Original and Appellate | Classification of Jurisdiction | JURISDICTION

Below is a comprehensive and meticulous discussion of the classification of jurisdiction into original and appellate under Philippine remedial law. While this overview is detailed, always consult the relevant constitutional provisions, statutes (e.g., Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended; the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), the Rules of Court, and prevailing jurisprudence for the most authoritative guidance.

I. INTRODUCTION TO JURISDICTION

  1. Definition of Jurisdiction
    Jurisdiction is the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. It is conferred by law and cannot be waived or enlarged by the parties. A judgment or decision rendered by a court without jurisdiction is void.

  2. Sources of Jurisdiction

    • Constitution (e.g., 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Article VIII)
    • Statutes (e.g., B.P. Blg. 129, R.A. No. 7975, R.A. No. 8249, R.A. No. 9282, etc.)
    • Rules of Court (on procedural aspects)
    • Jurisprudence (Supreme Court interpretations)

  3. Classification by Hierarchy

    • Supreme Court
    • Court of Appeals
    • Sandiganbayan
    • Court of Tax Appeals
    • Regional Trial Courts
    • First-Level Courts (Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)

II. CLASSIFICATION OF JURISDICTION: ORIGINAL & APPELLATE

A. Original Jurisdiction

Original jurisdiction is the power of a court to take cognizance of a case at its inception, to hear the case in the first instance, and to conduct a trial on the facts and the law.

  1. Exclusive Original vs. Concurrent/Shared Original Jurisdiction

    • Exclusive Original Jurisdiction: Only one court has the authority to hear and decide the case at its inception. Other courts are barred from entertaining it.
    • Concurrent Original Jurisdiction: Two or more courts may initially take cognizance of the same case. The plaintiff or petitioner often exercises the choice as to which court to approach.

  2. Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

    • Under Section 5(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court (SC) exercises original jurisdiction over certain special civil actions and extraordinary writs:
      • Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls
      • Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus
    • This jurisdiction is often concurrent with the Court of Appeals (CA), the Sandiganbayan (SB), and the Regional Trial Courts (RTC), depending on the subject matter and the nature of the respondents (e.g., if the respondent is a quasi-judicial agency, the concurrency may vary).
    • The principle of the hierarchy of courts generally requires that these petitions be filed first in the lower court that has concurrent jurisdiction, except for special and compelling reasons.

  3. Original Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals

    • The CA has original jurisdiction over actions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus when they are directed against:
      • Lower courts (e.g., RTCs)
      • Quasi-judicial agencies (e.g., NLRC, Civil Service Commission, etc.), except those falling under the specialized jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan, or the Court of Tax Appeals.
    • The CA also issues writs of amparo, habeas data, and continuing mandamus where appropriate.

  4. Original Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

    • The Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over:
      • Violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019), the Plunder Law (R.A. No. 7080), and other offenses or felonies committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying positions classified as Salary Grade 27 or higher (or those specifically enumerated by law).
      • It also has concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court and the RTC over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus in criminal cases or matters within its jurisdiction.

  5. Original Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)

    • The CTA has exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final assessments, decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, decisions of the Commissioner of Customs, local tax cases, and other specific tax-related disputes, subject to the thresholds set by law.
    • It also has original jurisdiction in petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus arising from administrative tax cases involving the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), the Bureau of Customs, or local tax authorities.

  6. Original Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs)

    • The RTCs generally have original jurisdiction over:
      • All civil actions in which the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation or those that exceed the jurisdictional amounts for first-level courts.
      • Criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of first-level courts.
      • Family law cases, land registration, admiralty and maritime cases above a certain value, probate cases (depending on the estate’s value), and other matters as provided by law.
    • They also have concurrent original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals (and in some instances with the Sandiganbayan) to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus when such writs are directed at lower courts or officials within their territorial jurisdiction.

  7. Original Jurisdiction of First-Level Courts (MTC, MeTC, MTCC, MCTC)

    • These courts exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over:
      • Civil actions involving personal property or real property where the assessed value or the amount of demand does not exceed the jurisdictional amount (e.g., generally up to ₱400,000 in Metropolitan Manila and up to ₱300,000 or lower amounts outside Metro Manila, subject to amendments by law).
      • Criminal cases involving offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years, irrespective of the amount of fine, or as otherwise specified by law.
      • Small claims cases (under the Revised Rules on Small Claims) for amounts not exceeding a threshold set by the Supreme Court.
    • Barangay conciliation is required for certain disputes before filing the case in first-level courts, except in specific exceptions.

B. Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a court to review and modify, affirm, or reverse the final judgment or order of a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency. The exercise of appellate jurisdiction generally requires the filing of an appeal or a petition for review in accordance with the Rules of Court or special laws.

  1. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

    • Section 5(2), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution vests in the Supreme Court the power to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari final judgments and orders of lower courts, including the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, and the Regional Trial Courts in certain instances.
    • Modes of review include ordinary appeal (Rule 45, on pure questions of law) and petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 if there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

  2. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals

    • The CA exercises appellate jurisdiction over:
      • All final judgments and orders of the RTCs in all criminal and civil cases, except those within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Tax Appeals.
      • Decisions of certain quasi-judicial agencies (e.g., National Labor Relations Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Ombudsman in certain administrative disciplinary cases, etc.) through Petitions for Review under Rule 43 or the relevant special rules.
    • It may affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment appealed from and may also remand the case for further proceedings.

  3. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

    • The Sandiganbayan has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in cases involving public officials below Salary Grade 27 charged with offenses under the Anti-Graft laws (or crimes in relation to office) if those cases were tried in the RTC.
    • The Sandiganbayan’s decisions may further be reviewed by the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petitions for review on certiorari.

  4. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)

    • The CTA exercises appellate jurisdiction to review decisions, orders, or resolutions of:
      • The Commissioner of Internal Revenue
      • The Commissioner of Customs
      • The Central Board of Assessment Appeals (in local taxation cases)
      • The Secretary of Finance on customs matters or tariff-related cases, among others.
    • Appeals from the CTA go to the Supreme Court, generally via Rule 45.

  5. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs)

    • The RTC exercises appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by the lower courts (Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts) within its territorial jurisdiction.
    • Typically, these are appeals from civil and criminal cases falling within the first-level courts’ jurisdictional amounts or penalties.

  6. No Appellate Jurisdiction of First-Level Courts

    • First-level courts (MTCs, MeTCs, etc.) generally do not exercise appellate jurisdiction. They are trial courts for minor civil and criminal cases. Appeals from them lie with the RTC.

III. CONCURRENT AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION

  • Concurrent original jurisdiction among the Supreme Court, CA, Sandiganbayan, and RTCs typically involves special civil actions for the issuance of extraordinary writs (e.g., certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus).
  • Exclusive original jurisdiction is vested by law in certain courts for specific cases (e.g., CTA in tax cases, Sandiganbayan in graft cases involving high-ranking officials, etc.).
  • On the appellate level, concurrency is less common, but there can be statutory exceptions or “direct appeals” (e.g., the option to directly appeal certain cases from the RTC to the Supreme Court if only questions of law are involved, or the CTA En Banc from CTA Division decisions).

IV. RELEVANCE TO LEGAL ETHICS AND LEGAL FORMS

  1. Legal Ethics Considerations

    • A lawyer must determine the proper forum before filing a case. Filing in the wrong court wastes judicial resources and can subject counsel to possible disciplinary actions for negligence or dilatory practice.
    • The Code of Professional Responsibility reminds lawyers to uphold the dignity of the courts and avoid forum shopping or other abuses of court processes.

  2. Legal Forms

    • Complaints and petitions filed in a court of original jurisdiction must comply with the Rules on Civil Procedure (Rules 1 to 71) and the specific form requirements (e.g., verification, certification against forum shopping).
    • Appeals or petitions for review in courts of appellate jurisdiction (from MTC to RTC, or RTC to CA, or CA/Sandiganbayan/CTA to the Supreme Court) must strictly observe the relevant modes of appeal (e.g., Rule 41, Rule 42, Rule 43, Rule 45, or Rule 65 of the Rules of Court).
    • Any errors in the form or timeliness of appeals can result in dismissal. Thus, precise adherence to procedural requirements is mandatory.

V. PRACTICAL POINTS AND JURISPRUDENTIAL TRENDS

  1. Hierarchy of Courts

    • Even if there is concurrent original jurisdiction for extraordinary writs, the Supreme Court consistently reminds litigants to observe the hierarchy of courts—file first in the lowest court with jurisdiction except for special and compelling reasons (e.g., when the issue is of national importance or where there is a strong public interest that justifies direct resort to the Supreme Court).

  2. Strict Construction of Jurisdictional Conferment

    • Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law. When the law or the Constitution defines a court’s jurisdiction, courts cannot expand or diminish it by judicial fiat.
    • If a statute is ambiguous on jurisdiction, the Supreme Court’s interpretations in jurisprudence become vital.

  3. Appeal as a Statutory Right

    • The right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege. One must follow precisely the modes and periods of appeal provided by law or risk losing the remedy.
    • Final and executory judgments cannot generally be modified on appeal if the period to appeal or the procedural rules were not properly complied with.

  4. Administrative Circulars and Amendments

    • The Supreme Court from time to time issues circulars or administrative issuances affecting jurisdictional amounts (e.g., small claims cases) and simplifying procedures in line with judicial reforms.

VI. SUMMARY

  • Original jurisdiction means the court is the first forum to hear and try a case, receiving evidence and determining both the facts and the applicable law.
  • Appellate jurisdiction means the court reviews the final orders or judgments of a lower court or tribunal, typically limited to questions of law or mixed questions of fact and law, depending on the specific mode of appeal.
  • The Supreme Court has both original (for certain special civil actions and diplomatic cases) and appellate jurisdiction (over final judgments of lower courts and quasi-judicial agencies).
  • The Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, and Regional Trial Courts likewise have delineated original and appellate jurisdictions laid down in the Constitution, statutes, and the Rules of Court.
  • Municipal/Metropolitan/City/ Circuit Trial Courts generally have only original jurisdiction over minor civil and criminal cases and no appellate jurisdiction. Appeals from these courts go to the RTC, and thereafter to the CA or Sandiganbayan or CTA, and eventually, if warranted, to the Supreme Court.
  • Strict compliance with procedural rules, especially regarding jurisdiction, is critical. The hierarchy of courts must be respected, and lawyers must meticulously ensure that the correct court is chosen at the correct stage, abiding by ethical obligations to avoid vexatious or groundless litigation.

Always double-check the latest statutes, Supreme Court circulars, and jurisprudence to confirm current jurisdictional thresholds and procedural rules. In the Philippine setting, jurisdictional rules can be updated by legislative amendments or Supreme Court issuances. When in doubt, consult official sources or authoritative commentaries on the Rules of Court and the Judiciary Reorganization Act.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login