WHAT IS THE COMPOSITION OF THE - The Supreme Court has the following

SUPREME COURT? powers:

- The Supreme Court shall be composed a. Assign temporarily judges of
of a Chief Justice and fourteen (14) lower courts to other stations as
Associate Justices. It may sit either en public interest may require.
banc or in its discretion, in division of Such temporary assignment
three, five, and seven members. shall not exceed six months
- Currently (2021) we have 3 divisions in without the consent of the judge
the Supreme Court, composed of five concerned.
members each. Before there were only b. Order a change of venue or
nine justices, including the supreme place of trial to avoid a
justice. miscarriage of justice.
c. Promulgate rules concerning the
WHAT ARE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO protection and enforcement of
BE A MEMBER OF THE SUPREME constitutional rights, pleading,
COURT? practice, and procedure in all
- Article VIII Section 7 (1): No person courts, the admission to the
shall be appointed Member of the practice of law, the integrated
Supreme Court or any lower collegiate bar, and legal assistance to the
court unless he is a natural-born citizen underprivileged. Such rules
of the Philippines. A Member of the shall provide a simplified and
Supreme Court must be at least forty inexpensive procedure for the
years of age, and must have been for speedy disposition of cases,
fifteen years or more a judge of a lower shall be uniform for all courts of
court or engaged in the practice of law the same grade, and shall ot
in the Philippines. diminish, increase, or modify
(2) The Congress shall prescribe substantive rights. Rules of
the qualifications of judges of lower procedure of special courts and
courts, but no person may be appointed quasi-judicial bodies shall
judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the remain effective unless
Philippines and a member of the disapproved by the Supreme
Philippine Bar. Court.
(3) A Member of the Judiciary d. Appoint all officials and
must be a person of proven competence, employees of the judiciary in
integrity, probity, and independence. accordance with the civil
- They must already be 40 years old at the service law.
time they apply, not at the time of their The Supreme Court exercises its judicial
appointment. functions and powers of the administrative
- Vacancy is filled in a matter of 90 days. supervision over all courts and their personnel
through the court en banc or its divisions.
DISCUSS THE SUPREME COURT’S RULE
WHAT ARE THE POWERS OF THE MAKING POWER AS STATED UNDER
SUPREME COURT? ARTICLE VIII SECTION 5 OF THE
CONSTITUTION?
- SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall clearly shows that the lower courts
have the following powers: made an erroneous fact)
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction
over cases affecting ambassadors, other (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to
public ministers and consuls, and over other stations as public interest may require.
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas months without the consent of the judge
corpus. (ambassadors are the concerned.
representatives of the country, ex:
embassy) (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to
(2) Review, revise, reverse, avoid a miscarriage of justice.
modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari,
as the law or the Rules of Court may (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection
provide, final judgments and orders of and enforcement of constitutional rights,
lower courts in: (appellate jurisdiction) pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
(a) All cases in which the the admission to the practice of law, the
constitutionality or validity of any Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
treaty, international or executive underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a
agreement, law, presidential decree, simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
proclamation, order, instruction, speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for
ordinance, or regulation is in question. all courts of the same grade, and shall not
(the difference between a treaty and diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
executive agreement: treaties need to be Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
ratified, while executive agreements judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
does not need to) disapproved by the Supreme Court.
(b) All cases involving the
legality of any tax, impost, assessment, (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the
or toll, or any penalty imposed in Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service
relation thereto. Law.
(c) All cases in which the
jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue. ESTIPONA JR V HON. LOBRIGO
(d) All criminal cases in which FACTS:
the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher. Petitioner Salvador Estipona, Jr. was accused in
(e) All cases in which only an Criminal Case No. 13586 for violation of
error or question of law is involved. Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, for
(question of fact: when the SC is called having illegally have in his possession 0.084
upon to review evidence. The SC may gram of shabu. Under Section 23 of R.A. No.
refuse to rule a judgement. But there 9165, plea-bargaining is prohibited in all drug
are expectations when the SC will cases.
review a question of fact, ex: (1) when
there are conflicting findings between 2 On June 15, 2016, he filed a Motion to Allow
lower courts, (2) when the evidence the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining
Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty ENCROACHED UPON THE POWER OF THE
plea and be allowed to enter a plea of guilty to SUPREME COURT TO PROMULGATE
the lesser offense of violation of Section 12 of RULES OF PROCEDURE.
R.A. No. 9165 (for Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia). III.

The trial court denied his Motion holding that WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 expressly prohibits AS PRESIDED BY HON. FRANK E.
plea-bargaining in drugs cases. Estipona filed a LOBRIGO, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
Motion for Reconsideration which was denied OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
by the trial court. OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT
REFUSED TO DECLARE SECTION 23 OF
Arguing that Sec. 23 of RA No. 9165 is REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AS
unconstitutional for it encroaches upon the UNCONSTITUTIONAL.10
Supreme Court's rule-making power and
therefore violative of the equal protection
clause, he filed a Petition before the SC to
declare Sec. 23 unconstitutional. HELD:

The Solicitor General opposed the petition on The SC ruled:

the ground that (1) Congress was not impleaded,
(2) the constitutionality of the law cannot be
attached collaterally, (3) the proper action
should have been a petition for relief before the On SC's Rule-Making Power:
RTC, and (4) the petition fails to satisfy the
requisites for judicial review. The power to promulgate rules of pleading,
practice and procedure is now Our exclusive
domain and no longer shared with the
Executive and Legislative departments.
ISSUES: (WHY: Consti wanted to enhance their
1. independence. Without it, they will lose
popular trust and it'd be hard to maintain their
WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT vigor as the champions of justice)
NO. 9165, WHICH PROHIBITS PLEA
BARGAINING IN ALL VIOLATIONS OF
It should be stressed that the power to
THE SAID LAW, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
promulgate rules of pleading, practice and
FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE
procedure was granted by our Constitutions to
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL
this Court to enhance its independence, for in the
PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
words of Justice Isagani Cruz "without
independence and integrity, courts will lose that
II.
popular trust so essential to the maintenance of
their vigor as champions of justice." Hence, our
WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT
Constitutions continuously vested this power to
NO. 9165 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT
this Court for it enhances its independence.
Under the 1935 Constitution, the power of this procedure is no longer shared by this Court
Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, with Congress, more so with the Executive. x
practice and procedure was granted but it x x.
appeared to be co-existent with legislative power
for it was subject to the power of Congress to Thus, as it now stands, Congress has no
repeal, alter or supplement. authority to repeal, alter, or supplement rules
concerning pleading, practice, and
While the power to define, prescribe, and procedure.x x x. The separation of powers
apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts among the three co-equal branches of our
is, by constitutional design, vested unto government has erected an impregnable wall
Congress, the power to promulgate rules that keeps the power to promulgate rules of
concerning the protection and enforcement of pleading, practice and procedure within the sole
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and province of this Court. The other branches
procedure in all courts belongs exclusively to trespass upon this prerogative if they enact laws
this Court. or issue orders that effectively repeal, alter or
modify any of the procedural rules promulgated
The power of Congress (to repeal, alter or by the Court. Viewed from this perspective, We
supplement the rules concerning pleading, have rejected previous attempts on the part of
practice and procedure, and the admission to the the Congress, in the exercise of its legislative
practice of law in the Philippines under Sec. 13, power, to amend the Rules of Court (Rules).
Art, VIII of he 1935 Constitution), however, is
not as absolute as it may appear on its surface. -
In In re: Cunanan, Congress in the exercise of its
power to amend rules of the Supreme Court
regarding admission to the practice of law, PIMENTEL, ET AL V LEGAL
enacted the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953 which EDUCATION BOARD
considered as a passing grade, the average of
70% in the bar examinations after July 4, 1946 FACTS:
up to August 1951 and 71% in the 1952 bar
examinations. This Court struck down the law as Petitioners in this case assail the
unconstitutional. unconstitutionality of R.A. 7662 or the Legal
Education Reform Act of 1993 which creates the
The rule making power of this [1987] Court was Legal Education Board. Petitioners particularly
expanded. This Court for the first time was seek to declare as unconstitutional the creation
given the power to promulgate rules concerning of LEB itself, LEB issuances and memorandums
the protection and enforcement of constitutional establishing law practice internship as a
rights. The Court was also granted for the .first requirement for taking the bar based on Sec. 7
time the power to disapprove rules of procedure (g) of RA 7662, adopting a system of continuing
of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But legal education based on Sec. 2 (2) and Sec. 7
most importantly, the 1987 Constitution took (h) of RA 7662, and establishing and
away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, implementing the nationwide law school
or supplement rules concerning pleading, aptitude test known as the Philippine Law
practice and procedure. In fine, the power to School Admission Test or the PhilSAT pursuant
promulgate rules of pleading, practice and to LEB’s power to “prescribe the minimum
standards for law admission” under Sec. 7 (e) of Two principal reasons militate against the
RA 7662. Petitioners principally grounded the proposition that the Court has the regulation and
petitions on LEB’s alleged encroachment upon supervision of legal education:
the rulemaking power of the Court concerning
the practice of law, violation of institutional First, it assumes that the court, in fact, possesses
academic freedom, and violation of law school the power to supervise and regulate legal
aspirant’s right to education under the education as a necessary consequence of its
Constitution. power to regulate admission to the practice of
law. This assumption, apart from being
ISSUES: manifestly contrary to the history of legal
education in the Philippines, is likewise devoid
1. Whether the regulation and supervision of of legal anchorage.
legal education belong to the Court.
2. Whether the requirement of internship for Second, the Court exercises only judicial
admission to Bar Examination embodied in LEB functions and it cannot, and must not, arrogate
Memorandum pursuant to Sec. 7(g) of RA 7662 upon itself a power that is not constitutionally
is unconstitutional. vested to it, lest the Court itself violates the
3. Whether the adoption of system of continuing doctrine of separation of powers. For the Court
legal education embodied in LEB Memorandum to void RA 7662 and thereafter, to form a body
pursuant to Sec. 2(2) and Sec. 7(h) of RA 7662 that regulates legal education and place it under
is unconstitutional. its supervision and control, as what petitioners
4. Whether the establishment of PhilSAT suggest, is to demonstrate a highly improper
embodied in LEB Memorandum pursuant to form of judicial activism.
Sec. 7(e) of RA 7662 is unconstitutional.
As it is held, the Court’s exclusive rule making
RULING: power under the Constitution covers the practice
of law and not the study of law. The present
1. NO. Regulation and supervision of legal rules embodied in the 1997 Rules of Court do
education had been historically and consistently not support the argument that the Court directly
exercised by the political departments. The and actually regulates legal education, it merely
historical development of statutes on education provides academic competency requirements for
unerringly reflects the consistent exercise by the those who would like to take the Bar.
political departments of the power to supervise Furthermore, it is the State in the exercise of its
and regulate all levels and areas of education, police power that has the authority to regulate
including legal education. Legal education is but and supervise the education of its citizens and
a composite of the entire Philippine education this includes legal education.
system. It is perhaps unique because it is a
specialized area of study. This peculiarity,
however, is no reason in itself to demarcate legal 2. YES. This requirement unduly interferes with
education and withdraw it from the regulatory the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to
and supervisory powers of the political promulgate rules concerning the practice of law
branches. and admissions thereto. The jurisdiction to
determine whether an applicant may be allowed
to take the bar examinations belongs to the
Court. Under Sec. 7(g), the power of the LEB is
no longer confined within the parameters of WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS TO THE
legal education but now dabbles on the SUPREME COURT’S RULE MAKING
requisites for admissions to the bar. This is POWER?
direct encroachment upon the Court’s exclusive (idk i just googled this pls fact check me)
authority to promulgate rules concerning - (1) The rules shall provide a
admissions to the bar and should, therefore, be simplified and inexpensive procedure
struck down as unconstitutional. for the speedy disposition of cases
(2) They shall be uniform for all
3. YES. By its plain language, the clause courts of the same grade
“continuing legal education” unduly give the (3) They shall not diminish, increase,
LEB the power to supervise the legal education or modify substantive rights (Sec. 5[5],
of those who are already members of the bar. Art. VIII, Constitution).
Inasmuch as the LEB is authorized to compel (4) The power to admit attorneys to
mandatory attendance of practicing lawyers in the Bar is not an arbitrary and despotic
such courses and for such duration as the LEB one, to be exercised at the pleasure of
deems necessary, the same encroaches upon the the court, or from passion, prejudice or
Court’s power to promulgate rules concerning personal hostility, but is the duty of the
the Integrated Bar which includes the education court to exercise and regulate it by a
of Lawyer-professors as the teaching of law is sound and judicial discretion. (Andres
considered the practice of law. vs. Cabrera, 127 SCRA 802)

4. YES. Accordingly, the Court recognizes the WHAT IS THE COMPOSITION OF THE
power of the LEB under its charter to prescribe COURT OF APPEALS?
minimum standards for law admission. The - The Court of Appeals shall consist of a
PhilSAT, when administered as an aptitude test Presiding Justice and sixty-eight (68)
to guide law schools in measuring the Associate Justices who shall be
applicant’s aptness for legal education along appointed by the President of the
with such other admissions policy that the law Philippines. They shall sit in twenty-
school may consider, is such minimum standard. three (23) divisions of three (3) Justices
However, the PhilSAT presently operates not each.
only as a measure of an applicant’s aptitude for - There are 3 CA stations: Cagayan de
law school. The PhilSAT, as a pass or fail exam, Oro (9 justices), Cebu (9 justices), and
dictates upon law schools who among the Manila (51 justices).
examinees are to be admitted to any law HOW WAS THE COURT OF APPEALS
program. When the PhilSAT is used to exclude, CREATED?
qualify, and restrict admissions to law schools, - The Court of Appeals was established
as its present design mandates, the PhilSAT goes on February 1, 1936 by virtue of
beyond mere supervision and regulation, Commonwealth Act No. 3 and is
violates institutional academic freedom, considered as the second highest
becomes unreasonable and therefore, tribunal in the country.
unconstitutional. WHAT IS THE COMPOSITION OF
- The SC’s power only covers the practice SANDIGANBAYAN? READ R.A 10660.
of law, not the study of law
 - Sandiganbayan is of the same level as They assert that they possess the legal standing
the Court of Appeals and possesses all or locus standi to file the instant Petition since
the inherent powers of a court of justice. they suffered a direct injury from President
- The Sandiganbayan comprises of one Aquino's failure to appoint any of them as the 16
presiding justice and 14 associate The Sandiganbayan Associate Justice.
Petitioners insist that President Aquino could
justices, all of which are appointed by
only choose one nominee from each of the six
the President from a shortlist submitted separate shortlists submitted by the JBC for each
by the Judicial and Bar Council. specific vacancy, and no other; and any
- 21 members and divisions of 3. appointment made in deviation of this procedure
is a violation of the Constitution.
AGUINALDO V AQUINO Hence, petitioners pray, among other reliefs, that
the appointments of respondents Musngi and
Econg, who belonged to the same shortlist for
Republic Act No. 10660, recently enacted
the position of 21st Associate Justice, be
on April 16, 2015, created two more
declared null and void for these were made in
divisions of the Sandiganbayan with three
violation of Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987
Justices each, thereby resulting in six vacant
positions. Constitution.
Respondent’s Arguments:
On July 20, 2015, the Judicial and Bar Council The OSG interprets Article VIII, Section 9 of the
(JBC) published in the Philippine Star and 1987 Constitution differently from petitioners.
Philippine Daily Inquirer and posted on the JBC According to the OSG, said provision neither
website an announcement calling for requires nor allows the JBC to cluster nominees
applications or recommendations for the six for every vacancy in
newly created positions of Associate Justice of the Judiciary;
the Sandiganbayan. it only mandates that for every vacancy,
the JBC shall present at least three nominees,
After screening and selection of applicants, the among whom the President shall appoint a
JBC submitted to President Aquino six shortlists member of the Judiciary.
contained in six separate letters. As a result, if there are six vacancies for
Sandiganbayan Associate Justice, the JBC shall
President Aquino issued on January 20, 2015 the present, for the President's consideration, at least
appointment papers for the six new 18 nominees for said vacancies.
Sandiganbayan In the case at bar, the JBC submitted 37
Associate Justices, namely: nominees for the six vacancies in the
Sandiganbayan; and from said pool of 37
(1) respondent Musngi;
nominees, the President appointed the six
(2) Justice Reynaldo P. Cruz (R. Cruz);
Sandiganbayan Associate Justices, in faithful
(3) respondent Econg; compliance with the Constitution.
(4) Justice Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega It is also the position of the OSG that the
(Mendoza-Arcega); President has the absolute discretion to
(5) Justice Karl B. Miranda (Miranda); and determine who is best suited for appointment
(6) Justice Zaldy V. Trespeses (Trespeses). among all the qualified nominees.
By dividing nominees into groups and
Petitioner’s Arguments: artificially designating each group a numerical
Petitioners Aguinaldo, Alhambra, D. Cruz, value, the JBC creates a substantive qualification
Pozon, and Timbang (Aguinaldo, et al.), were all to various judicial posts, which potentially
nominees in the shortlist for the 16th impairs the President's prerogatives in
Sandiganbayan Associate Justice. appointing members of the Judiciary.
The OSG notes that there are no JBC rules on
the division of nominees in cases where there Moreover, in the case at bar, there were six
are several vacancies in a collegiate court. In simultaneous vacancies for the position of
this case, the OSG observes that there were no Sandiganbayan Associate Justice, and the JBC
measurable standards or parameters for dividing cannot, by clustering of the nominees, designate
the 37 nominees into the six groups. a numerical order of seniority of the prospective
appointees. President Aquino validly exercised
The clustering of nominees was not based on the his discretionary power to appoint members of
number of votes the nominees had garnered.The the Judiciary when he disregarded the clustering
nominees were not evenly distributed among the of nominees into six separate shortlists for the
six groups, i.e., there were five nominees for vacancies for the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th and
17th Sandiganbayan Associate Justice; six 21st Sandiganbayan Associate Justices.
nominees for 16th, 18th and 19th
Sandiganbayan Associate Justices; and seven President Aquino merely maintained the well-
nominees for the 20th and 21st Sandiganbayan established practice, consistent with the
Associate Justices. paramount Presidential constitutional
prerogative, to appoint the six new
The OSG then refers to several examples Sandiganbayan Associate Justices from the 37
demonstrating that the previous practice of the qualified nominees, as if embodied in one JBC
JBC was to' submit only one shortlist for several list.
vacancies in a collegiate court.
This does not violate Article VIII, Section 9 of
ISSUE(S) the 1987 Constitution which requires the
whether President Aquino, under the President to appoint from a list of at least three
circumstances, was limited to appoint only from nominees submitted by the JBC for every
the nominees in the vacancy. To meet the minimum requirement
shortlist submitted by the JBC for each specific under said constitutional provision of three
vacancy. nominees per vacancy, there should at least be
18 nominees from the JBC for the six vacancies
RATIO for Sandiganbayan Associate Justice; but the
minimum requirement was even exceeded herein
No. The Court answers in the negative. It should
because the JBC submitted for the President's
be stressed that the power to recommend of the
consideration a total of 37 qualified nominees.
JBC cannot be used to restrict or limit the
President's power to appoint as the latter's
prerogative to choose someone whom he/she All the six newly appointed Sandiganbayan
considers worth appointing to the vacancy in the Associate Justices met the requirement of
Judiciary is still paramount. As long as in the nomination by the JBC under Article VIII,
end, the President appoints someone nominated Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution. Hence, the
by the JBC, the appointment is valid. appointments of respondents Musngi and Econg,
as well as the other four new Sandiganbayan
Associate Justices are valid and do not suffer
On this score, the Court finds herein that
from any constitutional infirmity.
President Aquino was not obliged to appoint one
new Sandiganbayan Associate Justice from each - JBC is at fault because they were the
of the six shortlists submitted by the JBC, one that clustered.
especially when the clustering of nominees into - When there are two or three vacancies
the six shortlists encroached on President occurring at the same time, they must be
Aquino's power to appoint members of the together and not clustered.
Judiciary from all those whom the JBC had
considered to be qualified for the same positions HOW WAS THE SANDIGANBAYAN
of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice. CREATED?
 - Pursuant to the mandate of Section 5, - It was amended in 2005. They were
Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution, a elevated to be an appellate court, from
special court known as Sandiganbayan second level court to third level court.
was created by Presidential Decree
No.1606, in order to attain the highest HOW WAS THE REGIONAL TRIAL
norms of official conduct required of COURT CREATED? (pls add more)
public officers and employees. This is in - It was formerly called as the Court of
consonance with the declaration under First Instance since the Spanish era. It
the 1973 Constitution that a public continued throughout its colonization
office is a public trust and therefore, all under Spanish and Americans. After the
public officers and employees shall independence from the United States,
serve with the highest degree of Republic Act No. 296 or Judiciary Act
of 1948 was enacted to reinforce its
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
jurisdictional powers of the Court of
efficiency and shall remain at all times First Instance. Under its law, it has the
accountable to the people. This power to try civil and criminal cases, as
declaration has been affirmed in the well as appeals from the decisions made
1987 Constitution. by the municipality and city Justice of
the Peace courts.
WHAT IS THE COMPOSITION OF THE - However, there were numerous cases
(both civil and criminal) yet to be
COURT OF TAX APPEALS?
resolved or being delayed for years due
- The Court of Tax Appeals consists of a to their nature. In addition, there were
Presiding Judge and five (5) Associate special courts made to try specialized
Justices, each of whom shall be cases like criminal, agricultural, and
appointed by the President of the family to decongest cases, which
Philippines upon the recommendation of unfortunately ended up complicating the
the Judicial and Bar Council. The judiciary system. Therefore, the Interim
Batasang Pambansa has passed Batas
Presiding Judge shall be designated in
Pambansa Blg. 129 (current regional
his appointment, and the Associate trial court), or The Judiciary
Justices shall have precedence according Reorganization Act of 1980, which
to the date of their respective reorganized the lower and intermediate
appointments. courts in the country, which include the
change of Court of First Instance to
HOW WAS THE COURT OF TAX Regional Trial Court.
APPEALS CREATED? ( i got this from the
court of tax appeals website pls fact check WHAT IS A JUDICIAL REGION? HOW
me) MANY JUDICIAL REGIONS?
- The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) was - Each province or city should have a
created on June 16, 1954, through the Regional Trial Court (RTC). There are
enactment of Republic Act No. 1125 12 Judicial Regions in the Philippines.
(R.A. 1125). Considering its limited
jurisdiction then, it had only three (3) WHAT ARE THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS?
Judges, which at present is equivalent to - Commonly referred to as Metropolitan
one (1) Division. Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities (MTCC), Municipal
 Trial court (MTC), and Municipal tantamount to lack or in excess of
Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC). jurisdiction, and which error is
correctable only by the extraordinary
WHAT ARE SPECIAL COURTS? GIVE writ of certiorari.
EXAMPLES.
- Sandiganbayan. TOH V COURT OF APPEALS
- Court of Tax Appeals. FACTS:
- Shari'a District Courts. - Petitioner filed a motion for
- Shari'a Circuit Courts. reconsideration in the Court of appeals
- They have limited jurisdiction claiming that his right to due process
was violated by Judge Estrella by
WHAT IS JURISDICTION? dispensing a vital witness (Engr. De los
- Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and Santos) in his case.
determine a cause or right to act in a - The Court of Appeals ruled that denying
case. Since it is the power to hear and the petition and affirming the decision
determine, it does not depend either of the previous Judge
upon the regularity of the exercise of - The petitioner filed a certiorari on the
that power or upon the right fullness of Supreme Court under rule 45 of the
the decisions made. Jurisdiction should rules of court assailing the decision of
therefore be distinguished from the the court of appeals.
exercise of jurisdiction. The authority to Issues:
decide a cause at all, and not the - The Court of Appeals erred when it
decision rendered therein, is what makes declared that there was no merit on (sic)
up jurisdiction. When there is the the claim of the petitioner that he was
jurisdiction of the person and subject deprived of his constitutional right to
matter, the decision of all other due process; and
questions arising in the case is but an - That the Court of Appeals erred when it
exercise of that jurisdiction. declared that the court of origin did not
- What determines jurisdiction? commit grave abuse of discretion
Jurisdiction of a court will be amounting to lack and/or excess of
determined by law. jurisdiction under the facts presented by
petitioner.
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ERROR OF -
JUDGEMENT AND ERROR OF Ruling:
JURISDICTION - The court finds that the decision of
- An error of judgment is one in which dispensing the witness is made by the
the court may commit in the exercise of petitioner's counsel (Atty. De Guzman),
its jurisdiction, and which error is The Court also sees no cogent reason
reviewable only by an appeal, while an why the said witness should be
error of jurisdiction is one where the examined any further since his
act complained of was issued by the testimony as summarized in the offer
court, officer, or a quasi-judicial body made by counsel was expressly admitted
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or by opposing counsel. As can be gleaned
with grave abuse of discretion which is from the foregoing, the resolution
 cannot be characterized as whimsical, Canaman, Inc. (RBCI) for annulment of the
arbitrary or capricious. No hint of grave foreclosure sale it instituted against the lot
abuse of discretion can be attributed to occupied by the petitioner, which the latter
the public respondent. Assuming that claims to involve a mortgage acquired through
the order and resolution were erroneous, fraud. While the case was pending in the RTC-
such error would be merely deemed as Iriga, RBCI was closed and was placed under
an error of judgment that cannot be the receivership of Philippine Deposit Insurance
remedied by certiorari. (PDI). Subsequently, PDI filed a motion to
- The court denies the petition and affirms dismiss on the ground that the RTC-Iriga has no
the decision of the CA. jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action,
since by virtue of R.A. No. 7653, jurisdiction is
ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION vested with RTC-Makati, being the liquidation
- In view of the principle that once a court court assisting PDI in the
has acquired jurisdiction, that liquidation of RBCI. RTC-Iriga granted the
jurisdiction continues until the court has motion and dismissed the case, which was
done all that it can do in the exercise of subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
that jurisdiction. This principle also Hence, this petition.
means that once jurisdiction has
attached, it cannot be ousted by ISSUE:
subsequent happenings or events, - Whether or not RTC Makati (liquidation
although of a character which would court) can take cognizance of a case
have prevented jurisdiction from which main action does not involve a
attaching in the first instance. The court, simple money claim against a bank
once jurisdiction has been acquired, under receivership.
retains that jurisdiction until it finally - WON the CA erred in ordering the
disposes of the case. (Abad v RTC consolidation of the civil case with the
Manila) liquidation case as a special proceedings
- Even the finality of the judgment does of the RTC of Makati.
not totally deprive the court of RULING
jurisdiction over the case. What the 1. Yes, Lucia’s complaint involving
court loses is the power to amend, annulment of deed of mortgage and damages
modify or alter the judgment. Even after falls within thepurview of a disputed claim in
the judgment has become final, the court contemplation of Section 30 of R.A. 7653 (The
retains jurisdiction to enforce and New Central Bank Act) which refers to all
execute it (Echegaray vs. Secretary of claims, whether they be against the assets of the
Justice), except in the case of the insolvent bank, for specific performance, breach
existence of a law that divests the court of contract, damages, or whatever. As a
of jurisdiction. consequence, jurisdiction should be lodged with
VDA. DE BALLESTEROS V RURAL the liquidation court.
BANK OF CANAMAN INC It has been held that after the Monetary
FACTS: Board has declared that a bank is insolvent and
This petition involves a suit instituted by the has ordered it to cease operations, the Board
petitioner (Lucia) against the Rural Bank of becomes the trustee of its assets for the equal
benefit of all the creditors, including depositors.
The assets of the insolvent banking institution - There is no adherence of jurisdiction in
are held in trust for the equal benefit of all this case. The issue here is only the
creditors, and after its insolvency, one cannot venue. It is the same court, only a
obtain an advantage or a preference over another different venue. So there is no rightful
by an attachment, execution or otherwise. Thus, claim to adherence of jurisdiction.
to allow Lucias case to proceed independently of
the liquidation case, a possibility of favorable WHAT ARE THE CLASSES OF
judgment and execution thereof against the JURISDICTION? EXPLAIN AND GIVE
assets of RBCI would not only prejudice the EXAMPLES.
other creditors and depositors but would defeat a. General and Limited or Special:
the very purpose for which a liquidation court General Jurisdiction extends to all
was constituted as well. controversies which may be bought
2. No, The CA committed no error. before a court within the legal bounds of
Lucia’s complaint involving the annulment of rights and remedies.
the deed of mortgage and damages fall within Limited or Special Jurisdiction
the purview of a disputed claim in is confined to particular causes or can be
contemplation of Sec 30 of RA 7653. The exercised only under the limitations and
jurisdiction should be lodged with the circumstances prescribed by the statute.
liquidation court. Lucia’s action being a claim b. Original and Appellate: Original
against RBCI can properly be consolidated with Jurisdiction is that conferred on, or
the liquidation proceedings before the RTC inherent, in a court in the first instance.
Makati. A liquidation proceeding has been Appellate Jurisdiction is the
explained in the case of in Re: Petition for power and authority conferred on a
Assistance in the liquidation often Rural Bank of superior court to rehear and determine
BOKOD inc. v BIR wherein it stated that “a causes which have been tried in inferior
liquidation proceeding is a single proceeding courts. It is also the cognizance which a
which consists of a number of cases properly superior court takes of a case brought to
classified as “claims”. All claims against the it, by the appeal of certiorari, from the
insolvent are required to be filed with the decision of an inferior court, or the
liquidation court. review by the superior court of the final
It is clear, therefore, that the liquidation judgment or order of some inferior
court has jurisdiction over all claims, including court.
that of Lucia against the insolvent bank. In sum, c. Exclusive and Concurrent or
this court holds that the consolidation is proper Coordinate: Exclusive Jurisdiction is
considering that the liquidation court has that confined to a particular tribunal or
jurisdiction over Lucia’s actions. It would be grade of courts and possessed by it to
more in keeping with law and equity if Lucia’s the exclusion of all others.
case is consolidated with the liquidation case in Concurrent or Coordinate
order to expeditiously determine whether she is Jurisdiction is that exercised by different
entitled to recover the property subject of courts at the same time over the same
mortgage from RCBI and, if so, how much she subject matter, and within the same
is entitled to receive from the remaining assets territory, and wherein litigants may, in
of the bank. the first instance, resort to either
indifferently.
d. Criminal and Civil: Criminal of the court or should receive actual
Jurisdiction is that which exists for the notice.
punishment of crimes, and is the power Jurisdiction over the res
to take cognizance of a criminal offense includes jurisdiction over the personal
and to impose sentence after a lawful status of the plaintiff.
trial.
Civil Jurisdiction is that which DISCUSS ESTOPPEL TO DENY
exists when the matter is not of a JURISDICTION
criminal nature. Doctrine of Estoppel by Laches
e. Territorial Jurisdiction: Territorial An equitable doctrine by which some courts
Jurisdiction is the power of a court deny relief to a claimant who has unreasonably
which reference to the territory within delayed or been negligent in asserting a claim. A
which it is exercised. person invoking laches should assert that an
f. Jurisdiction of the Subject Matter: opposing party has slept on his/her rights and
Jurisdiction of the Subject Matter is the that the party is no longer entitled to his/her
power to hear and determine cases of the original claim.
general class to which the proceedings Doctrine of Estoppel
in question belong; the power to deal [A doctrine] based on grounds of public policy,
with the general subject involved in the fair dealing, good faith and justice, [the] purpose
action. Jurisdiction over the subject [of which] is to forbid one to speak against his
matter is conferred by law. It is own act, representations, or commitments to the
determined by the material averments in injury of one to whom they were directed and
the complaint as well as the character of who reasonably relied thereon. [PNB v. CA, 94
the relief sought. SCRA 357].
g. Jurisdiction over the person: FIGUEROA V PEOPLE ( got this from 2
Jurisdiction over the person is the power digests plsso if mej same yung issue just be
to render a personal judgment against a happy)
person and is acquired by the voluntary FACTS:
appearance of a party in court and his Petitioner was charged with the crime of
submission to its authority, or by the reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The
coercive power of legal process exerted RTC found him guilty. In his appeal before the
over the person. CA, the petitioner, for the first time, questioned
h. Jurisdiction over the res or property: RTCs jurisdiction on the case.
Jurisdiction over the res or property is The CA in affirming the decision of the
that obtained by a seizure of the RTC, ruled that the principle of estoppel by
property under legal process of the laches has already precluded the petitioner from
court, whereby it is held to abide by questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC—the
such order as the court makes, and with trial went on for 4 years with the petitioner
respect to the persons whose rights in actively participating therein and without him
the property are to be affected, ever raising the jurisdictional infirmity.
jurisdiction may be attained by The petitioner, for his part, counters that
constructive service of process, it not the lack of jurisdiction of a court over the
being necessary that they should be subject matter may be raised at any time even
brought within the reach of the process for the first time on appeal. As undue delay is
further absent herein, the principle of laches will In the case at bar, the factual
not be applicable. settings attendant in Sibonghanoy are
Hence, this petition. not present. Petitioner Atty. Regalado,
after the receipt of the Court of Appeals
ISSUE resolution finding her guilty of
- WON petitioner’s failure to raise the contempt, promptly filed a Motion for
issue of jurisdiction during the trial of Reconsideration assailing the said
this case, constitute laches in relation to court’s jurisdiction based on procedural
the doctrine laid down in Tijam v. infirmity in initiating the action. Her
Sibonghanoy, notwithstanding the fact compliance with the appellate court’s
that said issue was immediately raised in directive to show cause why she should
petitioner’s appeal to the CA not be cited for contempt and filing a
- WON the principle of estoppel by laches single piece of pleading to that effect
has already precluded the petitioner could not be considered as an active
from questioning the jurisdiction of the participation in the judicial proceedings
RTC. – NO so as to take the case within the milieu
of Sibonghanoy. Rather, it is the natural
RATIO fear to disobey the mandate of the court
1. No, Citing the ruling in Calimlim vs. that could lead to dire consequences that
Ramirez, the Court held that as a general impelled her to comply.
rule, the issue of jurisdiction may be The petitioner is in no way
raised at any stage of the proceedings, estopped by laches in assailing the
even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that
or by estoppel. he raised the lack thereof in his appeal
Estoppel by laches may be before the appellate court. At that time,
invoked to bar the issue of lack of no considerable period had yet elapsed
jurisdiction only in cases in which the for laches to attach.
factual milieu is analogous to that of 2. The trial went on for 4 years with the
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. petitioner actively participating therein
Laches should be clearly and without him ever raising the
present for the Sibonghanoy doctrine jurisdictional infirmity.
to be applicable, that is, lack of The general rule is that the
jurisdiction must have been raised so issue of jurisdiction may be raised at
belatedly as to warrant the presumption any stage of the proceedings, even on
that the party entitled to assert it had appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by
abandoned or declined to assert it. estoppel—estoppel by laches, to bar a
In Sibonghanoy, the party litigant from asserting the court’s
invoking lack of jurisdiction did so only absence or lack of jurisdiction, only
after fifteen years and at a stage when supervenes in exceptional cases similar
the proceedings had already been to the factual milieu of Tijam v.
elevated to the CA. Sibonghanoy is an Sibonghanoy.
exceptional case because of the presence The fact that a person attempts
of laches. to invoke unauthorized jurisdiction of a
court does not estop him from thereafter
 challenging its jurisdiction over the value of the property involved exceeds
subject matter, since such jurisdiction Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000) or,
must be conferred by law and not by for civil actions in Metro Manila, where
mere consent of the parties. such value exceeds Fifty Thousand
No considerable period had yet Pesos (P50,000) except actions for
elapsed for laches to attach. True, delay forcible entry into and unlawful detainer
alone, though unreasonable, will not of lands or of buildings, the original
sustain the defense of “estoppel by jurisdiction over which is conferred
laches” unless it further appears that the upon MeTC, MTC, MCTC.
party, knowing his rights, has not sought 3. Actions in admiralty and maritime
to enforce them until the condition of jurisdiction where the demand or claim
the party pleading laches has in good exceeds Three HUndred Thousand
faith become so changed that he cannot pesos (P300,000) or, in Metro Manila,
be restored to his former state. In where such demand or claim exceeds
applying the principle of estoppel by Four Hundred Thousand pesos
laches in the exceptional case of (P400,000).
Sibonghanoy, it has already been more 4. Matters of probate, both testate and
or less 15 years. The same, however, intestate, where the gross value of the
does not obtain in the instant case. estate exceeds Three Hundred Thousand
Moreover, a judgment pesos (P300,000) or, in probate matters
rendered without jurisdiction over the in Metro Manila, where such gross value
subject matter is void. No laches will exceeds Four Hundred Thousand pesos
even attach when the judgment is null (P400,000).
and void for want of jurisdiction. 5. Actions involving the contract of
marriage and marital relations.
DECISION 6. Cases not within the exclusive
Petition granted. Criminal Case No. 2235-M-94 jurisdiction of any court, tribunal,
is dismissed without prejudice. person, or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions. RTCs have
DISCUSS THE JURISDICTION OF THE general jurisdiction to adjudicate all
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS (FIRST controversies except those expressly
LEVEL COURTS) RA 11676 (READ) withheld from their plenary powers.
- SJDSK 7. Civil actions and special proceedings
failing within the exclusive original
DISCUSS THE JURISDICTION OF THE jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS (SECOND Relations Court and the Special
LEVEL COURTS) Agrarian Courts as now provided by
A. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases law.
1. Civil action in which the subject of the 8. Other cases in which the demand,
litigation is incapable of pecuniary exclusive of interest, damages or
estimation whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
2. Civil actions in which involve the title expenses, and costs or the value of the
to, or possession of, real property, or property in controversy, exceeds Three
any interest therein, where the assessed Hundred Thousand pesos (P300,000) or,
 in such other cases in Metro Manila, any application with a court for
where the demand exclusive of the arbitration assistance and supervision.
above-mentioned items exceeds Four 2. Actions for determination of just
Hundred Thousand pesos (P400,000). compensation to land under CARL.
B. Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases
1. Criminal cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, or tribunal DISCUSS THE JURISDICTION OF THE
body: COURT OF APPEALS
a. Those where the penalty - JKJSDAASA
provided by law exceeding six DISCUSS THE JURISDICTION OF THE
years imprisonment irrespective SUPREME COURT
of the fine.
b. Those under above not falling
under the original jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan where none
of the accused are occupying
positions corresponding to
salary grade “27” or higher, or
military and Philippine National
Police officers occupying the
rank of superintendent or
higher, or their equivalent.
c. Those where the only penalty
provided by law is a fine
exceeding Four Thousand Pesos
(P4,000).
d. Those involving violations of
the Comprehensive Dangerous
Act of 2002.
e. Those involving violence
against women and children as
defined under Section 5 of Anti-
Violence Against Women and
Their Children Act of 2004.
f. Those involving violations of
the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL)
g. Those involving violations of
the Omnibus Election Code.
C. Jurisdiction in Other Cases
1. Action for recognition and enforcement
of an arbitration agreement or for
vacation, setting aside, correction or
modification of an arbitral award, and