Duero vs.

CA
FACTS:
Petitioner filed before the RTC a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages and Attorney’s Fees against private
respondent and two others. Judgment was rendered in petitioner’s favor, and private respondent was ordered to peacefully vacate
and turn over the lot, pay annual rental fee and attorney’s fees and the cost of the suit.

Private respondent filed his petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals which gave due course to the petition, maintaining that
private respondent is not estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC when private respondent filed with said court his Motion
for Reconsideration and/or Annulment of Judgment.
Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention
1.
ISSUE/S:
WON the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion when it held that the municipal trial court had jurisdiction, and that private
respondent was not estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC after he had filed several motions before it.
RULING
No.
Legal Basis Application
The municipal court has jurisdiction over the case and that private
respondent was not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction
of the RTC, respondent Court of Appeals discussed the facts on
which its decision is grounded as well as the law and
jurisprudence on the matter. Its action was neither whimsical nor
capricious.

For estoppel to apply, the action giving rise thereto must be
unequivocal and intentional because, if misapplied, estoppel may
become a tool of injustice.
The petitioner, who claims ownership of a parcel of land, filed his
complaint before a court without appropriate jurisdiction.
Defendant, a farmer whose tenancy status is still pending before
the proper administrative agency concerned, could have moved
for dismissal of the case on jurisdictional grounds. But the farmer
as defendant therein could not be expected to know the nuances
of jurisdiction and related issues. This farmer, who is now the
private respondent, ought not to be penalized when he claims
that he made an honest mistake when he initially submitted his
motions before the RTC, before he realized that the controversy
was outside the RTCs cognizance but within the jurisdiction of the
municipal trial court. To hold him in estoppel as the RTC did would
amount to foreclosing his avenue to obtain a proper resolution of
his case. Furthermore, if the RTCs order were to be sustained, he
would be evicted from the land prematurely, while RED Conflict
Case No. 1029 would remain unresolved. Such eviction on a
technicality if allowed could result in an injustice,

Donato vs. CA
FACTS:
Antonio T. Donato is the registered owner of a real property located at Ciriaco Tuason Street, San Andres, Manila. Petitioner filed a
complaint before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila for forcible entry and unlawful detainer against 43 named defendants and all
unknown occupants of the subject property.

MeTC rendered judgment against the 23 non-answering defendants, ordering them to vacate the premises occupied by each of them,
and to pay rent until the date they actually vacate, plus interest, as well as attorney’s fees and the costs of the suit. As to the 20 private
respondents, the MeTC issued a separate judgment on the same day sustaining their rights under the Land Reform Law, declaring
petitioners cause of action as not duly warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case and dismissing the case without prejudice.

Not satisfied with the judgment dismissing the complaint as against the private respondents, petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial
Court of Manila (RTC). The RTC sustained the decision of the MeTC.

Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Resolution, the CA dismissed the petition on two grounds: (a)
the certification of non-forum shopping was signed by petitioners counsel and not by petitioner himself, in violation of Revised Circular
No. 28-91;[9] and, (b) the only annex to the petition is a certified copy of the questioned decision but copies of the pleadings and other
material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition are not annexed, contrary to Section 3, paragraph b,
Rule 6 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention
1.
ISSUE/S:

RULING

Legal Basis Application

Gonzaga vs. CA
FACTS:
Petitioners filed an action for reformation of contract and damages with the Regional Trial Court which the trial court rendered its
decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit and ordering herein petitioners to pay private respondent moral damages and
attorney’s fees.

A writ of execution was issued by the trial court. Thus, petitioners filed an urgent motion to recall writ of execution, alleging that the
court a quo had no jurisdiction to try the case as it was vested in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) pursuant to PD
957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree).
Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention
The court a quo had no jurisdiction to try the case as it was vested
in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) pursuant
to PD 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective
Decree)
ISSUE/S:
WON the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition by applying the principle of estoppel, even if the Regional Trial Court had
no jurisdiction to decide the case.
RULING
No.
Legal Basis Application
A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure It was petitioners themselves who invoked the jurisdiction of the
affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or court a quo by instituting an action for reformation of contract
failing to obtain such relief, repudiate, or question that same against private respondents. It appears that, in the proceedings
jurisdiction […] The question whether the court had jurisdiction before the trial court, petitioners vigorously asserted their cause
either of the subject matter of the action or of the parties was not from start to finish. Not even once did petitioners ever raise the
important in such cases because the party is barred from such issue of the court’s jurisdiction during the entire proceedings
conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid which lasted for two years. It was only after the trial court
and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a rendered its decision and issued a writ of execution against them
practice cannot be tolerated obviously for reasons of public policy. in 1998 did petitioners first raise the issue of jurisdiction ─ and it
[Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy] was only because said decision was unfavorable to them.
 Petitioners thus effectively waived their right to question the
court’s jurisdiction over the case they themselves filed.

Public policy dictates that this Court must strongly condemn any
double-dealing by parties who are disposed to trifle with the
courts by deliberately taking inconsistent positions, in utter
disregard of the elementary principles of justice and good faith.

Escobal vs. Garchitorena (presiding justice of Sandiganbayan)

FACTS:
The petitioner was conducting surveillance operations on drug trafficking at the Sa Harong Cafe Bar and Restaurant located in Naga
City. He somehow got involved in a shooting incident, resulting in the death of one Rodney Rafael N. Nueca. An amended Information
was filed with the RTC of Naga City charging the petitioner and a certain Natividad Bombita, Jr. alias Jun Bombita with murder.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information alleging that as mandated by Commonwealth Act No. 408, in relation to Section 1,
Presidential Decree No. 1822 and Section 95 of R.A. No. 6975, the court martial, not the RTC, had jurisdiction over criminal cases
involving PNP members and officers.

The RTC declared that based on the petitioners evidence, he was on official mission when the shooting occurred. It concluded that the
prosecution failed to adduce controverting evidence thereto. It likewise considered Luz Nacario Nuecas admission in her complaint
before the PLEB that the petitioner was on official mission when the shooting happened. The RTC ordered the public prosecutor to file
a Re-Amended Information and to allege that the offense charged was committed by the petitioner in the performance of his
duties/functions or in relation to his office; and, conformably to R.A. No. 7975, to thereafter transmit the same, as well as the complete
records with the stenographic notes, to the Sandiganbayan

The Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan ordered the Executive Clerk of Court to return the records of Criminal Case to the court of
origin, RTC of Naga City. It reasoned that under P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975, the RTC retained jurisdiction over the
case, considering that the petitioner had a salary grade of 23.
Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention
When the amended information was filed with the RTC, P.D. No. R.A. No. 7975 should be applied retroactively. Although the
1606 was still in effect. Under Section 4(a) of the decree, the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the crime committed by the
Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction over the case against him petitioner when the amended information was filed with the RTC,
as he was charged with homicide with the imposable penalty of by the time it resolved petitioners motion to dismiss on July 31,
reclusion temporal, and the crime was committed while in the 1995, R.A. No. 7975 had already taken effect. Thus, the law should
performance of his duties. He further asserts that although P.D. be given retroactive effect.
No. 1606, as amended by P.D. No. 1861 and by R.A. No. 7975
provides that crimes committed by members and officers of the
PNP with a salary grade below 27 committed in relation to office
are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the proper RTC, the
amendment thus introduced by R.A. No. 7975 should not be
applied retroactively. This is so, the petitioner asserts, because
under Section 7 of R.A. No. 7975, only those cases where trial has
not begun in the Sandiganbayan upon the effectivity of the law
should be referred to the proper trial court.
ISSUE/S:
WON the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction
in ordering the remand of the case to the RTC.
RULING
NO. The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the Information or the Complaint and the
statute in effect at the time of the commencement of the action, unless such statute provides for a retroactive application thereof. The
jurisdictional requirements must be alleged in the Information. Such jurisdiction of the court acquired at the inception of the case
continues until the case is terminated.
 Legal Basis
Under Section 4 (a) of P.D. No. 1606 as amended by P.D. No. 1861,
the Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction in all cases involving
the following:
(1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act
No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal
Code;
(2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and
employees in relation to their office, including those employed in
government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or
complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law
is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6)
years, or a fine of P6,000.00.
Application
For the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction under the
said law over crimes committed by public officers in relation to
their office, it is essential that the facts showing the intimate
relation between the office of the offender and the discharge of
official duties must be alleged in the Information. It is not enough
to merely allege in the Information that the crime charged was
committed by the offender in relation to his office because that
would be a conclusion of law. The amended Information filed with
the RTC against the petitioner does not contain any allegation
showing the intimate relation between his office and the
discharge of his duties.

Under Sec. 2 R.A. No. 7975 amending P.D. No. 1606:
In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying
positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or higher, as prescribed
in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or PNP officers occupying the
rank of superintendent or higher, or their equivalent, exclusive
jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper Regional Trial
Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be, pursuant to their
respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
Even if the offender committed the crime charged in relation to
his office but occupies a position corresponding to a salary grade
below 27, the proper RTC or MTC Trial Court, as the case may be,
shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the case. In this case, the
petitioner was a Police Senior Inspector, with salary grade 23. He
was charged with homicide punishable by reclusion temporal.
Hence, the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the crime charged
conformably to Sections 20 and 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691.

Agan Jr. vs. PIATCO

FACTS:

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

1.
ISSUE/S:

RULING

Legal Basis Application

Liga ng mga Barangay National vs. Atienza Jr.

FACTS:
City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8039, Series of 2002, providing, among other things, for the election of representatives
of the District Chapters in the City Chapter of Manila and setting the elections for both chapters thirty days after the barangay elections.
The assailed ordinance was later transmitted to respondent City Mayor Jose L. Atienza, Jr., for his signature and approval.

Upon being informed that the ordinance had been forwarded to the Office of the
City Mayor, still unnumbered and yet to be officially released, the Liga sent respondent Mayor of Manila a letter requesting him that
said ordinance be vetoed considering that it encroached upon, or even assumed, the functions of the Liga through legislation, a function
which was clearly beyond the ambit of the powers of the City Council. Respondent Mayor, however, signed and approved the assailed
city ordinance and issued on 15 August 2002 Executive Order No. 011, Series of 2002, to implement the ordinance.
Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention
1.
ISSUE/S:
 RULING

Legal Basis Application

Manila Bankers Like Insurance Corp. vs. Ng Kok Wei

FACTS:
Respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, a complaint against petitioner for specific performance and damages for
the delivery of his bought condominium unit due to the delay in the performance of its obligation to the respondent.

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

the trial court has no jurisdiction over the instant case, Section 1 1.
(c) of Presidential Decree No. 1344, as amended, provides:
SECTION 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real
estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided
for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority
[now Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) shall have
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following
nature:
xxx
C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and
statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or
condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker
or salesman.
ISSUE/S:
WON the trial court has no jurisdiction over the instant case; and that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial courts finding
that petitioner incurred unreasonable delay in the delivery of the condominium unit to respondent.
RULING
Yes.
Legal Basis Application
Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority [now The court have consistently held that complaints for specific
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)] shall have performance with damages by a lot or condominium unit buyer
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following against the owner or developer falls under the exclusive
nature: jurisdiction of the HLURB
xxx
C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and
statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or
condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker
or salesman.

Petitioner’s active participation in the proceedings estopped it
from assailing such lack of it.
Petitioner failed to raise the question of jurisdiction before the
trial court and the Appellate Court. In effect, petitioner confirmed
and ratified the trial court’s jurisdiction over his case. Certainly, it
is now in estoppel and can no longer question the trial court’s
jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on Certiorari

under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the
factual findings being assailed are not supported by evidence on
 record or the impugned judgment is based on a misapprehension
of facts.

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Sardido (MTC Judge)

FACTS:
The Court directed Judge Sardido to explain in writing why he should not be held liable for gross ignorance of the law for excluding
Judge Hurtado from the Amended Information and for transmitting the records of Judge Hurtados case to the Court.

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

1.
ISSUE/S:

RULING

Legal Basis Application

The cases referred to in Circular No. 3-89 are administrative cases
for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys, including
justices of appellate courts and judges of the lower courts. The
Court has vested the IBP with the power to initiate and prosecute
administrative cases against erring lawyers. However, under
Circular No. 3-89, the Court has directed the IBP to refer to the
Supreme Court for appropriate action all administrative cases
filed with IBP against justices of appellate courts and judges of the
lower courts. As mandated by the Constitution, the Court
exercises the exclusive power to discipline administratively
justices of appellate courts and judges of lower courts.

Circular No. 3-89 does not refer to criminal cases against erring
justices of appellate courts or judges of lower courts. Trial courts
retain jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of offenses committed
by justices of appellate courts and judges of lower courts. This is
clear from the Circular directing the IBP, and not the trial courts,
to refer all administrative cases filed against justices of appellate
courts and judges of lower courts to the Supreme Court. The case
filed against Judge Hurtado is not an administrative case filed with
the IBP. It is a criminal case filed with the trial court under its
jurisdiction as prescribed by law.

Katon vs. Palanca

FACTS:
Petitioner assails the validity of the homestead patents and original certificates of title covering certain portions of Sombrero Island
issued in favor of respondents on the ground that the same were obtained through fraud. Petitioner prays for the reconveyance of the
whole island in his favor. The Motion to Dismiss was granted by the RTC filed by the respondents.

Instead of limiting itself to the allegation of grave abuse of discretion, the CA ruled on the merits. It held that while petitioner had
caused the reclassification of Sombrero Island from forest to agricultural land, he never applied for a homestead patent under the
Public Land Act. Hence, he never acquired title to that land.
Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention
1.
ISSUE/S:
WON the CA erroneously invoked its residual prerogatives under Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court when it motu proprio
dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction and prescription.
RULING
Petitioner has confused what the CA adverted to as its residual prerogatives under Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court with the
residual jurisdiction of trial courts over cases appealed to the CA.

Under Section 1 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are
deemed waived, except when (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) litis pendentia, (3) res judicata and (4) prescription
are evident from the pleadings or the evidence on record. In the four excepted instances, the court shall motu proprio dismiss the
claim or action. Under the new rules, a court may motu proprio dismiss a claim when it appears from the pleadings or evidence on
record that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; when there is another cause of action pending between the same parties for
the same cause, or where the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations.

On the other hand, residual jurisdiction is embodied in Section 9 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The residual jurisdiction of trial courts
is available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in
the appeal. This stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, but
prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called
residual jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending
appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
Legal Basis Application

Figueroa vs. People

FACTS:
An information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against the petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Bulacan. Trial on the merits ensued and the trial court convicted the petitioner as charged.

In his appeal before the CA, the petitioner questioned, among others, for the first time, the trial court’s jurisdiction. The appellate
court, however, in the challenged decision, considered the petitioner to have actively participated in the trial and to have belatedly
attacked the jurisdiction of the RTC; thus, he was already estopped by laches from asserting the trial courts lack of jurisdiction. Finding
no other ground to reverse the trial court’s decision, the CA affirmed the petitioner’s conviction but modified the penalty imposed and
the damages awarded.
Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention
The lack of jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter may be The principle of estoppel by laches has already precluded the
raised at any time even for the first time on appeal. petitioner from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC. The trial
went on for 4 years with the petitioner actively participating
therein and without him ever raising the jurisdictional infirmity.
ISSUE/S:
WON the active participation of the petitioner in the trial of his case, which is initiated and filed not by him but by the public prosecutor,
amount to estoppel?
RULING
NO.
Legal Basis Application
The general rule should, however, be, as it has always been, that Petitioner is in no way estopped by laches in assailing the
the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the jurisdiction of the RTC, considering that he raised the lack thereof
proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by in his appeal before the appellate court. At that time, no
estoppel. Estoppel by laches, to bar a litigant from asserting the considerable period had yet elapsed for laches to attach. […]
courts absence or lack of jurisdiction, only supervenes in delay alone, though unreasonable, will not sustain the defense of
exceptional cases similar to the factual milieu of Tijam v. estoppel by laches unless it further appears that the party,
Sibonghanoy. knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them until the
condition of the party pleading laches has in good faith become
so changed that he cannot be restored to his former state, if the
 rights be then enforced, due to loss of evidence, change of title,
intervention of equities, and other causes.

Hannah Serana vs. Sandiganbayan

FACTS:
Petitioner was appointed by then President Joseph Estrada as a student regent of UP. President Estrada gave P15,000,000.00 to the
OSRFI (Foundation by petitioner, her siblings, and relatives registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission) as financial
assistance for the proposed renovation. The source of the funds, according to the information, was the Office of the President.

The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize. The succeeding student regent, Kristine Clare Bugayong, and Christine Jill
De Guzman, Secretary General of the KASAMA sa U.P., a system-wide alliance of student councils within the state university,
consequently filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman, after due investigation, found probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother Jade Ian D. Serana for estafa, in
the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner moved to quash the information. She claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense
charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP student regent.
Petitioner’s Contention
1. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended by R.A. No.
8249, enumerates the crimes or offenses over which the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction over
the crime of estafa. It only has jurisdiction over crimes
covered by Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2 (Crimes
Committed by Public Officers), Book II of the RPC. Estafa
falling under Title X, Chapter VI (Crimes Against Property),
Book II of the RPC is not within the Sandiganbayans
jurisdiction.
2. Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over her person. As a
student regent, she was not a public officer since she
merely represented her peers, in contrast to the other
regents who held their positions in an ex officio capacity.
She added that she was a simple student and did not
receive any salary as a student regent.
Respondent’s Contention
1. Section 4 (b) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606
clearly contains the catch-all phrase in relation to office,
thus, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the
charges against petitioner.
2. Petitioner is a public officer. As a member of the BOR,
she had the general powers of administration and
exercised the corporate powers of UP. Based on
Mechems definition of a public office, petitioner’s stance
that she was not compensated, hence, not a public
officer, is erroneous. Compensation is not an essential
part of public office. Parenthetically, compensation has
been interpreted to include allowances. By this
definition, petitioner was compensated.

3. Petitioner had no power or authority to receive monies or

funds. Such power was vested with the Board of Regents
(BOR) as a whole. Since it was not alleged in the
information that it was among her functions or duties to
receive funds, or that the crime was committed in
connection with her official functions, the same is beyond
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan citing the case of
Soller v. Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE/S:
WON Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction in not quashing the
information and dismissing the case notwithstanding that is has no jurisdiction over the offense charged in the information.
RULING
NO.
Legal Basis Application
 1. It is P.D. No. 1606, as amended, rather than R.A. No. 3019,
as amended, that determines the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies
committed by public officials in relation to their office. The court
sees no plausible or sensible reason to exclude estafa as one of
the offenses included in Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606. Plainly,
estafa is one of those other felonies. The jurisdiction is simply
subject to the twin requirements that:
(a) The offense is committed by public officials and employees
mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and that
(b) The offense is committed in relation to their office.

2. Varied definitions and concepts of public officers are
found in different statutes and jurisprudence.
A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and
conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed
by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power,
an individual is invested with some portion of the
sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised
by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so
invested is a public officer. [Laurel vs. Desierto]
[…] while the first part of Section 4 (A) covers only officials with
Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part specifically includes
other executive officials whose positions may not be of Salary
Grade 27 and higher but who are by express provision of law
placed under the jurisdiction of the said court. Petitioner falls
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there
by express provision of law. Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or controlled corporations,
state universities or educational institutions or foundations.
Petitioner falls under this category. As the Sandiganbayan
pointed out, the BOR performs functions similar to those of a
board of trustees of a non-stock corporation.

3. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction is determined by the
averments in the information. More than that,
jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set
up by defendant or respondent in an answer, a motion to
dismiss, or a motion to quash. Otherwise, jurisdiction
would become dependent almost entirely upon the
whims of defendant or respondent.
In the case at bench, the information alleged, in no uncertain
terms that petitioner, being then a student regent of U.P., while
in the performance of her official functions, committing the
offense in relation to her office and taking advantage of her
position, with intent to gain, conspiring with her brother, JADE
IAN D. SERANA, a private individual, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud the government x x x.

Pat-og Sr. vs. Civil Service Commission

FACTS:
Bang-on, then a 14-year old second year high school student of the Antadao National High School in Sagada, Mountain Province, filed
an affidavit-complaint against Pat-og, third year high school teacher of the same school, before the Civil Service Commission-Cordillera
Administrative Region (CSC-CAR) alleging that Pat-og punched his stomach without warning for failing to follow instruction. As a result,
he suffered stomach pain for several days and was confined in a hospital.

Regarding the same incident, Bang-on filed a criminal case against Pat-og for the crime of Less Serious Physical Injury with the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Bontoc, Mountain Province.

Pat-og filed a motion for reconsideration, questioning for the first time the jurisdiction of CSC over the case. He contended that
administrative charges against a public school teacher should have been initially heard by a committee to be constituted pursuant to
the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.
Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention
Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4670, otherwise known as the 1.
Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, provides that
administrative charges against a public school teacher shall be
heard initially by a committee constituted under said section. As
no committee was ever formed, the petitioner posits that he was
denied due process and that the CSC did not have the jurisdiction
to hear and decide his administrative case.
ISSUE/S:
WON respondent court of appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that petitioner is estopped from questioning the
jurisdiction of the civil service commission to hear and decide the administrative case against petitioner?
RULING
YES.
Legal Basis Application
In Puse v. Santos-Puse, it was held that the CSC, the Department Where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the body
of Education (DepEd) and the Board of Professional Teachers- that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise
Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) have concurrent jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. In this case, it was CSC
jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school which first acquired jurisdiction over the case because the
teachers. complaint was filed before it. Thus, it had the authority to
proceed and decide the case to the exclusion of the DepEd and
the Board of Professional Teachers.

As a, rule jurisdictional question may be raised at any time, suchPetitioner instead of opposing the CSC’s exercise of jurisdiction,
rule admits of the exception where, as in this case, estoppel has the petitioner invoked the same by actively participating in the
supervened. proceedings before the CSC-CAR and by even filing his appeal
before the CSC itself; only raising the issue of jurisdiction later in
his motion for reconsideration after the CSC denied his appeal.
This Court has time and again frowned upon the undesirable
practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then
accepting the judgment only if favorable, but attacking it for lack
of jurisdiction when adverse
Concurrent Jurisdiction - which is possessed over the same parties or subject matter at the same time by two or more separate
tribunals.

Boston Equity Resources, Inc. vs. CA

FACTS:
Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the spouses
Manuel and Lolita Toledo.

Respondent filed an Answer dated 19 March 1998 but on 7 May 1998, she filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Answer7 in
which she alleged, among others, that her husband and co-defendant, Manuel Toledo (Manuel), is already dead.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss citing the following as grounds: (1) that the complaint failed to implead an indispensable party
or a real party in interest; hence, the case must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action; (2) that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of Manuel pursuant to Section 5, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court; (3) that the trial court erred in
ordering the substitution of the deceased Manuel by his heirs; and (4) that the court must also dismiss the case against Lolita Toledo
in accordance with Section 6, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. The trail court rendered judgment denying respondent’s petition.

Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals alleging that the trial court seriously erred and gravely abused its
discretion in denying her motion to dismiss despite discovery, during the trial of the case, of evidence that would constitute a ground
for dismissal of the case which the CA granted.
Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention
1. Respondent had several opportunities, at various stages 1.
of the proceedings, to assail the trial court’s jurisdiction
but never did so for six straight years. Citing the doctrine
laid down in the case of Tijam, et al. v. Sibonghanoy, et al.
petitioner claimed that respondent’s failure to raise the
question of jurisdiction at an earlier stage bars her from
 later questioning it, especially since she actively
participated in the proceedings conducted by the trial
court.

2.
ISSUE/S:
1. Respondent is already estopped from questioning the trial court’s jurisdiction;
RULING
1. NO.
2.
Legal Basis Application
1. The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being 1. What respondent was questioning in her motion to
assailed as a result of estoppel by laches is jurisdiction dismiss before the trial court was that court’s jurisdiction
over the subject matter. over the person of defendant Manuel. Thus, the
principle of estoppel by laches finds no application in this
case. Instead, the principles relating to jurisdiction over
the person of the parties are pertinent in Rule 9 Sec. 1,
Rule 15 Sec. 8.

People vs Henry T. Go (Chairman and President of PIATCO)

FACTS:
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause to indict, among others, herein respondent for violation of
Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019.

The prosecution was given which to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
accused considering that the accused is a private person and the public official Arturo Enrile, his alleged coconspirator, is already
deceased, and not an accused in this case which the complied with the above Order contending that the SB has already acquired
jurisdiction over the person of respondent by reason of his voluntary appearance, when he filed a motion for consolidation and when
he posted bail. The prosecution also argued that the SB has exclusive jurisdiction over respondent's case, even if he is a private person,
because he was alleged to have conspired with a public officer.

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

By reason of the death of Secretary Enrile, there is no public
officer who was charged in the Information and, as such,
prosecution against respondent may not prosper.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the court a quo gravely erred and decided a question of substance in a manner not in accord with law or applicable
jurisprudence in granting the demurrer to evidence and in dismissing criminal case no. 28090 on the ground that it has no
jurisdiction over the person of respondent.

2. WON the court a quo gravely erred and decided a question of substance in a manner not in accord with law or applicable
jurisprudence, in ruling that it has no jurisdiction over the person of respondent go despite the irrefutable fact that he has
already posted bail for his provisional liberty
RULING

Legal Basis Application

1. Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public
officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable
for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of R.A. 3019, in
consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law
 to repress certain acts of public officers and private
persons alike constituting graft or corrupt practices act or
which may lead thereto.

2. The act of an accused in posting bail or in filing motions
seeking affirmative relief is tantamount to submission of
his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
In the instant case, respondent did not make any special
appearance to question the jurisdiction of the SB over his person
prior to his posting of bail and filing his Motion for Consolidation.
In fact, his Motion to Quash the Information in the Criminal Case
only came after the SB issued an Order requiring the prosecution
to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction over his person

City of Manila vs. Judge Cuerdo

FACTS:
CA dismissed petitioners' petition for certiorari holding that it has no jurisdiction over the said petition.

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

1.
ISSUE/S:
WON the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
RULING
NO.
Legal Basis Application
Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides, The prevailing doctrine is that the authority to issue writs of
nonetheless, that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme certiorari involves the exercise of original jurisdiction which must
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law and be expressly conferred by the Constitution or by law and cannot
that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to be implied from the mere existence of appellate jurisdiction.
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government.

St. Mary Crusade Foundation Inc. vs. Riel

FACTS:

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

1.
ISSUE/S:

RULING

Legal Basis Application

Duncano vs. Sandiganbayan

FACTS:
Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention
1.
ISSUE/S:

RULING

Legal Basis Application

TI
FACTS:

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

1.
ISSUE/S:

RULING

Legal Basis Application

TITLE
FACTS:

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

1.
ISSUE/S:

RULING

Legal Basis Application

TITLE
FACTS:

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

1.
ISSUE/S:

RULING

Legal Basis Application

TITLE
FACTS:

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

1.
 ISSUE/S:

RULING

Legal Basis Application

TITLE
FACTS:

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

1.
ISSUE/S:

RULING

Legal Basis Application

TITLE
FACTS:

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

1.
ISSUE/S:

RULING

Legal Basis Application

TITLE
FACTS:

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

1.
ISSUE/S:

RULING

Legal Basis Application

TITLE
FACTS:

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

1.
ISSUE/S:
 RULING

Legal Basis Application

 TITLE
FACTS:

Petitioner’s Contention Respondent’s Contention

1.
ISSUE/S:

RULING

Legal Basis Application