Basic principles on jurisdiction (subject matter)
In law, nothing is as elementary as the concept of jurisdiction, for the same is
the foundation upon which the courts exercise their power of adjudication, and
without which, no rights or obligation could emanate from any decision or
resolution.
Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try,
and decide a case.[1] In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have
authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among
others, jurisdiction over the subject matter.[2] It is axiomatic that
jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the
general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred
by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties
or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists.[3]
Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try,
and decide a case.[1] In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have
authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among
others, jurisdiction over the subject matter.[2] It is axiomatic that
jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the
general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred
by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties
or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists.[3]
The power of a court to hear and decide a controversy is called its
jurisdiction, which includes the power to determine whether or not it has
the authority to hear and determine the controversy presented, and the
right to decide whether or not the statement of facts that confer
jurisdiction exists, as well as all other matters that arise in the case
legitimately before the court. Jurisdiction imports the power and
authority to declare the law, to expound or to apply the laws exclusive of
the idea of the power to make the laws, to hear and determine issues of
law and of fact, the power to hear, determine, and pronounce judgment on
the issues before the court, and the power to inquire into the facts, to
apply the law, and to pronounce the judgment.[4]
But judicial power is to be distinguished from jurisdiction in that the
former cannot exist without the latter and must of necessity be
exercised within the scope of the latter, not beyond it.[5]
Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law because it is conferred only
by law, as distinguished from venue, which is a purely procedural
matter. The conferring law may be the Constitution, or the statute
organizing the court or tribunal, or the special or general statute
defining the jurisdiction of an existing court or tribunal, but it must
be in force at the time of the commencement of the action.[6]
Jurisdiction cannot be presumed or implied, but must appear clearly from
the law or it will not be held to exist,[7] but it may be conferred on a
court or tribunal by necessary implication as well as by express
terms.[8] It cannot be conferred by the agreement of the parties;[9] or
by the court's acquiescence;[10] or by the erroneous belief of the court
that it had jurisdiction;[11] or by the waiver of objections;[12] or by
the silence of the parties.[13]
The three essential elements of jurisdiction are: one, that the court
must have cognizance of the class of cases to which the one to be
adjudged belongs; two, that the proper parties must be present; and,
three, that the point decided must be, in substance and effect, within
the issue. The test for determining jurisdiction is ordinarily the
nature of the case as made by the complaint and the relief sought; and
the primary and essential nature of the suit, not its incidental
character, determines the jurisdiction of the court relative to it.[14]
Jurisdiction may be classified into original and appellate, the former
being the power to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for
judicial action for the first time under conditions provided by law, and
the latter being the authority of a court higher in rank to re-examine
the final order or judgment of a lower court that tried the case
elevated for judicial review. Considering that the two classes of
jurisdiction are exclusive of each other, one must be expressly
conferred by law. One does not flow, nor is inferred, from the
other.[15]
Jurisdiction is to be distinguished from its exercise.[16] When there is
jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, the decision of all
other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of that
jurisdiction.[17] Considering that jurisdiction over the subject matter
determines the power of a court or tribunal to hear and determine a
particular case, its existence does not depend upon the regularity of
its exercise by the court or tribunal.[18] The test of jurisdiction is
whether or not the court or tribunal had the power to enter on the
inquiry, not whether or not its conclusions in the course thereof were
correct, for the power to decide necessarily carries with it the power
to decide wrongly as well as rightly. In a manner of speaking, the lack
of the power to act at all results in a judgment that is void; while the
lack of the power to render an erroneous decision results in a judgment
that is valid until set aside.[19] That the decision is erroneous does
not divest the court or tribunal that rendered it of the jurisdiction
conferred by law to try the case.[20] Hence, if the court or tribunal
has jurisdiction over the civil action, whatever error may be attributed
to it is simply one of judgment, not of jurisdiction; appeal, not
certiorari, lies to correct the error.[21]
[1] Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Customs, G.R. No.
209830, June 17, 2015, 759 SCRA 306, 310, citing Spouses Genato v. Viola,
625 Phil. 514, 527 (2010).
[2] Id.
[3] Id., See Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. Republic, 679
Phil. 508 (2012), citing Allied Domecq Philippines, Inc. v. Villon, 482
Phil. 894, 900 (2004).
[4] 21 CJS § l5, p. 30.
[5] Id. at 32.
[6] Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92326, June 24, 1992, 205 SCRA
356, 362; Lee v. Municipal Trial Court of Legaspi, 145 SCRA 408.
[7] Tenorio v. Batangas Transportation Co., 90 Phil 804 (1952); Dimagiba v.
Geraldez, 102 Phil 1016; De Jesus, et al. v. Garcia, et al., No. L-26816,
February 28, 1967, 19 SCRA 554, 562.
[8] 21 CJS § 29, p. 40; thus, a statute declaring that there is a remedy for
every wrong cannot be relied on to confer jurisdiction on a court in a
particular case, because the remedy may lie with the Legislature; also, a
court has no jurisdiction over a matter that is not an action or special
proceeding provided by statute or the Rules of Court unless the matter
involves a wrong that requires judicial action, and for which there is no
adequate remedy at law.
[9] United States v. Castañares, 18 Phil 210, 214 (1911); unlike venue,
which may be regulated by the agreement of the parties.
[10] Molina v. De La Riva, 6 Phil 12, 15 (1906); Squillantini v. Republic,
88 Phil. 135 (1951).
[11] Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No 116033, February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA
747; Cruzcosa v. Concepcion, 101 Phil 146.
[12] Sabulao v. De los Angeles, 39 SCRA 94; Vargas v. Akai Phil., Inc., 156
SCRA 531.
[13] United States v. De La Santa, 9 Phil 22, 26 (1907).
[14] 21 CJS § 35.
[15] Garcia v. De Jesus, G. R. No. 88158, March 4, 1992, 206 SCRA 779.
[16] Lim v. Pacquing, G.R. No. 115044, September 1, 1994, 236 SCRA 211, 218;
Lamagan v. De la Cruz, No. L-27950, July 29, 1971, 40 SCRA 101, 107.
[17] 21 CJS § 26.
[18] Century Insurance Co., Inc. v. Fuentes, No. L-16039, August 31, 1961, 2
SCRA 1168, 1173.
[19] 21 CJS § 27.
[20] Quiason, Philippine Courts and their Jurisdiction, 1993 ed., p. 199.
[21] De Castro v. Delta Motor Sales Corporation, No. L-34971, May 21, 1974,
57 SCRA 344, 346-347.