BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

CIVIL PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION

Basic in Rem Law is that a judgment, final order or resolution rendered by a court without jurisdiction is
null and void. So pag wala kayong panagot, you assume the court has no jurisdiction. So bakit nagtatanong
ka ng ganito wala namang jurisdiction yun so null and void. Because by stating that basic principle, the
examiner will say, “oo nga no,” he is not wrong because he is stating a very basic principle in jurisdiction.
Pero wag naman na kung ang layo-layo ng tanong, tinatanong ka sa annulment of marriage, tinatanong
ka sa legal separation, yung related…

The Sun of Remedial Law

Kapag typically, remedial law subject… because I call jurisdiction as the Sun of Rem Law. Why? The sun is
the center of solar system. Around the sun revolve all the planets. And around the planets revolve
satellites. Diba? Now, remove the sun, the planets will die- will cease to exist. Ganon din sa Rem Law. So
this is the Sun of Rem Law. Around which revolve the several planets. Kaya directed don yun palagi. Yan
ang focal point. That is central point of your Rem Law. It’s all about remedies after all, so why remedy
when in the first place there is nothing to remedy, because the effect, the decision the judgment the final
order the resolution is null and void. See? As simple as that.

Alam niyo napakadali ng Rem Law. Mas lalo na sa practice. Napakahirap when you are studying it in the
4th year because you talk of concepts. But when you go down to practice, actual practice, this is your daily
bread and butter. And remember, how many justices were telling me? Akala ko dito,,, Justice Nachura for
one, he’s very close to us here. He was telling me when he was first appointed, sabi niya, “akala ko ang
mga kaso sa SC puro regarding the Constitution.” 90% of the cases there boils down to Rem Law, sabi niya.

Because you know substantive law answers the question what. What is the law? Is that law applicable in
this situation? Ok alam mo nga yung batas but you do not know how to implement it. Balewala. While
substantive law answers the question what is the law, remedial law answers the question how do you
implement the law. See?

So daming substantive law, your Crim Law, Poli Law, kung alin diyan, Civ Law. Everything. Lahat yon
nalaman niyo na. Kung hindi mo alam i-implement, balewala. See? So Rem Law answers the question as
to how it is to be implemented.

The Signposts of Remedial Law

SO in Rem Law questions, that you will encounter in the Bar, always talk of remedies. Binibigyan ka ng..
ano bang solusyon dito? SO NOW, even before I go any further on jurisdiction, because Rem Law is all
about remedies. What are the fundamental remedies? Which I call again for review purposes the
signposts of remedial law. Diba? In every case, at least dalawa ang magkatatunggali, the plaintiff and the
1

defendant. Remember that in actual practice, truth does not prevail. Diba? What prevails is the legal truth
Page
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

it is not the actual truth. So that even if someone says… even if someone is accused of killing somebody,
but another one says I killed him. So ano pang mangyayari, wala na. Diba?

SO whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant, you must be concerned with remedies. SO ano ba ang
mga remedies under Rem Law, yun lang ang pinag uusapan from Rule 1 to Rule 134, lahat yan about
remedies. Diba? So I call them the signposts of Rem Law, as far as I’m concerned with Civ Pro.

OK, what is the first remedy of the defendant? Rule 16 diba? Motion to Dismiss. Ok, so what is his next
remedy? Rule 33 which is.. kasi ito dapat saulado niyo lahat yung Rules diba? Kung ngayon hindi niyo pa
nasasaulo yan, a mahirap yan. Dapat alam mo na pag tinanong sayo. Rule 34. Alam mo kung ano yon.
Diba? E kung ngayon ka palang nag uumpisa ano ba yung Rule 33? Medyo the question is.. are you
reviewing for the Bar? OK, so Demurrer to Evidence, yun ang sunod. And then after that, what now? Your
next remedy is already Rule 37 which is Motion for New Trial/Motion for Reconsideration. And if you don’t
succeed there, you have the remedy of Appeal which is from Rules 40-45.

OK, when the judgment has become executory. In other words, there is already an entry of judgment, you
are only left with 2 remedies which are Petition for Relief from Judgment and Annulment of Judgment.
Rule 38 and Rule 47, respectively.

See? Remedies. So pag presentation palang ng problem sa Bar, alam mo na kung anong gagawin mong
remedy. Supposed the presentation of the subject, the question is mas lalo ngayon 80% questions na
diba? 20 % nalang yung MCQ. Presented the problem like this. “After judgment has been entered,” ano
pa? kung remedy pinag-uusapan niyo you are only left with 2 remedies. Doon palang sa presentation ng
problem alam mo na. Ano gagawin ko rito? Petition for Relief from Judgment or Annulment of Judgment?
Are those two remedies available to me? It may be YES. It may be NO. Sasabihin mo NO because I already
availed of remedy of New Trial so I can no longer avail of that because these are prerogative remedies.
Diba?

SO kung ang presentation of problem “after the plaintiff has presented evidence,” o bakit ka mag r remedy
ng Motion to Dismiss? Pag nag remedy ka ng Motion to Dismiss if I were the examiner, baka markahan ko
ng.. ang papel mo ng 34, 30% ka nalang tapos ka na. Kung may DQ, DQ ka na. Anong pinag uusapan nito?
E mag m Motion to Dismiss tapos na yung presentation. Unless of course yung mga exceptional like
jurisdiction, kaya ganon.. but as a general rule. SO just look at the remedies and presentation palang ng
problem, alam mo na kung ano ang remedy. I’m talking of the fact that you are the defendant.

Now, if you are the plaintiff, what is your first remedy? Kung ikaw ang plaintiff bakit ka magpapa dismiss?
Diba? Pero may remedy under the Rules na pwede ka magpadismiss. Rule 17. Take a look at Rule 17
Sections 1 and 2 are remedies available to the plaintiff. Bakit magpapadismiss e siya ang nag-file? He filed
the case and then he asked for the dismissal kasi nagkamali ako e. Yung hinabla ko pala former girlfriend
ko. No grounds in fact. The Rules do not provide for any ground. Why? Because any… nobody will be
prejudiced.. ikaw e.. ikaw ang nag-file.. ipapa-dismiss so don ka kaagad. Rule 17 Sec 1 and 2, as behalf the
plaintiff.

Now, after that if you don’t, you can avail of Rule 34 and Rule 35. Judgment on the Pleading / Summary
Judgment. And then you can also avail of 37 and Appeal 40-45. See? So pag nakita mo agad itong signpost
of Rem Law, it would be very easy for you to attack problems, i-situate niyo kaagad. Saan ba ito?
2
Page

Problemang ito? And then how do you resolve it? What does the Rule provide? Resolve the question.
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

Now, you cannot remember any rule. Have I read any jurisprudence on the matter? Apply the
jurisprudence. But never say “in the case of” NO! Just say in a decided case by the SC, that’s one. In a
settled case, yon. No, don’t say in the case of Ong v … Sus! E kung nagkamali ka, hindi pala si Ong yon, it
was Yu. Mali, sabi, nagpapa-impress, sasabihin ng examiner. Nagpapa-impress ito mali naman. Hindi ako
na-impress of di deduct pa.

So these are the signposts of Rem Law. Along the way, you can always avail of what? Of Rule 65. So isisingit
niyo yung along the way. Rule 65. Why? Certiorari Prohibition Mandamus attack interlocutory orders
diba? Only in special cases do they attack final order. So pwede mo palaging isingit yung certiorari andon
ka palang sa.. kahit anong kuwan pwede mo gamitin to.. the signpost of Rem Law. So remember that. Let
me go back now to jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine the case or decide the case. Very fundamental. Very
basic. Where lies this authority? It lies with the court. Therefore, the court has jurisdiction because the
authority is not with Pres Noynoy. Neither is it with Mar Roxas. Neither is it with Korina Sanchez. Neither
is it with Janet Napoles. It is only in the court. OK?

Kinds of Courts

SO you have to know the courts. What are these courts? We have what you call the regular courts and
the quasi-judicial bodies and quasi-tribunals. Yun yan.

Pagdating sa regular courts, we have of course the SC. We have the CA and because of 9282, we have now
the Court of Tax Appeals as a regular court which did not use to be a regular court, but now it is a regular
court. Then you have the regional trial court and then you have the MTCs. You don’t call them inferior
courts. You call them lower courts. Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Ito lang ang regular courts.

Others share only in their judicial power like for example the constitutional commissions. The COA, the
COMELEC, and the Civil Service Commission. They have quasi-judicial power or authority, but they are not
regular courts.

Now, ang unang tatandaan niyo, which is a possibility also in the Bar, would be the constitutional
provisions and emphasize that even in Art 6 of the Constitution, which has something to do with the
legislative powers, mayroong provision regarding the judges, regarding jurisdiction. So tatandaan niyo pag
nag-aral kayo don sa.. san ba yan? Sa Political Law, ay it has something to do and you know that already.
BUT for purposes of Rem Law, the most important Constitutional provision is of course in Art 8 Sec 5,
which by this time you have already memorized. Ok? Kung hindi niyo pa na-memorize yan, revisit it and
try to memorize. Madali lang naman mag-memorize pagka ganito ng panahon. Adrenaline is very high.
Ang dali. Ang dali mag-memorize. Pagdating ng November, wala na yan lahat. Sa ngayon madali. So
titingnan niyo na yon. Yun na yun because that is a matter of jurisdiction.

Remember that another principle in jurisdiction is that jurisdiction is conferred by law. Exception:
Supreme Court. Jurisdiction of the SC is conferred by the Constitution and where do you find it? It is found
in Sec 5 Art 8 of the 1987 Constitution which should be memorized. We’ll go back to that much later.
3
Page
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

So these are the different kinds of court, the regular court. In your book, you always speak of court of
general jurisdiction, court of special jurisdiction, that’s just a reading matter. Sa palagay ko naman hindi
naman lalabas yung mga ganon. Alright. BUT there are certain kinds of jurisdiction which are good
candidates for Bar Questions, at least in the MCQ.

Classification of Jurisdiction

1. Original and Appellate

Unang-una, we classify jurisdiction into two general kinds as to its nature, as to its application. First we
call, original jurisdiction as against appellate jurisdiction. Pagdating sa Evidence, ang opposite ng original
is what? Secondary. Pero pagdating sa jurisidiction, original, the opposite is appellate. Sa Evidence,
original-secondary. Diba?

Dito, original. Self-explanatory. Original, so siya yung tunay mong asawa. Original diba? Your first and only
wife. What is it? When the court takes cognizance of a case for the first time… it is in the exercise of
original jurisdiction.

If it takes cognizance of a case for the second or the third or the fourth time, it is already ang exercise of
appellate jurisdiction.

So yun lang ang distinction. Original and Appellate jurisdiction. See? Original, so parang virginal. First-
timer. Diba? Pag appellate, a pangalawa na yan. Pangatlo na. Pang-apat. See? So don’t forget it.

 Original
o Exclusive and Concurrent

When we speak of original jurisdiction, it is subdivided into two. It can either be exclusive or concurrent.
Ok, so kung iisa lang, wala ng iba, ang iyong asawa, original exclusive yan. Kung meron kang mga
mistresses, concurrent. See? So when a subject matter is taken cognizance of by more than 1 court, it is
in the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction like what?

A petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. These petitions are
under the concurrent jurisdiction of the SC, the CA and the RTCs. Concurrent. Simply because it is
cognizable by more than 1 court, that’s why it is concurrent. Thus, a party have the right to choose where
to file it? NO. Because concurrent jurisdiction calls for application of the 3 fundamental principles on
jurisdiction, which you are very familiar with.

o 3 Fundamental Principles on Jurisdiction in Rel. to Concurrent Jurisdiction

The principle of hierarchy of courts. The principle of transcendental importance. The principle that the SC
is not a trier of facts.
4
Page
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

And we have several cases. Jurisdiction is replete with illustrations of this basic principle. But among the
latest which is possible to be given in the Bar is a decision of the SC where the principle of the hierarchy
of courts gives way to the principle of transcendental importance, not the other way around.

And that is the case of GMA when she asked for TRO. [She] filed an injunction with the SC, why should she
file an injunction with the SC? And TRO? When that is cognizable in the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction
by the CA, the SC and the RTC? DOJ could have just questioned that petition on the principle of hierarchy
of courts but the SC said the hierarchy of courts principle gives way to the principle of transcendental
importance.

Ano kaya itong kaso ni Napoles? Will it be given preference? Apparently, it is being given preference now.
Kinulong kagabi pero separate cell. So itong kasong ito kung hindi man lumabas sa Rem Law, baka lumabas
sa Poli Law. Kasi yung mga common happenings yung mga nangyayari, doon kumukuha ng… so don’t
forget to read when you wake up in the morning, read the newspaper, at least, listen to the radio.
Nalalaman mo, at least, na yung bahay ni Pacquiao nabenta na. Diba? At least you must be aware of what
is going on kasi kung minsan ano ba itong… di ko pa nabasa to… ganyan. And this case of Napoles is a
possible candidate, not so much of Rem Law, but in Poli Law.

SO Concurrent jurisdiction. Principle of the hierarchy of court. Some cases that you must be familiar with
like the case of PIATCO diba? The case of Agan v PIATCO. Ok, that’s about concurrent jurisdiction. Then,
also the case of Liga ng mga Barangay v Atienza. These are regarding exercise of concurrent jurisdiction.

SO tatlong principles muna ang tatandaan niyo, applicable in concurrent jurisdiction.: the principle of
hierarchy of courts, the principle of transcendental importance and that the SC is not a trier of facts.

The third principle remember is illustrated… that is the ratiocination… of Rule 45. Diba? Tatandaan mo
ang Rule 45 that is appeal to the SC even from the RTC. You can go up to the SC under Rule 45 on a pure
question of law.

Ano exceptions non? The exceptions are the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data, where remedies
are still Rule 45 but not confined to pure questions of law. Both questions of law and fact cognizable by
the SC as a remedy under Rule 45. Yun ang exception.

But the ratiocination of why Rule 45… the SC can take cognizance of cases on pure questions of law is
precisely because of that fundamental principle that the SC is not a trier of facts so what should be brought
to the SC must only pure question of law and not question of facts. Ok!

So this is original jurisdiction which is can either be exclusive or concurrent.

 Appellate

Then appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction is of course that jurisdiction when a case is taken
cognizance of for the second time around. That’s why I call you don’t call them inferior courts, but rather
lower courts, because when you speak of inferior courts or lower courts, they do not only refer to the
MTCs but any court. Where it exercises appellate jurisdiction, it exercises such jurisdiction against a lower
5

court. SO the CA can be considered a lower court vis-à-vis the SC. The RTC can be considered lower court
Page

vis-a-vis or in relation to the CA, so on and so forth.

BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

2. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter, Persons, Issues, Res, Territory

Then let me go now to another classification of jurisdiction, that is: jurisdiction over the subject matter,
jurisdiction over the persons of the parties in the case, jurisdiction over the issues, jurisdiction over the
res and jurisdiction over the territory. Lima yan. I’ll start explaining it briefly from below. Let’s begin with
the lowest. The fifth.

 Jurisdiction over the Territory

This jurisdiction over the territory otherwise known as territorial jurisdiction does not apply where? It
does not apply… it does not concern Civil Cases, because in Civil Cases regarding the place, it is not
jurisdictional. It is a matter of venue. And venue and jurisdiction are two different things.

So jurisdiction over the territory applies in Criminal Cases. Why? Because in Criminal Cases… another
principle ha… venue is jurisdictional. So that’s another principle. Ilang principle na ang napag-aralan natin
so far? Four! Concurrent jurisdiction and on territorial jurisdiction which does not apply in Civil Cases, but
applies in Criminal Cases, because of the principle that in Criminal Cases, venue is jurisdictional.

Four years ago, that was one of the questions in the Bar. True or False. It said, “Is venue jurisdictional?”
True or False? Kahit ano isagot mo don, either true or false, tama pag tama ang reasoning mo. Diba? In
Civil Cases, NO OF COURSE because venue and jurisdiction are different. But in Criminal Cases, the answer
is TRUE. Venue is jurisdictional.

As I said, I will try to correlate it always with Crim Pro. You know, when you speak that venue in Crim Pro
or in Crim Cases is jurisdictional, what determines where to file the case is the place where the crime or
offense was committed. Diba? SO if an offense is committed in Manila, you cannot file that in QC, because
venue is jurisdictional. BUT if it is collection for sum of money, which is Civil, well, jurisdiction where it
happened is immaterial or irrelevant, because that is a matter of venue. OK

 Jurisidiction over the Res

Then, going up, jurisdiction over the res. R-E-S. What is the res? The res is the thing or the object of the
case. The thing. SO how does the court acquire jurisdiction over the res? BY LEGAL SEIZURE. And how is
that known in Rem Law? By attachment, under Rule 57. But the issue is, “Can the court take cognizance
of a case even it has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?” Ordinarily, NO. Diba?
But, in special cases, YES. And what is that special case? When it is possible for you to attach the property
belonging to the defendant even if the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, the case can still continue.

That’s why, in cross reference to Sec 1 of Rule 57, when can you attach the property of the party? You are
limited only to 6 instances, under Sec 1 of Rule 57. Outside of those instances, you cannot attach the
property of a party. SO if the defendant has properties and there is a basis… there is a ground for attaching
6

that property, under Sec 1 of Rule 57, then so be it. Attach the property even if the court does not acquire
Page
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The case can continue because it has acquired jurisdiction
over the res. OVER THE RES.

Now, the illustration that I gave limits the res to the thing, because in Spec Pro, the thing is not limited…
or rather the res is not limited to the thing. It can be a status, a fact or a particular object. A status, a right
or a particular fact. You know that that is Spec Pro, yan ang concept ng res. But as far as we’re concerned
at the moment, we are talking of jurisdiction, when we speak of the res, that is the thing which is the
object of the action. OK?

SO we dispose already of two kinds of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the territory and jurisdiction over the
res.

The limitation: when the court acquired jurisdiction only over the res and not over the person, is that
when you execute the judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, you will be limited to the
res. You cannot go beyond that. Why? Because precisely the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant. So you are limited only to the res.

If we tie that up, for further illustration, with Rule 39, you will note than an action for a sum of money if
it is not satisfied, the next recourse is levy on execution. And when you levy, the property that is levied is
sold diba? And the proceeds from the sale will be for the satisfaction of the judgment debt. Now, if for
example, the judgment debt is 100K and the proceeds from the sale is only 50K, you have a balance of
50K. if the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person hanggang don ka nalang. OK? That is what is
meant by jurisdiction over the res. BUT had you acquired jurisdiction, over the person of the defendant,
still you can get the balance.

Many other… you can again what? You can again ano yon? Yung Sec 36 and 37 of Rule 39. Ano yon?
Examination of the Judgment-Obligor, Examination of the Obligor of the Judgment-Obligor, yung mga
receivables, mga sale of ascertainable interests, yung mga ganyan.

You will note, as you notice now ha, sana you can still catch up kasi pag may isa akong topic sa jurisdiction,
ine-expand ko na. expanded. Ngayon, kasi review naman ito e. The presumption is that you know this.
The presumption is that nirerefresh ko nalang ang memory niyo. If this is something alien or greek to you,
e that’s dangerous. Diba? Siguro ang mga bago lang siguro rito when we go now to jurisprudence. Kasi
review nga e, I’m refreshing or confirming what you learned already.

So jurisdiction over the res. Take note of the limitation ha.

 Jurisdiction over the Issues

Going up, jurisdiction over the issues. Ano ang principle of jurisdiction regarding issues? Jurisdiction over
the issues is determined by the allegations in the pleadings. YAN… yun ang principle don, jurisdiction over
the issues is determined by the allegations in the pleadings. SO if it is not alleged in the pleadings, the
court has no jurisdiction over that issue and it is contestible in the course of the proceeding. You can
contest it. The court has no jurisdiction over that issue. It was never raised in the pleading.
7

The very common example that I gave. Some of you would still recall is a simple case for a sum of money
Page

where in the course of the proceeding, the plaintiff is on the witness stand and he is being asked by the
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

lawyer what happened when the defendant did not pay you? I wrote him a letter. I have here a letter. In
what relation is this letter to what you just mentioned? Kung hindi natutulog yung counsel for the defense,
he said, “objection, Your Honor.” It was never raised in the pleadings. The court has no jurisdiction over
that kind of demand. It was never raised in the pleadings.” See? Can that be objected to? YES. Because
that thing was not raised in the pleading. The court did not acquire over that kind of issue.

Now, siguro more pronounced example must be in Rule 70. You know Rule 70? Unlawful Detainer Forcible
Entry. Remember that the issue there is only possession de facto.

BUT Sec 16 of Rule 70 says that when the issue of ownership is raised in the pleading, the court is not
divested of its jurisdiction. Diba? The court is not divested of its jurisdiction, because if there is no issue
of ownership in an Unlawful Detainer case, the court cannot decide issue of ownership. But if it is raised
in the pleading, the court acquires jurisdiction over the issue of ownership and what the Sec 16 of Rule 70
says, it provides that the court must decide the issue of ownership only to resolve the issue of possession.
SEE? So, it is not final. Res Judicata will not apply. But that is an illustration of jurisdiction over the issues.
That jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the pleading. That which is not alleged- that issue is
beyond the authority of the court.

So tatlo na! Territory, Res, Issues.

 Jurisdiction over the Persons of the Parties

Let’s go now higher… jurisdiction over the persons of the parties in a case. Parties in a case are provided
for under Rule 3. Diba? The parties. Sa ngayon, tatandaan niyo ha. In every Civil Case, there is only a
maximum of 5 kinds of parties. Wala ng iba. Hindi na lalampas yon.

Let me call that, for our discussion, until the end of our review, A-B-C-D-E, para…

When I say A, alam niyo na plaintiff yon.

When I say B, alam niyo na defendant.

When I say C, co-defendant.

When I say D, he is either the third-party, the fourth-party, or the fifth-[arty defendant. Ok?

And E is the intervenor under Rule 19. Intervention.

SO ABCDE are the only parties in a Civil Case to the max. Wala ng lalampas don, although Mr. D may stand
for a third-party, for a fourth party or a fifth party. Diba? So dalawa nag Chinese dito. Mr. C and Mr. D.
ABCDE.

In Criminal Cases, dalawa lang ang party. It’s either… sino? The private complainant is not a party ha in a
Criminal Case kaya nga under the Rule of Evidence, can we exclude a private complainant in the course of
the proceedings? YES. He can be excluded. “You are not a party. You are only a witness.” See?

Who are the parties? The Rep. of the Phils or People of the Phils. And the accused. Dalawa lang in Criminal
8

Cases kasi under Rule 110 of Crim Pro, nou counterclaim, no crossclaim, no third-party complaint dito sa
Page

Crim Case. So in Crim Cases, there are only 2 parties.

BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

In Special Proceedings, iisa lang ang party and that is the petitioner. It does not call for a defendant.
Exception to that, is what? The exception is habeas corpus. Rule 102 because habeas corpus calls for a
respondent kasi sino ang magbibigay ng return kung walang respondent. Ok?

Now, in a petition for a writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data, yon kelangan din ng respondent. But
wala naman specific rules don sa writ of amparo. It is special administrative matter. Alright.

So 5 parties. ABCDE. How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of A? The person of A the
plaintiff. Ito, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of A upon filing of the complaint and timely
payment of the correct docket fees. Underscore the 2 words qualifying the payment. TIMELY and
CORRECT. Because jurisprudence is replete with the fact that even if you pay the docket fee but it is
incorrect, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff. Even if it is correct, if it was paid out
of time, the court does not acquire jurisdiction. That’s why when does the court acquire jurisdiction over
the person of A? Upon filing of the complaint and timely payment of the correct docket fee.

In relation to Crim Pro, tatandaan niyo, it is not upon filing of the information, but upon filing of the
complaint with the prosecutor’s office. That is how a Crim complaint is initiated in Crim Cases. NOT upon
filing of the information- a thing that has been discussed already by Fiscal Salva- but upon… you might
say… complaint or information… siyempre may mga exceptions yan yung mga kung diretso sa court yung
complaint, diba? If it is punishable by less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day.

Anyway, I am trying to adjust it. So A the plaintiff the court acquired jurisdiction over his person upon
filing of the complaint and timely payment of the correct docket fees. Remember, that the prevailing
doctrine now regarding docket fees has gone back to FGU v Alday.

Natanggal yon because of Korean Technologies Inc. v Lerma, where it says that as of August 16 2004.
Payment of docket fees is required even for compulsory counterclaims. That has been overturned again
by Mercado v CA and we have gone back to FGU v Alday. So the prevailing doctrine is that for
counterclaims, what is required is only for permissive…docket fees. Payment of docket fees is required
only for permissive counterclaim. The Lerma case, Korean Tech. Inc., was 2008 of January, which was
overturned in Oct of the same year by Mercado v CA, going back to the old doctrine laid down in Alday v
FGU, because you do not only pay for the initial pleading. You also pay for the counterclaim. The
counterclaim is actually the complaint of the defendant against the plaintiff. Diba? You have also to pay
docket fee in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the counterclaim. Pero nga dalawang klase
kasi yon, permissive and compulsory. And the doctrine now says that you are only required to pay for
pemissive counterclaim. Compulsory, NO. Alright.

Ngayon, aside from that, aside from the initiatory pleading, where docket fees are required, appeal fees…
appeal docket fees are also required so that if it is not timely paid, then, you know that old case of Brgy
24 Legaspi City v Imperial? That’s an old case, but the latest case was a 2009 case is the case of SLU v
Cobarubias(?) Ano yung mga doctrines dito? There were payments of appellate docket fees but the
payments were belated. Yung Brgy. 24 siyempre it emanated from Legaspi and Legaspi is about 500 km
from Manila. Finile dito sa CA, then the CA ordered the petitioner “kulang yung docket fees mo” kulang
ng 2 pesos something. Kakaunti lang. Sabi ng lawyer sa Legaspi, under the Rules, tama na yon. So hindi na
9

siya nag-add ng addtl fees. The next order that he got, from the CA, dismissal of the Appeal. He filed a
Page

motion for reconsideration, denied. He wanted to pay… “2 pesos lang to” pero at that time, ang 2 pesos
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

mga isang paketeng Marlboro yan, not just 1 pack diba? E ngayon baka itapon yan ng pulubing bibigyan
mo.

At any rate, the point here is that it was incorrect. The docket fees. Ngayon, that became more
pronounced in the latest case- 2009 o 2010 case. This case of SLU v Cabarubias. Ito labor case ito pero
nung mag-appeal si Cobarubias sa CA, diba? From Labor, diba? Illegal Dismissal case. Cobarubias was a
member of the faculty of SLU Baguio and then when he filed an illegal dismissal case, yun na nga, she got
it and then kulang pa. She wanted more, she appealed of course to the Commission. I’m using the word
appeal. To be very technical about it, it should not be appeal kasi sa labor cases walang appeal. Diba?
Certiorari yon. But anyway just for this purposes, let’s use it as appeal. Pag-akyat niya doon sa CA, walang
docket fees o yung docket fees kulang. And SLU questioned that. Sabi ni Cobarubias, “So let me pay.” So
she offered to pay.. SLU said, “time na. nag-prescribe na” because you can only pay within a certain
timeframe. So the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal. And so the decision of the appellate
court was NULL and VOID.

When it went up to the SC, the SC held, CA decision NULL and VOID. Why? CA has no jurisdiction over the
case. Why? Because there was no payment of the correct docket fee. Timely payment of the correct
docket fee.

So payment of docket fees is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. So that is how the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff.

How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of B? B is the defendant. You know that. The court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of B thru VALID SERVICE OF SUMMONS. Don’t just say service of
summons, because if the service is invalid, the court does not acquire jurisdiction. Therefore, valid service
of summons. Rule 14. We’ll discuss that tomorrow siguro abutin na natin ang Rule 14. Valid service of
summons or VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE. That’s how the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.

Tie-ing that up with Crim Cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused thru lawful
arrest. Or voluntary surrender. Kasi ang iba, is still of the impression that the court acquired jurisdiction
upon arraignment. NO. the jurisdiction is acquired not upon arraignment but upon lawful arrest or
voluntary surrender.

Now, how about in Spec Pro? How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner
and over the case? Thru publication. In Spec Pro, always publication. The mode.

In Special Civil Action, how does the court acquire jurisdiction? Depende sa Rule. In Certiorari for example,
it’s not thru service of summons but rather upon order, receipt of copy of the order to file a comment.
Yon that’s how the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Upon receipt of the order,
hindi summons. But in other Special Civil Action, may summons.

How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of C? who is C? C is a co-defendant. Ito pareho
lang. Service of summons voluntary appearance.

How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of D? who is D? D is a third-party defendant,
10

fourth or the fifth, considering that D is also a defendant, the acquires jurisdiction upon summons as well
Page

or voluntary surrender which can be done… so pare pareho dito sa defendant.

BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

Then, going to E. E is the intervenor. How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of E? The
court acquires jurisdiction upon approval by the court of a motion for leave to intervene because under
Rule 19, you cannot file an intervention without being preceded by a motion for leave, so motion for leave
to admit intervention whether it is a complaint-in-intervention or an answer-in-intervention. That’s how
the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the intervenor. OK!

So we are through now with the 4 kinds of jurisdiction. Juris over the territory, over the res, over the
issues, and jurisdiction over the persons of the parties in a case.

Let’s go now to the first which is the most important. Jurisdiction over the subject matter. Natatandaan
niyo ba kung ilang principles na ang jurisdiction have we studied so far? We have studied already about
7… jurisdiction. Dito, what is the principle regarding jurisdiction over the subject matter? The principle is
jurisdiction over the subject matter is CONFERRED BY LAW, except jurisdiction of the SC which is conferred
by the Constitution.

So in going over in discussing jurisdiction over the subject matter, we cannot help but go to the laws on
jurisdiction and the basic and fundamental law on jurisdiction is of course, BP 129, as amended by 7691.
Mabuti hindi pa nagbabago yun pa rin ha. 7691. But let me remind you that in reading 7691, if you have
it in your right hand, in your left hand, read or also 8369 so that you don’t get confused because in both
BP 129 as well as in 7691, it has not taken cognizance of the amendatory rules or provision of such 7691
in 8369. Ano ba ang 8369? This is a law creating the Family Courts, kaya tatandaan niyo. Kasi nakalagay
doon kahit tingnan niyo ang BP 129, as amended by 7691, pag tiningnan niyo lang, number 5 doon
nakalagay, all cases regarding marriage and marital relation. E wala na yan, diba? Because now the Family
Courts are different from the RTCs. Iba yon.

I was discussing with my regular class regarding guardiansip if you try to look at administrative matter 03-
02-05 which took effect in 2003, this is about what? Guardianship over the minor nakalagay don, that
guardianship over the minor is cognizable by the Family Court. BUT guardianship over the incompetent,
under Rules 92-97, by the RTC. I was telling them, NO MORE. Because of 8369. Whether it is guardianship
over the incompetent or guardianship over the minor, it is cognizable by the Family Court. So pag binasa
niyo yon, because this is jurisdiction over the subject matter, pag binasa niyo yung 7691 which is the
principal rule on jurisdiction, the principal law on jurisdiction at present, be very careful you have as well
your 8369. And you will find out that there are still certain subject matter under 7691, which are supposed
to be no longer there, because of 8369. Alright, we will go to the more salient points.

As I said, jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and because it is conferred by law, the
exception is that of the SC, why? Because the jurisdiction of the SC is conferred by the Constitution. The
SC is the only constitutional court, only ha, the Sandiganbayan is a constitutionally mandated court, you
get it? The only constitutional court is the SC. It is a creation of the constitution. But the Sandiganbayan is
constitutionally-mandated court. It is a creation of law as mandated by the Constitution. What law created
that? PD 1606, as amended later on.

So going now first on the Constitution, I told you that you must have memorized by this time then a little
explanation will be helpful. You find that in Sec 5 Art 8 of the Constitution. You will note that as far… this
is the… this was given in 1987 Bar question number 1 in Poli Law. “What is the power of judicial review?”
11

Ang sagot niyan ito, Sec 5 Art 8 of the Constitution. Ngayon, you please revisit that provision, because
Page
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

that’s quite important. As far as jurisdiction is concerned, anim yon diba? What constitute in toto the
power of judicial review is found there. Anim yon. Yung number 1, ang mnemonic ko kasi diyan, ERAPOA:

E- exercise O-original jurisdiction over cases involving A-ambassadors, P-public ministers, and over
petitions for certiorari prohibition and mandamus quo warranto and habeas corpus.

(nasan na yung ibang letters?)

Alam mo dapat kasi alam na alam natin kasi pag pumunta na tayo sa mga specific provisions like Rule 66
quo warranto, pag tinanong what is the jurisdiction? This court has the jurisdiction over quo warranto.
Diba? Can you file a petition for quo warranto with the SC? Siyempre you need to observe hierarchy of
courts, transcendental importance, the SC is not a trier of facts because concurrent.

But at least you are aware because you are backed up by constitutional provision. Tingnan niyo rito,
exercise original jurisdiction. There two kinds of original jurisdiction diba? Exclusive and concurrent as we
have discussed a while ago. Ang sinasabi dito original jurisdiction. Hindi sinasabing exclusive.

Question: supposed you are asked, state the cases over which the SC has exclusive original jurisdiction.

O, ang andon sa Constitution, exercise original jurisdiction. Hindi sinabing exclusive. Now, does that mean
therefore that it is concurrent? If it is not exclusive, there is no other choice, so this is concurrent. So you
are being asked now, give me instances where the SC has exclusive original jurisdiction. Anong mga kaso
yon? Pinag-aaralan yan pagdating sa Appeal. Diba? Because I always guide examinees this way. You only,
at the moment, under the present dispensation, you only remember 5 tribunals. Lima lang ang tatandaan
niyo para hindi magulo: CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA, COA and COMELEC. Itong lima lang na to. Pag galling ka
rito, wala kang ibang pupuntahan kundi SC. Itong lima lang na to. All the rest CA. So pag binigyan ka ng
problem on appeal from these 5 bodies, you will go nowhere else except to the SC. Diba?

Ano? Papano? How do you go there? Kasi kung appeal yan, you go now to the second paragraph of Sec 5
Art 8 of the Consti, because Sec 1 refers to original jurisdiction. Pagdating na Sec 2, paragraph 2 of Sec 5,
what does it say? Review, revise, reverse, affirm or modify. OK. How? In two ways: by appeal or certiorari.
That’s why you have now to make a distinction. By appeal… how do you appeal to the SC? You appeal to
the SC only under Rule 45. And under Rule 45, it is by petition for review. Is there now an appeal to the
SC by notice of appeal? O sige nga. Wala? Nakooooo.

Give me an illustration of an appeal to the SC by notice of appeal. Landmark yung kaso ng People v Mateo,
Criminal Case. People v Mateo created another form of appeal in criminal cases which is intermediate
appeal. Remember that People v Mateo took or was issued even prior to the abolition of the death
penalty. Kaya nga pagdating ng… hindi dumirediretso walang… tinanggal yung automatic appeal diba?
That’s when the RTC or the Sandiganbayan… you go directly to the SC. NO! I’m talking of Crim Pro ha, not
Civil Procedure. You don’t go directly to the SC. You have to go to the CA on intermediate review.
Mandatory yan. You cannot go directly.

Tinanggal yung death penalty, natira reclusion perpetua. Life imprisonment. Will People v Mateo still
apply? With more reason that it apply. Wala ng death penalty. Wala ng automatic review. So you go to
the CA. If the CA affirms, what do you do? Petition for review? [NO, but] Notice of Appeal. Pag hindi ka
12

nag-notice of appeal, nako kalaboso yung kliyente mo. Wala ng automatic review ngayon. Intermediate
Page

review. And not to the SC but to the CA.

BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

Pero tatandaan niyo pa rin ha, basic yung lima: CA, Sandiganbayan… bakit sinama yung CTA? Because of
the amendment, because of the law 9282. Elevating the CTA to the level of CA. Kaya ngayon, appeal from
the CTA will now be to the SC. That is if it is decided by the CTA En Banc. Tatandaan niyo yon.

Sa SC, walang En Banc. You cannot as a matter of right, you go to… Kahit ginagamit ng ibang law offices
yan but under the rules, wala yan. But in 9282, CTA, when you go now to the SC, only if the decision is
rendered by the CTA En Banc, because if it is decided by division, you can appeal En Banc. And it is only
an En Banc decision that you bring that up to the SC.

Now, going back to Sec 2, review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm. Diba? Either appeal or certiorari. Kapag
appeal, sabi ko nga 45. Kapag certiorari, 65. BUT TAKE NOTE, that certiorari under 65 is a special civil
action. It is not a mode of appeal. Basic is the distinction between 45 and 65. While in 65 it is a special civil
action separate and distinct, 45 is a continuation because it is a mode of appeal. While in 45, you can only
raise questions of law, in 65 you can only raise error of jurisdiction. Kaya nga you have a distinction
between errors of judgment and error of jurisdiction. Alright.

So take note, but here, under the Constitution, in going up to the SC, you have two ways. You can go there
by appeal or thru certiorari. Ano ba yun? Exclusive? Of course not! So what is now the exclusive jurisdiction
of the SC? Exclusive original jurisdiction of the SC, so kaya niyo sagutin yon. Ano nalang, edi dito nalang sa
lima. Wala kang ibang pupuntahan. Diba? If the decision final order judgment emanate from any of the 5,
exclusive yan sa SC, either by appeal or certiorari. Pag certiorari, yon ang exclusive original jurisdiction of
the SC. Kasi wala kang ibang pupuntahan. Otherwise, you apply concurrent jurisdiction.
Nagkakaintindihan ba tayo?

Ito lang naman ang jurisdictional provisions, yung apat don, it’s different power of the SC. So yung number
1… ah par. A, original jurisdiction. Par. B, appellate jurisdiction and that appeal is limited to 5 areas.
Constitutionality, illegality of tax imposed, and then when the issue is jurisdiction. Then going to the 4, let
me emphasize par 5- promulgate rules concerning protection in enforcement of constitutional right,
pleading, practice, yan. Why do I emphasize Sec 5? Binigay na kasi sa Bar. Kaya pwede ibigay uli. Matagal
ng binigay sa Bar yan. “What is the rule-making power of the SC?” Constitutional. Kasi sabi nila judicial
legislation. NO it is not because it is precisely supported by the Constitution. This is the reason par. 5 Sec
5 Art 8 of the Constitution.

In one of my final exams for example, I gave the case of Magundanao Massacre where the prosecution
moved for change of venue on the ground that there might be a miscarriage of justice and the RTC granted
the motion for change of venue. Was the order of the court proper? Of course not! It’s only the SC that
can change the venue. Nasa Constitution diba? Par. 4. Order for a Change of Venue. So humingi ka ng
permission. But you cannot change venue. RTC CA. It’s only the SC which has the power. Now, will the SC
grant it you… ok, you ask permission and then that will be granted… kasi nilipat sa QC diba? Ewan ko itong
kay Napoles kung san. Yung kay Sanchez v Demetrio diba nilipat din. Alright.

SO, This is jurisdiction over the subject matter as far as the SC is concerned, it is conferred by the
Constitution. All the rest is conferred by law and the law the we are going to deal with now would be
7691.
13

So with regard to the CA, isa lang ang tatandaan niyong original exclusive jurisdiction of the CA. That is an
Page

action for annulment of judgment of RTC. Yun lang. Wala ng iba. Yung iba concurrent na. Where do you
BRONDI 2013 PART 1 up to 1:32:15 only

find that? Rule 47 Annulment of Judgment and you know under Rule 47, dalawa lang, limited grounds
diba? Fraud, extrinsic fraud, and jurisdiction. OK! So all the res concurrent, certiorari prohibition
mandamus quo warranto habeas corpus concurrent.

And pagdating sa appeal, all the rest appealable to the CA, except yung lima kaya tatandaan yung lima…
wala kang ibang pupuntahan. Hanggang don ka nalang sa SC.

14
Page