This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-06-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The record shows that, with the raffle of R-II Builders' complaint before Branch 24 of the Manila RTC and said court's grant of the application for temporary restraining order incorporated therein, HGC sought a preliminary hearing of its affirmative defenses which included, among other grounds, lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. It appears that, at said preliminary hearing, it was established that R-II Builders' complaint did not involve an intra-corporate dispute and that, even if it is, venue was improperly laid since none of the parties maintained its principal office in Manila. While it is true, therefore, that R-II Builders had no hand in the raffling of the case, it cannot be gainsaid that Branch 24 of the RTC Manila had no jurisdiction over the case. Rather than ordering the dismissal of the complaint, however, said court issued the 2 January 2008 order erroneously ordering the re-raffle of the case. In Atwel v. Concepcion Progressive Association, Inc. [2] and Reyes v. Hon. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 142 [3] which involved SCCs trying and/or deciding cases which were found to be civil in nature, this Court significantly ordered the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction instead of simply directing the re-raffle of the case to another branch. | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Neither can estoppel be imputed to petitioner for its receipt of payments made by respondents in accordance with the rehabilitation plan. It has been established that in its letters to respondents, petitioner explained that it received payments subject to the results of its appeal. Besides, it is a basic rule that estoppel does not confer jurisdiction on a tribunal that has none over the cause of action or subject matter of the case.[40] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In addition to being conferred by law,[37] it bears emphasizing that the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal over the case is determined by the allegations in the complaint[38] and the character of the relief sought,[39] irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims asserted therein.[40] Moreover, pursuant to Section 5.2 of Republic Act No. 8799,[41] 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 SCCs[42] pursuant to A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC promulgated on 21 November 2000. Thus, Section 1(a), Rule 1 of the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies (Interim Rules) provides as follows: "SECTION 1. (a) Cases covered. -- These Rules shall govern the procedure to be observed in civil cases involving the following: | |||||
|
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] | |||||