JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

THE SUPREME COURT

The highest court of the land is the Supreme Court. It was not
affected by the Judiciary Law (BP 129) which reorganized the judiciary
in 1983. Being a constitutional court, its jurisdiction is found in the
fundamental law itself. The SC is both an original and appellate court.

Composition

It is composed of the Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices.

The Constitution ordains that the President appoints the members of

the SC and judges of lower courts from a list of at least three nominees
prepared by the JBC for every vacancy and requires the President to
issue appointments, for lower courts, within 90 days from submission
of the list (Art. VIII, Sec. 9) and to fill the vacancy of the SC within 90
days from its occurrence. (Art. VIII Sec. 4(1). All such appointments
need no confirmation. (Sec. 9)

Divisions and En Banc

The SC sits either en banc or in divisions of 3, 5 or 7 members. At

present, it has 3 divisions of 5 members each.

A decision or resolution of a division, when concurred in by a

majority of its members who actually took part in the deliberations on
the issues in a case and voted thereon, and in no case without the
concurrence of at least 3 of such members, is a decision or resolution of
the SC. (Sec. 4(3) Art. VIII Constitution).

The Court en banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or

resolutions of a division may be appealed. (Circular No. 2-89)
No doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision
rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by
the court sitting en banc. (Sec. 4(3))

JBD 17
 How a Case Before a Division is Referred to the Court en banc
` `
At any time after a Division takes cognizance of a case and before a
judgment or resolution therein rendered becomes final and executor,
the Division may refer the case en consulta to the court en banc which,
after consideration of the reasons of the division for such referral, may
return the case to the Division or accept the case for decision or
resolution.

Cases assigned to a Division including motions for reconsideration

which in the opinion of at least 3 members merit the attention of the
court en banc and are accepted by the majority vote of the actual
members of the court en banc may be considered as en banc cases.

A resolution of the Division denying a partys motion for referral to

the Court en banc of any division shall be final and not appealable to
the Court en banc.

When a decision or resolution is referred by a division to the Court

en banc, the latter may in the absence of sufficiently important reasons
decline to take cognizance of the same, in which case, the decision or
resolution shall be returned to the referring Division. (Circular No. 2-
89 effective March 1, 1989)

En Banc Cases

In a resolution dated February 23, 1984, the following are considered

en banc cases:
a.) Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
executive agreement, law, ordinance or executive order or
regulation is in question;
b.) Criminal cases in which the decision imposes the death
penalty;
c.) Cases raising novel questions of law;
d.) Cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls;
e.) Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en
banc or in division may be modified or reversed;
f.) Cases assigned to a division including motions for
reconsideration which in the opinion of at least 3 members

JBD 18
 merit the attention of the Court en banc and are acceptable to a
majority vote of the actual membership of the Court en banc;
g.) All other cases as the Court en banc by a majority of its actual
membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its
attention;
h.) Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a
judge, officer, or employee of the SC, disbarment of a lawyer,
or suspension of any of them for a period of more than one
year or a fine of P10,000.00, or both;
i.) Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the
Sandiganbayan, Comelec, COA, or Military Tribunals;
j.) Habeas corpus against government or military officials;

Principal Functions of the Supreme Court

a.) Adjudication (Judicial Power)

b.)Administration or Disciplinary power
c.)Rule-making (Rule-making Power)

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution

enumerates the ORIGINAL jurisdiction of the SC:

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

[1] Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus.

Note that the foregoing provision does not define the original jurisdiction
of the SC as exclusive, hence it can be concurrent or exclusive.

When is it exclusive and when concurrent?

Original Exclusive

JBD 19
 The ORIGINAL EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the SC refers to
petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus as defined in Rule 65 against the following:
a.) the CA (Judiciary Act of 1948);
b.) the COMELEC (Art. IX Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution);
c.) COA (Art. IX Sec. 7 1987 Constitution; and
d.) Sandiganbayan (PD No. 1606);
e.) Court of Tax Appeals because it has now the same rank as the
CA by virtue of RA 9282.

Original Concurrent

A.With CA
The cases where its original jurisdiction is CONCURRENT with the
CA are: petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus against the following:
a.) the CSC (RA No. 7902);
b.) Central Board of Assessment Appeals (PD No. 464; BP
Blg. 129; RA No. 7902);
c.) NLRC (St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC 295 SCRA
494; RA No. 7902) or the Secretary of Labor under the
Labor Code.
d.) Quasi-judicial agencies (BP Blg. 129; RA No. 7902; Heirs of Hinog
vs. Melicor, 455 SCRA 460)
d.) Also, issuance of writ of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against the RTC.

B. CONCURRENT with the RTC are those actions affecting

ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls (Sec. 21[2]
BP Blg 129; Art. VIII Sec. 5 1987 Constitution).

C. CONCURRENT with the CA and RTC are those involving

habeas corpus, quo warranto, and writs of certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus against inferior courts and bodies (Secs. 9[1],
21[2]2, BP Blg. 129; Art. VIII Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution).

For example, a petition for mandamus against the MTC of Cebu

City can be filed with the SC, CA, or RTC although the policy of the
Supreme Court is that it should be filed with the RTC based on the
hierarchy of the courts. (Vergara vs. Suelto, 156 SCRA 758)
JBD 20
 Finally, with the advent of the new law (RA 8249), there is now a
CONCURRENCE between the SC and the Sandiganbayan in so far
as petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus,
injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of the Sandiganbayan's
APPELLATE JURISDICTION i.e. only in connection with a case
appealed to the Sandiganbayan.

This concurrent jurisdiction is subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of

courts (Liga ng mga Barangay National vs. Atienza 420 SCRA 562;
Lacson Hermanas Inc. vs. Heirs of Ignacio 462 SCRA 290).

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The appellate jurisdiction is found in Section 5, Paragraph (2),

Article VIII 1987 Constitution:

2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or

certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.
b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue.
d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
e) All cases in which an error or question of law is involved.

If (a), (b), and (c) also involve questions of facts or mixed

questions of fact and of law, the aggrieved party shall appeal to
the Court of Appeals; and its final judgment may be appealed to
the Supreme Court. (Subpar 4, Third Par. Sec. 17, Judiciary Act
or RA 544)

JBD 21
 a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation
is in question.

So if the RTC, which has the power, declares the law as

unconstitutional, the same has to be appealed directly to the SC. It
cannot pass through the CA because the SC has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction regarding the matter.

b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or
any penalty imposed in relation thereto.

This is related to the legality of tax cases whether a tax or tax

penalty is legal or not. However, whatever decision the lower court
gives, it has to be appealed directly to the SC.

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue

EXAMPLE: The RTC or the MTC says it has jurisdiction or it has no

jurisdiction over a case. The aggrieved party, it if wants to raise that
issue, it must go to the SC. When the issue is purely jurisdiction, the SC
shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction.

Now, when the law says all cases in which the jurisdiction of any
lower court is in issue, the cases involve 100% pure jurisdiction as an
issue. There are no factual issues involved. If the issue of jurisdiction is
mixed with a factual issue, the appeal should be in the CA without
prejudice to the filing of the same with the SC later. So, this is 100%
issue of jurisdiction. No factual issue is involved.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua
or higher.

We discussed this in Criminal Procedure.

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

JBD 22
 Take note that ONLY an error or question of law is involved. So, if
there is a mixed question of law and a question of fact, appeal must be
filed with the CA. You only go to the SC if the appeal is 100% legal.
That applies to both criminal and civil cases.

QUESTIONS OF LAW and QUESTIONS OF FACT

There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to

what the law is on a certain set of facts. There is a question of fact
when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the
alleged facts (Sps. Santos vs. CA 337 SCRA 67).

Example: Where the question is whether or not the debtor has paid the
debt, the issue is one of fact. Where the question is whether or not the
manner of payment is of the type which produces the legal effect of
extinguishing the obligation, the issue becomes one of law. Also, when
under the set of facts the issue is whether or not the law on double
sales applies, there is a question of law.

When the issue involves a review of the evidence, it involves a

question of fact because evidence, as defined, is the means, sanctioned
by the rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact. (Sec. 1 Rule 128)

In an action for declaration of nullity of marriage the basis is

psychological incapacity. The RTC/Family Court dismissed the case
finding that there was no psychological incapacity. If the plaintiff
wants to appeal from that judgment, can she appeal directly to the SC?
Is it a question of fact or law?

No. The appeal should be to the CA. The issue raised is a question of
fact because there is need to review the evidence to resolve it.

Suppose the court nullified the marriage on ground of impotence

and the defendant wants to appeal because he wants to raise the issue
whether or not impotence is a ground for declaration of nullity of
JBD 23
marriage this would be a question of law because there is no need for
review of the evidence to resolve it. So appeal is to the SC.

b.) APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

1.)Automatic review of death penalty.

2.)Ordinary appeal from the RTC direct to the SC. This only applies
to criminal cases where the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment is imposed or other offenses which arise out of the
same occurrence or committed by the accused on the same
occasion;
3.)Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45 which is of three types:

3.1.) From the CA or all appeals from the CA are certiorari which
is different from the certiorari in Rule 65.
3.2.) From the RTC direct to the SC. Now, this does not refer to
judgments in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment where the mode of
appeal is ordinary appeal.

In civil cases, if you want to go directly to the SC, you can do so

by appeal by certiorari, provided that the following conditions
are met:

a.)If no question of fact is involved and the case involves the

constitutionality or legality validity of any tax, impost, etc.,
or jurisdiction of the lower courts is in issue ( Article VIII,
section 5 par.(2)
b.) only an error or question of law involved (supra);
c.)a judgment rendered upon an award under the Arbitration
Law (RA 876)
d.) appeal on pure questions of law in cases of appeal to
the RTC from inferior courts. So, from the MTC to the RTC
ordinary appeal. From the RTC, on pure questions of law, to
the SC appeal by certiorari.

3.3.) Appeal from other courts or administrative agencies like

appeal from the Sandiganbayan to the SC, from the Central
Board of Assessment Appeal or from the Ombudsman.

JBD 24
 OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Article IX, Section 7, paragraph (a), 1987 Constitution:

Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote x x x. Unless

otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision,
order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty
days from receipt of a copy thereof.

The COMELEC, COA and the CSC act also as courts of justice. They
have powers to decide certain cases within their jurisdiction. Election
cases are covered by the COMELEC, claims against the government,
by COA and eligibility or removal from government service of an
appointive employee, by CSC.

Now, according to Section 7, any decision, order or ruling of these

commissions may be brought to the SC on certiorari, etc. So you will
see that the decisions of the constitutional commissions are reviewable
by the SC.

However, Congress amended the Judiciary Law particularly Section

9 on the jurisdiction of the CA by now making decisions of the CSC no
longer appealable to the SC directly but appealable to the CA. So
based on the present law, out of the three constitutional commissions,
the only ones whose decisions are appealable directly to the SC are
those of the COMELEC and the COA

What is the basis for Congress to pass such a law where a decision of a
constitutional body (CSC) is reviewable by a non-constitutional body?

Under the Constitution, decisions of the constitutional commissions

are appealable to the SC. Does Congress have the power to change
that by making it appealable to the CA?

Yes because the provision, it says: Unless otherwise provided by this

Constitution or by law.. Meaning, the decisions are appealable to the SC
unless otherwise provided by law. The Constitution itself gave
Congress the power to change it.
JBD 25
 SC as Presidential Electoral Tribunal

Article VII, Section 4, last paragraph, 1987 Constitution:

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of

all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for
the purpose.

If theres an electoral protest for the President and Vice-President,

the matter is not to be decided by the COMELEC but by the SC acting
as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
The only case so far filed was that by Defensor-Santiago but which
was dismissed, the SC ruling that when she ran for the Senate, she has
already technically abandoned her interest for the Presidency.

Judicial Review of Presidential Proclamation of Martial or

Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Article VII, Section 18 (3), 1987 Constitution Commander-in-Chief

Clause

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding

filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of
the writ or extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision
thereon within thirty days from its filing.

So, the SC, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen review

the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law.
Meaning, the SC can inquire into the basis on why martial law is
declared.

This is intended to prevent the Supreme Court from invoking the

Political Question doctrine laid down in many earlier cases that it is
the prerogative of the President to determine, at his discretion, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof.

Congress and Jurisdiction of the SC

JBD 26
 1.) Article VIII, Section 2, 1987 Constitution:

The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and

apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive
the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in
Section 5 hereof.

Congress may change or even remove the jurisdiction of the RTC or

CA. The law can change them because jurisdiction over the subject
matter is conferred by law. However, Congress does not have the
power to lessen or deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction under
Section 5, Article VIII.

2.) However Article VI, Section 30 states:

No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and
concurrence.

Thus , Congress cannot lessen but it can increase the SCs powers
and jurisdiction, PROVIDED it is with the latter's advice and
concurrence.

So more or less, these are the scattered provisions of the

Constitution dealing with the SCs jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts

There are important principles worthy of note in relation to the

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The SC is not a trier of facts which means that passing upon a

factual issue is not within the province of the Court (Romys Freight
Service vs. Castro, 490 SCRA 160). The findings of facts of the Court of
Appeals are not generally reviewable by the SC (Sarmiento vs. Yu 497
SCRA 513). Also, factual findings of the trial court, particularly when
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding on the Court
(Tan vs. GVT Engineering Services 498 SCRA 93; Office of the
Ombudsman vs. Lazar0-Baldazo GR No. 170815 February 2, 2007).

JBD 27
 It is not the function of the SC to determine the weight of the
evidence supporting the assailed decision (JR Blanco vs. Quasha 318
SCRA 373). However, factual issues may be delved into and resolved
where the findings and conclusions of the trial court or the quasi-
judicial bodies are frontally inconsistent with the findings of the CA
(Office of the Ombudsman vs. Tongson 499 SCRA 567).

Exceptions

While it is settled rule that the SC in the exercise of its power of

review is not a trier of facts, jurisprudence has, however, recognized
several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by the SC,
namely:
a.) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises or conjectures;
b.) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible;
c.) when there is grave abuse of discretion;
d.) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
e.) when the findings of facts are conflicting;
f.) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of
the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee;
g.) when the findings are contrary to the trial court;
h.) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based;
i.) when the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the
petitioners main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the
respondent;
j.) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record; and
k.) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, could
justify a different conclusion (Cristobal Cruz vs. Cristobal 498
SCRA 37; Heirs of Dicman vs. Carino 490 SCRA 240; Safeguard
Security Agency Inc. vs. Tangco 511 SCRA 67; De Los Santos
vs. Elizalde 514 SCRA 14; NPC vs. De la Cruz GR No. 156093
Feb. 2, 2007; Spouses Yu vs. Ngo Yet Te GR No. 155868 Feb. 6,
2007).
JBD 28


JBD 29