TOPIC 5

1. DISTINGUISH: ERROR OF JURISDICTION AND ERROR OF JUDGMENT

2. DISTINGUISH: JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. JURISDICTION OVER SMALL CLAIMS, CASES COVERED BY THE RULES ON
DUMMARY PROCEDURE AND BARANGGAY CONCILIATION
4. HOW JURISDICTION IS DETERMINED

DISTINCTIONS: ERROR OF JURISDICTION AND ERROR OF JUDGMENT

1. AS TO EXISTENCE OF JURISDICTION

Error of Jurisdiction:
o It occurs when the court exercises jurisdiction not conferred upon it
by law.
o It may also occur when the court although with jurisdiction, acts in
excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction.

Error of Judgment:
o It presupposes that the court is vested with jurisdiction but in the
process of exercising that jurisdiction it committed mistakes in the
appreciation of facts and the evidence leading to an erroneous
judgment.

2. AS TO RESULT OF ERROR

Error of Jurisdiction:
o Renders a judgment void or at least voidable.

Error of judgment:
o Judgment cannot be considered a nullity, and therefore, cannot be
collaterally impeached. Such is binding on the parties unless reversed
or annulled.

3. AS TO REMEDY

Error of Jurisdiction:
o Reviewable only by extraordinary writ of certiorari
Error of Judgment:
o Reviewable by appeal

DISTINCTIONS: JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. AS TO NATURE

o Venue: Procedural
o Jurisdiction: Substantive

2. AS TO DEFINITION

o Venue is the place where the cause of action is instituted, heard or

tried.
o Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and decide a case.

3. AS TO WHETHER IT MAY BE A GROUND FOR MOTU PROPRIO DISMISSAL

o Venue is not a ground, except in summary procedure.

o Jurisdiction may be a ground for motu proprio dismissal.

4. AS TO WHETHER IT MAY BE STIPULATED

o Venue may be changed by the written agreement of the parties .

o Jurisdiction cannot be the subject of the agreement of the parties.

5. AS TO WHETHER IT MAY BE WAIVED OR NOT

o Venue may be waived.

o Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be waived.

JURISDICTION OVER SMALL CLAIMS CASES,

CASES COVERED BY THE RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE AND BARANGGAY
CONCILIATION

A. RULE ON SMALL CLAIMS CASES (a.m. no. 08-8-7-SC)

 CASES COVERED
Cases for the payment of money where the value of the claim
does not exceed P200,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and in
which the claims are purely civil in nature where the claim or relief
prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for the payment or
reimbursement of sum of money.

The claim or demand may be:

a. For money owed under any of the following:

i. Contract of lease;
ii. Contract of Loan
iii. Contract of Services
iv. Contract of Sale
v. Contact of Mortgage

b. For the liquidated damages arising from contracts;

c. The enforcement of barangay amicable settlement or an
arbitration award involving a money claim covered by this
Rule pursuant to Sec 417 of the Local Government Code.

Note: Threshold amount was increased to P300,000 enacted on

July 10, 2018)

 PURPOSE:

To provide a simpler and more in exxpensive and expeditious means of

settling disputes involving purely money claims than the regular civil
process.

 WHERE TO FILE

1. METC
2. MTCC
3. MTC
4. MCTC

B. RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE (AS AMENDED BY A.M. No. 02-11-09-

SC)
 CIVIL CASES COVERED

a. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer irrespective of the

amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered.
Where the Attorney's fees are awarded, the same shall not exceed
P20,000; and
b. All the other civil cases, except probated proceedings, where the
total amount of the plaintiff's claims does not exceed P100,000 or
P200,000 in Metro Manila, exclusive of interests and costs

 CRIMINAL CASES COVERED

a. Violations of traffic laws, Rules and regulations;

b. Violations of Rental law;
c. Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
d. Violations of B.P. Blg. 22(A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC, April 5, 2003)
e. All other criminal cases where the penalty is imprisonment not
exceeding 6 months and/or fine of P1,000 irrespective of other
penalties or civil liabilities arising therefrom;
f. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence
where the imposable fine is not exceeding P10,000.

 PURPOSE

To achieve an expeditious and in expensive determination of the

cases defined to be governed by the rules on Summary Procedure

 WHERE TO FILE

1. MeTC
2. MTCC
3. MTC
4. MCTC

C. BARANGAY CONCILIATION (LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, Sec.

408)

 CIVIL CASES COVERED

All disputes involving parties who actually reside in the same city or
municipality may be the subject of the proceedings for amicable
settlement in the barangay except:

a. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or

instrumentality thereof;
b. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute
related to the performance of his official functions;
c. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding P5,000.00;
d. Offenses where there is no private offended party;
e. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities
or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
f. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of
different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units
adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; and
g. Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in
the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary
of Justice. The court in which the authority of the Lupon under the
Local Government Code are filed may, at any time before trial, muto
proprio refer the case to the lupon concerned for amicable
settlement.

 CRIMINAL CASES COVERED

Cases punishable by imprisonment of not more than 1 year or fine of

not more than P5000

 PURPOSE

To effect an amicable settlement of disputes among family and

barangay members at the barangay level without judicial recourse
and consequently help relieve the courts of docket congestion.

 WHERE TO FILE

1. For disputes between residents of the same barangay; the dispute

must be brought for settlement in the said barangay;
2. For disputes between residents of different but adjoining barangays
and the parties agree to submit their differences to amicable
settlement; within the same city or municipality where any of the
respondents reside at the election of the ccomplainant;7
3. For disputes involving real property or any interest when the parties
thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by
an appropriate lupon therein shall be brought in the barangay where
the real property or larger portion thereof is situated;
4. For disputes arising at the workplace where the contending parties
are employed or at the institution where the contending parties are
employed or at the institution where such parties are enrolled for
study shall be brought in the barangay where such workplace or
institution is located.

HOW JURISDICTION IS DETERMINED

 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of

the complaint and the character of the relief sought. Once vested,
jurisdiction remains regardless whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to
recover all or some of the claims asserted therein.

 It is NOT determined by:

1. The defenses in the answer or motion to dismiss;

EXCEPTION: if, after hearing, tenancy is shown to exist, it shall

dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction since the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has exclusive
jurisdiction to adjudicate agrarian disputes pursuant to R.A. No.
6657 (Velasquez v. Spouses Cruz, G.R. No. 191479, September 21,
2015)

2. The amount ultimately substantiated and awarded by the trial

court;
3. By the evidence in the trial;
4. Consent or agreement of the parties; or
5. By estoppel (Tolentino v. CA, G.R. No. 123445, October 6, 1997).
ABQs

(Over small claims; cases covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure and
Barangay conciliation)

1. Pedro and Juan are resident of Barangay Ifurug, Municipality of Dupaci

Mountain Province. Pedro owes Juan the amount of P50,000,00. Due
to non-payment. Juan brought his complaint to the Council of Elders of
said barangay which implements the bodong justice system. Both
appeared before the council where they verbally agreed that Pedro
will pay in installments on specific due dates. Pedro reneged on his
promise. Juan filed a complaint for sum of money before the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC). Pedro filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that
the case did not pass through the barangay conciliation under R.A. No.
7160 and that the RTC, not the MTC, has jurisdiction. In his opposition,
Juan argued that the intervention of the Council of Elders is substantial
compliance with the requirement of R.A. No. 7160 and the claim of
P50,000.00 is clearly within the jurisdiction of the MTC. As MTC judge,
rule on the motion and explain. (2016 BAR EXAMS)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The Motion to Dismiss should be denied. As a general rule, no complaint
involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon shall be instituted or
filed directly in court for adjudication unless there has been a confrontation
between the parties in the barangay and no settlement was reached section
412(a) of Republic Act No. 7160; April Wolf, G. Martinez, G.R. No.162084, June
28, 2005). However, in barangays where majority of the inhabitants are
members of indigenous cultural communities, local systems of settling disputes
through their councils of datus or elders shall be recognized without prejudice
to the applicable provisions of the Local Government Code (Sections 399, R.A.
7160). As a consequence, the customs and traditions of indigenous cultural
communities shall be applied in settling disputes between members of the
cultural communities Sections 412, R.A. 7160), thus, the confrontation
between Pedro and Juan before the Council of Elders of their barangay is
sufficient compliance with the precondition for filing the case in court under
Section 412 of R.A. No. 7160 (Zamora y Heirs of Izguierdo, G.R. No.146195,
November 18, 2004). Be that as it may, it is well-settled that the mode of
enforcement of an amicable settlement under the Katarungan Pambarangay
Law does not rule out the right of rescission under Art. 2041 of the Civil Code
(Crisanta Miguel v. Montanez,G.R. No.191336, January 25,2014). Accordingly,
Juan filed a complaint for sum Of money in the MTC, he is deemed to have
rescinded the compromise agreement reached before the Council of Elders of
the barangay. Henceforth. Pedro is incorrect in alleging that the RTC, not the
MTC has jurisdiction over Juan's claim. Considering that the claim is only for
P50,000.00, the case is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC under B.P.
Blg. 129 and may proceed pursuant to AM. No. 08-8-7-SC or the "Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases." Notably, a motion to dismiss is among the
prohibited pleadings under Section 14(a) of said rules. Similarly, Juan's claim of
P50,000.00 may be governed by the 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure which
clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC, ergo, the motion to dismiss
based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter should be denied (Section
19(a)1 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure).
2. A Small Claims Court __________ (2013 BAR EXAMS)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

a. has jurisdiction over ejectment actions

b. has limited jurisdiction over ejectment actions
c. does not have any jurisdiction over ejectment actions
d. does not have original, but has concurrent, jurisdiction over
ejectment actions
e. has only residual jurisdiction over ejectment actions

3. The Rule on Small Claims is applicable to: ___________(2012 BAR

EXAMS)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

a. claims for unpaid rentals of P 100,000 or less, with prayer for

ejectment.
b. enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement involving a money
claim of P 50,000 after one (1) year from date of settlement.
c. action for damages arising from a quasi-delict amounting to P
100,000.
d. action to collect on a promissory note amounting to P 105,000 where
plaintiff expressly insists in recovering only P 1 00,000.