Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

CASES: In an Order dated July 9, 2012, Branch 276 denied the motion for reconsideration, holding that it has

no authority or power to order the transfer of the case to the proper Special Commercial Court,
GONZALES v. JGH Land (Perlas-Bernabe, J.) (Nov. 10, 2015) citing Calleja v. Panday (Calleja); hence, the present petition.
FACTS: August 4, 2011, petitioners Manuel Luis C. Gonzales[4] and Francis Martin D. Gonzales ISSUE: WON Branch 276 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City erred in dismissing the case for lack of
(petitioners) filed a Complaint[5] for "Injunction with prayer for Issuance of Status Quo Order, 3 and jurisdiction over the subject matter.
20-Day TRO, and Writ of Preliminary Injunction with Damages" against respondents GJH Land, Inc.
(formerly known as S.J. Land, Inc.), Chang Hwan Jang, Sang Rak Kim, Mariechu N. Yap, and Atty. RULING: At the outset, the Court finds Branch 276 to have correctly categorized Civil Case No. 11-077
Roberto P. Mallari II (respondents) before the RTC of Muntinlupa City seeking to enjoin the sale of as a commercial case, more particularly, an intra-corporate dispute, considering that it relates to
S.J. Land, Inc.'s shares which they purportedly bought from S.J. Global, Inc. on February 1, 2010. petitioners' averred rights over the shares of stock offered for sale to other stockholders, having paid
Essentially, petitioners alleged that the subscriptions for the said shares were already paid by them the same in full. Applying the relationship test and the nature of the controversy test, the suit
in full in the books of S.J. Land, Inc., but were nonetheless offered for sale on July 29, 2011 to the between the parties is clearly rooted in the existence of an intra-corporate relationship and pertains
corporation's stockholders, hence, their plea for injunction. to the enforcement of their correlative rights and obligations under the Corporation Code and the
internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation,[24] hence, intra-corporate, which
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 11-077 and raffled to Branch 276, which is not a Special should be heard by the designated Special Commercial Court as provided under A.M. No. 03-03-03-
Commercial Court. On August 9, 2011, said branch issued a temporary restraining order and later, in SC dated June 17, 2003 in relation to Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799.
an Order dated August 24, 2011, granted the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
The present controversy lies, however, in the procedure to be followed when a commercial case -
After filing their respective answers to the complaint, respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the such as the instant intra-corporate dispute -has been properly filed in the official station of the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, pointing out that the case involves an intra- designated Special Commercial Court but is, however, later wrongly assigned by raffle to a regular
corporate dispute and should, thus, be heard by the designated Special Commercial Court of branch of that station.
Muntinlupa City.

RTC RULING: Branch 276 granted the motion to dismiss filed by respondents. It found that the case
involves an intra-corporate dispute that is within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTCs As a basic premise, let it be emphasized that a court's acquisition of jurisdiction over a particular
designated as Special Commercial Courts. It pointed out that the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256 case's subject matter is different from incidents pertaining to the exercise of its jurisdiction.
(Branch 256) was specifically designated by the Court as the Special Commercial Court, hence, Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law, whereas a court's exercise of
Branch 276 had no jurisdiction over the case and cannot lawfully exercise jurisdiction on the matter, jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself, is governed by the Rules of Court or by the orders
including the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Accordingly, it dismissed the case. issued from time to time by the Court.[26] In Lozada v. Bracewell,[27] it was recently held that the
matter of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited
jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has nothing to do with the question
of jurisdiction.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,arguing that they filed the case with the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Muntinlupa City which assigned the same to Branch 276 by Pertinent to this case is RA 8799 which took effect on August 8, 2000. By virtue of said law,
raffle. As the raffle was beyond their control, they should not be made to suffer the consequences of jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5[28] of Presidential Decree No. 902-A[29] was
the wrong assignment of the case, especially after paying the filing fees in the amount of transferred from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the RTCs, being courts of general
P235,825.00 that would be for naught if the dismissal is upheld. They further maintained that the jurisdiction. Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 provides:
RTC has jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes under Republic Act No. (RA) 8799, but since the
Court selected specific branches to hear and decide such suits, the case must, at most, be transferred SEC. 5. Powers and Functionsof the Commission.
or raffled off to the proper branch.
5.2 The Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree x x x. The first major departure is as regards the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Securities
No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial and Exchange Commission has been authorized under this proposal to reorganize itself. As an
Court: Provided, that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional administrative agency, we strengthened it and at the same time we take away the quasi-judicial
Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases. The Commission shall retain functions. The quasi-judicial functions are now given back to the courts of general jurisdiction - the
jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted for final resolution Regional Trial Court, except for two categories of cases.
which should be resolved within one (1) year from the enactment of this Code. The Commission shall
retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 In the case of corporate disputes, only those that are now submitted for final determination of the
until finally disposed. (Emphasis supplied) SEC will remain with the SEC. So, all those cases, both memos of the plaintiff and the defendant, that
have been submitted for resolution will continue. At the same time, cases involving rehabilitation,
The legal attribution of Regional Trial Courts as courts of general jurisdiction stems from Section 19 bankruptcy, suspension of payments and receiverships that were filed before June 30, 2000 will
(6), Chapter II of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129, known as "The Judiciary Reorganization Act of continue with the SEC. in other words, we are avoiding the possibility, upon approval of this bill, of
1980": people filing cases with the SEC, in manner of speaking, to select their court.

Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.- Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original Therefore, one must be disabused of the notion that the transfer of jurisdiction was made only in
jurisdiction: favor of particular RTC branches, and not the RTCs in general.

(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising Consistent with the foregoing, history depicts that when the transfer of SEC cases to the RTCs was
jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; x x x x first implemented, they were transmitted to the Executive Judges of the RTCs for raffle between or
among its different branches, unless a specific branch has been designated as a Special Commercial
As enunciated in Durisol Philippines, Inc. v. CA: Court, in which instance, the cases were transmitted to said branch. It was only on November 21,
2000 that the Court designated certain RTC branches to try and decide said SEC cases without,
The regional trial court, formerly the court of first instance, is a court of general jurisdiction. All
however, providing for the transfer of the cases already distributed to or filed with the regular
cases, the jurisdiction over which is not specifically provided for by law to be within the jurisdiction
branches thereof. Thus, on January 23, 2001, the Court issued SC Administrative Circular No. 08-2001
of any other court, fall under the jurisdiction of the regional trial court.
directing the transfer of said cases to the designated courts (commercial SEC courts). Later, or on
To clarify, the word "or" in Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 was intentionally used by the legislature to June 17, 2003, the Court issued A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC consolidating the commercial SEC courts and
particularize the fact that the phrase "the Courts of general jurisdiction" is equivalent to the phrase the intellectual property courts[39] in one RTC branch in a particular locality, i.e., the Special
"the appropriate Regional Trial Court." In other words, the jurisdiction of the SEC over the cases Commercial Court, to streamline the court structure and to promote expediency.[40] Accordingly,
enumerated under Section 5 of PD 902-A was transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction, that is the RTC branch so designated was mandated to try and decide SEC cases, as well as those involving
to say (or, otherwise known as), the proper Regional Trial Courts. This interpretation is supported by violations of intellectual property rights, which were, thereupon, required to be filed in the Office of
San Miguel Corp. v. Municipal Council,[33] wherein the Court held that: the Clerk of Court in the official station of the designated Special Commercial Courts, to wit:

[T]he word "or" may be used as the equivalent of "that is to say" and gives that which precedes it the 1. The Regional Courts previously designated as SEC Courts through the: (a) Resolutions of this Court
same significance as that which follows it. It is not always disjunctive and is sometimes interpretative dated 21 November 2000, 4 July 2001, 12 November 2002, and 9 July 2002 all issued in A.M. No. 00-
or expository of the preceding word.[34] 11-03-SC; (b) Resolution dated 27 August 2001 in A.M. No. 01-5-298-RTC; and (c) Resolution dated 8
July 2002 in A.M. No. 01-12-656-RTC are hereby DESIGNATED and shall be CALLED as Special
Further, as may be gleaned from the following excerpt of the Congressional deliberations: Commercial Courts to try and decide cases involving violations of Intellectual Property Rights which
fall within their jurisdiction and those cases formerly cognizable by the Securities and Exchange
Senator [Raul S.] Roco: x x x.
Commission:
4. The Special Commercial Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases arising within their respective 16.1 Copies of the letters dated 13 May 2011 are attached hereto and made integral parts hereof as
territorial jurisdiction with respect to the National Capital Judicial Region and within the respective Annexes "J" and "K", repectively.
provinces with respect to the First to Twelfth Judicial Regions. Thus, cases shall be filed in the Office
of the Clerk of Court in the official station of the designated Special Commercial Court; 17. On 29 July 2011, MLCG and FMDG received an Offer Letter addressed to stockholders of GJH
Land, Inc. from Yap informing all stockholders that GJH Land, Inc. is now offering for sale the unpaid
It is important to mention that the Court's designation of Special Commercial Courts was made in shares of stock of MLCG and FMDG. The same letter states that the offers to purchase these shares
line with its constitutional authority to supervise the administration of all courts as provided under will be opened on 10 August 2011 with payments to be arranged by deposit to the depository bank
Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution: of GJH Land, Inc.

Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel 17.1 A copy of the undated Offer Letter is attached hereto and made and made an integral part
thereof. hereof as Annex "L".

The objective behind the designation of such specialized courts is to promote expediency and 18. The letter of GJH Land, Inc. through Yap, is totally without legal and factual basis because as
efficiency in the exercise of the RTCs' jurisdiction over the cases enumerated under Section 5 of PD evidenced by the Deeds of Assignment signed and certified by Yap herself, all the S.J. Land, Inc.
902-A. Such designation has nothing to do with the statutory conferment of jurisdiction to all RTCs shares acquired by MLCG and FMDG have been fully paid in the books of S.J. Land, Inc.
under RA 8799 since in the first place, the Court cannot enlarge, diminish, or dictate when
jurisdiction shall be removed, given that the power to define, prescribe, and apportion jurisdiction is, 19. With the impending sale of the alleged unpaid subscriptions on 10 August 2011, there is now a
as a general rule, a matter of legislative prerogative. Section 2, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution clear danger that MLCG and FMDG would be deprived of these shares without legal and factual
provides: basis.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of 20. Furthermore, if they are deprived of these shares through the scheduled sale, both MLCG and
the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated FMDG would suffer grave and irreparable damage incapable of pecuniary estimation.
in Section 5 hereof.
21. For this reason, plaintiffs now come to the Honorable Court for injunctive relief so that after trial
Here, petitioners filed a commercial case, i.e., an intra-corporate dispute, with the Office of the Clerk on the merits, a permanent injunction should be issued against the defendants preventing them
of Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa City, which is the official station of the designated Special from selling the shares of the plaintiffs, there being no basis for such sale.
Commercial Court, in accordance with A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC. It is, therefore, from the time of such
According to jurisprudence, "it is not the caption but the allegations in the complaint or other
filing that the RTC of Muntinlupa City acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of
initiatory pleading which give meaning to the pleading and on the basis of which such pleading may
the action.[43] Unfortunately, the commercial case was wrongly raffled to a regular branch, e.g.,
be legally characterized."[47] However, so as to avert any future confusion, the Court requires
Branch 276, instead of being assigned[44] to the sole Special Commercial Court in the RTC of
henceforth, that all initiatory pleadings state the action's nature both in its caption and the body,
Muntinlupa City, which is Branch 256. This error may have been caused by a reliance on the
which parameters are defined in the dispositive portion of this Decision.
complaint's caption, i.e., "Civil Case for Injunction with prayer for Status Quo Order, TRO and
Damages,"[45] which, however, contradicts and more importantly, cannot prevail over its actual Going back to the case at bar, the Court nonetheless deems that the erroneous raffling to a regular
allegations that clearly make out an intra-corporate dispute: branch instead of to a Special Commercial Court is only a matter of procedure - that is, an incident
related to the exercise of jurisdiction - and, thus, should not negate the jurisdiction which the RTC of
16. To the surprise of MLCG and FMDG, however, in two identical letters both dated 13 May 2011,
Muntinlupa City had already acquired. In such a scenario, the proper course of action was not for the
under the letterhead of GJH Land, Inc., Yap, now acting as its President, Jang and Kim demanded
commercial case to be dismissed; instead, Branch 276 should have first referred the case to the
payment of supposed unpaid subscriptions of MLCG and FMDG amounting to P10,899,854.30 and
Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case; thereafter, the Executive Judge should then
P2,625,249.41, respectively.
assign said case to the only designated Special Commercial Court in the station, i.e., Branch 256.
Note that the procedure would be different where the RTC acquiring jurisdiction over the case has 5.2 The Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree
multiple special commercial court branches; in such a scenario, the Executive Judge, after re- No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial
docketing the same as a commercial case, should proceed to order its re-raffling among the said Court: Provided, that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional
special branches. Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases, x x x.

Meanwhile, if the RTC acquiring jurisdiction has no branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, In contrast, the appropriate jurisprudential reference to this case would be Tan v. Bausch & Lomb,
then it should refer the case to the nearest RTC with a designated Special Commercial Court branch Inc.,[50] which involves a criminal complaint for violation of intellectual property rights filed before
within the judicial region.[48] Upon referral, the RTC to which the case was referred to should re- the RTC of Cebu City but was raffled to a regular branch thereof (Branch 21), and not to a Special
docket the case as a commercial case, and then: (a) if the said RTC has only one branch designated as Commercial Court. As it turned out, the regular branch subsequently denied the private
a Special Commercial Court, assign the case to the sole special branch; or (b) if the said RTC has complainant's motion to transfer the case to the designated special court of the same RTC, on the
multiple branches designated as Special Commercial Courts, raffle off the case among those special ground of lack of jurisdiction. The CA reversed the regular branch and, consequently, ordered the
branches. transfer of the case to the designated special court at that time (Branch 9). The Court, affirming the
CA, declared that the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter. In view, however, of the
In all the above-mentioned scenarios, any difference regarding the applicable docket fees should be designation of another court as the Special Commercial Court in the interim (Branch 11 of the same
duly accounted for. On the other hand, all docket fees already paid shall be duly credited, and any Cebu City RTC), the Court accordingly ordered the transfer of the case and the transmittal of the
excess, refunded. records to said Special Commercial Court instead.[51] Similarly, the transfer of the present intra-
corporate dispute from Branch 276 to Branch 256 of the same RTC of Muntinlupa City, subject to the
At this juncture, the Court finds it fitting to clarify that the RTC mistakenly relied on the Calleja case
parameters above-discussed is proper and will further the purposes stated in A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC
to support its ruling. In Calleja, an intra-corporate dispute[49] among officers of a private corporation
of attaining a speedy and efficient administration of justice.
with principal address at Goa, Camarines Sur, was filed with the RTC of San Jose, Camarines Sur,
Branch 58 instead of the RTC of Naga City, which is the official station of the designated Special For further guidance, the Court finds it apt to point out that the same principles apply to the inverse
Commercial Court for Camarines Sur. Consequently, the Court set aside the RTC of San Jose, situation of ordinary civil cases filed before the proper RTCs but wrongly raffled to its branches
Camarines Sur's order to transfer the case to the RTC of Naga City and dismissed the complaint designated as Special Commercial Courts. In such a scenario, the ordinary civil case should then be
considering that it was filed before a court which, having no internal branch designated as a Special referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as an ordinary civil case; thereafter, the Executive
Commercial Court, had no jurisdiction over those kinds of actions, i.e., intra-corporate disputes. Judge should then order the raffling of the case to all branches of the same RTC, subject to
Calleja involved two different RTCs, i.e., the RTC of San Jose, Camarines Sur and the RTC of Naga City, limitations under existing internal rules, and the payment of the correct docket fees in case of any
whereas the instant case only involves one RTC, i.e., the RTC of Muntinlupa City, albeit involving two difference. Unlike the limited assignment/raffling of a commercial case only to branches designated
different branches of the same court, i.e., Branches 256 and 276. Hence, owing to the variance in the as Special Commercial Courts in the scenarios stated above, the re-raffling of an ordinary civil case in
facts attending, it was then improper for the RTC to rely on the Calleja ruling. this instance to all courts is permissible due to the fact that a particular branch which has been
designated as a Special Commercial Court does not shed the RTC's general jurisdiction over ordinary
Besides, the Court observes that the fine line that distinguishes subject matter jurisdiction and
civil cases under the imprimatur of statutory law, i.e., Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129.[52] To
exercise of jurisdiction had been clearly blurred in Calleja. Harkening back to the statute that had
restate, the designation of Special Commercial Courts was merely intended as a procedural tool to
conferred subject matter jurisdiction, two things are apparently clear: (a) that the SEC's subject
expedite the resolution of commercial cases in line with the court's exercise of jurisdiction. This
matter jurisdiction over intra-corporate cases under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A was
designation was not made by statute but only by an internal Supreme Court rule under its authority
transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction, i.e., the appropriate Regional Trial Courts; and (b)
to promulgate rules governing matters of procedure and its constitutional mandate to supervise the
the designated branches of the Regional Trial Court, as per the rules promulgated by the Supreme
administration of all courts and the personnel thereof.[53] Certainly, an internal rule promulgated by
Court, shall exercise jurisdiction over such cases. Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 provides:
the Court cannot go beyond the commanding statute. But as a more fundamental reason, the
SEC. 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission. - x x x designation of Special Commercial Courts is, to stress, merely an incident related to the court's
exercise of jurisdiction, which, as first discussed, is distinct from the concept of jurisdiction over the
subject matter. The RTC's general jurisdiction over ordinary civil cases is therefore not abdicated by designated special branches which, by statute, are equally capable of exercising general jurisdiction
an internal rule streamlining court procedure. same as regular branches), as provided for under existing rules.

In fine, Branch 276's dismissal of Civil Case No. 11-077 is set aside and the transfer of said case to 3. All transfer/raffle of cases is subject to the payment of the appropriate docket fees in case of any
Branch 256, the designated Special Commercial Court of the same RTC of Muntinlupa City, under the difference. On the other hand, all docket fees already paid shall be duly credited, and any excess,
parameters above-explained, is hereby ordered. refunded.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated April 17, 2012 and July 9, 2012 of the 4. Finally, to avert any future confusion, the Court requires that all initiatory pleadings state the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 in Civil Case No. 11-077 are hereby action's nature both in its caption and body. Otherwise, the initiatory pleading may, upon motion or
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 11-077 is REFERRED to the Executive Judge of the RTC of by order of the court motu proprio, be dismissed without prejudice to its re-filing after due
Muntinlupa City for re-docketing as a commercial case. Thereafter, the Executive Judge shall ASSIGN rectification. This last procedural rule is prospective in application.
said case to Branch 256, the sole designated Special Commercial Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa City,
which is ORDERED to resolve the case with reasonable dispatch. In this regard, the Clerk of Court of 5. All existing rules inconsistent with the foregoing are deemed superseded.
said RTC shall DETERMINE the appropriate amount of docket fees and, in so doing, ORDER the
payment of any difference or, on the other hand, refund any excess.

Furthermore, the Court hereby RESOLVES that henceforth, the following guidelines shall be JURISDICTION (small claims cases)
observed:
A.L. ANG NETWORK, INC., vs. EMMA MONDEJAR with her husband Efren (Jan 22, 2014)
1. If a commercial case filed before the proper RTC is wrongly raffled to its regular branch, the proper
courses of action are as follows: Pet. filed a complaint in MTCC for sum of money under the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
(in re: unpaid water bills from 2002 to 2005 -- P23,111.71)
1.1 If the RTC has only one branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, then the case shall be
referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case, and thereafter, assigned to Petitioner claimed that it was duly authorized to supply water to and collect payment therefor from
the homeowners of Regent Pearl Subdivision.
the sole special branch;
In defense, respondent contended that since April 1998 up to February 2003, she religiously paid
1.2 If the RTC has multiple branches designated as Special Commercial Courts, then the case shall be
petitioner the agreed monthly flat rate of ₱75.00 for her water consumption. Notwithstanding their
referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case, and thereafter, raffled off agreement that the same would be adjusted only upon prior notice to the homeowners, petitioner
among those special branches; and unilaterally charged her unreasonable and excessive adjustments as far above the average daily
water consumption for a household of only 3 persons.
1.3 If the RTC has no internal branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, then the case shall
be referred to the nearest RTC with a designated Special Commercial Court branch within the judicial Petitioner disconnected respondent’s water line for not paying the adjusted water charges.
region. Upon referral, the RTC to which the case was referred to should re- docket the case as a
commercial case, and then: (a) if the said RTC has only one branch designated as a Special MTCC: since pet. was issued a Certificate of Public Convenience only on Aug. 7, 2003, it can only
Commercial Court, assign the case to the sole special branch; or (b) if the said RTC has multiple charge rsp. P1,050.00 for the subject period. Since rsp. made total payments of P1,685.99, she
branches designated as Special Commercial Courts, raffle off the case among those special branches. should be considered to have fully paid pet..

2. If an ordinary civil case filed before the proper RTC is wrongly raffled to its branch designated as a Pet. filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC; ground: grave abuse of discretion of
Special Commercial Court, then the case shall be referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as MTCC.
an ordinary civil case. Thereafter, it shall be raffled off to all courts of the same RTC (including its
RTC: dismissed. 1) petition was only filed to circumvent the non-appealable nature of small claims Rsp.: in favour of Roldan and ordered Pet. to vacate the property.
cases provided under Sec. 23 of the Rule of Procedure on Small Claims Cases; 2) RTC cannot supplant
the decision of MTCC with another decision directing rsp. to pay a bigger sum than that which has Pet. filed a petition for relief from judgment; ground: rsp. may only hear civil actions and
been awarded. proceedings if both parties are Muslims. Considering that he is a Christian, rsp. had no jurisdiction
over the case.
ISSUE: W/N RTC erred in dismissing pet.’s recourse under Rule 65?
Rsp.: petition for relief—DENIED. It had jurisdiction over Roldan’s action for recovery of possession.
HELD: YES. While it is true that the final nature of a small claims case decision is unappealable and Regardless of Pet. being a non-Muslim, his rights were not prejudiced since rsp. decided the case
the prevailing party may immediately move for its execution, nevertheless, it does not preclude the applying the provisions of the Civil Code
aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
(appeal to SC) Pet.: rsp. acted without jurisdiction in rendering the decision. Under the Muslim Code,
The extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available where there is no appeal or any other plain, Shari’a District Courts may only take cognizance of real actions where the parties involved are
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Muslims.

A petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an original action to correct only errors of jurisdiction, ISSUE: W/N Shari’a District Court has jurisdiction over a real action where one of the parties is not a
not of judgment. Muslim?

It is incumbent upon pet. to establish that jurisdictional errors tainted the MTCC Decision. HELD: NO. 1st. rsp. had no jurisdiction to hear, try,
and decide Roldan’s action for recovery of possession
RTC, in turn, could either grant or dismiss the petition based on an evaluation of W/N MTCC gravely
abused its discretion by arbitrarily disregarding evidence that is material to the controversy. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is "the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to
which the proceedings in question belong." This power is conferred by law (Constitution or statute).
Hence, pet. correctly availed of the remedy of certiorari to assail the propriety of MTCC Decision. Thus, parties cannot choose, consent to, or agree as to what court or tribunal should decide their
disputes.
JURISDICTION (shari’a district court)
To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, the material
allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought are examined.
VIVENCIO VILLAGRACIA vs. 5th SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT & ROLDAN MALA (represented by his
father, Hadji Kalam T. Mala (April 23, 2014) ( J. Leonen)
The law conferring the jurisdiction of Shari’a District Courts is the Muslim Code. Under Art. 143
Roldan, a Filipino Muslim, purchased a parcel of land (300 sqm) in Parang, Maguindanao. At that thereof, Shari’a District Courts have concurrent original jurisdiction with "existing civil courts" over
time, Pet. occupied said land. real actions not arising from customary contracts wherein the parties involved are Muslims.

By 2002, Vivencio secured a Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. P-60192 issued by the Land Here, allegations in Roldan’s petition did not state that Pet. is a Muslim. When Pet. stated in his
Registration Authority allegedly covering the same parcel of land. petition for relief from judgment that he is not a Muslim, Roldan did not dispute this claim.

To settle his conflicting claim with Vivencio, Roldan initiated barangay conciliation proceedings When it became apparent that Pet. is not a Muslim, rsp. should have motu proprio dismissed the
before the Office of the Barangay Chairman of Poblacion II, Parang, Shariff Kabunsuan. Failing to case.
settle with Vivencio at the barangay level, Roldan filed an action to recover the possession of the
parcel of land with respondent Fifth Shari’a District Court. Under Rule 9, Sec. 1, RoC, if it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the action based on the pleadings or the evidence on record, the court shall dismiss the claim.
Rsp. caused service of summons on Pet but the latter failed to answer.
Rsp. had no authority to decide Roldan’s action because not all of the parties involved in the action Actions in rem are "directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments
are Muslims. Consequently, all its proceedings are void. with respect thereto as against the whole world."

The application of the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines by rsp. Fifth Shari’a District Court In actions in rem, the court trying the case must have jurisdiction over the res, or the thing under
does not validate the proceedings before the court. litigation, to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either "by the seizure
of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or as a
Under Article 175 of the Muslim Code, customary contracts are construed in accordance with Muslim result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made
law. Hence, Shari’a District Courts apply Muslim law when resolving real actions arising from effective."
customary contracts.
In actions in rem, summons must still be served on the defendant but only to satisfy due process
*note: non-Muslims may participate in Shari’a court proceedings. (ex: provisions of Muslim Code on requirements.
marriage and divorce apply to the female party in a marriage solemnized according to Muslim law,
even if the female is non-Muslim.) Unlike objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter which may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, objections to jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be raised at the
However, this case involves an action for recovery of possession of real property. As a matter of law, earliest possible opportunity; otherwise, the objection to the court’s jurisdiction over the person of
Shari’a District Courts may only take cognizance of a real action "wherein the parties involved are the defendant is deemed waived.
Muslims."
In this case, Roldan sought to enforce a personal obligation on Pet. to vacate his property, restore to
*add’l issue: That rsp. served summons on Pet. did not vest it with juris. over the latter’s person him the possession of his property, and pay damages for the unauthorized use of his property.

Jurisdiction over the person is "the power of [a] court to render a personal judgment or to subject Thus, Roldan’s action for recovery of possession is an action in personam, for it binds a particular
the parties in a particular action to the judgment and other rulings rendered in the action." individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing."

A court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff once he or she files the initiatory Consequently, service of summons on Pet. was necessary for rsp. to acquire jurisdiction over Pet.’s
pleading. person.

As for the defendant, court acquires jurisdiction over his person either by his or her voluntary However, rsp. has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, with Pet. not being a Muslim.
appearance in court or a valid service on him or her of summons. Therefore, all the proceedings before rsp. Shari’a District Court, including the service of summons on
Pet., are void.
Jurisdiction over the person is required in actions in personam or actions based on a party’s personal
liability. JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY LAW, NOT BY AGREEMENT OF PARTIES

Since actions in personam "are directed against specific persons and seek personal judgments," it is REPUBLIC vs. BANTIGUE POINT DEV’T CORP. (J. Sereno) (March 24, 2012)
necessary that the parties to the action "are properly impleaded and duly given an opportunity to be
heard." Rsp. Corp. filed with RTC an application for original registration of title over a parcel of land in
Batangas (assessed value: P14k+)
With respect to the defendant, he or she must have been duly served with summons to be
considered properly impleaded; otherwise, the proceedings in personam, including the judgment Pet. filed its Opposition.
rendered, are void.
RTC Clerk of Court transmitted motu proprio the records of the case to the MTC of San Juan, because
Jurisdiction over the person is not necessary for a court to validly try and decide actions in rem. the assessed value of the property was allegedly less than ₱100K.
MTC awarded the land to resp. Sec. 34 of the Act provides that the value of the property sought to be registered may be ascertained
by: 1) the affidavit of the claimant; 2) agreement of respective claimants, if there are more than one;
CA: since pet. had actively participated in the proceedings before MTC, but failed to raise the or 3) from the corresponding tax dec. of the real property.
jurisdictional challenge, pet. is estopped from questioning MTC’s juris. on appeal.
Here, the value of the property must be ascertained with reference to the corresponding Tax Dec.
Pet. filed this instant Rule 45 Petition; ground: MTC failed to acquire juris.over the case. submitted by rsp.

ISSUE: W/N pet. is estopped from questioning MTC’s juris? From the records, the total assessed value of the property is ₱14,920. Clearly, the MTC may exercise
its delegated jurisdiction under the Judiciary Reorganization Act, as amended.
HELD: NO. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the law. It JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY LAW IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF COMMENCEMENT
cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the
acquiescence of the court. RODOLFO DELA CRUZ vs. HON. FELIX MOYA (judge of CFI Davao) (April 27, 1988 J. Cortes)

Pet. filed its Opposition when the records were still with the RTC. At that point, pet. could not have Pet., member of AFP, received a mission order to apprehend persons who were allegedly engaged in
questioned the delegated jurisdiction of the MTC, because the case was not yet with that court. illegal cockfighting.

On appeal, pet. immediately raised the jurisdictional question in its Brief. Clearly, the exceptional Pet. and company proceeded with the mission. Fighting ensued and in the scuffle, pet. shot Eusebio.
doctrine of estoppel by laches is inapplicable to the instant appeal.
Aug. 2, 1979 – pet. was charged with homicide in CFI.
Laches = negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting the
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it." During the pendency of the case, PD Nos. 1822 and 1822-A were promulgated, vesting in courts-
martial jurisdiction over crimes committed by members of the AFP or of the Philippine Constabulary
Here, pet. has not displayed such neglect that would lead us to conclude that it has abandoned or in performance of their duties.
declined to assert its right to question the lower court's jurisdiction.
Pet. filed with CFI a motion to transfer the case to the military authorities so he could be tried by
2ND ISSUE: W/N MTC has juris.? court martial.

HELD: YES. Motion DENIED. Hence this petition.

Pet.: since the selling price of the property based on the Deed of Sale for original registration was ISSUE: W/N civil courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter of Criminal Case?
₱160,000, MTC did not have jurisdiction over the case.
HELD: NO. (CFI’s decision is void)
SC held that pursuant to the Judiciary Reorganization Act, MTC has delegated jurisdiction in cadastral
and land registration cases: 1) where there is no controversy or opposition; or, 2) over contested Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute in force at the time of the
lots, the value of which does not exceed ₱100,000. commencement of the action. Once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained up to the end of
the litigation.
The case falls under the second instance, because the value of the lot in this case does not exceed
₱100,000. Here, the info. was filed during the time Gen.Order No. 59 was in force. Pursuant to said G.O.,
military tribunals exercised exclusive jurisdiction over "all offenses committed by military personnel
Contrary to pet.’s contention, the value of the land should not be determined with reference to its of the AFP while in the performance of their official duty or which arose out of any act or omission
selling price. done in the performance of their official duty; Provided, that for the purpose of determining whether
an offense was committed while in the performance of official duty or whether it arose out of an act Jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the MTD, for
or omission done in the performance of official duty, a certificate issued by the Secretary of National otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant.
Defense to that effect shall be conclusive unless modified or revoked by the President. . . "
In the complaint filed by pet. in the RTC, it is obvious that the parties do not reside in the same city
As no amendatory law was published between the time G.O. No. 59 was published until the or municipality, and hence, the dispute is excepted from the requirement of referral to the brgy.
information against pet. was filed, said G.O. remained in force on said date. lupon or pangkat prior to filing with the court.

The proviso regarding the certificate to be issued by the Secretary of National Defense does not It is true that plaintiff's complaint should have alleged defendant's place of actual residence, not his
make the certificate a condition precedent for the exercise by either civilian courts or military postal office address.
tribunals of their jurisdiction over offenses committed by members of the AFP.
The allegation of defendant's actual residence would have been ideal to determine venue, which is
Even as no certificate issued by the Secretary of National Defense was presented in court, the record plaintiff's choice of either his place of residence or that of the defendant or any of the principal
contains a copy of Mission Order, directing pet., among others, to apprehend persons reportedly defendants.
engaged in illegal cockfighting. The evidence of the prosecution presented in court likewise shows
that deceased was shot while pet. was executing the mission order. These facts show that rsp. court The venue of the action is not affected by the filing of rsp.’s MTD stating that he also resided in
was without jurisdiction to try the case against pet. Baguio City. That is not decisive to determine the proper venue.

JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY ALLEGATION OF THE COMPLAINT OR PLEADINGS People v. CA & RICO & RICKSON LIPAO (feb 2008) (Velasco, Jr, J.)

ANGEL BOLEYLEY vs. HON. CLARENCE VILLANUEVA (RTC Baguio) & ALBERTO SURLA (Sept. 14, **Where a court acquired jurisdiction over an action, its jurisdiction continues to the final conclusion
1999) (J. Pardo) of the case. Such jurisdiction is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such dispute
in another court or tribunal unless the statute provides for retroactivity.
pet. filed with RTC Baguio, a complaint against private rsp. for collection of a sum of money.
FACTS: On February 24, 1992, private respondents Rico and Rickson Lipao were indicted for and
Pr.rsp. filed a MTD; ground: pet. did not comply with the Revised Katarungan Pambarangay Law pleaded not guilty to violation of Sec. 68 of PD 705, as amended by EO 277. The Information in
requiring as a condition for the filing of a complaint in court, the referral of the matter to the brgy. Criminal Case No. 551 reads:
lupon chairman or the pangkat, for conciliation.
“That on or about the 21st day of October 1991 in Cagdianao, Surigao del Norte, Philippines, and
Pet. filed an opposition to the MTD; ground: pr.rsp. was not a resident of Baguio City, hence, the within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Rico Lipao and Rickson Lipao without legal
dispute involving the parties was not within the authority of the lupon to bring together for
documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, conspiring, confederating and
conciliation.
helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess without license
TC: dismissed the case. Ground: case is premature for not having been referred to the barangay 8 pieces of round timbers and 160 bundles of firewood with a market value of P3,100.00, said forest
lupon. products not covered with legal transport document, and willfully and unlawfully load these forest
products in the pumpboat Rickjoy owned by Rico Lipao, nor the accused Rico Lipao and Rickson Lipao
ISSUE: W/N pet. should refer the dispute to the brgy. lupon or pangkat for conciliation before filing holders of a license issued by the DENR, to the prejudice of the government in the sum of
an action for collection with RTC? P3,100.00.”

HELD: NO. Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the Contrary to law. The offense is punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of
allegations of the complaint, irrespective of W/N plaintiff is entitled to recover the claims asserted the Revised Penal Code, as provided under Section 68 of PD No. 705.
therein.
The offense charged is punishable under Art. 309 of the Revised Penal Code which provides:
Art. 309. Penalties.Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by: respondent Rickson did not have a search warrant. They also opined that the plain sight or open
review doctrine is inapplicable as the posts and firewood are not incriminatory, more so as firewood
2. The penalty of prisiόn correccional in its medium and maximum period, if the value of the thing is available and sold in public markets without the requirement of any permit from the DENR.
stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.
Moreover, private respondents argued that the prosecution failed to prove their lack of license to
Prisiόn correccional in its medium period is imprisonment from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 possess timber. They contended that since private respondent Rico is merely the owner of the
years and 2 months while prisiόn correccional in its maximum period is imprisonment from 4 years, 2 pumpboat and was not present when the posts and firewood were seized, he could never be held
months and 1 day to 6 years. liable for illegal possession of timber as he was never in possession of the round posts. Relying on
People v. Macagaling, private respondents asserted that constructive possession of forest products is
Parenthetically, during the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 551 and before the RTC rendered its
no longer the rule in successfully prosecuting offenses for violation of the Forestry Code.
Judgment, Republic Act No. (RA) 7691[7] took effect on April 15, 1994 or 15 days after its publication
on March 30, 1994. RA 7691 expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial On June 13, 2002, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, granting the appeal of private respondents
Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) in criminal and dismissing the case before it on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the RTC. The decretal
cases to cover all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years irrespective of the portion reads:
amount of fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including civil
penalties arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value or WHEREFORE, upon the premises, the Decision appealed from is SET ASIDE. The instant criminal case
amount thereof. Before the amendments of RA 7691, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 entitled The Judiciary is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED.
Reorganization Act of 1980 provided that the MeTC, MTC, and MCTC shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two In sustaining the appeal of private respondents, the CA did not rule on the assigned errors or on the
months, or a fine of not more than PhP 4,000, or both such fine and imprisonment, regardless of merits of the case. It anchored its dismissal of the criminal case on the lack of jurisdiction of the RTC
other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or to hear and decide it.
predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof.
Petitioner People posits that the passage of RA 7691 did not ipso facto take jurisdiction away from
On July 25, 1994, the RTC rendered its Judgment, finding private respondents guilty beyond the RTC to hear and decide the instant criminal case instituted prior to the passage of said law
reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The dispositive portion reads: expanding the jurisdiction of the MTCs.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Rico Lipao and Rickson Lipao both Hence, this petition.
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the Violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 as
ISSUE: WON the RTC retained jurisdiction over the criminal case.
amended by Executive Order No. 277, Series of 1987, in relation to Articles 309 and 310 of the
Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences each of them to an indeterminate penalty of from four (4) RULING: YES. On the main issue of whether the RTC retained jurisdiction over the criminal case, we
years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) agree with petitioner. The passage of RA 7691 did not ipso facto relieve the RTC of the jurisdiction to
months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum; and each to pay one-half of the costs. hear and decide the criminal case against private respondents.

The posts and firewood in question, or the proceeds thereof if sold at public auction are hereby It has been consistently held as a general rule that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is
forfeited in favor of the Government. SO ORDERED. to be determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action. Where a court has
already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the
Private respondents seasonably interposed their appeal before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No.
final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such
17275. They argued that private respondent Rickson was subjected to an illegal search and seizure of
proceedings in another tribunal. The exception to the rule is where the statute expressly provides, or
the round posts and firewood which cannot be used as evidence against him. They insisted that the
is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactment.
DENR personnel together with some Philippine National Police personnel who stopped private
Where a statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to However, considering that this Court is not a trier of facts, we remand the case to the CA to resolve
a case that was pending prior to the enactment of a statute. the appeal in CA-G.R. CR No. 17275 on the merits.

A perusal of R.A. 7691 will show that its retroactive provisions apply only to civil cases that have not WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed June 13, 2002 CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR No.
yet reached the pre-trial stage. Neither from an express proviso nor by implication can it be 17275 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The CA is directed to resolve the appeal of private
understood as having retroactive application to criminal cases pending or decided by the Regional respondents on the merits and with dispatch.
Trial Courts prior to its effectivity.

It must be stressed that the abovementioned provision vested concurrent jurisdiction upon the said
courts regardless of the imposable penalty. In fine, the jurisdiction of the RTC over the case of the
appellant was conferred by the aforecited law then in force (R.A. 6425 before amendment) when the
information was filed. Jurisdiction attached upon the commencement of the action and could not be
ousted by the passage of R.A. 7691 reapportioning the jurisdiction of inferior courts, the application
of which to criminal cases is, to stress, prospective in nature.

Thus, where private respondents had been charged with illegal logging punishable under Articles 309
and 310 of the Revised Penal Code with imprisonment ranging from four (4) years, two (2) months,
and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months, and one (1)
day of prision mayor, as maximum, the RTC clearly had jurisdiction at the inception of the criminal
case. Since jurisdiction over the criminal case attached upon the filing of the information, then the
RTC is empowered and mandated to try and decide said case notwithstanding a subsequent change
in the jurisdiction over criminal cases of the same nature under a new statute. The rule is settled that
jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can do to exercise that jurisdiction unless the
law provides otherwise.

While jurisdiction can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings, private respondents did not
bother to raise the issue of jurisdiction in their appeal before the CA. In addition, private respondents
did not lift a finger to reinforce the CA decision relying on lack of jurisdiction as ground for the
dismissal of Criminal Case No. 551 in their submissions before this Court. Indeed, it appears that
even respondents are not convinced of the correctness of the CA ruling on the issue of jurisdiction.

Lastly, the CA committed reversible error in making use of the values adduced during the hearing to
determine jurisdiction. It is basic that the jurisdiction of a court is determined both by the law in
force at the time of the commencement of the action and by the allegations in the Complaint or
Information.

Thus, the RTC clearly had jurisdiction when it heard and decided Criminal Case No. 551. The CA
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that
the RTC was divested of jurisdiction by reason of the enactment of RA 7691.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi