Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction

Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction | Jurisdiction of Courts | JURISDICTION

DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE (OR CONTINUITY) OF JURISDICTION IN PHILIPPINE LAW

I. Concept and Rationale

  1. Definition
    The doctrine of adherence (or continuity) of jurisdiction is a well-established principle in Philippine remedial law. It states that once a court has validly acquired jurisdiction over a case, that jurisdiction continues to exist and is retained by the court until the case is finally resolved, notwithstanding any subsequent events that may otherwise deprive it of jurisdiction.

  2. Rationale

    • Avoiding Disruption: The primary rationale is to prevent disruption in the orderly administration of justice. If courts lose jurisdiction midstream due to later events (such as changes in the amount in controversy, changes in the parties’ circumstances, or subsequent legislation altering jurisdictional thresholds), litigation would be needlessly thrown into disarray.
    • Judicial Economy: It promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that the same court which started the proceedings can proceed to final resolution, reducing delays, confusion, and the possibility of forum shopping.
    • Public Policy: It is in the interest of the public that jurisdiction, once fixed by law and acquired by a court, remains stable until the termination of the case.

II. Legal Basis

  1. General Principle in Jurisdictional Statutes
    The doctrine is recognized under various decisions of the Supreme Court, and while not always explicitly stated in a single statutory provision, it is implicitly and consistently applied in conjunction with laws that allocate jurisdiction among Philippine courts, such as:

    • Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), as amended; and
    • Rules of Court (particularly rules on venue, rules on civil procedure relating to the initiation of an action, and rules on appeals).

  2. Judicial Pronouncements

    • Case Law Development: Philippine jurisprudence has repeated the principle that “once jurisdiction is acquired, it is not lost upon the instance of parties or by the occurrence of subsequent events.” Over decades, the Supreme Court has underscored that courts should not be ousted of jurisdiction just because of changes in factual or legal circumstances after the filing of the case.

III. Elements or Requisites

To invoke the doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction effectively, the following elements or requisites should typically be present:

  1. Proper Acquisition of Jurisdiction at the Outset

    • The complaint, petition, or initiatory pleading must have been filed in the court which, at that time, had the authority over the subject matter and the parties.
    • All jurisdictional requirements, such as the amount in controversy (for civil cases), the nature of the offense charged (for criminal cases), or any special requirements in special proceedings, must be met at the time of filing.

  2. Subsequent Event That Might Have Affected Jurisdiction

    • There must be an intervening fact, legislative act, or party action that would have altered the court’s jurisdiction if it had existed at the time of the filing. For example:
      • A new law increasing the jurisdictional amount for a certain court or transferring subject matter jurisdiction to another forum;
      • A change in the nature of the subject matter or a supervening event that could have conferred or removed authority from the original court, had it existed at the time of filing.

  3. Continuing Control Until Final Resolution

    • Despite these subsequent changes, the court does not lose jurisdiction over the case it already acquired. It continues to preside over all proceedings until a final decision or judgment is rendered and becomes executory.

IV. Illustrative Examples and Applications

  1. Changes in Jurisdictional Amount

    • Suppose a case is filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) because the amount in controversy exceeds the threshold set for the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts. Later, if a new law is passed increasing the jurisdictional threshold for the RTC (thereby implying that the RTC no longer has jurisdiction over lesser amounts), the RTC that has already acquired jurisdiction over the case continues to try and decide it. The case will not be transferred to a lower court.

  2. Change in Penalty or Amending Law in Criminal Cases

    • In criminal proceedings, if Congress amends the law such that an offense now carries a different imposable penalty or reclassifies the offense (thus changing the court with jurisdiction), the court that first obtained jurisdiction when the charge was filed remains competent to finish the case.

  3. Transfer of Venue or Creation of New Courts

    • Even when a new statute reorganizes the judiciary or divides a territory under the jurisdiction of one court among newly created courts, the original court retains the authority to conclude already pending cases, unless the statute expressly provides for a transfer of those pending cases to the newly created court.

  4. Effect of Supervening Facts

    • If a party dies, a corporation merges, or any event occurs that might otherwise defeat one of the conditions for jurisdiction, the proceeding does not automatically become moot or require refiling in a different forum. The court retains jurisdiction, subject to appropriate procedures (e.g., substitution of parties, settlement of claims, etc.).

V. Limits or Exceptions to the Doctrine

  1. Express Statutory Provision

    • Congress may, in exceptional situations, provide for immediate transfer of all pending cases to a newly created tribunal. For instance, if the law expressly states that all cases falling under a certain category, pending or otherwise, shall be under the new tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction, the original court may be divested of its authority. However, absent such an express directive, the doctrine of adherence applies.

  2. Lack of Jurisdiction from the Start

    • The doctrine presupposes that the court properly acquired jurisdiction at the outset. If the court never had jurisdiction to begin with (e.g., the amount in controversy was below the threshold, or the subject matter was expressly excluded by law from the court’s jurisdiction), the proceeding is null and void. There can be no adherence to a void assumption of jurisdiction.

  3. Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter vs. Over the Person

    • Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Adherence primarily concerns jurisdiction over the subject matter.
    • Jurisdiction Over the Person: A court may lose jurisdiction over a defendant if service was improperly made or if the defendant successfully challenges jurisdiction over his person before making voluntary appearances. But once the court obtains valid personal jurisdiction, it adheres unless otherwise validly lost through recognized modes (e.g., dismissal, final judgment, etc.).

  4. Estoppel on Questioning Jurisdiction

    • Although not strictly an “exception” to the adherence doctrine, parties may be estopped from challenging jurisdiction if they have actively participated in court proceedings without objecting to jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity (see the ruling in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy). This does not remove the court’s jurisdiction if otherwise validly acquired, but it underscores that parties cannot belatedly attack a court’s competence after benefiting from or submitting to its proceedings.

VI. Key Philippine Supreme Court Decisions

While many decisions apply or reiterate the doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction, here are a few landmark or oft-cited cases (illustrative, not exhaustive):

  1. Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corp.

    • Reiterates that once a court acquires jurisdiction, it retains that jurisdiction even if subsequent events would have made the case fall under a different court’s authority.

  2. Republic v. Sandiganbayan

    • Explains that the creation of special courts or changes in the law do not divest an originally competent court of its acquired jurisdiction unless there is an explicit transfer provision.

  3. People v. Ang Cho Kio

    • An older case but frequently cited for the continuing principle that changes in jurisdictional rules or in penalties do not automatically oust the court of jurisdiction once validly acquired.

  4. Tijam v. Sibonghanoy

    • Although famous for the principle of estoppel by laches in questioning jurisdiction, it also serves as a reminder of the Court’s inclination to uphold the finality of proceedings where a court’s jurisdiction, properly acquired or not timely contested, is recognized.

VII. Practical Guidance for Litigants and Courts

  1. Care at the Commencement of Actions

    • Litigants must ensure that they file their actions in the proper court. If a complaint is filed in the wrong court at the start, the doctrine of adherence will not cure a fundamental lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

  2. Handling Supervening Changes

    • If a party believes a new law or circumstance affects the litigation, they may still need to file the appropriate motions or pleadings. However, they should be aware that the original court will generally retain power over the dispute unless there is a clear statutory directive stating otherwise.

  3. Efficient Case Management

    • Courts typically proceed with the case where it was initiated. If questions of jurisdiction arise after changes in the law, the court will rule in favor of continuing jurisdiction under the adherence doctrine unless an exception applies.

  4. Role of Court Orders and Judicial Discretion

    • Even with adherence of jurisdiction, courts must still issue orders that are consistent with new laws or rules in terms of procedural application (e.g., prospective changes to the Rules of Court). But these procedural changes do not oust the court of its power to decide on the main dispute.

VIII. Conclusion

The Doctrine of Adherence (Continuity) of Jurisdiction is a cornerstone principle of Philippine remedial law. It ensures stability, consistency, and efficiency by preventing courts from being divested of authority due to subsequent legislative or factual changes once they have validly acquired jurisdiction. Not only does this doctrine help streamline the administration of justice by avoiding midstream changes in forum, but it also protects litigants from unnecessary delays and expenses.

In essence, Philippine courts respect and uphold jurisdiction that has attached at the commencement of the action or proceeding—allowing them to see the case through final adjudication—unless a clear, express statutory provision says otherwise or it is shown that the court never had valid jurisdiction at all. This principle remains critical to preserving an orderly judicial process in the Philippine legal system.

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