- Look at which court has jurisdiction over the case
- Look at which law would apply for the contract
- Look at which law would apply as to the execution of the contract
- If offended party is a public or private person
- If private: where the article was first published or where the private individual resides
- If public person: in place where the public officer was working?
- The libelous statement allegedly made
- Explain why you are filing the case in that jurisdiction/venue
- just compensation of the land owner
- Unsound real estatebusiness practices - what is involved here
- Claims involving refund and any other claims brought by buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against project owners, developers, brokers, etc.
- Involving cases that partake of specific performance involving contractual or statutory obligations by buyers of subdivision/condo unit against owners/developers
- Fraudulent devices or schemes
- Intracorporate controversy:
- Relationship test: union glass v. SEC: the dispute must be between
- Corp and public
- Corp and SH or officers
- Corp and state - franchise
- Nature of controversy test
- Not suing out of the relation as SHs, but as brothers!
- Even though the complaint asked for the accounting of the shares of the deceased parents, it was only incidental to the maid remedy - which is for the settlement of the estate of the spouses
- Right of plaintiff
- Right of plaintiff
- Obligation to Respect right
- Act or omission of defendant in violation of said right
December 8 - Quiz 1
January 26 - Midterms
February 23 - Quiz 2
March 24 - Finals
*but the schedule would depend whether or not we finish the lessons assigned
Allegations of the complaint would determine the jurisdiction
Note that Hasegawa is not really directly on Hasegawa
HASEGAWA CASE
-contract perfected in Japan, between Japanese nationals, project performed in RP
-Action only touches on the right of plaintiff under the contract - on the implementation of the ICA, not its validity
-defendants argued first lex loci contractus and celebrationis, but later raised forum non conveniens and rule of the most significant relationships
H: the arguments touches on the question of choice of law, not the jurisdiction
-the jurisdiction is based on the allegations in the complaint (pero nabanggit lang)
*3 actions that the court may take
-A MTD is not really a pleading which would raise issues
...take note of the grounds for MTD
...if for lack of jurisdiction, look at the allegations in the complaint to determine jurisdiction
FIGUEROA Case - explain the history and meaning of jurisdiction of estoppel
Note that this is a criminal case. Issue of jurisdiction was only raised upon appeal
GR: Lack of jurisdiction can be raised any time, even on appeal
X: in exceptional circumstances, like that in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy (so if the lack of jurisdiction was raised in a MTD only after 15 years from the start of the case - Ma'am said the case was resolved in another 15 years from the filing of the MTD)
Payment of Filing fees
Ruby Shelter v. Formaran
-payment of the correct filing fees would not automatically divest the court of jurisdiction but only after failure to pay the filing fees even after reasonable time to do so
-in this case, case was worded so that it was only for declaration of nullity of the deeds of sale, but the case involved the recovery of real estate - so basis of the docket fees should have been the fair market value of the property and not the fixed fee for actions incapable of pecuniary estimation
Chavez v. CA
-not exactly a very good example because this is a criminal case and in criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional
-this is a criminal case for libel
Where filed: determine first
-check!
-so in libel, should ALWAYS STATE IN THE INFORMATION
Springfield v. RTC
-was used by ma'am in her midterms question
-outlines where the petition for annulment of the decisions of QJAs should be filed
-short facts: Decision of the DARAB was raised for annulment to the RTC
-H: DARAB is a QJA which is of the same rank as RTCs (and not of inferior courts which maybe under the jurisdiction of the RTC), as also expressly stated in the organic law of the DARAB, its procedural rules, and in ROC as amended
**So if there's a QJA involved, should read the law providing the existence of the agency for mode of appealing it:
e.g. Before, decisions of the NLRC were directly filed w/ SC but was changed....now to CA!
...should not assume that R43 would govern!
*R47 allows petition of judgment - but only of RTC! And to CA!
...supposedly the DARAB decision was rendered in GADALEJ, could the parties file Certiorari under R65? CANNOT DO SO IF THERE ARE OTHER SPEEDY REMEDY AVAILABLE. Should still go under ordinary appeal to CA under the procedural rules of DARAB
Sta. Ana v. Carpo - primary jurisdiction
-The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged in an administrative body of special competence.
AGRARIAN LAW IMPLEMENTATION CASES: RETENTION RIGHTS + EXCLUSION/EXEMPTION of the subject land from coverage - DAR SECRETARY
AGRARIAN DISPUTES: DARAB
*if mentioned in the pleadings of one or the other party being a tenant - DARAB!
*if dispute retention or possession of the tenant/other claimant - DARAB pa rin daw sabi ni ma'am
NOT BROUGHT TO DARAB: to RTC acting as special agrarian courts
Is there any instance where it would go directly to RTC: if the land was never under the coverage of the agrarian reform law! In the answer or MTD, can raise theaffirmative defense that this involves tenancy relations but would not divest the RTC of jurisdiction
SC- power of judicial review
History: from US
Garcillano v. House
2 cases filed w/ SC for injunction, to enjoin the playing of the Gaci tapes - in House and in Senate. But since the tapes were already played in Congress, the petition was considered moot. The second was not, and was granted. JR mentioned by the court by saying that they are not going to exercise JR if there is nothing to rule on - since it was already moot!
*review on Consti
-should have legal standing to sue/invoke the court's JR power
...here: taxpayer suit allowed because taxpayer's money wasted by its use in committee hearings
Lazatin v. Disierto
-questioned the long held doctrine that the Ombudsman has prosecutorial powers and has supervision over the Office of the Special Prosecutor
H: no strong or compelling reason to overturn stare decisis
The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to unsettle things which are established)
| Stare decisis | Law of the case |
| Jurisprudence part of the law of the land. If said of the SC, final! | Usually applicable only between the same parties involved in the same case, same issue |
Ferdinand Cruz v. Mijares
-Cruz entered appearance based on R138, section 34, appearing as plaintiff in behalf of himself. He was mistaken as appearing under OLA. His petition to have the judge inhibit herself was denied. He based such petition on the remark made during pre-trial when the judge allowed a MTD when Answer was already filed.
-Hierarchy of Courts: applies when question of facts are involved
*M0tion to inhibit usually filed merely just to delay the case: most judges are not really exposed to voluntarily inhibitting themselves because it's an admission of bias or prejudice...
*SC Denied Motions to inhibit, unless there's obvious bias on the part of the justice
First United v. Poro
F: First United participated in the bidding of San Fernando Airport. Disqualified. Sought reconsideration w/ special committee...denied....filed petition w/ RTC to enjoin implementation of the project. Sought dismissal w/ RTC due to , granted by RTC. Filed special petition for certioari before SC. SC denied. Law provides procedure for appealing. Protest made w/ head of procuring agency. Court action resorted only after protest. R65 petition should be filed w/ RTC
...even if SC has power to entertain P4C under R65, law for procurement provides otherwise
*so procedure ulit
>ask bidding committee to reconsider award
>go to head of procurring agency for appeal (e.g. Bid for COMELEC, so head of COMELEC)
>so appeal to RTC after R65 Petition for Certiorari - GADALEJ
Exemption: Smartmatic case: elections near, plus involves big amount!
First Lepanto Ceramics Case
WON petitions for review of decisions of Board of Investments filed w/ CA or SC (both provides basis)?
H: Petitions for review should be filed to CA in pursuant to Circular, in implementation of BP 129 - declog the dockets of SC
Circular made a procedural appeal but did not change the right of appeal to losing parties for cases decided by BOI
*note of consti provision that you cannot increase the jurisdiction of the SC w/o its consent
...what about the decrease of jurisdiction? Does it need SC consent?
Ampong v. CSC
WON Judiciary has administrative supervision over all its personnel
F: Sarah Ampong emplolyed as court interpreter in Sarangani. But when she was a teacher, she took exam in behalf of another person (so before she was a court interpreter; she was then under DECS)!
H: CSC has jurisdiction then but based on estoppel
CA
CGP Transport
F: Party gave a loan to CGP, eventually was not able to pay. Party able to foreclose mortgaged property of CPG. CPG can't redeem so party filed case for issuance of writ of possession of said property. CGP, in connection w/ another case, said that writ of possession cannot be granted because of writ of injunction....Party elevated case to SC. SC remanded it to CA so that questions of fact may be threshed out. CA ruled against CGP. So hence, this case. CGP alleges now that CA should have not entertained this case because questions of fact pa
H: CA did not err, under R44.15: questions of law or fact could be entertained by CA
...further, cases were on appeal which are w/n jurisdiction of CA
...how relate to provision of constitution that if QUESTION OF PURELY OF LAW, go straight to SC. BUT SC remanded it back to CA. WHY: The determination of WON the question involved is a question of law is final - the questions of fact may not be tackled so safe to go to CA if you're not sure!
Examples of purely question of law: jurisdiction of the courts, interpretation of laws...
...plus, the SC may say that there is a violation of hierarchy of laws
CTA
Cases coming from BOC, BIR, Tariff commission would end up to CTA; then CTA > SC [RA 9282]
SB
Straight to SC: R45
-always associated w/ criminal cases involving public officers and private persons charged in conspiracy w/ public officers
-cases which undergo RTC first: below SG 27; then RTC to SB
-civil cases: does it have jurisdiction aside from the civil cases with the criminal case: IN forfeiture of ill gotten wealth - not only w/ civil cases involving Marcos and their cronies
RTC
Incapable of pecuniary estimation
Ongkingco v. CA
Petitioner filed application w/ DENR for title of parcel of land. Respondents protested application because they claim that they inherited land from father. DENR ruled ifo respondents. Respondents filed w/ CENRO for survey. CENRO allowed survey but were stopped from doing so. Resorted first w/ Brgy.
Now filed w/ RTC case for mandatory injunction. Petitioner filed MTD for lack of jurisdiction - involves possession of land, value of land falls under MTC jurisdiction. But RTC denied MTD: subject matter is actually injunction. Petitioner filed petition for review before CA.
WON incapable of pecuniary estimation?
Factors to look at to determine the nature of the action [shet, MCQ daw sabi ni ma'am]
1. material allegations in complaint
2. Principal relief prayed for
3. Law in force at the time the action has filed
-Determine from the relief prayed for if it is capable of pecuniary estimation. If it is not, then incapable of pecuniary estimation! Even if money claims merely incidental - can still be incapable of pecuniary estimation [cf.Ruby Shelter case: worded case so that it would appear that they were not claiming the land, so incapable of pecuniary estimation]
In determining jurisdiction: use assessed value
In determining docket fees: FMV!
RCP v. CA
Collection for unclaimed rentals v. Specific performance of lease. Claim for unpaid rentals. MTD saying it's under jurisdictional amount for RTC. RTC denied.
WON the RTC has jurisdiction over a complaint for breach of contract?
Discussed how to determine WON The subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation:
BOC: specific performance or rescission
So in this case, it is for specific performance
Averments in the complaint merely showed that the respondents were trying to enforce contract; money claims merely incidental to the contract.
Recovery of possession
-MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction in recovery of possession of land (irrelevant of the money involved or the value of the land)
BUT if you don't comply w/ the 1 year period from date of dispossession, then recovery of possession (unlawful detainer) becomes accion pubiciana w/c should be filed w/ RTC
Bernardo v. Villegas
-case for accion publiciana
-1 year period counted from the time of unlawful possession
H
GR: lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time!
X: estopped by participation in the proceeding + raised issue late
*if no statement of assessed value, should raise it as early as the part of the trial courts! To determine basis of jurisdiction!
Encarnacion v. Amigo
Accion publiciana
Case for ejectment initially filed w/ MTC; MTC ruled ifo plaintiff. RTC dismissed case on appeal. CA remanded to RTC
WON action really involved ejectment case or accion publiciana?
Demand letter received feb. 12, March 2, ejectment case filed w/ MTC
SC said that since way back. New transferrees...BASTA RECONNING POINT NOT FROM SENDING OF DEMAND LETTER
Planters products v. Fertiphil
Doctrine of operative facts: an unconstitutional law vests no rights. If the law is declared unconstitutional, they are recognized to have taken place. Unless they were done in bad faith, in anticipation of the ruling of unconstitutionality, the court would let it be.
-so in this case, amount collected by Planters can be kept? There was fraud and bad faith so ignore operative facts!
*case of LTO of collection of money for stickers for cars: LTO was already told not to collect, but still collected. SC said that the law is unconstitutional and LTO should return the money!
Landbank
-RTC acted as special agrarian court.
Criminal cases involving CARP fall under RTC!
Fort Bonifacio
Why CIAC? CIAC has no jurisdiction over the isuse raised by the petitioner because what is simply being asked is "are claims arising from right as assignee receivable from petitioners?"
...petitioner was contending that under NCC, 1311, principle of relativity of contracts...
SC: assignment took place after the contract was already terminated + claims are simply TPC which are no way .. Basta HLURB
TRICORP
HLURB has jurisdiction
Municipality of Pateros
-boundary dispute between two municipalities!
H: boundary dispute should be resolved by Sanggunian!Not w/ RTC - see LGC
Family courts
-just RTCs appointed as such
-basta involves families
-summary proceedings under FC
Madrinan v. Madrinan:
-writ of habeas corpuse filed to recover custody of the children
-filed writ w/ CA
-Memorandum filed, questioning CA's jurisdiction, saying Family Courts have jurisdiction bsed on RA 8369
H: Family Courts, CA and SCs have original jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions
-concurrent jurisdiction
-based on AM 03-03-04: Not only family courts but also CA and SC were given expressly concurrent jurisdiction
-practical consideration: maybe no remedy w/RTC upon transfer of location of the children
Exception: if there's already been a case filed for declaration of nullity of marriage, which would inveitably involve the question of custody. Any problem as to the custody of children should be filed w/ same court because the court already has jurisdiction over the parties! Maybe made liable for contempt
Yu v. Yu
-Custody case over child. Petition for habeas corpus in CA on part of Father. Mother filed w/ RTC Pasig petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. Mother moved to Pasay, prayed for declaration of nullity in RTC Pasig. Pasay rtc case initiated. ...basta 2 RTCs...
H: Which between the RTCs has jurisdiction? PASIG RTC is the proper court. It acquired first the jurisdiction over the issue of custody. A49-50, FC govern case at bar.
Art. 49: during pendency of action for annulment, in absence of adequate agreement as to the custody of child, court may provide for custody and support of child...
Art. 50: final judgment shall provide for custody of child, X; if issue already adjudicated in a previous judicial proceeding
COMMERCIAL COURTS
RTCs designated as Commercial courts
-intracorporate controversies: disputes between and among stockholders
-complaint of stockholder vs. Officer of corp
-Exercise of appraisal right
Not all cases that seem to involve share of stock mean intracorporate dispute...
Oscar Reyes v. RTC
-Oscar and Rodrigo. By the time the case was filed, Oscar owned most of the shares. When their mother died, most of the shares of stock allegedly went to Oscar. Rodrigo filed action in SEC vs. Oscar for accounting of shares of stock of the mother + father; plus distribution of shares of stock among heirs of mother
-ra 8799 went into effect: case forwarded to RTC which had jurisdiction
Motion to declare filed by Oscar as harassment suit - not a ground for dismissal!
Tests to determine if intracorporate or not:
-WON the controversy/dispute concerns primarily the enforcement of rights under Corpo code and other intracorporate regulations:
H:not intracorporate
Note: Because of the FRIA, some cases would not hold true afterwards
MTC
SPs fajardo case
-a tenant
H: primary jurisdiction of DAR if tenant, agrarian reform cases - DARAB
...unlawful detainer of tenant - if agricultural tenant, still DARAB
Vda de Barrera
When complainants filed for recovery of land...
Ownership as affirmative defense
H: assessed value
Brgy Lupon
-case undergo brgy lupon proceedings if both parties are residing in same brgy
Aquino v. Aure
-noncompliance w/ requirement amounts to failure to comply with condition precedent. It could also be an exhaustion of administrative cases. Either way, it was still prematurity.
-if party fails to raise noncompliance w/ compliance w/ brgy lupon in answer or MTD, then deemed as waived
-so here, court ordered undergo brgy conciliation...so is the case suspended or dismissed w/o prejudice?
DISMISSED w/o prejudice
Lee wee v. De Castro
- unpaid rentals involved, turned out to vacation in the end
-2 story building in alaminos. Originally agreed to P9k monthly rental. Effective Oct. 1...raised rents...but the lessee refused to pay the increased rent. They underwent lupon proceedings, but failed to conciliate, certification filed by brgy. Demand to vacate, refused to vacate, complaint for ejectment before MTC.
H: BRGY conciliation, w/ regard to rental dispute, sufficiently complies for the filing of action for ejectment - rental disputes necessarily includes lease disputes, possession disputes...
Xxx
RULES OF COURT
Liberal application of rules - most of the time applied by SC
...
Makati case: filed late 1 day - notice of appeal fresh period...did not grant because of the failure to appear many times in RTC
Rural bank of seven lakes: why seven lakes...located in San Pablo Laguna
-won rule requiring verification under SEC rules of procedure
H: Not relaxed. Relaxed only to relieve litigant ...
There's also the repeated absence of the respondent in this case and her counsel in appearing before SEC
Note: ROC of Civil procedure made in 1997...consolidate rulings of SC and put them there
R2: COA
Determined first...
| Ceroferr v. CA: elements of COA: | |
| | |
Camarines Sur Electric v. Aquino
-WON the person who is not a party to a contract could sue either of the contracting parties? YES
-in this case, subscriber of electric cooperative
WON there was a contract bet. Parties not necessary in determining WON there was a COA. Matter of defense only .
Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune
Are public officers personally liable for alleged wrongdoings for acts done when they are in publc service?
This case, NCC applied - A32
Admin code: civil liability of public officer: owing to pubic and owing to individual - liable only if owing to individual
Here: sufficient COA
---upon MR: no COA otherwise chilling effect if always threat of A32
BPI: only 1 COA
Caltex: as many cases as there are many REM for each accounts - so no splitting of COA
UCPB: splitting of COA not allowed but Joinder allowed
First case: to enjoin the foreclosure sale (RTC) - dismissed; foreclosure proceeded
2nd case: for annulment, damages, attacking the validity of the loan and violation of truth in lending act
Jurisdiction w/ MTC - penalty shall not exceed P2k
Action to declare interest rates as illegal...w/n jurisdiction of RTC so proper for adjudging bank liable for violation of the law
-supposing ALL joined COA for collection of money - not exceeding P2ook...aggregate amount claimed
PARTIES- R3
A case cannot be filed if plaintiff not real party in interest...
All parties should be the real party in interest - have a connection to the COA
Carlos v. Sandoval
-declaration of nullity of marriage so that the brother could inherit
H: Real party in interest is one who stands to benefit from judgment of the case
-Teofilo would be a real party in interest if nephew proven to be an adopted son
-cannot impune nullity of marriage if not real pary in interest...
Estreller v. Ysmael
Filed case for recovery of possession of property entered into and occupied by petitioners. Petitioners refused to vacate premises. Alleged no personality to file suit.
H: Ysmael coowner, alvarez purchased portion of th eproperty, as evidenced by documents...so both real party of interest. Any of the coowners could file suit to recover property co-owned...all for thebenefit of the coowners
Carandang..all coowners are deemed real party in interest in actions to recover possession
Where the coowner does not recognize the existence of coownership, cannot act for the other coowners but all coowners should be included in the suit!
Indispensable parties
De Galicia v. Mercado: businesspartners and cosignatories in a check payable to cash. Onerediscounted the check ifo Mercado. Mercado's claim for insufficiency of funds denied. Mercado sued both. De Galicia sued only Mercado, not his partner.
H: Nonjoinder of indispensable party - the one who rediscounted the check. Signatory of the check, but also the one privy to the agreement w/ Mercado. Any final determination to thecase would not be final. Filed case vs. Mercado in an attempt to affect the outcome of the case
Lagunila v. Velasco
-Siblings bought property. Upon death of some of the siblings, the remaining siblings executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement and transfer to one of the heir...annulment of deed and damages filed by the heirs of the sibling not included in the executed deed.The parties were not the sole heirs, they have right to represent their father!
H: Pedro is an indispensable party because at the time the extrajudicial settlement adn deed of donation were made ifo him, he was also a co-owner of the property. Although on its face, Pedro is an indispensable party, they need to remand it to lower courts to give Pedro opportunity to be made a party to the case and give him due process. Any decision that would be made w/o inclusion of indispensable party would be null and void.l
Cf: necessary prty:nonicnlusion would not lead to dismissal of the case/making it null and void.
...but may constitute a waiver on the party not including the necessary party as to his claims with the necessary party...
Marmo v. Anacay
-MTD filed on the filed that the children...
...GR...
Leonis Navigation
WON the nonjoinder of indispensable parties is ground for dismissal of function
Chief engr of vessel contracted colon cancer. While alive, filed complaint w/nlrc for money claims. NLRC granted it. Both parties appealed decision of la becuase not satisfied w/ dec. Nlrc dimissed petition and mr and filed p4c under 65 w/ca. CA dismissed + petitioner did not include spouse of plaintiff who died
H: Although the wife of the deceased petitioner was an indispensable party, not ground of dismissal...refusal to include the substitutes is the ground for the dismissal. [so note the point in time when the dismissal proper]
No comments:
Post a Comment