Last Minute Tips for Remedial Law Review Finals.

Residual jurisdiction and residual prerogative.

Section 9 of Rule 41 provides that “in either case, prior to the transmittal of the original
record or the record on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of
the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve
compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in
accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal.”

In Katon vs. Palanca, the Supreme Court teaches us that, the “residual jurisdiction” of
trial courts is available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction
over the case or the subject matter involved in the appeal. 

This stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the
approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the
records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction
to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order
execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.

Estoppel and jurisdiction.

In Boston Equity Resources vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court declared that, The
aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred from being assailed as a result of estoppel by laches is
jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Thus, in Tijam, the case relied upon by petitioner, the issue involved was the authority of
the then Court of First Instance to hear a case for the collection of a sum of money in the amount
of P1,908.00 which amount was, at that time, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
municipal courts.

Joinder of Parties.

In Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Cacayuran, the Supreme Court reminds us that, an
indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court's action in the litigation,
and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party's interest in the
subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other
parties' that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity.

In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court
which is effective, complete, or equitable."[37] Thus, the absence of an indispensable party renders
all subsequent actions of the court null and void, for want of authority to act, not only as to the
absent parties but even as to those present.
 The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. At
any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be added on the
motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead
an indispensable party despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the
plaintiffs failure to comply with the order. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be
indispensable.