This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-02 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence has held on more than one occasion that in determining which body has jurisdiction over a case, we consider the nature of the question that is the subject of controversy as well as the status or relationship of the parties.[51] | |||||
|
2013-11-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. It is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.[18] Also illuminating is the Court's pronouncement in Go v. Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc.:[19] | |||||
|
2011-01-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Where a question of jurisdiction between the DARAB and the Regional Trial Court is at the core of a dispute, basic jurisprudential tenets come into play. It is the rule that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is determined by the material allegations therein and the character of the relief prayed for[20] irrespective of whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs.[21] In the same vein, jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction will become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant.[22] | |||||