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 questions arising 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,
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 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.

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 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)

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.