Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MA. LUTGARDA P. CALLEJA v. JOSE PIERRE A. PANDAY

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 181416 2013-11-11	MEDICAL PLAZA MAKATI CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION v. ROBERT H. CULLEN PERALTA, J.
To be sure, this action partakes of the nature of an intra-corporate controversy, the jurisdiction over which pertains to the SEC. Pursuant to Section 5.2 of Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the Securities Regulation Code, the jurisdiction of the SEC over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A has been transferred to RTCs designated by this Court as Special Commercial Courts.[30] While the CA may be correct that the RTC has jurisdiction, the case should have been filed not with the regular court but with the branch of the RTC designated as a special commercial court. Considering that the RTC of Makati City, Branch 58 was not designated as a special commercial court, it was not vested with jurisdiction over cases previously cognizable by the SEC.[31] The CA, therefore, gravely erred in remanding the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
	GR No. 192649 2011-06-22	HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION v. R-II BUILDERS INC. PEREZ, J.
Even then, the question of the Manila RTC's jurisdiction over the case is tied up with R-II Builder's payment of the correct docket fees which should be paid in full upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or proceeding. [4] While it is, consequently, true that jurisdiction, once acquired, cannot be easily ousted, [5] it is equally settled that a court acquires jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the prescribed filing and docket fees. [6] Already implicit from the filing of the complaint in the City of Manila where the realties comprising the Asset Pool are located, the fact that the case is a real action is evident from the allegations of R-II Builders' original Complaint, Amended and Supplemental Complaint and Second Amended Complaint which not only sought the nullification of the DAC in favor of HGC but, more importantly, prayed for the transfer of possession of and/or control of the properties in the Asset Pool. Its current protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, no less than R-II Builders - in its opposition to HGC's motion to dismiss - admitted that the case is a real action as it affects title to or possession of real property or an interest therein. [7] Having only paid docket fees corresponding to an action where the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation, R-II Builders cannot expediently claim that jurisdiction over the case had already attached.
	GR No. 192649 2011-03-09	HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION v. R-II BUILDERS INC. PEREZ, J.
Calleja v. Panday,[52] while on facts the other way around, i.e., a branch of the RTC exercising jurisdiction over a subject matter within the Special Commercial Court's authority, dealt squarely with the issue: Whether a branch of the Regional Trial Court which has no jurisdiction to try and decide a case has authority to remand the same to another co-equal Court in order to cure the defects on venue and jurisdiction.