Means “the power to hear and decide cases” (Herrera vs. Barreto) and execute judgment thereon (Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice)
“The authority to resolve cases, and determine the rights and obligations of the parties.”
Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law and never derived by implication (Garcia vs. De Jesus, Tobon Uy vs. COMELEC)
General Principles of Jurisdiction
Definition of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the fundamental authority granted to a court to hear and decide cases within specific bounds defined by law. This authority includes the capability to adjudicate civil, criminal, administrative, and other types of disputes by interpreting and applying the law, rendering decisions, and enforcing them.
The sources of jurisdiction are the Constitution and the law. Jurisdiction can be categorized into: (a) Personal Jurisdiction: Power over the parties involved in the litigation; (b) Territorial Jurisdiction: Power over the area where the court is situated and where the matter pertains. (c) Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Power to hear the type of case presented.
Non-Assumable by nature. A court cannot claim or assume jurisdiction on its own motion. It has to be explicitly granted and is determined by the factual circumstances presented in each case.
Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction
Having Jurisdiction: Refers to the legal authority of a court to hear a case. Exercising Jurisdiction is the practical application of the court’s authority.
When a case is filed in a Regional Trial Court (RTC), it first confirms if it has the jurisdiction to hear the case (e.g., nature of the case, value in controversy, etc.). Upon affirming jurisdiction, the RTC proceeds to exercise this jurisdiction through judicial proceedings like hearings and judgment delivery.
Errors of Jurisdiction vs. Errors of Judgment
Error of jurisdiction is when a court acts without jurisdiction or devoid of fundamental aspects of authority.
- Example: If a Family Court hears a corporate dispute, it has committed an error of jurisdiction as corporate disputes fall outside its legally defined scope.
- Remedy: Special civil action for Certiorari
Error of judgment is when a court commits errors within the ambit of jurisdictional authority but involve erroneous application of law to the facts or misinterpretation of law.
- Example: An RTC having jurisdiction over a property dispute but applying the wrong principles of property law in its decision
- Remedy: Appeal process rather than certiorari
Types of Jurisdiction
Original Jurisdiction
Original Jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear a case first, before any other court has examined the matter.
Example: RTCs have original jurisdiction over all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value exceeds P400,000 (BP 129 as amended)
Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Jurisdiction is the power of a court to review decisions of a lower court. Courts with appellate jurisdiction can affirm, reverse, modify, or remand cases for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court primarily exercise this type of jurisdiction.
Example: The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower courts, as provided by law.
General Jurisdiction
General Jurisdiction means that a court has the authority to hear and decide a wide range of cases, not limited to specific types or areas of law.
Example: An RTC typically hears all the actions in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property exceeds a certain amount prescribed by law.
Special Jurisdiction
Special Jurisdiction means the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular kind, involving specific issues or parties designated by statute.
Example: Family Courts have special jurisdiction over family-related cases such as annulments, child custody, and domestic violence cases among others.
Exclusive Jurisdiction
The court’s power to hear and decide cases to the exclusion of other courts.
Example: The Court of Tax Appeals exclusively handles disputes involving taxation.
Concurrent Jurisdiction
Concurrent jurisdiction is when more than one court can hear the same type of case at the first instance.
Example: Both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunctions which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions.
General or Specific Jurisdiction / Special or Limited
General – the power of the court to adjudicate all controversies, except those expressly withheld from the plenary (unrestricted) powers.
Specific – the power of the court to adjudicate only particular cases, confined to specific causes, under the limitations by a statute
Original and appellate jurisdiction
Original – The power to take judicial cognizance of a case for the first time under the conditions of the law
Appellate – The power conferred upon a superior court to take cognizance, rehear and determine cases which had been tried in the lower courts. Manner of taking cognizance: appeal, writ of error, review.
Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction
Exclusive – The power to adjudicate cases to the exclusion of all other courts at that stage
Concurrent – also “confluent” or “coordinate” jurisdiction. The power of different courts to take cognizance of the same case, at the same stage, whether in the same or different judicial territories.
Aspects of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over subject matter
Meaning: the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong, and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers
Jurisdiction over the parties
The court’s power to subject parties in a particular action to the judgment rendered in an action.
- Jurisdiction over the plaintiff acquired by his filing of complaint, petition, or initiatory pleading;
- Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired by:
- Service of summons; or
- His voluntary submission to the court’s authority (Macasaet v. Co)
What is voluntary submission?
GR: Seeking affirmative relief = voluntary submission;
XPN: Appearing to file a motion to dismiss raising the lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Under the 2019 Amendments, a movant must only raise the question of the lack of jurisdiction. Otherwise, it will be deemed as voluntary appearance.
When is jurisdiction over the defendant required?
Only in an action in personam. It is not required in an action in rem or quasi in rem.
Does this mean that improper service of summons is allowed in actions in rem and quasi in rem?
- No! In ALL actions, summons must be PROPERLY SERVED.
- The difference lies in the PURPOSE of the summons.
- For action in personam, purpose is necessary to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
For actions in rem and quasi in rem, proper service of summons is necessary for due process purposes. (De Pedro v. Romasan)\
Jurisdiction over the issues
The court’s authority to hear and decide the specific legal questions or controversies presented in a case. This type of jurisdiction ensures that the court is properly empowered to interpret and apply the law to the particular issue at hand, such as contract disputes, tort claims, or constitutional questions.
Jurisdiction over the res
The court’s authority to adjudicate rights, claims, or interests related to a specific piece of property that is the subject of a legal dispute. This type of jurisdiction is particularly important in cases involving real estate, personal property, or other tangible assets, where the court must have control over the property to effectively resolve the dispute. The court’s jurisdiction over the res is typically established by the property’s location within the court’s territorial limits.
Jurisdiction over the remedies
The court’s power to grant the specific types of relief or remedies sought by the parties in a legal dispute. This includes the authority to award damages, issue injunctions, impose penalties, or provide other forms of legal or equitable relief as allowed by law. A court must have jurisdiction not only over the parties and the subject matter but also over the remedies being requested to ensure that its orders and judgments can be lawfully enforced. Without proper jurisdiction over the remedies, any relief granted by the court could be invalid or ineffective, leaving the parties without a legal resolution to their dispute.
English