What are the judicial, supervisory and rule making powers of the Supreme Court

under the Constitution?

Judicial Power:
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower
courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
(Sec.1, Art.VIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution).

Supervisory power:
A.The Supreme Court exercises administrative supervision over all lower courts.
In the discharge of its administrative functions, the Court is assisted by the Court
Administrator and the Deputy Court Administrators (P.D. No. 828, as amended by P.D.
No. 842). The Court thus acts through the court administrators in the exercise of its
administrative functions. (See A.M. No. 343-RTJ In Re: RTC Judge of Balanga,
Bataan).

B.The rationalization of the allocation of duties and functions of the Office of the
Court Administrator is needed for a more systematic work flow.

C.The Work attended to by the Office of the Court Administrator, either on its
responsibility or with the approval of the Court En Banc, may be classified into the
following categories:

1.Judicial discipline of lower court justices, judges and personnel;

2.Administrative interventions in case management of lower courts, including
designation of Executive Judges and detail of judges to other courts;
3.Preparation of draft circulars;
4.Public assistance and information;
5.Personnel administration; and
6.Liaison with the Executive and Legislative Departments.

Rule Making Power:

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 under-privileged.

Limititations:

1)Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases,
 2)shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and

3)shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. (Sec.5, Art. VIII, 1987 Philippine
Constitution)

2. In order for a case to prosper, the court must have “jurisdiction,” the power to
speak (dicere-diction) the law (juris). Jurisdiction is divided into three parts: 1)
subject matter jurisdiction, 2) personal jurisdiction, and 3) notice and opportunity
to be heard. The court needs all three types of jurisdiction to proceed to
adjudicate the lawsuit. In addition, venue must be properly laid: plaintiff must
bring the suit in the proper place.
2.1Define

a. SubjectJurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the
general class to which the proceedings in question belong. Jurisdiction over the subject
matter is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the
parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Basic is the rule that jurisdiction
over the subject matter is determined by the cause or causes of action as alleged in the
complaint. (Domecq Philippines, Inc. v. Villon)

b. Personal Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff. This is acquired by the filing of the
complaint or initiatory pleading before the court by the plaintiff. This is related to the
right of a person to file a case in a Philippines court. The more problematic concern is
the right of the non-resident alien to seek remedy in Philippine courts. As held in the
case of Dilweg vs. Phillips (12 Phil. 243, 247 [1964]), “it is not indispensable for a
foreigner to establish residence, nor need he be physically present in a state which he is
not a resident or citizen in order that he may initiate or maintain a personal action
against a resident or citizen of that other state for rights of action arising in, or for
violations of laws committed within, the territorial jurisdiction of that other state. In this
jurisdiction, no general law has come to our knowledge which restricts the right of non-
resident aliens to sue in our courts. It is not disputed that plaintiffs cause of action arose
in, and that the defendants are within, our territorial jurisdiction.”
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Jurisdiction over the person is
acquired by the voluntary appearance of a party in court and his submission to its
authority, or it is acquired by the coercive power of legal process exerted over the
person of the defendant. In other words, a defendant who wasn’t served with summons
is generally not bound by the decision in that particular case. (https://jlp-
law.com/blog/jurisdiction-of-philippine-courts/)
c. Procedural Due Process
Procedural due process is that which hears before it condemns, which proceeds
upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. It contemplates notice and
opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered affecting one's person or property.
(http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2013/12/procedural-due-process-is-that-which.html)

d. Venue as distinguished from jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case, venue is the place
where the case is to be heard or tried;
Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law, venue is a procedural law;
Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter,
venue, a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent; and
Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by parties; venue may be
conferred by the act or agreement of the parties. ( Nocum, et al. Vs Lucio Tan,
September 23, 2005).

e. Exercise of Jurisdiction (as distinguished from Jurisdiction)

Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and decide a case. It does not depend upon
the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of the decision
made. (Lim, et al. Vs. Hon.Felipe Pacquing et al., September 1, 1994)
If there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the resolution of all
other questions arising in the case is but and exercise of jurisdiction. ( Herrera vs
Baretto, 25 Phil. 245)

2.2. Determinant

a. What determines the jurisdiction of the court?

Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction
of the various courts, but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over
cases enumerated in Sec.5, Art.VIII. (Sec. 2, Art. VIII, 1987 Philippine constitution).
Therefore, jurisdiction of courts is determined by law.
b. State the rule on Adherence Jurisdiction?
> Once jurisdiction is vested in the court, it is retained up to the end of the
litigation
> Remains with the court until the case is finally terminated
> Exception to the rule: when a newly enacted statute changing the jurisdiction
of a court is given retroactive effect. It can divest a court of jurisdiction over cases
already pending before it is which were filed before the statute came to force or became
effective. (https://www.batasnatin.com)

c. What is the rule on judgments rendered without jurisdiction?

A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a void judgment. This want of
jurisdiction may pertain to lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the person
of one of the parties.
A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment, but
may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is
sought to be given to it. It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for any purpose or at
any place. It cannot affect, impair or create rights. It is not entitled to enforcement and
is, ordinarily, no protection to those who seek to enforce. In other words, a void
judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there
was no judgment. (Canero v. University of the Philippines))

3. Submit a digest of “Gonzales vs. GJH Land, Inc., G.R. No. 202664, Nov. 20,
2015”

Facts:
 August 4, 2011, petitioners Manuel Luis C. Gonzales4 and Francis Martin D.
Gonzales (petitioners) filed a Complaint5 for “Injunction with prayer for Issuance of
Status Quo Order, Three (3) and Twenty (20)-Day Temporary Restraining Orders, 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. Roberto P. Mallari II6 (respondents) before the RTC of Muntinlupa City
seeking to enjoin the sale of S.J. Land, Inc.’s shares which they purportedly bought from
S.J. Global, Inc. on February 1, 2010. Essentially, petitioners alleged that the
subscriptions for the said shares were already paid by them in full in the books of S.J.
Land, Inc.,7 but were nonetheless offered for sale on July 29, 2011 to the corporation’s
stockholders,8 hence, their plea for injunction.

The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 11-077 and raffled to Branch
276, which is not a Special Commercial Court. On August 9, 2011, said branch issued a
temporary restraining order,9 and later, in an Order10 dated August 24, 2011,
granted the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.

after filing their respective answers11 to the complaint, respondents filed a

motion to dismiss12 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
pointing out that the case involves an intra-corporate dispute and should, thus, be heard
by the designated Special Commercial Court of Muntinlupa City.

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 designated as Special Commercial Courts.

petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration.

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, citing
Calleja v. Panday.

Issue:
Whether or not Branch 276 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City erred in dismissing the
case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Held:

Yes.
 The present controversy lies, however, in the procedure to be followed when a
commercial case - such as the instant intra-corporate dispute -has been properly filed in
the official station of the designated Special Commercial Court but is, however, later
wrongly assigned by raffle to a regular branch of that station.

As a basic premise, let it be emphasized that a court's acquisition of jurisdiction

over a particular case's subject matter is different from incidents pertaining to the
exercise of its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by
law, whereas a court's exercise of jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself, is
governed by the Rules of Court or by the orders 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.

Pertinent to this case is RA 8799 which took effect on August 8, 2000. By virtue
of said law, jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 528 of Presidential Decree
No. 902-A29 was transferred from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to
the RTCs, being courts of general jurisdiction. Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 provides:

SEC. 5. Powers and Functionsof the Commission.

5.2 The Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of
Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general
jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, that the Supreme
Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court
branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over the cases. The Commission shall
retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes
submitted for final resolution 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
until finally disposed.

To clarify, the word "or" in Item 5.2, Section 5 of RA 8799 was intentionally used
by the legislature to particularize the fact that the phrase "the Courts of general
jurisdiction" is equivalent to the phrase "the appropriate Regional Trial Court." In other
words, the jurisdiction of the SEC over the cases enumerated under Section 5 of PD
902-A was transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction, that is to say (or, otherwise
known as), the proper Regional Trial Courts.

Consistent with the foregoing, history depicts that when the transfer of SEC
cases to the RTCs was 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 Court, in which instance, the
cases were transmitted to said branch.36 It was only on November 21, 2000 that the
Court designated certain RTC branches to try and decide said SEC cases37 without,
however, providing for the transfer of the cases already distributed to or filed with the
regular branches thereof.

Thus, on January 23, 2001, the Court issued SC Administrative Circular No. 08-
200138 directing the transfer of said cases to the designated courts (commercial SEC
courts). Later, or on June 17, 2003, the Court issued A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC
consolidating the commercial SEC courts and the intellectual property courts39 in one
RTC branch in a particular locality, i.e., the Special Commercial Court, to streamline the
court structure and to promote expediency.40 Accordingly, the RTC branch so
designated was mandated to try and decide SEC cases, as well as those involving
violations of intellectual property rights, which were, thereupon, required to be filed in
the Office of the Clerk of Court in the official station of the designated Special
Commercial Courts.

It is important to mention that the Court's designation of Special Commercial

Courts was made in line with its constitutional authority to supervise the administration
of all courts as provided under Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

It is, therefore, from the time of such filing that the RTC of Muntinlupa City
acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the action.43 Unfortunately,
the commercial case was wrongly raffled to a regular branch, e.g., Branch 276, instead
of being assigned44to the sole Special Commercial Court in the RTC of Muntinlupa
City, which is Branch 256.

The Court nonetheless deems that the erroneous raffling to a regular 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 Muntinlupa City had already acquired. In such a scenario,
the proper course of action was not for the commercial case to be dismissed; instead,
Branch 276 should have first referred the case to the Executive Judge for re-docketing
as a commercial case; thereafter, the Executive Judge should then assign said case to
the only designated Special Commercial Court in the station, i.e., Branch 256.

Meanwhile, if the RTC acquiring jurisdiction has no branch designated as a

Special Commercial Court, then it should refer the case to the nearest RTC with a
designated Special Commercial Court branch within the judicial region.48 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 Commercial
Court, assign the case to the sole special branch; or
(b) if the said RTC has multiple branches designated as Special Commercial
Courts, raffle off the case among those special branches.
 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 parameters above-
discussed is proper and will further the purposes stated in A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC of
attaining a speedy and efficient administration of justice.

This designation was not made by statute but only by an internal Supreme Court
rule under its authority to promulgate rules governing matters of procedure and its
constitutional mandate to supervise the administration of all courts and the personnel
thereof.53 Certainly, an internal rule promulgated by the Court cannot go beyond the
commanding statute. But as a more fundamental reason, the 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 an internal rule streamlining court procedure.

In fine, Branch 276's dismissal of Civil Case No. 11-077 is set aside and the
transfer of said case to Branch 256, the designated Special Commercial Court of the
same RTC of Muntinlupa City, under the parameters above-explained, is hereby
ordered.

4. What areSpecial Courts? Name them?

The following are the special courts in the Philippines:

1) Sandiganbayan
2) Court of Tax Appeals
3) Shari'a District Courts
4) Shari'a Circuit Courts

5. What are Special Regional Trial Courts? Name them?

The following are the Special Regional Trial Courts in the Philippines:
1) Drug’s Court
2) Family Court
3) Special Agrarian Court
4) Special Commercial Court
5) Environmental court

5. Submit a digest of Concorde Condominium, Inc. vs Baculio, G.R. No. 203678,

February 17, 2016, in the context of jurisdiction of special courts
Facts:

On April 16, 2012, petitioner Concorde Condominium, Inc., by itself and

comprising the Unit Owners of Concorde Condominium Building, {petitioner) filed with
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City a Petition for Injunction [with Damages
with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Writ of
Preliminary (Prohibitory) Injunction, and Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction]
against respondents New PPI Corporation and its President Augusto H. Baculio.

Petitioner seeks:
(1) to enjoin respondents Baculio and New PPI Corporation from misrepresenting
to the public, as well as to private and government offices/agencies, that they are
the owners of the disputed lots and Concorde Condominium Building, and from
pushing for the demolition of the building which they do not even own;
(2) to prevent respondent Asian Security and Investigation Agency from
deploying its security guards within the perimeter of the said building; and
(3) to restrain respondents Engr. Morales, Supt. Perdigon and F/C Supt. Laguna
from responding to and acting upon the letters being sent by Baculio, who is a
mere impostor and has no legal personality with regard to matters concerning the
revocation of building and occupancy permits, and the fire safety issues of the
same building.

The case was docketed as Civil Case No. No. 12-309 and raffled to the Makati
RTC, Branch 149, which was designated as a Special Commercial Court

Meanwhile, respondents Baculio and New PPI Corporation filed an Urgent

Motion to Re-Raffle dated April 25, 2012, claiming that it is a regular court, not a Special
Commercial Court, which has jurisdiction over the case.

The RTC denied the motion to re-raffle on the ground of failure to comply with
Sections 44 and 55 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.

Respondents Baculio and New PP1 Corporation assailed the RTC Order dated
April 24, 2012, stating that the case is beyond its jurisdiction as a Special Commercial
Court. Respondents claimed that the petition seeks to restrain or compel certain
individuals and government officials to stop doing or performing particular acts, and that
there is no showing that the case involves a matter embraced in Section 5 of
Presidential Decree.

The RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue:
WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A MANIFEST ERROR OF
LAW AND ACTED IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO LAW AND ESTABLISHED
JURISPRUDENCE IN DISMISSING THE PETITION ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF
JURISDICTION

Held:

Yes

R.A. 8799 merely transferred the Securities and Exchange Commission's

jurisdiction over cases enumerated under Section 5 of P.D. No. 902-A to the courts of
general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court, and that there is nothing in
R.A. 8799 or in A.M. No. 00-11 -03-SC which would limit or diminish the jurisdiction of
those RTCs designated as Special Commercial Courts.

In resolving the issue of whether Branch 149 of the Makati RTC, a designated
Special Commercial Court, erred in dismissing the petition for injunction with damages
for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Court is guided by the rule "that
jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the
allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts
constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court
or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the
complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover
upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the
character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the
allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or
not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.

Jurisdiction of the SEC over intra-corporate cases was transferred to Courts of

general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court when R.A. No. 8799 took
effect on August 8, 2000. Section 5.2 of R.A. No. 8799 provides:

SEC. 5.2 The Commission's jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section
5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general
jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, that the Supreme Court in
the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall
exercise jurisdiction over these cases. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over
pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted for final resolution 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 until finally disposed.

As a basic premise, let it be emphasized that a court's acquisition of jurisdiction

over a particular case's subject matter is different from incidents pertaining to the
exercise of its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by
law, whereas a court's exercise of jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself, is
governed by the Rules of Court or by the orders issued from time to time by the Court.
In Lozada v. Bracewell, 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

In the case of corporate disputes, only those that are now submitted for final
determination of the 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, bankruptcy, suspension of payments and
receiverships that were filed before June 30, 2000 will continue with the SEC. In other
words, we are avoiding the possibility, upon approval of this bill, of people filing cases
with the SEC, in manner of speaking, to select their court.

Therefore, one must be disabused of the notion that the transfer of jurisdiction
was made only in favor of particular RTC branches, and not the RTCs in general.

6. Which court has jurisdiction to hear the Leila De Lima case? Sandiganbayan or
RTC?
RTC

Trifling with the rule on hierarchy of courts is looked upon with disfavor by this
Court.46 It will not entertain direct resort to it when relief can be obtained in the lower
courts.47 The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the rule on hierarchy of courts is an
important component of the orderly administration of justice and not imposed merely for
whimsical and arbitrary reasons

In a fairly recent case, we summarized other well-defined exceptions to the

doctrine on hierarchy of courts. Immediate resort to this Court may be allowed when any
of the following grounds are present:

(1) when genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be addressed
immediately;

(2) when the case involves transcendental importance;

(3) when the case is novel;

(4) when the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this Court;
 (5) when time is of the essence;

(6) when the subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ;

(7) when there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law;

(8) when the petition includes questions that may affect public welfare, public
policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice;

(9) when the order complained of was a patent nullity; and

(10) when the appeal was considered as an inappropriate remedy.

Unfortunately, none of these exceptions were sufficiently established in the present

petition so as to convince this court to brush aside the rules on the hierarchy of courts

(DE LIMA vs HON. GUERRERO, et al.)

7. Enumerate the courts and state their jurisdiction?

SUPREME COURT

"Sec. 17. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall have original
jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; and
original and exclusive jurisdiction in petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus against the Court of Appeals.

"In the following cases, the Supreme Court shall exercise original and concurrent
jurisdiction with Courts of First Instance:

"1.In petition for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
and habeas corpus; and

"2.In actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of law concerning monopolies
and combinations in restraint of trade.

"The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify
or affirm on appeal, as the law or rules of court may provide, final judgments and
decrees of inferior courts as herein provided, in
"(1) All criminal cases involving offenses for which the penalty imposed is death or life
imprisonment; and those involving other offenses which, although not so punished,
arose out of the same occurrence or which may have been committed by the accused
on the same occasion, as that giving rise to the more serious offense, regardless of
whether the accused are charged as principals, accomplices or accessories, or whether
they have been tried jointly or separately;

"(2) All cases involving petitions for naturalization or denaturalization; and

"(3) All decisions of the Auditor General, if the appellant is a private person or entity.

"The Supreme Court shall further have exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse,
modify or affirm on certiorari as the law or rules of court may provide, final judgments
and decrees of inferior courts as herein provided, in

"(1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or
executive order or regulation is in question;

"(2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment or toil, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto;

"(3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior court is in issue;

"(4) All other cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved: Provided,
however, That if, in addition to constitutional, tax or jurisdictional questions, the cases
mentioned in the three next preceding paragraphs also involve questions of fact or
mixed questions of fact and law, the aggrieved party shall appeal to the Court of
Appeals; and the final judgment or decision of the latter may be reviewed, revised,
reversed, modified or affirmed by the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari; and

"(5) Final awards, judgments, decisions, or orders of the Commission on Elections,

Court of Tax Appeals, Court of Industrial Relations, the Public Service Commission and
the Workmen's Compensation Commission."

COURT OF APPEALS
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall Exercise:

1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,

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 judgements of Regional

Trial Courts; and

3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements, resolutions, orders or

awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commission, 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 accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of
subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph od
Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

The court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive
evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in
cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant
and conduct new trials or Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within
three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. (as amended by R.A. No.
7902.)

SANDIGANBAYAN

"SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. – The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction

in all cases involving:

"a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII,
Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials
occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or
interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

"(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
"(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads:

"(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city

treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;

"(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;

"(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher
rank;

"(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial
director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher;

"(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in
the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

"(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled

corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations.

"(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade ’27’ and higher
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

"(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

"(4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution; and

"(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

"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.

"c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
 FAMILY COURTS

Section 5. Jurisdiction offamily Courts. - The Family Courts shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:

a) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of
age but not less than nine (9) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age or
where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the
offense: Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence
and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred.

The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to

Ptesidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the "Child and Youth Welfare Code";

b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;

c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;

d) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those

relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living
together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal
partnership of gains;

e) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;

f) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No.
209, otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines";

g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent o neglected

children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the suspension,
termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under
Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other
related laws;

h) Petitions for the constitution of the family home;

i) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;
j) Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of
Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," as amended by
Republic Act No. 7658; and

k) Cases of domestic violence against:

1) Women - which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result
in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of
physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman's
personhood, integrity and freedom movement; and

2) Children - which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their
development.

If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject to

criminal proceedings and the corresponding penalties.

If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any
case pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction:

(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 title to, 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 civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the value
exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;

(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where he demand or claim
exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or , in Metro Manila, where such
demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);
(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
Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
(200,000.00);

(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
exercising jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions;

(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts 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 (100,000.00) or, in such other
abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00). (as
amended by R.A. No. 7691*)

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS,

AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases. — Except in cases falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall
exercise:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances
committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such
offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof:
Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. (as amended by R.A,
No. 7691)
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. — Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and
intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of
the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal property,
estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00) exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That
where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different
parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality
of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action
arose out of the same or different transactions;

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in
his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the
issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue
of possession.

(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession
of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or
interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil
actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That value of such property shall be determined
by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (as amended by R.A. No. 7691)

Section 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases. —

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may
be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land registration
cases covering lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or contested lots the
where the value of which does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00),
such value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the
respective claimants if there are more than one, or from the corresponding tax
declaration of the real property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in
the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts. (as amended by R.A. No.
7691)

Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. — In the absence of all the Regional
Trial Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge,
Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus
or applications for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent
Regional Trial Judges sit.
Section 36. Summary procedures in special cases. — In Metropolitan Trial Courts and
Municipal Trial Courts with at least two branches, the Supreme Court may designate
one or more branches thereof to try exclusively forcible entry and unlawful detainer
cases, those involving violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations, violations of the
rental law, and such other cases requiring summary disposition as the Supreme Court
may determine. The Supreme Court shall adopt special rules or procedures applicable
to such cases in order to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof
without regard to technical rules. Such simplified procedures may provide that affidavits
and counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony and that the periods for
filing pleadings shall be non-extendible.

Section 37. Preliminary investigation. — Judges of Metropolitan Trial Courts, except

those in the National Capital Region, of Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts shall have authority to conduct preliminary investigation of crimes alleged to
have been committed within their respective territorial jurisdictions which are cognizable
by the Regional Trial Courts.

The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in accordance with the procedure

prescribed in Section 1, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d), of Presidential Decree No. 911:
Provided, however, That if after the preliminary investigation the Judge finds a prima
facie case, he shall forward the records of the case to the Provincial/City Fiscal for the
filing of the corresponding information with the proper court.

No warrant of arrest shall be issued by the Judge in connection with any criminal
complaint filed with him for preliminary investigation, unless after an examination in
writing and under oath or affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses, he finds that
a probable cause exists.

Any warrant of arrest issued in accordance herewith may be served anywhere in the
Philippines.

Section 38. Judgments and processes. —

(1) All judgments determining the merits of cases shall be in writing, stating clearly the
facts and the law on which they were based, signed by the Judge and filed with the
Clerk of Court. Such judgment shall be appealable to the Regional Trial Courts in
accordance with the procedure now prescribed by law for appeals to the Court of First
Instance, by the provisions of this Act, and by such rules as the Supreme Court may
hereafter prescribe.

(2) All processes issued by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in cases falling within their jurisdiction, may be served
anywhere in the Philippines without the necessity of certification by the Judge of the
Regional Trial Court.
8. What is the power of Judicial Review?
The power of the courts to test the validity of executive and legislative acts in
light of their conformity with the constitution. This is not an assertion of superiority by the
courts over the other departments, but merely an expression of the supremacy of the
Constitution. ( Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139). The duty remains to
assure that the supremacy of the constitution is upheld. The power is inherent in the
Judicial Department, by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers.

9. What is the meaning of “Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation?

If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in
the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where
the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, or where
the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought,
like in suits to have the defendant perform his part of the contract (specific performance)
and in actions for support, or for annulment of a judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, 1
this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may
not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first
instance. ( ANDRES LAPITAN vs. SCANDIA, INC., and GENERAL ENGINEERING
CO).

10. State if the following is incapable of pecuniary estimation or not? (Write

Capable or Incapable)
a. Rescission of Contract. - Incapable
b. Damages for Breach of Contract - incapable
c. Action for Partition - incapable
b. Foreclosure of Mortgage - incapable
c. Action to Nullify Adjudication with Sale plus Damages - incapable