Civil Procedure 2022 Preliminary Considerations and Jurisdiction I. Introduction a. Remedial Law, define. - Remedial law is a branch of law which provides for jurisdiction of courts and the rules concerning pleadings, practice, and procedure before the courts b. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Primary sources of remedial law, enumerate. BP 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981) and other special laws Rules of Court SC Decisions Circulars, Resolutions, and other admin issuances of SC Constitution (Art. VIII on judiciary) c. Power of Congress vs Power of SC re: SC rules of pleading, practice and procedure - GSIS vs Caballero- Congress exempted GSIS from payment of legal fees- valid? No. Court ruled that the provision in the Charter of GSIS which exempts it from all taxes cannot operate to exempt it from the payment of legal fees. 1987 Constitution removed the power of Congress to repeal the Rules of the SC concerning pleading, etc. SC now has the sole authority to do such. Also, under S22 R141, local govt and GOCCs are not exempted for such payments. Estifona case – Senate enacted rules on plea bargaining (void, only SC has the sole authority for judicial matters) d. Classifications of Actions or proceedings i. According to subject matter 1. Real action vs personal action - Real action: one which affects title to or possession of real property or interest - Personal action: does not affect title to or possession of real property or interest - 2. Define and cite examples Real actions: action to recover ownership of land; foreclosure (mortgage); partition; ejection Personal actions: Action to recover ownership of personal property; action for specific performance; action for collection of sum of money 3. Importance of distinction: jurisdiction and venue The distinction is important for purposes of determining the venue of the action and the court having subject matter jurisdiction thereof. 1 Venue of real actions – proper court which has jurisdiction over the area where the real property involved is situated. Venue of personal actions – place where the plaintiff resides or where the defendant resides at the election of the plaintiff Jurisdiction of real actions – depends on the assessment value of the real property involved Jurisdiction of personal actions – depends on the amount of claim or demand. (If subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, jurisdiction is automatically in RTC). ii. According to binding effect 1. Action/ proceeding in rem vs Action in personam vs Action quasi in rem Action in rem – not directed against a particular person but on the thing itself which asks the court to make a declaration of or dispose of the property. It may be personal or real, it may be a status or a right. Action in personam – directed against particular persons and seeks a relief which would be binding only upon such persons. Action quasi in rem – directed against particular persons but seeks to reach and dispose of their property located in the Philippines. Same as action in rem, but instead, this action is directed against persons. 2. Define and cite examples Action in rem – application for registration of land (property); change of name (right?); declaration of insolvency (status) Action in personam – crimes against persons Action quasi in rem – Judicial foreclosure of mortgage (filed against a person, but involves property); property is attached in action in personam; action for partition *Ejectment: action in personam because binding only between the parties. 3. Distinguish and importance of distinction: extra-territorial service; preliminary attachment: requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons Importance: Extraterritorial service of summons may be affected in actions in rem or quasi in rem but not in an action in personam. 2 In preliminary attachment, the requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply where the action is in rem or quasi in rem. II. Jurisdiction a. Classification: 1. Subject matter Jurisdiction, define. Authority and power of the court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceeding in question belongs. *RTC -> incapable of pecuniary estimation 2. Personal Jurisdiction, define. Power of the court to bind a party or person. Jurisdiction over plaintiff is acquired by the filing of complaint. Jurisdiction over the defendant is obtained by service of summons or his voluntary appearance. 3. Jurisdiction over the res, define. Power of the court to try a case which would bind real or personal property or determine the status of the party. b. Define and distinguish: 1. Original Jurisdiction Exercised by a court in the first instance, as for the instance the jurisdiction of MTC over ejectment cases 2. Appellate Jurisdiction Exercised by a court over a case elevated to it by way of review. CA 3. Exclusive Jurisdiction Exercised by a court to the exclusion of all other courts. RTC -> IPE 4. Concurrent Jurisdiction Exercised over a case by two or more courts. Special civil action for certiorari jurisdiction over which may be exercised by the RTC, CA, and SC III. Outline the jurisdiction of the SC in civil cases I. Original A. Exclusive i. Pet. For CPM – CA, COMELEC, COA, CTA and SB B. Concurrent i. With CA 1. Pet. for CPM – RTC; and NLRC ii. With CA and RTC 3 IV. 1. Pet. For CPM – First level court and other bodies 2. Pet. For Habeas Corpus and Quo warranto iii. With RTC 1. Actions against ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls iv. With Sandiganbayan 1. Pet. For CPM, habeas corpus, injunctions and ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto in PCGG cases v. With the CA, SB and RTC i. Pet. For writ of amparo ii. Pet. For a writ of habeas data II. Appellate 1. Petition for Review on certiorari against: i. CA; ii. Sandiganbayan; iii. RTC in cases involving – 1. Constitutionality or validity of a treaty, international or executive agreement, law presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation; 2. Legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or a penalty in relation thereto; 3. Jurisdiction of a lower court; and 4. Pure question of law. i. Note: appeals from MTC decisions even if on pure question of law is to the RTC; appeal from the RTC’s decision rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction is to the CA even if on pure question/s of law (see: S2 R42; Tan vs People, 381 SCRA 75 5. Court of Tax Appeals en banc (RA 9282) 6. Final judgment or order in a writ of amparo or habeas data case Outline the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in civil Cases I. Original A. Exclusive i. Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC; ii. Special civil action for certiorari against a RTC’s order approving or disapproving the rehabilitation plan or any order issued after the approval of the rehabilitation plan (FR, Rules of Procedure) B. Concurrent (pwede kahit alin, depende sa plaintiff) i. with the SC ii. with SC and RTC iii. with SC, SB, RTC – pet for writ of amparo and habeas data II. Appellate i. Ordinary appeals from: 4 a. RTC, except in cases exclusively appealable to the SC b. Family Courts c. Special Commercial Courts ii. Appeal by petition for review (R43) from: a. See lists b. Any other quasi-judicial agency, instrumentality, board or commission in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions. i. See CTA special rules of appeal c. Petition for review (R42) from the RTC in cases appealed thereto from the lower courts d. Petition for review (R42) from the RTC action as a special agrarian court (see : CARL) 1. Does the CA have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform acts necessary to resolve factual issues? i. B.P. 129 ii. However, Crispino vs Tansay, 5 Dec. 2016 – CA’s power to receive evidence is qualified by CA’s internal rules- limited in cases of new trial based on newly discovered evidence. - Yes. Under Sec. 9 of BP 129, the CA has the power mentioned above, in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. However, the SC has held that the CA’s power to receive evidence is qualified by the CA’s internal rules. Therefore, in accordance with such rules, in appeals in civil cases, the CA may receive evidence only when it grants a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. (Crispino v. Tansay) V. Outline the jurisdiction of RTC in civil cases (See Amendment jurisdictional amount –RA 11576) A. Original 1. Exclusive a. Actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation (IPE); b. Actions involving title to or possession of real property or an interest therein, where the assessed value of such property exceeds P 20, 000 or in Metro Manila P 50, 000 except forcible entry and unlawful detainer. (see Amendment -- ); c. Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds P 300, 000 or in Metro Manila P 400, 000) ( see amendment - ) d. Matters of probate, testate or intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds P 300, 000 or in Metro Manila P 400, 000 ( see amendment) e. Actions involving marriage and marital relations; 5 f. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi – judicial functions (eg. boundary dispute between a municipality and independent component city { municipality of Kananga vs Madrona, G.R. No. 141375, 30 April 2003}; g. Other cases where the demand, exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs, or the value of the property exceeds ( P 300, 000 or in Metro Manila (P 400, 000): see sc circular no. 09-94); h. Actions for annulment of MTC judgments; i. Actions for recognition and enforcement of arbitration agreement, vacation or modification of arbitration award, application for arbitration award and supervision (Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004); j. Citizen suit under sect 41 of Clean Air Act; k. Petition for assistance in the liquidation of a bank or quasi bank filed by a receiver pursuant to New Central Bank Act ; 2. Family Courts a. Petition for guardianship, custody of children, and habeas corpus in relation to the latter; b. Petition for adoption of children and revocation thereof; (see amendment); c. Complaints for annulment or nullification of marriage, those relating to marital status and property relations of spouses or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains; d. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment; e. Summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code; 3. Special Commercial Courts a. Cases involving violations of Intellectual Property Rights; b. Cases enumerated under Section 5 of PD 902- ( fraud scheme cases, intracorporate disputes, election cases, petition for suspension of payments and/or rehabilitation proceedings); c. Rehabilitation, insolvency and liquidation cases brought under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of 2010 and those emanating from administrative proceedings (A.M. No. 03-03-03- SC, as amended 4. Special Agrarian Courts a. Original and exclusive – determination of just compensation to landowners; b. Concurrent i. With SC ii. With SC and CA iii. With SC, CA and Sandiganbayan B. Appellate i. All cases decided by the MTCs in their respective territorial jurisdictions 6 VI. Outline the jurisdiction of the MTC in civil cases (See Amendment jurisdictional amount –RA s11576) A. Original 1. Exclusive a. Actions involving personal property whose value does not exceed P300,000 or in Metro Manila P400, 000 (see amendment); b. Actions demanding sums of money not exceeding P 300,000 or in metro manila P400, 000 exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs; (see amendment); c. Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim does not exceed P300,000 or in Metro Manila P400,000 exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs; (see amendment); d. Probate proceedings, testate or intestate where the gross value of the estate does not exceed P300,000 or in Metro Manila P400,000 (see amendment); e. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases f. Actions involving title to or possession of real property, or any interst therein, where the assessed value does not exceed P 20, 000 or in Metro Manila P 50, 000 exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs. ( see amendment); g. See insurance code- concurrent RTC/MTC with Insurance Commissioner – insurance claim (does not exceed P5,000,000); h. See LGC – enforcement of amicable settlement executed before the barangay regardless of the amount B. Delegated a. Cadastral or land registration cases – where no controversy or opposition or contested lots the value of which does not exceed P100,000, as may be assigned by the SC (if yes, RTC?) SC 64-93 1. Cadastral or land registration cases filed before the effectivity of this Administrative Circular but where trial had not commenced yet, shall be assigned by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court who has jurisdiction over the same to the appropriate MeTC, MTCC, MTC or MCTC 2. In RTCs where trial of cadastral or land registration cases has commenced, the same shall remain with the court where the case had been pending as of the time of the effectivity of this Administrative Circular. However, by agreement of the parties, the case may be transferred to the appropriate METC, MTCC, MTC or MCTC. C. Special a. Pet. For habeas corpus in the absence of RTC D. Summary Procedure a. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered; and 7 b. All other court cases except probate proceedings, where the total claim does not exceed P 100, 000 or in Metro Manila P 200, 000 exclusive of interest and costs. E. Rule on Small Claims - Under the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, courts are mandated to resolve a case within thirty (30) days from the day the statement of claim was filed. VII. Outline the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan in civil cases a. Exclusive Original 1. PCGG cases for forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth (EO 1, 2, 14, and 14-A in 1986); provided that the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the SC. b. Concurrent original with SC, CA and RTC 1. Pet. For writ of amparo and habeas data VIII. PRINCIPLES and CASES 1. a. May jurisdiction be conferred by waiver? - No. b. By laches/estoppel? - No. However, a party may be barred by laches or estoppel from challenging the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction must be filed before it is barred by laches or estoppel (S3 R47). c. Action in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation (IPE) vs. capable of PE; - If IPE, RTC (pursuant to Sec. 19 of BP 129). Action capable of PE: one wherein the primary relief sought is a claim for sum of money or assertion of possession of personal/real property. Such action shall be based on the amount of the monetary claim or value of personal/real property. Action IPE: one wherein the primary relief sought is not a claim for sum of money. Cannot be valued in money terms. d. - Examples of IPE (IRR CARDS) Specific performance Rescission or annulment of contract Injunction Declaratory relief Reformation of contract Action for revival of judgment Citizen suit (Clean air act) Action for abatement of nuisance 8 e. Can a suit for injunction be aptly filed with the SC to stop the President of the Philippines from entering into a peace agreement with the National Democratic Front? (03 Bar Q11) - No. An action for injunction is IPE. Hence, SC has no jurisdiction over the same, exclusive original jurisdiction being vested in RTC. f. Pajares vs Remarkable Laundry, 20 February 2017 – breach of contract with recovery of P 280,000 as damages – RTC or MTC? - MTC. Breach of contract is capable of PE, where damages sought did not exceed P300,000. An analysis of the complaint shows that the principal relief sought by the plaintiff is the enforcement of the penal clause for liquidated damages. g. Chairman Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) vs. Lim, 24 August 2016 – is an action for prohibition filed before CA proper where the rule or regulation was issued by the government agency pursuant not to its quasijudicial but to its quasi-legislative power? RTC or CA? - Prohibition is not proper where the rule was issued by the government agency pursuant not to its quasi-judicial but to its quasi-legislative power. - RTC, case is for declaratory relief, therefore IPE. h. Is an action for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage an action incapable of pecuniary estimation? RTC or MTC? - No. It is a real action which affects the title of the mortgaged realty as the foreclosure sale would divest the mortgagor of their title over the realty. - MTC or RTC, either, depending upon the assessed value of the realty mortgage. i. Russel vs. Vestil, 364 Phil 392 (1999) Is an action for partition of real property incapable of pecuniary estimation? RTC or MTC?? Compare: if main purpose of the action is the annulment of a deed of partition and declaration of heirs – RTC or MTC? - No. It is a real action capable of PE (assessed value of the realty). - MTC if the main purpose of partition is the distribution and delivery of a specific portion of the property to the co-owner. - RTC if the main purpose of the action is the annulment of partition and declaration of heirs, with the partition of the property merely being incidental to the main action. *See also: Huguete vs Embudo, G.R. No. 149554, 1 July 2003 – an action for partition is a real action – hence depending on assessed value j. Vda. De Murga vs Chan, 25 SCRA 441 – interpretation of lease contract vs unlawful detainer – RTC or MTC? Note: this doctrine was overturned in the case of Union Bank vs Maunlad Homes, Inc. , G.R. No. 190071, 15 August 2012) 9 - - Vda De Murga v. Chan: MTC has no jurisdiction. The jugular vein of the controversy hinges on the correct interpretation of clause 7 of the lease contract. Union Bank v. Maunlad Homes: MTC has jurisdiction. In ejectment cases, MTC has the jurisdiction to preliminary determine the issue of ownership in order to determine the issue of possession. MTC was granted authority to resolve such issue to determine the issue of possession, wherein it is allowed to interpret and enforce the contract of agreement. Denying MTC jurisdiction over a complain merely because the issue of possession requires the interpretation of a contract will effectively rule out unlawful detainer as remedy. k. Lapitan vs Scandia, 24 SCRA 479 – action for rescission of contract is IPE damages sought is merely incidental. l. Ortigas & company, ltd vs Herrera, 120 SCRA 89 – action for specific performance is IPE and the payment of sum of money is incidental. m. Is an action for expropriation IPE? RTC or MTC? - Yes, IPE. RTC, for eminent domain cases. The subject of an expropriation case is the determination of the government’s right to take property for public use. (Brgy San Roque v. Pastor) n. Heirs of Bautista vs Lindo, 10 March 2014 – is an action to repurchase the land IPE or considered as a real action since the ultimate objective is action for reconveyance of the land – to obtain title to or possession over the land? RTC or MTC? - IPE. The reconveyance of the title to petitioners is sole dependent on the exercise of such right to repurchase the lots in question and is not the principal remedy sought. Reconveyance of the lot is merely the outcome of the performance of the obligation to return the property comformably to the express provision of CA 141. o. Which court has jdn over an action filed to determine whether the Ombudsman had the power to inquire into bank deposits under section 15(8) of RA 6770 even if there is no pending case? Office of Ombudsman vs Ibay, 3 September 2001. - RTC. Action for declaratory relief (According to SC decision pursuant to S1 R63 and Sec. 19 of BP129). p. Consular Area Residents Association vs Cassanova, 12 april 2016 – See Section 21, RA 7227-Only SC can issue injuction re implementation of the projects for conversion into alternative productive uses of the military reservations. 10 2. Ultimate Objective Test a. Gen. Rule: action for specific performance = incapable of pecuniary estimation Exception: Ruby Shelters Builders vs. Formaran, G.R. No. 175914, 10 February 2009; Gochan vs Gochan, 423 Phil. 491 – the ultimate objective test provides that even if the action is for specific performance but the ultimate objective of the plaintiff is to obtain title to real property, the action is a real action and not one incapable of pecuniary estimation. b. Gen. Rule: action for annulment of deed of sale= incapable of pecuniary estimation Exception: Barangay Piapi vs. Talip, 7 September 2005 – the ultimate objective test provides that even if the ultimate objective of the plaintiff is to obtain title to real property, the action is a real action and not one incapable of pecuniary estimation and the jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the real property, not its market value. c. Chua vs. Total Office Products & Services, 30 September 2005: An action for annulment of the extra-judicial foreclosure sale of real property is a real action since it affects the title to the real property mortgaged, hence jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the real property. d. Foreclosure of mortgage – incapable of pecuniary estimation or real action? Chua vs Total office products and services, 30 Sept. 2005, an action for annulment of real estate mortgage is a real action “ if there has already been a foreclosure sale; Compare: First Sarmiento Holdings inc. vs Phil Bank of Communications, 19 June 2018- the complaint for annulment or cancellation of a REM is incapable of pecuniary estimation even if the property had already been foreclosed when the complaint was filed since the ownership and possession of the property remained with petitioner. This is because at the time the complaint was filed, the certificate of sale was not yet registered with the Registry of Deeds. e. Appeal to RTC: In real actions there is a need to allege the assessed value of the real property subject of the action, or the interest therein, for purposes of determining which court (RTC or MTC) has jurisdiction over the action. However, it must be clarified that this requirement applies only if these courts are in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, hence the assessed value of the disputed lot is immaterial for purposes of the RTC’s appellate jurisdiction. (Arrienda vs. Kalaw, 6 April 2016) 11 f. Padian vs. Dinglasan, 20 March 2013 – an action for cancellation of a TCT is a real action where the court has to determine which of two titles over the same lot is valid. In such a case, jurisdiction depends upon the assessed value. Since the complaint did not allege the assessed value, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage even on appeal. Same principle in the case of Heirs of Julao vs. Sps de Jesus, 29 September 2014 – an action for recovery of possession is a real action and the assessed value of the property sought to be recovered determines the court’s jurisdiction. Failure to allege the assessed value in the complaint, the same is dismissible for lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even for the first time on appeal. Compare: the factual allegations in a complaint should be considered in tandem with the statements and inscriptions on the documents attached to it as annexes or integral parts. A mere reference to the attached document could facially resolve the question on jurisdiction (Tumpag vs Tumpag, 29 September 2014) Compare: Regalado vs Dela Rama, 13 December 2017: Despite the fact that the parcel of land was 44 hectares, it was error for the trial court to take cognizance of the case on a presumption since jurisdiction is conferred by law. It cannot be presumed. g. Is an action for interpleader considered as an action incapable of pecuniary estimation? – No. (Makati devt corp vs Tanjuatco, 27 SCRA 401). interpleader is capable of pecuniary estimation: Apply jurisdictional amount test. *See Contrary opinion of Atty. Riguera. - xxx h. Is an action for consignation considered as an action incapable of pecuniary estimation? - No. (Ascue vs. CA, 196 SCRA 804). It is capable of pecuniary estimation. Apply jurisdictional amount test. i. An action for specific performance or to pay the sum of ___ vs An action for specific performance and to pay the sum of ___. Cruz vs. Tan, 87 Phil. 627 – the alternative relief for damages made the action for specific performance capable of pecuniary estimation hence apply jurisdictional amount test. Compare: An action for specific performance and to pay the sum of ___ is an action that would be incapable of pecuniary estimation because the claim of sum of money is not an alternative relief but 12 additional and is not equivalent of the action for specific performance. j. An action to compel the assignment of shares of stock is an action for recovery of personal property is not considered as an action incapable for pecuniary estimation (Gochan vs Gochan, G.R. No. 146089, 13 Dec. 2001. Jurisdiction would be based on the value of the shares of stock. 3. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court or quasi-court Which court or body has jurisdiction over a boundary dispute between a municipality (Kananga, leyte) and independent component city (ormoc city)? (Mun. of Kananga vs Madrona, G.R. No. 131375, 30 April 2003) - Xxx Which court has jdn over an action for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, in this case, the judgment of the Hawaii District Court against the estate of Ferdinand Marcos awarding US 1.9 Billion damages to the human rights victim? (Mijares vs Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, 12 April 2005) - Xxx 4. Computation of jurisdictional amount: a. Claim for money; exclusions from jurisdictional amount In computing the jurisdictional amount- damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs are excluded. b. Gomez vs Montalban, 548 SCRA 693 – the accrued interest on a loan is a primary and inseparable component of the cause of action, not merely incidental thereto, and must be included in the computation of the jurisdictional amount, where the debtor had agreed in writing to pay interest and the accrued interest is determinable at the time of the filing of the complaint. c. Jurisdiction is determined by the cause of action as alleged in the complaint and not by the amount ultimately substantiated and awarded. d. SC Circular 09-94: “the exclusion of damages of whatever kind” in determining the jurisdictional amount under RA 7691 ‘applies only 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. Otherwise put, “in cases where the cause of action principally involves a claim for damages (as in a torts case) the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.)Note: even if action is principally an action for damages- attorneys fees is excluded in the computation. 13 e. Movers – Baseco Integrated Port Services, Ic vs. Cyborg Leasing corp., G.r. No. 131755, 25 Oct. 1999 – damages with writ of replevin ( repossession of forklift) is damages incidental ? p.54 Riguera - xxx f. Good Devt Corp vs Tutaan, L-41641, 30 Sept. 1976 – loan secured by chattel mortgage- see relief prayed – alternative relief – p. 55 –Riguera - xxx g. Compare: Fernandez vs International Corporate Bank, 7 October 1999 – case : collection of sum of money (350k) with writ of replevin ((500K) – RTC jdn? P.55 Riguera - xxx h. Compare: 08 Bar Q4 – p 56-Riguera - xxx IX. Special Commercial Court 1. Gonzales vs GJH Land, Inc., 10 Nov. 2015 - a court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over a particular case’s subject matter is conferred by law; compare: court’s exercise of jurisdiction is, unless provided by law itself, is governed by the rules of court or by the orders issued from time to time by the court. “the matter of whether the RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court is only a matter of procedure and has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.” 2. Concorde Condominium Inc vs Bacullo, 17 Feb. 2016 - action for injunction with damages- the case was raffled to BR 146 SCC court - the designation of Br. 146 as an SCC by no means diminished its power as a court of gen. jdn to hear and decide cases of all nature, whether civil, criminal or special proceedings. X. Special Agrarian Court 1. Just compensation, Sec 57, CARL (Land Bank vs. Dalauta, 8 August 2017) XI. Jurisdiction over labor matters (?) 1.`Geor Grotjahn GMBH & Co. vs Isnani, G.R. No. 109272, 10 August 1994- general jdn of RTC vs LA – collection of loan and cash advances; later employee filed an illegal dismissal and sought dismissal of rtc case since same is intertwined with the dismissal case. (relate to Malayan Insurance vs Alibudbud, 20 April 2016 – re car plan 2. Compare : Banez vs Valdevilla, G.R. No. 128024, 9 May 2000 3. See Yusen Air & Sea Service, Inc. vs Villamor, G.R. No. 154060, 16 Aug. 2005 – re noncompeting clause 14 4. See PCIB vs Gomez, 23 Nov. 2015 – tort case/ XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) 1. What is the exclusive jdn of HLURB? DARAB 1. What is the exclusive jdn of DARAB? See: 07 Bar Q8A; 2. Does the RTC have JDN over an action to quiet title over a public land within the Baguio Townsite Reservation? (Heirs of Pocdo vs Avilla, 19 Mar 2014 3. JDN over cancellation of CLOAs, emancipation patents and other titles issued under the agrarian reform program? Sec of DAR vs Heirs of Redemptor, 12 Mar 2019 COA -jdn? National commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)- JDN? See Unduran vs Aberasturi, 20 Oct. 2015 Barangay Conciliation – JDN? 1. Residence of the attorney-in-fact? Abagatnan vs Clarito, 7 August 2017 2. Estate of a deceased person ? – juridical entity? VDA. De Borromeo vs pogoy, 126 SCRA 217 Docket fees: Manchester Case (page 90) Tacay v. RTC Page 94 (allowed lien of docket fees) Exemption in non-payment of docket fees: 1. Damages only arise after filing of initial case (court awarded damages after settlement of case) 2. Filing of criminal action, if damages award is not indicated 3. Indigent litigants, writ of habeas data 4. Writ of Amparo Failure to state cause of action - ultimate facts insufficient - not dismissible; limited to the confines of the - raised earliest possible time vs. Lack of cause of action - plaintiff failed to prove evidentiary facts - ground for dismissal Bacasalang vs Zamora 15