JUDICIAL HIERARCHY

Supreme Court (RC)

1st
Court of Appeals (RC) Sandiganbayan (SC)

Court of Tax Appeals (SC) 2nd Regional Trial Court (RC) Shari’a District Court (SC)

Municipal Trial Court (RC) Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (RC) Shari’s Circuit Courts (SC)

Municipal Trial Courts (RC) 3rd Metropolitan Trial Courts (RC)

Legend:
Division of Courts
Hierarchy of Regular Courts
(RC) Regular Courts
(SC) Special Courts

BATAS PAMBANSA Blg. 129

An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for the Other Purposes

Section 4.Exercise of Powers and Functions – The Court of Appeals shall exercise its powers, functions,
and duties, through seventeen (17) divisions, each composed of three (3) members. The court may sit en
banc only for the purpose of exercising administrative, ceremonial, or other non-adjudicatory functions.
(as amended by Executive Order No. 330)

Section 9 (3) Jurisdiction (of Court of Appeals) – Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments,
resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities,
boards or commission, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security
Commission, the Employee Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those
falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the
Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act,
and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section
17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence
and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual cases raised in cases falling within its original
and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be
continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. (as
amended by R.A. No. 7902)

Section 22 Appellate Jurisdiction (or Regional Trial Courts) – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate
jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on
the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or
briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall be
appealable by petition for review to the Court of Appeals which may give it due course only when the
petition shows prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a
reversal or modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.

Section 23 Special Jurisdiction to try special cases – The Supreme Court may designate certain branches
of the Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases,
agrarian cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies
and agencies and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court may determine in the interest of a
speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Section 25 Establishment of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts– There shall be created a Metropolitan Trial Court in each metropolitan area established by law,
a Municipal Trial Court in each of the other cities or municipalities, and a Municipal Circuit Trial Court in
each circuit compromising such cities and/or municipalities as are grouped together pursuant to law.

Section 28 Other Metropolitan Trial Courts – The Supreme Court shall constitute Metropolitan Trial
Courts in such other metropolitan areas as may be established by law whose territorial jurisdiction shall
be co-extensive with the cities and municipalities comprising the metropolitan area.

Every Metropolitan Trial Judge shall be appointed to a metropolitan area which shall be his
permanent station and his appointment shall state branch of the court and the seat thereof to which he
shall be originally assigned. A Metropolitan Trial Judge may be assigned by the Supreme Court to any
branch within the said metropolitan area as the interest of justice may require, and such assignment to
another station within the meaning of this action.

Section 31 Municipal Circuit Trial Courts – There shall be a Municipal Circuit Trial Court in each area
defined as a municipal circuit, comprising one or more cities and/or one or more municipalities. The
municipalities comprising municipal circuits as organized under Administrative Order No. 33, issued on
June 13, 1978 by the Supreme Court pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 537, are hereby constituted as
municipal circuits for purposes of the establishment of the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the
appointment thereto of Municipal Circuit Trial Judges: Provided, however, that the Supreme Court may,
as the interests of justice may require, further reorganize the said courts taking into account workload,
geographical location, and such other factors as will contribute to a rational allocation thereof, pursuant
to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 537 which shall be applicable insofar as they are not
inconsistent with this Act.

Every Municipal Circuit Trial Judge shall be appointed to a municipal circuit which shall be his
official station.

The Supreme Court shall determine the city or municipality where the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court shall hold sessions.
SEPARATION POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT

➢ The Doctrine of Separation of Powers was modified under the 1973 Constitution and has been
restored with several significant modifications under the 1987 or existing Constitution.
➢ The doctrine is observed in our country not only because it is regarded as a characteristics of
republicanism but also for the reason that the major powers of the government are actually
distributed by the Constitution among the several departments and the Constitutional
Commissions.
➢ The purpose of the doctrine is intended to prevent a concentration of authority in one person or
group of persons that may lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise.
➢ It is also intended to ordain the three (3) branches of the government (executive, legislative, and
judiciary) which has the exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matter falling within its own
constitutionality allocated sphere.
➢ The branches of government have its own limitations; however, the separation of powers of
government may not all time be determined because of their ambiguous in nature.
➢ There are instances under the Constitution when powers are not confined exclusively within one
department but are in fact assigned to or shared by several departments. As a result of this
“blending of powers”, as it is called there is some difficulty in classifying some of them as
definitely legislative, executive of judicial.

Example: The granting of amnesty by the president which requires the

concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Congress.
JOSE A. ANGARA vs. ELECTORAL COMMISSION, et. al.
G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1981

NATURE: A petition was filed by Jose A. Angara requesting to dismiss the “Motion to Protest” filed by
Private Respondent Pedro Ynsua to nullify the election of the petitioner as member of National
Assembly and to prohibit and restrain the Electoral Commission from taking further cognizance of the
protest filed by the respondent.

SC RULING: DENIED.

LEGAL DOCTRINE: The grant of power to Electoral Commission to judge all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly.

FACTS:
On November 15, 1935, the Petitioner Jose A. Angara was proclaimed to be the member of National
Assembly and took his oath of office. The National Assembly then passed the Resolution No. 8
confirming the election of the members and declaring the National Assembly in session. The Electoral
Commission adopted its own resolution providing that the filing of election protest must not exceed on
December 9, 1935. However, prior to such date given as the deadline of filing, respondent Pedro Ynsua
filed its Motion to Protest to the election of the petitioner. The petitioner sitting as new member of
National Assembly filed its Motion to dismiss the Protest upholding the resolution issued by the National
Assembly; however, the respondent answered such motion alleging that there is no legal or
constitutional provision barring the presentation of a protest against election of a member of the
National Assembly after confirmation. On the reply made by the petitioner, the resolution of National
Assembly has the effect of cutting off the power of the Electoral Commission to entertain protests
against the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly.

ISSUE:
Did the Electoral Commission acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming to the cognizance
of the protest filed against the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation of
such election by resolution of the National Assembly.

RULING:
NO. The Electoral Commission did not acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming to the
cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the previous
confirmation of such election by resolution of the National Assembly.

The Electoral Commission acted within the legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in
assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed by the respondent Ynsua against the election of the
petitioner Angara, and that the earlier resolution of the National Assembly cannot in any manner toll the
time for filing election protests against members of the National Assembly, no prevent the filing of a
protest within such time as the rules of the Electoral Commission might prescribe.
The grant of power to Electoral Commission to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the members of the National Assembly, is intended to be as complete and unimpaired
as if it had remained originally in the legislature. The express lodging of that power in the Electoral
Commission is an implied denial of the exercise of that power by the National Assembly.

Under Section 4 of Article VI of the Constitution, the creation of the Electoral Commission carried with it
ex necessitate rei the power regulative in character to limit the time with which protests entrusted to its
cognizance should be filed. Where the general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular
power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred. In
absence of any further constitutional provision relating to the procedure to be followed in filing protests
before the Electoral Commission, therefore, the incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for
the proper exercise of its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary implication to have
been lodged also in the Electoral Commission.