare
your answer in writing in court and that is also called a
pleading. Based on what Paloy said in his complaint and
your answer, we will now know what they are
quarreling about.

For example: Paloy says you borrowed money,
you never paid him. Now according to your answer,
“No. I already paid him.”

Q: Now what is the issue?
A: The issue is, whether the obligation still existing or
is it already extinguished by payment. So that is the
issue. So that is where we will know what we will try in
this case. JBD

Q: Suppose after the trial, the court said that the
obligation has been extinguished by condonation. Now
where did the court get that? Your defense is payment,
!27


and the decision now it was extinguished by
condonation. Is the decision correct?
A: The decision is WRONG because the parties did not
raise condonation as the issue. The case was decided on
an issue that was not even raised by the parties. So the
court never acquired jurisdiction over the issue. In other
words, the court should only rule on what the parties
raised in their pleadings. That is what we call
jurisdiction over the issue. The court should only rule
on what the parties claim.

So, the court is supposed to rule on the issue raised
and not those not raised by the parties.

Take note that jurisdiction over the issues in civil cases
is acquired after defendant has filed an answer. In
criminal cases, jurisdiction over the issues is acquired
upon filing of a complaint. For a decision to be effective,
the court must acquire the jurisdiction over the subject
matter, the person, the res in case the defendant is not
around, and the last is jurisdiction over the issue.

Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter and
jurisdiction over the issues.
A: The following are the distinctions:

1) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power
to hear and try aJBD
particular case, while
Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the
court to resolve legal questions involved in the
case;

!28


2) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired
upon filing of the complaint, while
Jurisdiction over the issues of the case is acquired
upon filing of the answer which joins the issues
involve in the case.

EXAMPLE: I am the plaintiff, I will file a case in
court to collect an unpaid loan. From the moment
I file the case, the court has acquired jurisdiction
over the subject matter. Now, you are summoned.
File ka naman ng sagot mo, “Wala akong utang,
bayad na.” Then the court has now acquired
jurisdiction over the issue. One is acquired upon
filing of the complaint and the other one is
acquired after the filing of the answer by the
defendant.


HIERARCHY OF THE COURTS

In the 1996 BAR: One of the questions in Remedial
Law was: State the hierarchy of the Courts in the
Philippines.

a.) Regular courts

SUPREME COURT
JBD
COURT OF APPEALS

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

!29


MetTC MTCC MTC MCTC


Note:
MetTC- In Manila
MTCC- cities outside Manila e.g. Cebu, Davao
MTC- municipalities such as Digos, Panabo
MCTC- circuitized areas because it is impractical and
expensive to maintain one MTC in every municipalities.

b.) Special courts

There are also Special Courts which are also
considered part of the judiciary. These are:
1. Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125)
2. Sandiganbayan (PD 1486 as amended)
3. Sharia District Courts and the Sharia Circuit
Courts (PD 1083 , also known as the Code of
Muslim Personal Law);
4. Family Courts

We are concerned only of the jurisdiction of the
REGULAR COURTS.

<


JBD
published by:



!30


LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 – 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna
Vanessa Angeles • Glenda Buhion • Joseph Martin
Castillo • Aaron Philip Cruz • Pearly Joan Jayagan •
Anderson Lo •
Yogie Martirizar • Frecelyn Mejia • Dorothy Montejo •
Rowena Panales • Regina Sison •
Ruby Teleron • Marilou Timbol • Maceste Uy • Perla
Vicencio • Liberty Wong • Jude Zamora • Special
Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena

SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong • Emily Aliño •
Karen Allones • Joseph Apao • Melody Penelope
Batu • Gemma Betonio • Rocky Cabarroguis •
Charina Cabrera • Marlon Cascuejo •
Mike Castaños • Karen de Leon • Cherry Frondozo •
Jude Fuentes • Maila Ilao • Ilai Llena •
Rocky Malaki • Jenny Namoc • Ines Papaya •
Jennifer Ramos • Paisal Tanjili



LAKAS ATENISTA 2001–2002: REVISION
COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez • Jessamyn Agustin •
Judee Uy • Janice Joanne Torres • Genie Salvania •
Pches Fernandez • Riezl Locsin •
Kenneth Lim • Charles Concon • Roy Acelar • Francis
Ampig • Karen Cacabelos • Maying Dadula • Hannah
Examen • Thea Guadalope • Myra Montecalvo • Paul
OngkingcoJBD
• Michael Pito •
Rod Quiachon • Maya Quitain • Rina Sacdalan • Lyle
Santos •Joshua Tan • Thaddeus Tuburan • John Vera
Cruz • Mortmort

!31