Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case. [Tolentino v. Leviste (2004)]

Jurisdiction is not only the power of the court to hear and decide cases; it includes the power to execute decisions (Secretary of Justice vs. Echegaray, 301 SCRA 96).

Jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff‘s causes of action (Sante vs. Claravall, GR No. 173915, 02/22/2010)

Judicial Power includes the duty of the courts of justice:
(1) to settle actual controversies involving rights, which are legally demandable and enforceable; and
(2) to determine WON there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of Government. [Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution] 

Judicial review -- the power of the Court to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation unconstitutional.

(Source: UP Bar Reviewer 2015 and Atty. Elmer Brabante's 2016 Reviewer on Remedial Law)

Jurisdiction

ASPECTS OF JURISDICTION [Boston Equity Resources, Inc. v. CA (2013)]

JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES

The manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the parties depends on whether the party is the plaintiff or the defendant.

The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction over the plaintiff and the defendant applies to both ordinary and special civil actions like mandamus or unlawful detainer cases.

Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by his filing of the complaint or petition and the payment of correct docket fee. By doing so, he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. [Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v CA (1991)]

Plaintiff‘s failure to pay the filing fees on the supplemental complaint did not divest the RTC of the jurisdiction it already had over the case (PNOC Shipping and Transport Corp. vs. CA, 358 Phil. 38, 62 [1998]). However, as to the damages that plaintiffs claim under their supplemental complaint, the trial court should have treated their Supplemental Pleading as not filed. A supplemental complaint is like any complaint and the rule is that the filing fees due on a complaint need to be paid upon its filing. The Rules do not require the court to make special assessments in cases of supplemental complaints. Plaintiffs have no excuse for their continuous failure to pay the fees they owed the court (Do-All Metals Industries vs. Security Bank Corp., GR No. 176339, 01/10/2011).

(Source: UP Bar Reviewer 2015 and Atty. Elmer Brabante's 2016 Reviewer on Remedial Law)

ASPECTS OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired: 
(1) by his voluntary appearance In court and his submission to its authority; or 
(2) by service of summons. [Rule 14.20; Macasaet v. Co (2013)] 
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide a case only in an action in personam. It is not a prerequisite in an action in rem or quasi in rem, provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. [Alba v. CA (2005)]

Jurisdiction is acquired by voluntary appearance of the defendant, without service of summons or despite a defective service of summons. The defendant‘s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons.

Instances when the appearance of the defendant is not tantamount to voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court: 
(1) when defendant files the necessary pleading; 
(2) when defendant files motion for reconsideration of the judgment by default;
(3) when defendant files a petition to set aside the judgment of default;
(4) when the parties jointly submit a compromise agreement for approval of the court;
(5) when defendant files an answer to the contempt charge;
(6) when defendant files a petition for certiorari without questioning the court‘s jurisdiction over his person. 

A defendant who files a motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court over his person, together with other grounds raised therein, is not deemed to have appeared voluntarily before the court. What the rule on voluntary appearance means is that the voluntary appearance of the defendant in court is without qualification, in which case he is deemed to have waived his defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of summons (Lhuillier vs. British Airways, GR No. 171092, 03/15/2010).

An objection to jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be raised as a ground in a Motion to Dismiss [Rule .16.1(a)] or as an affirmative defense in an Answer [Rule 16.6].

However, if not raised in such Motion or Answer, it is deemed waived. It is not one of those defenses not deemed waived under Section 1, Rule 9. [Boston Equity Resources, Inc. v. CA (2013)]

The filing of a motion for time is considered a submission to the jurisdiction of the court. A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court on the ground of invalid service of summons is not deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court (UCPB vs. Ongpin, GR No. 146593, 10/26/2001). In this case, however, although the Motion to Dismiss filed specifically stated as one of the grounds lack of personal jurisdiction, it must be noted that defendant had earlier filed a Motion for Time to file an appropriate responsive pleading even beyond the time provided in the summons by publication. Such motion did not state that it was a conditional appearance entered to question the regularity of the service of summons, but an appearance submitting to the jurisdiction of the court by acknowledging the summons by publication issued by the court and praying for additional time to file a responsive pleading. 

Consequently, defendant having acknowledged the summons by publication and also having invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court to secure affirmative relief in his motion for additional time, he effectively submitted voluntarily to the trial court‘s jurisdiction. He is now estopped from asserting otherwise, even before tis Court (Go vs. Cordero, GR No. 164703, 05/04/2010). 


(Source: UP Bar Reviewer 2015 and Atty. Elmer Brabante's 2016 Reviewer on Remedial Law)

Jurisdiction over the person - defendant

It is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. [Rule eyes v. Diaz (1941)]

The exclusion of the term ―damages of whatever kind in determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 [8] and Section 33 [1] of BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court (Sante vs. Claravall, 2010).

Pag-IBIG requested the intervention of the trial court through a letter on the alleged anomalous auction sale conducted. The Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case since no proper initiatory pleading was filed. Said letter could not in any way be considered as a pleading. Also, no docket fees were paid before the trial court. Rule 141 of the Rules of Court mandates that ―upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or proceeding, the fees prescribed shall be paid in full. (Monsanto v. Lim and De Guzman, GR No. 178911, 09/17/2014).

Jurisdiction Versus the Exercise of Jurisdiction 
Jurisdiction refers to the power or authority of the court. [Arranza v. BF Homes (2000)] while the exercise of this power or authority is the exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case and not the decision rendered therein. When there is 

jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of jurisdiction. [Republic v. “G” Holdings, Inc.]

Error of jurisdiction vs. error of judgment
An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction. It occurs when the court exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law, or when the court or tribunal although with jurisdiction, acts in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. 

An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment. Errors of judgment include errors of procedure or mistakes in the court‘s findings. 

Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal; errors of jurisdiction are correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Any judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal; the only exception is when the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel.
When a court, tribunal, or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. 

Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence, errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari.

(Source: UP Bar Reviewer 2015 and Atty. Elmer Brabante's 2016 Reviewer on Remedial Law)

Jurisdiction over the subject matter

How Jurisdiction is Conferred and Determined [Medical Plaza Makati Condominium v. Cullen] 

Jurisdiction over subject matter is conferred by law, which may be either the Constitution or statute. [City of Dumaguete v. PPA]

Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law because it is conferred by law. This jurisdiction which is a matter of substantive law should be construed to refer only to jurisdiction over the subject matter. 

Jurisdiction over the parties, the issues and the res are matters of procedure. The test of jurisdiction is whether the court has the power to enter into the inquiry and not whether the decision is right or wrong. 

It is the duty of the court to consider the question of jurisdiction before it looks at other issues / matters involved in the case. If the court finds that it has jurisdiction, it is the duty of the court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law and to render a decision in a case properly submitted to it. It cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction. Failure to do so may be enforced by way of mandamus proceeding.

Since jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, it cannot be: 
(1) granted by agreement of the parties;
(2) acquired, waived, enlarged, or diminished by any act or omission of the parties; or
(3) conferred by the acquiescence of the courts. [De la Rosa v. Roldan]
(4) subject to compromise [Article 2035, Civil Code] 

The statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the jusridiction of the courts. [Baritua v. Mercader] 

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. It does not depend on whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover on some or all the claims asserted, as the averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. [City of Dumaguete v. PPA] 

It also does not depend upon defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss; otherwise, the question would depend almost entirely on the defendant. Note: The MTC does not lost jurisdiction over ejectment cases by mere allegation of a tenancy relationship. However, if after hearing, tenancy had in fact been shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. [Hilado v. Chavez]

(Source: UP Bar Reviewer 2015 and Atty. Elmer Brabante's 2016 Reviewer on Remedial Law)

How Jurisdiction is Conferred and Determined

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact [Paloma v. Mora (2005)]. 

The objective is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court [Riano citing Omictin v. CA (2007)]

The exceptions to the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction are:
(1) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
(2) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
(3) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
(4) where the amount involved is relatively small;
(5) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts; (6) where judicial intervention is urgent; 
(7) when its application may cause great and irreparable damange;
(8) where the controverted acts violate due process;
(9) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;
(10)when there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy; 
(11) when strong public interest is involved; and 
(12) in quo warranto proceedings. [Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp. (2013)]


Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction / continuity of jurisdiction

In view of the principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. This principle also means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case (Abad vs. RTC Manila, 10/12/1987) / [Bantua v. Mercader (2001)]. 

Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses is the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after the judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96), except in the case of the existence of a law that divests the court of jurisdiction.

(Source: UP Bar Reviewer 2015 and Atty. Elmer Brabante's 2016 Reviewer on Remedial Law)

Doctrines

When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the same. [Rule 9, Sec. 1] The court may on its own initiative object to an erroneous jurisdiction and may ex mero motu, take cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the case and has a clearly recognized right to determine its own jurisdiction [Fabian v. Desierto (1998)].

The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue of jurisdiction is in a motion to dismiss filed before the filing or service of an answer. Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter is a ground for a motion to dismiss. [Rule 16, Sec. 1(b)] 

If no motion is filed, the defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised as an affirmative defense in the answer. [Rule 16.6]. 

Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. The reason for this is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the action. [Asiatrust Development Bank v First Aikka Development, Inc.]

When the court dismisses the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter, it is submitted that the court should not remand the case to another court with the proper jurisdiction. It only has authority to dismiss and not to make any other order. [Riano]

Effect of Estoppel on Objections to Jurisdiction
General Rule: Estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action. Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Where there is none, no agreement of the parties can provide one. Settled is the rule that the decision of a tribunal not vested with appropriate jurisdiction is null and void. [SEAFDEC-AQD v. NLRC (1992)] 

Exception: Participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, that included invoking its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively barred petitioner by estoppel from challenging the court’s jurisdiction. [Soliven v. Fastforms (2004)]

JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES
It is the power of the court to try and decide issues raised in the pleadings of the parties. [Reyes v. Diaz]
An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have narrowed down their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining a decision. 
Generally, jurisdiction over the issues is conferred and determined:
(1) by the pleadings of the parties, which present the issues to be tried and determine whether or not the issues are of fact or law [Rule eyes v. Diaz];
(2) by stipulation of the parties as when, in the pre-trial, the parties enter into stipulations of facts or enter into agreement simplifying the issues of the case [Rule .18.2];
(3) by waiver or failure to object to evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings. Here the parties try with their express or implied consent or issues not raised by the pleadings. [Rule 10.5]

(Source: UP Bar Reviewer 2015 and Atty. Elmer Brabante's 2016 Reviewer on Remedial Law)

Objections to Jurisdiction over the Subject; Effect of estoppel; Jur over the issues; Jur on Res

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
(1)	Exclusive original jurisdiction in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the CA, COMELEC, COA, CTA, Sandiganbayan. 

(2) Concurrent original jurisdiction
(a) With Court of Appeals in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the RTC, CSC, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, NLRC, Quasi-judicial agencies, and writ of kalikasan, all subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
(b) With the CA and RTC in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and bodies and in petitions for quo warranto, and writs of habeas corpus, all subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
(c) With CA, RTC and Sandiganbayan for petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data
(d) Concurrent original jurisdiction with the RTC in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls. 

(3) Appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review on certiorari (appeal by certiorari under Rule 45) against CA, CTA en banc, Sandiganbayan, RTC on pure questions of law; and in cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation, legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or penalty, jurisdiction of a lower court; and CTA in its decisions rendered en banc.

The SC may resolve factual issues in certain exceptional circumstances [Josefa v. Zhandong, (2003)] (1) The conclusion is grounded on speculations/ surmises /conjectures
(2) The inference is manifestly mistaken/absurd/impossible;
(3) There is grave abuse of discretion;
(4) The judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) The findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) There is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based;
(7) The finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record;
(8) The findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court;
(9) The CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
(10)The findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case;
(11) Such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.

(Source: UP Bar Reviewer 2015 and Atty. Elmer Brabante's 2016 Reviewer on Remedial Law)

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction in actions for the annulment of the judgments of the RTC.
(2) Concurrent original jurisdiction
(a) With SC to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the RTC, CSC, CBAA, other quasi-judicial agencies mentioned in Rule 43, and the NLRC, and writ of kalikasan.
(b) With the SC and RTC to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower courts and bodies and writs of quo warranto, habeas corpus, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, and writ of continuing mandamus on environmental cases.
(c) With SC, RTC and Sandiganbayan for petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data

(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction
(a) by way of ordinary appeal from the RTC and the Family Courts.
(b) by way of petition for review from the RTC rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
(c) by way of petition for review from the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of the CSC, CBAA and other bodies mentioned in Rule 43 and of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases.
(d) over decisions of MTCs in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction; this is because decisions of MTCs in these cases are appealable in the same manner as decisions of RTCs.

(4) The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Heirs of Vda. De Ventura, GR No. 151800, 1105/2009).

Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals 
(1)	Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal 
(a) Decisions of CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by BIR;
(b) Inaction by CIR in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of IR taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the NIRC or other laws administered by BIR, where the NIRC or other applicable law provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed an implied denial;
(c) Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local taxes originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction; 
(d) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs 
(1) in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or 
(2) other matters arising under the Customs law or other laws, part of laws or special laws administered by BOC; 
(e) Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
(f) Decision of the secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the government under Sec. 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code; 
(g) Decisions of Secretary of Trade and Industry in the case of non-agricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping duties and *countervailing duties under Secs. 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under RA 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties. 

(Source: UP Bar Reviewer 2015 and Atty. Elmer Brabante's 2016 Reviewer on Remedial Law)

Louis Miguel Cuevas