This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| On the one hand, jurisdiction is "the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong."[170] Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law.[171] Thus, an action may be filed only with the court or tribunal where the Constitution or a statute says it can be brought.[172] Objections to jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be brought at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.[173] When a case is filed with a court which has no jurisdiction over the action, the court shall motu proprio dismiss the case.[174] | |||||
|
2014-11-26 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, venue is "the place of trial or geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought."[175] In civil cases, venue is a matter of procedural law.[176] A party's objections to venue must be brought at the earliest opportunity either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer; otherwise the objection shall be deemed waived.[177] When the venue of a civil action is improperly laid, the court cannot motu proprio dismiss the case.[178] | |||||
|
2012-09-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Second, jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined not by the pleas set up by the defendant in his answer[85] but by the allegations in the complaint,[86] irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to favorable judgment on the basis of his assertions.[87] The reason is that the complaint is supposed to contain a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action.[88] | |||||
|
2012-07-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Apparently, the Makati RTC had the erroneous impression that the Manila RTC did not have jurisdiction over the complaint of petitioners because the property involved was situated within the jurisdiction of the Makati RTC. Thereby, the Makati RTC confused venue of a real action with jurisdiction. Its confusion was puzzling, considering that it was well aware of the distinction between venue and jurisdiction, and certainly knew that venue in civil actions was not jurisdictional and might even be waived by the parties.[44] To be clear, venue related only to the place of trial or the geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought and does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court. It is intended to accord convenience to the parties, as it relates to the place of trial, and does not restrict their access to the courts.[45] In contrast, jurisdiction refers to the power to hear and determine a cause,[46] and is conferred by law and not by the parties.[47] | |||||
|
2010-02-22 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In the instant case, the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 5794-R is for the recovery of damages for the alleged malicious acts of petitioners. The complaint principally sought an award of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees and litigation expenses, for the alleged shame and injury suffered by respondent by reason of petitioners' utterance while they were at a police station in Pangasinan. It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action. [20] It is clear, based on the allegations of the complaint, that respondent's main action is for damages. Hence, the other forms of damages being claimed by respondent, e.g., exemplary damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses, are not merely incidental to or consequences of the main action but constitute the primary relief prayed for in the complaint. | |||||