This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-04-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It bears to stress that while the RTC is divided into several branches, each of the branches is not a court distinct and separate from the others.[23] Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judge, so that when a complaint is filed before one branch or judge, jurisdiction does not attach to the said branch of the judge alone, to the exclusion of others.[24] Succinctly, jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 2187-00 does not pertain solely to Branch 90 but to all the branches of the RTC, Cavite, including Branch 22 to where the case was subsequently re-raffled. The continuity of the court and the efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by the death, retirement or cessation from service of the judge presiding over it.[25] Evidently, the argument, that the December 15, 2004 Omnibus Order and all orders subsequently issued by Judge Mangrobang were invalid for want of jurisdiction because of alleged undue interference by one branch over another, holds no water. | |||||