Difference between Jurisdiction & Exercise of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court to hear and decide cases, and to execute judgments. The exercise of this power or authority is the exercise of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is the power and authority to hear, try, and decide a case; it does not depend on the regularity of the exercise of that power (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25 Phil. 245 [1913]; Century Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Fuentes, 2 SCRA 1168 [1961]). It is conferred by substantive law, and, insofar as the Regional Trial Courts are concerned, by B.P. Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) or by other statutes. On the other hand, the manner of the exercise of jurisdiction is, unless otherwise provided by the law itself, governed by the Rules of Court or by orders which are, from time to time, issued by this Court. Under Section 17 of B.P. Blg. 129, the exercise of jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts and their judges is basically regional in scope (Malaloan vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 249, 260 [1994]), but under Section 18, it may be limited to the territorial area of the branch in which the judge sits. The said section reads:
"Sec. 18. Authority to define territory appurtenant to each branch. — The Supreme Court shall define the territory over which a branch of the Regional Trial Court shall exercise its authority. The territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch concerned for purposes of determining the venue of all writs, proceedings, or actions, whether civil or criminal,..."