This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-12-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that a court's jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. The reason is that jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of and to render judgment on the action.[25] The rule remains that estoppel does not confer jurisdiction on a tribunal that has none over the cause of action or subject matter of the case.[26] In any event, even if respondent did not raise the issue of jurisdiction, the reviewing court is not precluded from ruling that it has no jurisdiction over the case. In this sense, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction may even be ordered by the court motu proprio.[27] | |||||
|
2004-05-31 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law.[4] It is so essential that erroneous assumption of such jurisdiction carries with it the nullity of the entire proceedings in the case. At the first instance or even on appeal, and although the parties do not raise the issue of jurisdiction, courts are not precluded from ruling that they have no jurisdiction over the subject-matter if such indeed is the situation.[5] | |||||