This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Generally, parties may not raise issues for the first time on appeal.[50] Such practice is violative of the rules and due process and is frowned upon by the courts. However, it is also well-settled that jurisdiction can never be waived or acquired by estoppel.[51] Jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution or by law.[52] "Lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action or the subject matter of an action cannot be cured by the silence, by acquiescence, or even by express consent of the parties."[53] | |||||
|
2014-11-26 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Jurisdiction is the right to act or the power and authority to hear and determine a case.[9] It is conferred only by the Constitution or by statute.[10] The question as to whether or not the dismissal by the lower court for lack of jurisdiction is proper involves the determination of whether, admitting the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, the trial court has jurisdiction over the same in light of the laws governing jurisdiction.[11] As such, jurisdiction is neither a question of fact or of fact and law but a matter of law. For this reason, We have consistently held that a court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is a question of law,[12] and have, in fact, affirmed dismissals by the CA of appeals brought to them involving pure questions of law.[13] Considering that only questions of law was raised in this petition, direct resort to this Court is proper.[14] | |||||
|
2014-11-26 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Municipality of Pateros v. The Honorable Court of Appeals,[116] the Municipality of Pateros filed an appeal under Rule 42 before the Court of Appeals, which the Court of Appeals denied outright for raising pure questions of law. This court agreed that the Municipality of Pateros "committed a procedural infraction"[117] and should have directly filed a petition for review on certiorari before this court. Nevertheless, "in the interest of justice and in order to write finis to [the] controversy,"[118] this court "opt[ed] to relax the rules"[119] and proceeded to decide the case. This court said: While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and while the swift unclogging of the dockets of the courts is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice. | |||||