Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Close of
taxable
quarter
when zerorated sale
was made
End of 2year
prescriptive
period to
file claim
Actual filing of
administrative
claim
AprilSeptember
2000
30 June
2002
26 March
2002
OctoberDecember
2000
31
December
2002
28 June 2002
Issue:
WON the CTA has jurisdiction over the
TCC claim of AFIC?
Held:
No.
Ratio:
within
which
to
administrative claim.
decide
on
the
120-day
period of
CIR to
decide
claim ends
26 March
2002
24 July
2002
28 June 2002
26 October
2002
Actual ate
of filing of
judicial
claim
24 July
2002
Inaction
Commissioner
of
by
the
Internal
Held:
Yes, intra-corporate dispute. Case before
RTC Br. 58, not an SCC, ordered
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Remanded for re-raffling.
Ratio:
It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over
the subject matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint. It is not
affected by the pleas or the theories set up
by the defendant in an answer or a motion
to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would
become dependent almost entirely upon
the whims of the defendant.
In determining whether a dispute
constitutes an intra-corporate controversy,
the Court uses two tests, namely, the
relationship test and the nature of the
controversy test.
An intra-corporate controversy is one
which pertains to any of the following
relationships: (1) between the corporation,
partnership or association and the public;
(2) between the corporation, partnership
or association and the State insofar as its
franchise, permit or license to operate is
concerned; (3) between the corporation,
partnership or association and its
stockholders, partners, members or
officers; and (4) among the stockholders,
partners or associates themselves. Thus,
under the relationship test, the existence
of any of the above intra-corporate
relations makes the case intra-corporate.
Under the nature of the controversy test,
"the controversy must not only be rooted in
the existence of an intra-corporate
relationship, but must as well pertain to
the enforcement of the parties' correlative
rights
and
obligations
under
the
Corporation Code and the internal and
intra-corporate regulatory rules of the
corporation." In other words, jurisdiction
should be determined by considering both
the relationship of the parties as well as
the nature of the question involved.
Province
of
Aklan
v.
Jody
King
Doctrine:
The court may raise the issue of primary
jurisdiction sua sponte and its invocation
cannot be waived by the failure of the
parties to argue it as the doctrine exists
for the proper distribution of power
between judicial and administrative bodies
and not for the convenience of the parties.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does
not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself
authority to resolve a controversy the
jurisdiction over which is initially lodged
with an administrative body of special
competence. All the proceedings of the
court in violation of the doctrine and all
orders and decisions rendered thereby are
null and void.
is
not
estopped
from
Petitioner
argues,
however,
that
respondent could no longer question the
RTC's jurisdiction over the matter after it
had filed its answer and participated in
the subsequent proceedings. To this, we
need only state that the court may raise
the issue of primary jurisdiction sua
sponte and its invocation cannot be waived
by the failure of the parties to argue it as
the doctrine exists for the proper
distribution of power between judicial and
administrative bodies and not for the
convenience of the parties.
There are established exceptions to the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction, such as:
(a) where there is estoppel on the part of
the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where
the challenged administrative act is
patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
(c)
where
there
is
unreasonable delay or official inaction that
will
irretrievably
prejudice
the
complainant; (d) where the amount
involved is relatively small so as to make
the rule impractical and oppressive; (e)
where the question involved is purely legal
and will ultimately have to be decided by
the courts of justice; (f) where judicial
intervention is urgent; (g) when its
application may cause great and
irreparable damage; (h) where the
controverted acts violate due process; (i)
when the issue of non-exhaustion of
administrative
remedies
has
been
rendered moot; (j) when there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k)
when strong public interest is involved;
and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings.
However,
none
of
the
foregoing
circumstances is applicable in the present
case.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does
not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself
authority to resolve a controversy the
jurisdiction over which is initially lodged
with an administrative body of special
competence. All the proceedings of the
court in violation of the doctrine and all
orders and decisions rendered thereby are
null and void.
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
G.R. No. L-21450
April 15, 1968
Dizon, J.
Doctrine:
A party may be estopped or barred from
raising a question by estoppel by laches.
A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a
court to secure affirmative relief against
his opponent and, after obtaining or
in
good
faith.
Facts:
Respondent Elenita Dinglasan was the
registered owner of a lot of the Limay
Held:
No. Civil case dismissed without prejudice.
Ratio:
Respondents filed the complaint in 1999,
at the time BP 129, the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, was already
amended by RA No. 7691, An Act
Expanding the Jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts, amending for the purpose BP Blg.
129. RA 7691, S1, amending BP Blg. 129,
provides that the RTC shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction on the
following actions:
People v. Estrebella
G.R. No. 71464
August 4, 1988
Paras, J.
Doctrine:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of an
action is and may be conferred only by law,
and that jurisdiction over a given crime
not vested by law upon a particular court,
may not be conferred thereon by the
parties involved in the offense. RPC Art.
344 does not determine the jurisdiction of
our courts over the offenses therein
enumerated. It could not effect said
jurisdiction, because the same with
respect to the instant crime is governed by
the Judiciary Act of 1948, not by the
Revised Penal Code.
[Note: Rape is now a crime against
persons. Who may now initiate an action
for rape?]
Facts:
Accused Romeo Estrebella was charged
with the crime of rape of Joy Alcala, a
mental retardate, aged 13 but with mental
age of only 6 or 7. The Complaint against
Estrebella was signed by Alcala herself.
He was found guilty as charged.
Estrebella: trial court
jurisdiction to try the
complaint was filed by a
retardate complainant,
(1985), S4 and 5:
guardian,
unless
she
is
incompetent or incapable of doing
so upon grounds other than her
minority.
and RPC Art. 344:
The
offenses
of
seduction,
abduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness,
shall
not
be
prosecuted
except
upon
a
complaint filed by the offended
party of her parents, grandparents
or guardian, nor, in any case, if the
offender has been expressly
pardoned by the above named
persons, as the case may be . . .
Issue:
WON the trial court lacks jurisdiction to
try Estrebellas case.
Held:
No. Court has jurisdiction. Judgment of
conviction affirmed.
Ratio:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of an
action is and may be conferred only by law,
and that jurisdiction over a given crime
not vested by law upon a particular court,
may not be conferred thereon by the
parties involved in the offense. The
aforementioned provision of Art. 344 does
not determine the jurisdiction of our
courts
over
the
offenses
therein
enumerated. It could not effect said
jurisdiction, because the same with
respect to the instant crime is governed by
the Judiciary Act of 1948, not by the RPC,
which deals primarily with the definition
of crimes and the factors pertinent to the
punishment of the culprits. The complaint
required in said Art. 344 is merely a
condition precedent to the exercise by the
proper authorities of the power to prosecute
the guilty parties. And such condition has
been imposed out of consideration for the
offended woman and her family who might
prefer to suffer the outrage in silence
rather than go through with the scandal of
a public trial.
10
Lloraa v. Leonidas
G.R. No. L-39810
March 28, 1988
Melencio-Herrera, J.
Doctrine:
To determine whether or not the principle
of res judicata applies, the following
requisites must concur:
(1) the presence of a final former
judgment;
(2) the former judgment must have been
rendered by a Court having jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties;
(3) the former judgment is a judgment on
the merits; and
(4) there is, between the first and the
second action identity of parties, subject
matter, and cause of action.
Facts:
Spouses Lloraa filed a special civil action
for certiorari to set aside the order of CFI
Capiz dismissing the case for enforcement
of warranty against eviction filed by them
against respondents Geners on the ground
of res judicata.
First case: Recovery of possession filed by
Precila Gener against other Geners and
Spouses Lloraa to recover 2ha Riceland
in Tapaz, Capiz. Precila alleges that the
property was adjudicated to her in the
extrajudicial settlement executed by her,
her mother, and sisters.
Lloraa spouses filed answer with crossclaims against the Geners, alleging the
they purchased the lot in a pacto de retro.
The cross-defendants did not repurchase
the lot in the stipulated period and that
said cross-defendants had a warranty
against eviction
claimants.
in
favor
of
cross-
11
12
precipitately
ALU-TUCP v. Borromeo
G.R. No. 75736
September 29, 1988
Sarmiento, J.
Doctrine:
The courts of law have no jurisdiction to
act on labor cases or various incidents
arising therefrom. That is basic and
elementary. Jurisdiction to try and
adjudicate such cases pertains exclusively
to the proper labor officials of the
Department of Labor.
Facts:
Associated Labor Unions (ALU-TUCP)
filed a notice of strike and complaint for
various offenses before the MOLE against
respondent Belyca Corp. ranging from
ULP to non payment of minimum wages.
Respondent filed an action for injunction
with the RTC, alleging that works prevent
the giving of feeds to the hogs and fowls
who would die if not attended to (about
7,500 hogs and 8,000 fowls). The RTC
issued a TRO commanding striking
workers to allow Belyca to feed its hogs
and fowls.
Belyca then sought extension of the TRO
for 20 days was granted by the RTC.
Issue:
WON RTC has jurisdiction over the
injunction case.
Held:
No. RTC orders declared void.
Ratio:
The courts of law have no jurisdiction to
act on labor cases or various incidents
arising therefrom. That is basic and
elementary. Jurisdiction to try and
adjudicate such cases pertains exclusively
to the proper labor officials of the
Department of Labor, thus:
household
13
14