POLIDO NOTES
BRONDIAL SYLLABUS
JURISDICTION
1. DUERO VS CA: (ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY)
Was private respondent estopped from
questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC? In this
case, we are in agreement with the Court of
Appeals that he was not. While participation in
all stages of a case before the trial court,
including invocation of its authority in asking for
affirmative relief, effectively bars a party by
estoppel from challenging the court's
jurisdiction,13 we note that estoppel has become
an equitable defense that is both substantive
and remedial and its successful invocation can
bar a right and not merely its equitable
enforcement.14 Hence, estoppel ought to be
applied with caution. For estoppel to apply, the
action giving rise thereto must be unequivocal
and intentional because, if misapplied, estoppel
may become a tool of injustice.15
Recall that it was petitioner who filed the
complaint against private respondent and two
other parties before the said court,16 believing
that the RTC had jurisdiction over his complaint.
But by then, Republic Act 769117amending BP
129 had become effective, such that jurisdiction
already belongs not to the RTC but to the MTC
pursuant to said amendment. Private
respondent, an unschooled farmer, in the
mistaken belief that since he was merely a
tenant of the late Artemio Laurente Sr., his
landlord, gave the summons to a Hipolito
Laurente, one of the surviving heirs of Artemio
Sr., who did not do anything about the
summons.
2. DONATO VS CA (ERROR OF JT VS ERROR OF
JURISDICTION) (impossibility of signing the cert for
non forum shopping w/in 15 d; abroad)
An error of judgment is one by which the court
may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction,
and which error is reviewable only by an appeal.
On the other hand, an error of jurisdiction is one
where the act complained of was issued by the
court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or
in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion which is tantamount to lack or in
excess of jurisdiction. This error is correctible
only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
Here, the present petition principally assails the
dismissal of the petition on ground of procedural
flaws involving the jurisdiction of the court a
quo to entertain the petition, it falls within the
ambit of a special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
3. GONZAGA VS CA (ESTOPPEL IS APPLICABLE)
In countless decisions, this Court has
consistently held that, while an order or decision
rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and
may be assailed at any stage, active
participation in the proceedings in the court
which rendered the order or decision will bar
such party from attacking its jurisdiction.
In the case at bar, it was petitioners themselves
who invoked the jurisdiction of the court a quo
by instituting an action for reformation of
contract against private respondents. It appears
that, in the proceedings before the trial court,
petitioners vigorously asserted their cause from
start to finish. Not even once did petitioners ever
raise the issue of the courts jurisdiction during
the entire proceedings which lasted for two
years. It was only after the trial court rendered
its decision and issued a writ of execution
against them in 1998 did petitioners first raise
the issue of jurisdiction and it was only
because said decision was unfavorable to them.
Petitioners thus effectively waived their right to
question the courts jurisdiction over the case
they themselves filed.
4. ESCOBAL VS GATCHITORENA (JURISDICTION
OVER PUBLIC OFFICERS WITH SG BELOW 27)
The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases
is determined by the allegations in the
Information or the Complaint and the statute in
effect at the time of the commencement of the
action, unless such statute provides for a
retroactive application thereof. The jurisdictional
requirements must be alleged in the
Information.19 Such jurisdiction of the court
acquired at the inception of the case continues
until the case is terminated.
the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction
under the said law over crimes committed by
public officers in relation to their office, it is
essential that the facts showing the intimate
relation between the office of the offender and
the discharge of official duties must be alleged in
the Information.
The amended Information filed with the RTC
against the petitioner does not contain any
allegation showing the intimate relation between
his office and the discharge of his duties. Hence,
the RTC had jurisdiction over the offense
charged.
If SG BELOW 27: jurisdiction is with the
RTC/MTC, even if the offender committed the
crime charged in relation to his office.
In this case, the petitioner was a Police Senior
Inspector, with salary grade "23." He was
charged with homicide punishable by reclusion
 temporal. Hence, the RTC had exclusive
jurisdiction over the crime charged conformably
to Sections 20 and 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691.
The petitioners contention that R.A. No. 7975
should not be applied retroactively has no legal
basis. It bears stressing that R.A. No. 7975 is a
substantive procedural law which may be
applied retroactively.23
5. AGAN JR. VS PHIL INTL AIR TERMINAL(PIATCO)
TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE
Exception to the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts:
The said rule may be relaxed when the redress
desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate
courts or where exceptional and compelling
circumstances justify availment of a remedy
within and calling for the exercise of this Court's
primary jurisdiction.
It is easy to discern that exceptional
circumstances exist in the cases at bar that call
for the relaxation of the rule. Both petitioners
and respondents agree that these cases are
of transcendental importance as they involve
the construction and operation of the country's
premier international airport. Moreover, the
crucial issues submitted for resolution are of first
impression and they entail the proper legal
interpretation of key provisions of the
Constitution, the BOT Law and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations. Thus, considering the
nature of the controversy before the Court,
procedural bars may be lowered to give way for
the speedy disposition of the instant cases.
6. LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY NATIONAL VS
ATIENZA (DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS)
Third ISSUE, even granting arguendo that the
present petition is ripe for the extraordinary writ
of certiorari, there is here a clear disregard of
the hierarchy of courts because there is no
special and important reason or exceptional and
compelling circumstance has been adduced by
the petitioner or the intervenor why direct
recourse to this Court should be allowed.
We have held that this Courts original
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari (as well as
of prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction) is not exclusive, but is
concurrent with the Regional Trial Courts and
the Court of Appeals in certain cases.
This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however,
to be taken as according to parties seeking any
of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of
choice of the court to which application therefor0
will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of
courts.
A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts
original jurisdiction to issue these writs should
be allowed only when there are special and
important reasons therefor, clearly and
specifically set out in the petition. This is [an]
established policy. It is a policy necessary to
prevent inordinate demands upon the Courts
time and attention which are better devoted to
those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction,
and to prevent further over-crowding of the
Courts docket.
Thus, we shall reaffirm the judicial policy that
this Court will not entertain direct resort to it
unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in
the appropriate courts, and exceptional and
compelling circumstances justify the availment
of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari,
calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction.
7. MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORP VS
NG KOK WEI (JURISDICTION OF HLURB)
complaints for specific performance with
damages by a lot or condominium unit buyer
against the owner or developer falls under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB.
While it may be true that the trial court is without
jurisdiction over the case, petitioners active
participation in the proceedings estopped it from
assailing such lack of it. We have held that it is
an undesirable practice of a party participating in
the proceedings and submitting its case for
decision and then accepting the judgment, only
if favorable, and attacking it for lack of
jurisdiction, when adverse.6
Here, petitioner failed to raise the question of
jurisdiction before the trial court and the
Appellate Court. In effect, petitioner confirmed
and ratified the trial courts jurisdiction over this
case. Certainly, it is now in estoppel and can no
longer question the trial courts jurisdiction.
8. OCA VS SARDIDO
ISSUE: whether the case of Judge Hurtado, who
is charged for acts committed prior to his
appointment as an RTC Judge, falls within the
purview of the afore-said Circular No. 3-89. (crim
case against Judge Sardido) NO
All administrative cases against justices of
appellate courts and judges of lower courts fall
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court.
Circular No. 3-89 clarified the second paragraph, Section
1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court which states that:
The IBP Board of Governors may, motu
proprio or upon referral by the Supreme Court or
by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the
instance of any person, initiate and prosecute
proper charges against erring attorneys
 including those in the government service.
(Emphasis supplied).
As clarified, the phrase "attorneys x x x in the
government service" in Section 1 of Rule 139-B
does not include justices of appellate courts and
judges of lower courts who are not subject to the
disciplining authority of the IBP.
The Court has vested the IBP with the power to
initiate and prosecute administrative cases
against erring lawyers.8 However, under
Circular No. 3-89, the Court has directed the
IBP to refer to the Supreme Court for
appropriate action all administrative cases
filed with IBP against justices of appellate
courts and judges of the lower courts. As
mandated by the Constitution, the Court
exercises the exclusive power to discipline
administratively justices of appellate courts and
judges of lower courts.
Criminal cases against justices (appellate court)
and judges of lower courts: Trial court retain
Jurisdiction.
The case filed against Judge Hurtado is not an
administrative case.
THUS: Admin cases vs justices and judges: IBP-
SC
o Crim cases: Appropriate Trial courts
9. KATON VS PALANCA (RESIDUAL
PREROGATIVES OF THE CA)
(FACT) Instead of limiting itself to the allegation of grave
abuse of discretion, the CA ruled on the merits. It held
that while petitioner had caused the reclassification of
Sombrero Island from forest to agricultural land, he
never applied for a homestead patent under the Public
Land Act. Hence, he never acquired title to that land.
(ISSUE) Is the Court of Appeals correct in invoking its
alleged residual prerogative under Section 1, Rule 9 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in resolving the
Petition on an issue not raised in the Petition?
The "residual jurisdiction" of trial courts is
available at a stage in which the court is
normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over
the case or the subject matter involved in the
appeal. This stage is reached upon the
perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon
the approval of the records on appeal, but prior
to the transmittal of the original records or the
records on appeal. In either instance, the trial
court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction
to issue protective orders, approve
compromises, permit appeals of indigent
litigants, order execution pending appeal, and
allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
Dismissal for prescription and Lack of Jurisdiction
Section 1 Rule 9 ROC (RESIDUAL
PREROGARIVES OF THE CA)
In the four excepted instances, the court shall
motu proprio dismiss the claim or action.
Here, he was already barred by laches for
having slept on his right for almost 23 years from
the time Respondent Palancas title had been
issued.
The Complaint did not sufficiently make a case for any of
such actions, over which the trial court could have
exercised jurisdiction.
nowhere in the Complaint did petitioner allege
that he had previously held title to the land in
question. On the contrary, he acknowledged that
the disputed island was public land, that it had
never been privately titled in his name, and that
he had not applied for a homestead under the
provisions of the Public Land Act.28 This Court
has held that a complaint by a private party who
alleges that a homestead patent was obtained
by fraudulent means, and who consequently
prays for its annulment, does not state a cause
of action; hence, such complaint must be
dismissed.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law
and is determined by the allegations in the complaint
and the character of the relief sought.
Settled is the doctrine that the sole office of a writ of
certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction. Such
writ does not include a review of the evidence, more so
when no determination of the merits has yet been made
by the trial court, as in this case.
10. FIGUEROA VS PEOPLE (JURISDICTION VIS--
VIS ESTOPPEL BY LATCHES)
Jurisdiction over the subject-matter in a judicial
proceeding is conferred by the sovereign
authority which organizes the court; it is given
only by law and in the manner prescribed by law
and an objection based on the lack of such
jurisdiction can not be waived by the parties.
The Court has constantly upheld the doctrine
that while jurisdiction may be assailed at any
stage, a litigants participation in all stages of the
case before the trial court, including the
invocation of its authority in asking for affirmative
relief, bars such party from challenging the
courts jurisdiction
Here, petitioner is not estopped by laches in
assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC, considering
that he raised the lack thereof in his appeal
before the appellate court. At that time, no
 considerable period had yet elapsed for laches controlled corporations, state universities or
to attach. educational institutions or foundations.
True, delay alone, though unreasonable, will not
sustain the defense of "estoppel by laches" It is axiomatic that jurisdiction is determined by the
unless it further appears that the party, knowing averments in the information.
his rights, has not sought to enforce them until
the condition of the party pleading laches has in
the information alleged, in no uncertain terms
good faith become so changed that he cannot
that petitioner, being then a student regent of
be restored to his former state, if the rights be
U.P., "while in the performance of her official
then enforced, due to loss of evidence, change
functions, committing the offense in relation to
of title, intervention of equities, and other
her office and taking advantage of her position,
causes. with intent to gain, conspiring with her brother,
We note at this point that estoppel, being in the JADE IAN D. SERANA, a private individual, did
nature of a forfeiture, is not favored by law. It is then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
to be applied rarelyonly from necessity, and defraud the government x x x."
only in extraordinary circumstances. The
doctrine must be applied with great care and the
equity must be strong in its favor.

11. SERANA VS SANDIGANBAYAN (Jurisdiction of

the Sandiganbayan in the charge of Estafa against a
UP student regent)

The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is

set by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, not by
R.A. No. 3019, as amended.

P.D. No. 1606 expanded the jurisdiction of the

SB. Now as amended by R.A. No. 8249. (R.A.
No. 3019 is the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, Penal Statute)
Pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 3019, all
prosecutions for violation of the said law should
be filed with the Sandiganbayan.

R.A. No. 3019 does not contain an enumeration of the

cases over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.
However , Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606 reads:

B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or

complexed with other crimes committed by the
public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection a of this section in relation to their
office.

She claims she is not a public officer with a SG 27.

We held that while the first part of Section 4(A)

covers only officials with Salary Grade 27 and
higher, its second part specifically includes other
executive officials whose positions may not be of
Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by
express provision of law placed under the
jurisdiction of the said court. Petitioner falls
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as
she is placed there by express provision of law.
Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explictly
vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction
over Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or