Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RENATO CUDIA v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 173935-38 2008-12-23	ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO v. MA. ERLINDA I. BILDNER CARPIO MORALES, J.
Venue, in criminal cases, being jurisdictional,[30] the action for perjury must be instituted and tried in the municipality or territory where the deliberate making of an untruthful statement upon any matter was made, in this case, in Makati and Tagaytay.[31]
	GR NO. 145022 2005-09-23	ARMAND NOCUM v. LUCIO TAN
It is elementary that objections to venue in CIVIL ACTIONS arising from libel may be waived since they do not involve a question of jurisdiction. The laying of venue is procedural rather than substantive, relating as it does to jurisdiction of the court over the person rather than the subject matter. Venue relates to trial and not to jurisdiction.[20] It is a procedural, not a jurisdictional, matter. It relates to the place of trial or geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought and not to the jurisdiction of the court.[21] It is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict their access to the courts as it relates to the place of trial.[22] In contrast, in criminal actions, it is fundamental that venue is jurisdictional it being an essential element of jurisdiction.[23]
	GR No. 104768 2003-07-21	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
Private respondents questioned the authority and jurisdiction of the PCGG to investigate and prosecute their cases by filing their Motion to Dismiss as soon as they learned of the pronouncement of the Court in Migrino. This case was decided on 30 August 1990, which explains why private respondents only filed their Motion to Dismiss on 8 October 1990. Nevertheless, we have held that the parties may raise lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the proceeding.[30] Thus, we hold that there was no waiver of jurisdiction in this case. Jurisdiction is vested by law and not by the parties to an action.[31]
	GR No. 131683 2000-06-19	JESUS LIM ARRANZA v. B.F. HOMES DAVIDE JR., C.J.
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause - the right to act in a case.[12] It is conferred by law and not by mere administrative policy of any court or tribunal.[13] It is determined by the averments of the complaint and not by the defense contained in the answer.[14] Hence, the jurisdictional issue involved here shall be determined upon an examination of the applicable laws and the allegations of petitioners' complaint before the HLURB.