Jurisdiction Highlighted

8/6/2019 Jurisdiction Highlighted

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jurisdiction-highlighted 1/13

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEWER

Part II of IX

JURISDICTION

Mark de Leon, JD 2001

I. Jurisdiction

A.Definition

Jurisdiction – the power to hear and decide cases

B.Classifications of jurisdiction

Classifications of jurisdiction

.1 General or Limited/special

.a General jurisdiction – power to adjudicateall controversies except those expresslywithheld from the plenary powers of the court

.b

Limited/special jurisdiction – restricts thecourts jurisdiction only to particular cases andsubject to such limitations as may be providedby the governing law

.2 original or appellate

.a

Original jurisdiction – power of the court totake judicial cognizance of a caseinstituted for judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by law

.b

appellate jurisdiction – authority of a court higher in rank to re-examine the final order or judgment of a lower court whichtried the case now elevated for judicial review

.3 exclusive or concurrent

.a

exclusive jurisdiction – power to adjudicate acase or proceeding to the exclusion of all other courts at that stage

.b

concurrent/coordinate jurisdiction – powerconferred upon different courts, whether of the same or different ranks, to takecognizance at the same stage of the same casein the same or different judicial territories

.4 over subject matter, person, or the res

.a

jurisdiction over the subject matter –conferred by law, determined upon theallegations made in the complaint,

irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitledor not, to recover upon the claim assertedtherein

.b

jurisdiction over the person

)1 plaintiff – acquired by filing of theinitiatory pleading

)2 defendant – acquired by the

)a proper service of summons

)b voluntary appearance in court , or

)c voluntary submission to theauthority of the court .

.c

jurisdiction over the res – acquired by

)1 the seizure of the thing under legal process whereby it is brought into actual custody of law, or



)2 the institution of a legal proceeding wherein the power of the court over the thing is recognized and made effective

C. Jurisdiction of the Courts

1. SC (Art. VIII, Sec. 5 Consti)

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have thefollowing powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over

casesaffecting ambassadors, other public ministers

and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari

,prohibition

, mandamus, quo warranto

, andhabeas corpus

.

(2) Review, revise, modify, or affirm on

appeal on certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide,

final judgments and orders

of lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which theconstitutionality 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.

(3)

Assign temporarily judges of lower

courts to other stations as public interest may

require. Such temporary assignment

shall notexceed six months without the consent of the

judge concerned.

(4) Order a

change of venue or place of

trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

(5)

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(1)simplified and inexpensive procedure for the

speedy disposition of cases

, shall be (2)uniformfor all courts of the same grade

, and (3)shallnot diminish, increase, or modify substantive

rights. Rules of procedure of special courts andquasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective

unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

(6)

Appoint all officials and employees of

the judiciary in accordance with the CivilService Law.

Powers of the Supreme Court

Remedial Law Reviewer, Part II of IX, Last printed11/19/2002 12:21:00 AM

Mark de Leon, JD2001

- 2-



.1 original jurisdiction over

.a cases affecting ambassadors, other publicministers and consuls

.b petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,quo warranto

.c habeas corpus

.2 appellate jurisdiction over cases of

.a constitutionality or validity of any treaty,international or executive agreement, law,presidential decree, proclamation, order,instruction, ordinance, or regulation is inquestion.

.b legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll,

or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.c jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

.d penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua orhigher.

.e only an error or question of law is involved.

.3 Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to otherstations as public interest may require. Suchtemporary assignment shall not exceed 6 months

without the consent of the judge concerned..4 Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a

miscarriage of justice.

.5 Promulgate rules concerning

.a the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights

.b pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts

.c the admission to the practice of law

.d the Integrated Bar, and

.e legal assistance to the underprivileged

.6 Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciaryin accordance with the Civil Service Law.

Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensiveprocedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shallbe uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shallnot diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicialbodies shall remain effective unless disapproved bythe Supreme Court.

2.Court of Appeals (Sec. 9, BP 129as amended by RA 7902)

Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. - The Court of Appealsshall exercise:

(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition

, certiorari , habeascorpus

, and quo warranto

, and auxiliary writs

or processes

, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction

over actions for annulment of judgment of Regional

Trial Courts; and

(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction

over allfinal judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders

or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-



- 3-



judicial agencies

,

instrumentalities,

boards or commissions, including the

Securities and Exchange

Commission, the

Social Security

Commission, the Employees Compensation

Commission and the Civil Service Commission,except those falling within the appellate

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordancewith the Constitution, the Labor Code of thePhilippines under Presidential Decree No. 442,as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph andsubparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

The Court of Appeals shall have the power to

try cases a

nd conduct hearings

,

receive

evidence and perform any and all acts

necessary to resolve factual issue

s raised incases falling within its original and appellate

jurisdiction, including

the power to grant and

conduct new trials or further proceedings.Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals mustbe

continuous and must be completed within

three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief

Justice.

Jurisdiction of the CA

.1 Original jurisdiction

.a Exclusive jurisdiction – over actions forannulment of judgment of RTC

.b Concurrent jurisdiction – to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas

corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs orprocesses

.2 Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over RTCs andquasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boardsor commissions, except COMELEC or Commission

on Audit The CA shall have the power to

.1 try cases and conduct hearings (must becontinuous and completed within 3 months, unlessextended by the Chief Justice)

.2 receive evidence and

.3 perform any and all acts necessary to resolvefactual issues raised in cases falling within itsoriginal and appellate jurisdiction, including thepower to grant and conduct new trials or furtherproceedings.

CA now has appellate jurisdiction over the

NLRC.

Escolin: Constitutional Commission decisions shouldhave been appealable to the SC under theConstitution. CSC decisions are appealable to the CAonly by law.

3. Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 19, BP129 as amended by RA 7691)

Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. - RegionalTrial Courts shall exercise exclusive original

jurisdiction.



- 4-



(1) In all civil actions in which the subject

of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary

estimation;

(2) In all civil actions which involve the titleto, or possession of, real property, or any

interest therein , where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty

thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civilactions

in Metro Manila, where such valueexceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original

jurisdiction over which is conferred upon theMetropolitan Trial Courts

, Municipal TrialCourts

, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

;

(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime

jurisdiction w

here the demand or claim exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or,in

Metro Manila, where such demand or claimexceeds Two hundred thousand pesos

(P200,000.00);

(4) In all matters of probate

, both testate

and intestate, where the gross value of the

estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos

(P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in

MetroManila, where such gross value exceeds Two

Hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00);

(5) In all

actions involving the

contract of marriage and marital relations

;

(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or

body e

xercising jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial orquasi-judicial functions;

(7) In all civil actions and specialproceedings falling within the

exclusive original

jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic

Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian

Relations as now provided by law; and

(8) In all other cases in which the demand,

exclusive of interest, damages of whatever

kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and

costs or the value of the property in

controversy exceeds One hundred thousand

pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases

inMetro Manila, where the demand exclusive of

the abovementioned items exceeds TwoHundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00).

The interest to be excluded is the interest imposed asa form of damages as a result of default (e.g. legalinterest), not interest which the defendant must payeven if he is not in default (cf Art. 1170, 1169 CC).

RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years (1999)from the effectivity of this Act (1994), the

jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3),

(4), and (8) xxx of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 asamended by this Act, shall be adjusted to Twohundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five(5) years thereafter (2004), such jurisdictionalamounts shall be adjusted further to Threehundred thousand pesos

(P300,000.00):Provided, however, That in the case of Metro



- 5-



Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictionalamounts shall be adjusted after five (5) yearsfrom the effectivity of this Act to Four hundredthousand pesos (P400,000,00).

Sec. 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. -

Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction in all

criminal cases notwithin the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,

tribunal or body , except those now fallingunder the exclusive and concurrent jurisdictionof the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter beexclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.

Sec. 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. -Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original

jurisdiction:

(1) In the

issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas

corpus and injunction which may be enforced inany part of their respective regions; and

(2) In

actions affecting ambassadors and

other public ministers and consuls.

Sec. 22. Appellate jurisdiction. - RegionalTrial Courts shall exercise

appellate jurisdiction

over all cases decided by Metropolitan Trial

Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal

Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial

jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided onthe basis of the entire record of theproceedings had in the court of origin and suchmemoranda and/or briefs as may be submittedby the parties or required by the Regional Trial

Courts. The decision of the Regional TrialCourts in such cases shall be appealable bypetition for review to the IntermediateAppellate Court which may give it due courseonly when the petition shows prima facie thatthe lower court has committed an error of fact

or law that will warrant a reversal ormodification of the decision or judgment soughtto be reviewed.

Jurisdiction of the RTC

.1 Civil cases – exclusive original jurisdiction.

.a actions in which the subject of the litigation isincapable of pecuniary estimation

.b actions involving the title to, or possession of,

real property, or any interest therein)1 where the assessed value of the property

involved exceeds

)a P20,000 outside Metro Manila

)b P50,000 in Metro Manila

)2 except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,original jurisdiction over which is conferred

upon the inferior courts.c actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction

where the demand or claim exceeds

)1 P200,000 outside Metro Manila(P300,000 by 2004)

)2 P400,000 in Metro Manila



- 6-



.d matters of probate, both testate and intestate ,where the gross value of the estate exceeds


)2 P400,000 in Metro Manila

.e actions involving the contract of marriage andmarital relations;

.f cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising

jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person orbody exercising judicial or quasi-judicialfunctions;

.g actions and special proceedings falling withinthe exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenileand Domestic Relations Court and of the Courtof Agrarian Relations

.h cases in which the demand (exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney'sfees, litigation expenses, and costs) or thevalue of the property in controversy exceeds


)2 P400,000 in Metro Manila.2 criminal cases – exclusive original jurisdiction in

.a all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body

.b except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter beexclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.

.3 Concurrent original jurisdiction

.a issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and

injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; and

.b actions affecting ambassadors and other publicministers and consuls.

.4 Appellate jurisdiction – all cases decided by theinferior courts in their respective territorial

jurisdictions

4.MTC, MeTC (Secs. 32-33, BP 129

as amended by RA 7691, and Sec.5, RA 7691)

Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Criminal Cases. – Exceptin cases falling within the exclusive original

jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of theSandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal CircuitTrial Courts shall exercise:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over allviolations of city or municipal ordinancescommitted within their respective territorial

jurisdiction; and

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over alloffenses punishable with imprisonment not



- 7-



exceeding six (6) years irrespective of theamount of fine, and regardless of otherimposable accessory or other penalties,including the civil liability arising from suchoffenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof:

Provided, however, That in offenses involvingdamage to property through criminalnegligence, they shall have exclusive original

jurisdiction thereof.

Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. - MetropolitanTrial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, andMunicipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civilactions and probate proceedings, testate andintestate, including the grant of provisionalremedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of thedemand does not exceed One hundredthousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in MetroManila where such personal property, estate, oramount of the demand does not exceed Twohundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00),

exclusive of interest, damages of whateverkind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, andcosts, the amount of which must be specificallyalleged: Provided, That interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigationexpenses, and costs shall be included in thedetermination of the filing fees: Provided,

further, That where there are several claims orcauses of actions between the same ordifferent parties, embodied in the samecomplaint, the amount of the demand shall bethe totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of

action arose out of the same or differenttransactions;

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction overcases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:Provided, That when, in such cases, thedefendant raises the questions of ownership inhis pleadings and the question of possessioncannot be resolved without deciding the issueof ownership, the issue of ownership shall be

resolved only to determine the issue of possession; and

(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civilactions which involve title to, or possession of,real property, or any interest therein where theassessed value of the property or interesttherein does not exceed Twenty thousandpesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in MetroManila, where such assessed value does notexceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)

exclusive of interest, damages of whateverkind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses andcosts: Provided, That in cases of land notdeclared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by theassessed value of the adjacent lots.



- 8-



RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years (1999)from the effectivity of this Act (1994), the

jurisdictional amounts mentioned in xxx Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended bythis Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundredthousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years

thereafter (2004), such jurisdictional amountsshall be adjusted further to Three hundredthousand pesos (P300,000.00): Provided,however, That in the case of Metro Manila, theabovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall beadjusted after five (5) years (1999) from theeffectivity of this Act (1994) to Four hundredthousand pesos (P400,000,00).

Jurisdiction of the MTC

.1 Criminal Cases – (except in cases falling within theexclusive original jurisdiction of Regional TrialCourts and of the Sandiganbayan) exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction over

.a all violations of city or municipal ordinancescommitted within their respective territorial

jurisdiction; and

.b all offenses punishable with imprisonment notexceeding 6 years

)1 irrespective of the amount of fine, and

)2 regardless of other imposable accessoryor other penalties

)3 including the civil liability arising fromsuch offenses or predicated thereon,

irrespective of kind, nature, value or amountthereof

.2 Civil Cases – Exclusive original jurisdiction over

.a Civil actions and probate proceedings wherethe value of the personal property, estate, or

amount of the demand)1 does not exceed

)a P200,000 outside Metro Manila(P300,000 by 2004)


)2 exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigationexpenses, and costs, the amount of which

must be specifically alleged (but interest,damages, attorney's fees, litigationexpenses, and costs shall be included in thedetermination of the filing fees)

)3 where there are several claims or causesof actions between the same or differentparties, embodied in the same complaint,the amount of the demand shall be thetotality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of

action arose out of the same or differenttransactions

.b cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer(when, in such cases, the defendant raises thequestions of ownership in his pleadings and thequestion of possession cannot be resolvedwithout deciding the issue of ownership, the



- 9-



issue of ownership shall be resolved only todetermine the issue of possession)

.c actions which involve title to, or possession of,real property, or any interest therein where theassessed value of the property or interesttherein

)1 does not exceed

)a P20,000 outside Metro Manila


)2 exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigationexpenses and costs:

)3 in cases of land not declared for taxation

purposes, the value of such property shall bedetermined by the assessed value of theadjacent lots.

D.Cases

Raymundo v. CA, 213 SCRA 457 (1992): A claim of attorney's fees is only incidental to its principal causeof action and therefore not determinative of the

jurisdiction of the court. An action to remove theillegal and unauthorized installation of glasses at a

condominium unit is not capable of pecuniaryestimation and falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. In determining whether an action is one thesubject matter of which is not capable of pecuniaryestimation the criterion is first to ascertain the natureof the principal action or remedy sought. If it isprimarily for the recovery of a sum of money, theclaim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation,

and whether jurisdiction is in the MTC or in the RTCwould depend on the amount of the claim. However,where the basic issue is something other than theright to recover a sum of money, or where the moneyclaim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, theprincipal relief sought, the subject of the litigation

may not be estimated in terms of money, and arecognizable exclusively by the RTC.

Ortigas v. Herrera, 120 SCRA 89 (1983)

Facts: Ortigas and respondent entered into anagreement whereby Ortigas agreed to sell to therespondent a parcel of land with a special conditionthat should respondent as purchaser complete theconstruction including the painting of his residentialhouse on said lot within 2 years from purchase,

Ortigas would refund to respondent the amount of P10 per square meter. When the aforesaid specialcondition was fulfilled, respondent notified Ortigas inwriting and requested for his refund. Upon failure of Ortigas to pay his obligation, respondent filed acomplaint for sum of money and damages with theCity Court. Ortigas fails in his attempt to dismiss thecomplaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Held: The action involved in this case is one forspecific performance and not for a sum of money andtherefore incapable of pecuniary estimation becausewhat private respondent seeks is the performance of petitioner's obligation under a written contract tomake a refund but under certain specific conditionsstill to be proven or established. In a case for therecovery of a sum of money, as the collection of adebt, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary



-10 -



estimation because the obligation to pay the debt isnot conditioned upon any specific fact or matter. Butwhen a party to a contract has agreed to refund tothe other party a sum of money upon compliance bythe latter of certain conditions and only uponcompliance therewith may what is legally due him

under the written contract be demanded, the action isone not capable of pecuniary estimation and is withinthe jurisdiction of the RTC. The payment of a sum of money is only incidental which can only be orderedafter a determination of certain acts the performanceof which being the more basic issue to be inquiredinto.

Counterclaim filed in MTC in excess of the MTC’s jurisdictional amount is considered waived ( Agustin v.

Bacalan, GR L-46000).Legados v. de Guzman, 170 SCRA 357 (1989): Therule now (1989) is MTCs have jurisdiction overoffenses punishable with at most 4 years and 2months (now [2001] 6 years), regardless of otherimposable accessory penalties or civil liability. Simpleseduction is now within the MTC’s jurisdiction even if the offender may be compelled to acknowledge andgive support to the offspring.

SEC v. CA, 201 SCRA 124 (1991)

Facts: The Uy Family owned 2 corporations: UBSMarketing and Soon Kee. Uy-Flores and Uy-Chua weremanaging directors and had custody of corporateaccounting and tax records of both corporations. As aresult of a family dispute, the family resolved toassign all their shares in UBS to Johnny Uy, while

Johnny Uy assigned all his shares in Soon Kee to therest of the family. Johnny Uy demanded from Uy-Flores and Uy-Chua the UBS corporate books, funds,properties and records. His request was denied,hence he filed a case before the SEC. Uy-Flores andUy-Chua filed MTD on the ground that the SEC has no

jurisdiction, because there was no intra-corporatedispute. This was denied. CA reverses holding thatsince Uy-Flores and Uy-Chua were no longerstockholders and directors of UBS, there was no intra-corporate relationship and hence no intra-corporatedispute.

Held: The SEC has jurisdiction over intra-corporatedisputes. Intra-corporate dispute is one which arisesbetween a stockholder and the corporation. The SEC

has no jurisdiction over a controversy wherein one of the parties involved is not or not yet a stockholder of the corporation. This rule negating the jurisdiction of the SEC however, does not apply where one of theparties was a former stockholder and the controversyarose out of this relation.

In the case at bar, at the time of the execution of theDeeds of Assignment the parties were all interlockingstockholders and officers of the 2 corporations.Hence, the deeds of assignment were intra-corporate

transactions which arose from intra-corporaterelations or between and among the stockholders of the two 2 corporations. The controversy is, therefore,an intra-corporate controversy which falls within theoriginal and exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC.

The fact that when the complaint was filed with theSEC, Uy-Flores and Uy-Chua were no longer



-11 -



stockholders of the UBS did not divest the SEC of its jurisdiction. The existence of the intra-corporaterelationship at the time of the filing of the complaintdoes not determine the jurisdiction of the SEC. Thefact that the intra-corporate relationship hasapparently terminated does not deprive the SEC of its

jurisdiction to hear and decide the controversy whicharose from that relationship. The determining factor iswhether the controversy arose out of intra-corporaterelations.

Primero v. IAC, 156 SCRA 435 (1987): Labor arbitersnow have jurisdiction to award damages. Failure toclaim moral damages in the illegal dismissal casebefore the Labor Arbiter bars the subsequent claimfor moral damages in a regular court.

Tipait v. Reyes, 218 SCRA 592 (1993)Facts: Labor Arbiter orders employer to reinstate theemployee and to pay backwages. Decision becamefinal and writ of execution was issued. The employernow files an action for prohibition to restrainenforcement of the writ of execution.

Held: A civil case to restrain enforcement of a writ of execution issued by labor officials is in the nature of amotion to quash such writ of execution. It is the labor

officials who has jurisdiction over the case, not thecivil courts.

Manliguez v. CA, 232 SCRA 427 (1994)

Facts: Employer was ordered in a final judgment topay its employees. Writ of execution was issued andenforced by levying on property. Manliguez filed acomplaint which sought the lifting of the levy over,

and annulment of the sale of, the property on theground that Manliguez was the owner of suchproperty and that the employer was just leasing itfrom him.

Held: Where the civil case is to lift levy over andannulment of the sale of the property on the groundthat it was not owned by the respondent in the laborcase, the civil court has jurisdiction. Where the actionattacked the regularity of the issuance of the writ of execution in the labor case, the labor officials have

jurisdiction. If the action does not attack the issuance,but the manner of execution, the civil courts have

jurisdiction.

de Leon: In Tipait , there was an employer-employeerelationship between the plaintiff in the civil case and

the judgment obligee in the labor case. In Manliguez ,there was no such relationship.

Trade Union of the Phils. v. Coscolluela, 140 SCRA302 (1985)

Facts: Super Garments and Rustan CommercialCorporation have separate compartments in the samebuilding. TUPAS filed a notice of strike against SuperGarments. Alleging that goods of Super Garmentswere spirited out of its strike-bound premises thru

Rustan's warehouse, TUPAS picketed Rustan as well.Rustan thus files a petition for injunction anddamages before the RTC and NLRC to enjoin theunion from picketing its premises. RTC after findingno employer-employee relationship between theparties, issued the writ of preliminary injunction.

TUPAS files a case of ULP against both Super



-12 -



Garments and Rustan alleging that the former is butthe manufacturing arm of the latter. TUPAS claimsthat the RTC has no jurisdiction to issue an injunctionbecause the case is a labor dispute, that theprerogative belongs to the Secretary of Labor andEmployment.

Held: Where no employer-employee relation existsbetween the parties, there is no labor dispute. Thecivil courts, not labor officials, has jurisdiction. Thereis no labor dispute between the TUPAS and Rustan.

Therefore Rustan was justified in seeking relief inbefore the RTC. The ULP complaint filed by TUPASdoes not prove a labor relationship. Furthermore, itwas improper for Rustan to have filed a case with theNLRC.

Painaga v. Cortes, 202 SCRA 245 (1991) Power andauthority given to the Director of Lands to alienateand dispose of public lands does not divest theregular courts of their jurisdiction over possessoryactions instituted by occupants or applicants againstothers to protect their respective possessions andoccupations. While the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands is confined to the determination of therespective rights of rival claimants to public lands orto cases which involve disposition of public lands, the

power to determine who has the actual, physicalpossession or occupation or the better right of possession over public lands remains with the courts.A protest filed before the Bureau of Lands seeking thecancellation of OCT on the ground of fraud differsfrom Civil Case for injunction to protect priorpossession. The administrative protest boils down to

the question of ownership of the area in controversy,while the court action is concerned merely withpossession.

Pestanas v. Dyogi, 81 SCRA 574 (1978) Where a partyseeks the cancellation of a free patent with theBureau of Lands, he must pursue his action in theproper Department and a review by the Courts willnot be permitted unless the administrative remediesare first exhausted.

de Leon: In Painaga, the action before the courts wasfor mandatory injunction to stop invasion into itsproperty. In Pestanas, the action was for cancellationof patent.

Villamor v. Salas, 203 SCRA 540 (1991) An RTC hasno jurisdiction to declare as unjust a judgment of another RTC and sentence the judge thereof liable fordamages. Only the higher appellate courts, namely,the CA and the SC, are vested with authority to renewand correct errors of the RTC.

Vital-Gozon v. CA, 212 SCRA 235 (1992) The CA has jurisdiction to award moral and exemplary damagesin original special civil actions of mandamus, evenwithout an express grant from statute.



-13 -

Documents

Jurisdiction Highlighted