COURT OF APPEALS including
Commission, the Social Security Commission, the
COMPOSITION, QUALIFICATIONS, APPOINTMENT,
TENURE OF OFFICE AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE
OF MEMBERS
The Court of Appeals is the second highest tribunal in the
country, which was established on February 1, 1936 by
virtue of Commonwealth Act No. 3. The current form of the
Court of Appeals was constituted through Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, as amended by Executive Order No. 33, s. 1986,
Republic Act No. 7902, and Republic Act No. 8246.
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals are as follows:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether
or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgements of Regional Trial Courts;
and
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgements, resolutions, orders or awards of
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commission.
The Court of Appeals shall also have the power to try cases
and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform acts
necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling
within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the
power to grant and conduct new trials or proceedings.
The Court of Appeals is composed of one presiding justice
and 68 associate justices, all of which are appointed by the
President from a shortlist submitted by the Judicial and Bar
Council. The associate justices shall have precedence
according to the dates (or order, in case of similar
appointment dates) of their respective appointments. The
qualifications for the justices of the Supreme Court also
apply to members of the Court of Appeals.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 7902
AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION NINE OF BATAS
PAMBANSA BLG. 129, AS AMENDED, KNOWN AS THE JUDICIARY
REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980
Section 1. Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended, known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. — The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
"(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether
or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts;
and
"(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards
of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial
agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions,
the Securities and Exchange
Employees Compensation Commission and the
Civil Service Commission, except those falling
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor
Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree
No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and
of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section
17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
"The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and
conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all
acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases
falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including
the power to grant and conduct new trials or further
proceedings. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must
be continuous and must be completed within three (3)
months, unless extended by the Chief Justice."
Republic Act No. 8246
December 30, 1996
Amending Section 3, 4 & 10 of BP 129
AN ACT CREATING ADDITIONAL DIVISIONS IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS, INCREASING THE NUMBER OF COURT OF APPEALS
JUSTICES FROM FIFTY-ONE (51) TO SIXTY-NINE (69), AMENDING
FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 129, AS AMENDED,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF
1980, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Section 1. Section 3, Chapter 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
129, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows:
"Sec 3. Organization. – There is hereby created a
Court of Appeals which shall consist of a Presiding
Justice and sixty-eight (68) Associate Justices who
shall be appointed by the President of the
Philippines. The Presiding Justice shall be so
designated in his appointment, and the Associate
Justices shall have precedence according to the
dates of their respective appointments, or when the
appointments of two or more of them shall bear the
same date, according to the order in which their
appointments were issued by the President. Any
member who is reappointed to the Court after
rendering service in another position in the
government shall retain the precedence to which he
was entitled under his original appointment. and his
service in the Court shall, for all intents and
purposes, be considered as continuous and
uninterrupted.
Section 2. Section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 4. Exercise of Powers and Functions. – The
Court of Appeals shall exercise its powers,
functions, and duties through twenty-three (23)
divisions. Each composed of three (3) members.
The Court may sit en banc for the purpose of
exercising administrative, ceremonial or other non-
adjudicatory functions.
Section 3. Section 10 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 10. Place of Holding Sessions. – The Court of
Appeals shall have its permanent stations as
follows: The first seventeen (17) divisions shall be
stationed in the City of Manila for cases coming from
the First to the Fifth Judicial Regions; the
Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Divisions
shall be in Cebu City for cases coming from the
Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Judicial Regions; the
Twenty-first, Twenty-second and Twenty-third
Divisions shall be in Cagayan de Oro City for cases
coming from the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth
Court of Appeals
Exclusive original jurisdiction
Actions for annulment of judgments of the RTC [see: Sec.
9(2), BP 129; Sec. 1, Rule 47]
Concurrent original jurisdiction
a. With SC
1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
against
i. RTCs
ii. Civil Service Commission
iii. Central Board of Assessment Appeals
iv. Other quasi-judicial agencies mentioned in Rule
43
v. NLRC [St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 130866 (1998)
Note: Although there is concurrent jurisdiction as the
1987 Constitution grants this to the SC, SC A.M. No.
07-7-12 issued on 4 December 2007 provides that if
the petition involves an act/omission of a Quasi-
Judicial Agency, the petition shall only be cognizable
by the CA.
2. Petitions for writ of kalikasan [Sec. 3, Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases]
b. With SC and RTC
1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against lower courts and bodies
2. Petitions for quo warranto
3. Petitions for writs of habeas corpus
c. With SC, RTC and Sandiganbayan
1. Petitions for writ of amparo [Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ
of Amparo] and habeas data [Sec. 3, Rule on the
Writ of Habeas Data]
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction
a. By ordinary appeal
1. From judgments of RTC and Family Courts [Sec.
9(3), B.P. 129, as amended; Sec. 14, R.A. 8369]
2. Over decisions of the MTCs in cadastral or land
registration cases pursuant to its delegated
jurisdiction [Sec. 34, B.P. 129, as amended by R.A.
7691]
b. By petition for review
1. From judgments of the RTC rendered in its appellate
jurisdiction [Sec. 22, B.P. 129, as amended; Rule 42;
Sec. 9, B.P. 129]
2. From decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of the
Civil Service Commission and other bodies
mentioned in Rule 43 [Sec. 9(3), B.P. 129]
Judicial Regions. Whenever demanded by public
interest, or whenever justified by an increase in
case load, the Supreme Court, upon its own
initiative or upon recommendation of the Presiding
Justice of the Court of Appeals, may authorize any
division of the Court to hold sessions periodically, or
for such periods and at such places ;as the
Supreme Court may determine. for the purpose of
hearing and deciding cases. Trials or hearings in the
Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be
completed within three (3) months unless extended
by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."
Note: The enumeration of quasi-judicial agencies
under Sec. 1, Rule 43 is not exclusive [Wong v.
Wong, G.R. No. 180364 (2014),
quoting Cayao-Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete, G.R. No.
159132 (2008)]
3. From decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases
Shari’a Courts
Exclusive original jurisdiction of Shari’a District Courts
[Art. 143(1), P.D. 1083]
a. All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy,
paternity and filiation arising under the Code of Muslim
Personal Laws;
b. All cases involving disposition, distribution and
settlement of estate of deceased Muslims, probate of
wills, issuance of letters of administration of
appointment administrators or executors regardless of
the nature or aggregate value of the property;
c. Petitions for the declaration of absence and death for
the cancellation and correction of entries in the Muslim
Registries;
d. All actions arising from the customary contracts in which
the parties are Muslims, if they have not specified which
law shall govern their relations; and
e. All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction,
certiorari, habeas corpus and all other auxiliary writs
and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
Concurrent jurisdiction of Shari’a District Courts
(concurrent with existing civil courts) [Art. 143(2), P.D.
1083]
a. Petitions of Muslim for the constitution of the family
home, change of name and commitment of an insane
person to an asylum
b. All other personal and legal actions not mentioned in
par. (d) of the immediately preceding topic, wherein the
parties involved are Muslims Except those for forcible
entry and unlawful detainer, which shall fall under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Court (now
MTC under B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691]
c. All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory
relief wherein the parties are Muslims or the property
involved belongs exclusively to Muslims
Appellate jurisdiction of Shari’a District Courts [Art. 155,
P.D. 1083] Over all cases tried in Shari’a Circuit Courts
within their territorial jurisdiction [Art. 144, P.D. 1083]
Exclusive original jurisdiction of Shari’a Circuit Courts
a. All cases involving offenses defined and punished under
P.D. 1083
b. All civil actions and proceedings between parties who
are Muslims or have been married in accordance with
Art. 13, P.D. 1083 involving disputes relating to
1. Marriage
2. Divorce recognized under P.D. 1083
3. Betrothal or breach of contract to marry
4. Customary dowry (mahr)
5. Disposition and distribution of property upon divorce
6. Maintenance and support, and consolatory gifts
(mut’a); and
7. Restitution of marital rights
c. All cases involving disputes relative to communal
properties
The Shari’a District Court or the Shari’a Circuit Court shall
constitute an Agama Arbitration Council [Art. 160, P.D.
1083] in cases of divorce by talaq and tafwid [Art. 161, P.D.
1083] and subsequent marriages [Art. 162, P.D. 1083] The
Shari’a Circuit Court may also constitute a council to settle
amicably cases involving offenses against customary law
which can be settled without formal trial [Art. 163, P.D. 1083]
#54 TOLENTINO vs. GONZALES
RAMON C. GONZALES, complainant, vs. COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
AMELITA G. TOLENTINO, respondent. A.M. No. CA-10-49-J January 28, 2010.
Legal Doctrine:
The Court of Appeals is a collegiate court whose
members reach their conclusions in consultation and
accordingly render their collective judgment after due
deliberation. Thus, we have held that a charge of violation
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground
that a collective decision is “unjust” cannot prosper.
Consequently, the filing of charges against a single member
of a division of the appellate court is inappropriate.
Under Section 9 (1) of Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less
serious charge. Under Section 11 (B) of the same rule, the
following sanctions may be imposed on judges of regular
and special courts and justices of the Court of Appeals and
the Sandiganbayan who commit less serious offenses:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits
for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months;
or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding
P20,000.00. Under the circumstances, this Court
deems it appropriate to impose a fine of P15,000 on
respondent.
#55 NIÑO vs. PIZARRO
ATTY. DENNIS V. NIÑO VS. JUSTICE NORMANDIE B. PIZARRO
A.M. NO. CA-08-45-J. FEBRUARY 22, 2010. 613 SCRA 302
Legal Doctrine:
Gross Ignorance of the Law. —In order for this
administrative offense to prosper, the subject order or
actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties
must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence
but, more importantly, must be attended by bad faith, fraud,
dishonesty, or corruption.
Disqualification and Inhibition of Judges. —There
was no evasion of duty when respondent inhibited from the
case. A judge's inhibition is a judicial matter, and should be
treated as an administrative matter.
Court of Appeals. —CA is a collegiate court whose
members reach their conclusions in consultation and
accordingly render their collective judgment after due
deliberation. The filing of charges against a single member
of a division of the appellate court is inappropriate.
Moot and Academic Questions. —Regardless of
whether the grounds/relief prayed for have become moot, a
judge has the duty to resolve motion in the interest of orderly
administration of justice and to properly inform the parties of
the outcome of the motion.
#56 NWRB vs. NETWORK
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD (NWRB) vs. A. L. ANG NETWORK, INC.
Legal Doctrine:
Section 9(1) of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 129 granted the
Court of Appeals original jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus and quo
warranto, auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid
of its appellate jurisdiction.-
—Section 9 (1) of BP 129 granted the Court of
Appeals (then known as the Intermediate
Appellate Court) original jurisdiction to issue writs
of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or
processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.
It is settled that the list of quasi-judicial agencies
specifically mentioned in Rule 43 is not meant to be
exclusive.-
—While Section 9 (3) of BP 129 and Section 1 of
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court does not list
petitioner as “among” the quasi-judicial agencies
whose final judgments, orders, resolutions or
awards are appealable to the appellate court, it is
non sequitur to hold that the Court of Appeals has
no appellate jurisdiction over petitioner’s
judgments, orders, resolutions or awards. It is
settled that the list ofquasi-judicial agencies
specifically mentioned in Rule 43 is not meant to
be exclusive. The employment of the word
“among” clearly instructs so.
The Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over quasi-
judicial agencies under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court,
petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus
against the acts and omissions of quasi-judicial agencies
should be filed with it, except when the law or the Rules itself
directs otherwise.-
—Since the appellate court has exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, petitions for
writs of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus
against the acts and omissions of quasi-judicial
 agencies, like petitioner, should be filed with it.
This is what Rule 65 of the Rules imposes for
procedural uniformity. The only exception to this
instruction is when the law or the Rules itself
directs otherwise, as cited in Section 4, Rule 65.
#57 WESLEYAN vs. REYES
WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES vs. REYES
G.R. No. 208321. July 30, 2014
Legal Doctrine:
It is settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902, the CA,
pursuant to the exercise of its original jurisdiction over
petitions for certiorari, is specifically given the power to pass
upon the evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual
issues. Sec. 9 clearly states: The Court of Appeals shall
have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive
evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve
factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and
appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and
conduct new trials or further proceedings. x x x Hence, the
appellate court acted within its sound discretion when it
reevaluated the NLRC’s factual findings and substituted the
latter’s own judgment.
#58 MERCADO vs. AMA
MERCADO vs. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-PARAÑAQUE CITY, INC.
G.R. No. 183572 April 13, 2010
Legal Doctrine:
In certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, the Court of Appeals does not assess and weigh
each piece of evidence introduced in the case, it only
examines the factual findings of the NLRC to determine
whether or not the conclusions are supported by substantial
evidence.
We laid down our basic approach in the review of
Rule 65 decisions of the CA in labor cases, as follows: In a
Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the
assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for
jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65.
Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions
of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for
legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the
same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was
presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from
the prism of whether it correctly determined the
presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the
NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the
NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In
other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA
undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the
NLRC decision challenged before it.
Under REPUBLIC ACT No. 5433, which amended
R.A. No. 296 also known as the "Judiciary Act of 1948", Sec.
29. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
all cases, actions, and proceedings, not enumerated in
section seventeen of this Act, properly brought to it,
except final judgments or decisions of Courts of First
Instance rendered after trial on the merits in the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction, which affirm in full the judgment or
decision of a municipal or city court, in which cases the
aggrieved party may elevate the matter to the Court of
Appeals only on petition for review, to which the Court of
Appeals shall give due course only when the petition
shows prima facie that the court has committed errors
of fact or of fact and law that would warrant reversal or
modification of the judgment or decision sought to be
reviewed. The decision of the Court of Appeals shall be
final: Provided, however, That the Supreme Court in its
discretion may, in any case involving a question of law, upon
petition of the party aggrieved by the decision and under
rules and conditions that it may prescribe, require by
certiorari that the said case be certified to it for review and
determination, as if the case had been brought before it on
appeal."
#59 HOLY TRINITY vs. DELA CRUZ
HOLY TRINITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. DELA CRUZ et al.
Legal Doctrine:
The CA is vested with sufficient authority and
discretion to review matters, not assigned as errors on
appeal, if it finds that consideration thereof is necessary in
arriving at a complete and just resolution of the case or to
serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing
piecemeal justice. In fact, the CA is possessed with inherent
authority to review unassigned errors that are closely related
to an error properly raised, or upon which the determination
of the error properly assigned is dependent, or where it finds
that consideration thereof is necessary in arriving at a just
decision of the case.
OTHER NOTES
1. Despite the invalid re-classification, the Dakila property was not
subject to the coverage of RA 6657.
a. For a land to be under the coverage of RA 6657, it must EITHER
be primarily devoted to or be suitable for agriculture.
i. “Agricultural land” is one that is devoted to agricultural
activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land.
ii. “Agricultural activity” includes the cultivation of the soil;
including the harvesting of such farm products and other
farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in
conjunction with such farming operations done by persons
whether juridical or natural.
b. These two requisites are needed before the land can be placed
under the coverage of RA 6657 (1) land must be devoted to
agricultural activity and (2) land must not be classified as
mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
c. The Dakila property is not devoted to any agricultural activity,
especially considering that the land was not conducive to
farming by reason of elevation and insufficient irrigation.
2. It also does not fall under PD 27.
a. For a land to be covered under PD 27, it must be devoted to rice
and corns. There must be a system of share-crop or lease-
tenancy obtaining therein. If either the requisite is absent, the
land must be excluded.
#60 INGLES vs. ESTRADA
INGLES vs. ESTRADA
695 SCRA 285, April 08, 2013
Legal Doctrine:
Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, vests the Court of
Appeals with exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
“annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts.” The
remedy by which such jurisdiction may be invoked is
provided under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. Conformably,
Rule 47 sanctions the filing of a petition for the Annulment
of Judgments, Final Orders and Resolutions before the
Court of Appeals.
Section 1 of Rule 47, however, defines the scope
and nature of this petition: RULE 47 ANNULMENT OF
JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS.
SECTION 1. Coverage. —This Rule shall govern the
annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final
orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial
Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies
are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner. (Emphasis supplied)
The above-quoted section sets forth in no unclear
terms that only judgments, final orders and resolutions in
“civil actions” of “Regional Trial Courts” may be the subject
of a petition for annulment before the Court of Appeals.
Against this premise, it becomes apparent why the Ingleses’
petition for Annulment of Final Orders must fail.
#61 UNIVAC vs. SORIANO
UNIVAC DEVELOPMENT, INC. vs. WILLIAM M. SORIANO
G.R. No. 182072 June 19, 2013
Legal Doctrine:
In exercising the expanded judicial review over
labor cases, the Court of Appeals can grant the petition if it
finds that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by
capriciously, whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarding
evidence which is material or decisive of the controversy
which necessarily includes looking into the evidence
presented by the parties. In other words, the CA is
empowered to evaluate the materiality and significance of
the evidence which is alleged to have been capriciously,
whimsically, or arbitrarily disregarded by the NLRC in
relation to all other evidence on record. The CA can grant a
petition when the factual findings complained of are not
supported by the evidence on record; when it is necessary
to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice;
when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the LA;
and when necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case.
Thus, contrary to the contention of petitioner, the CA can
review the finding of facts of the NLRC and the evidence of
the parties to determine whether the NLRC gravely abused
its discretion in finding that there was no illegal dismissal
against respondent.
#62 GADITANO vs. SAN MIGUEL
GADITANO vs. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION
Legal Doctrine:
The Court of Appeals is clothed with jurisdiction to
review the resolution issued by the Secretary of the DOJ
through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court albeit solely on the ground that the Secretary of
Justice committed grave abuse of his discretion amounting
to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
#63 DUYON vs. CA
DUYON vs. FORMER SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 172218 November 26, 2014
Legal Doctrine:
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders,
directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore,
review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases. The
appellate court’s jurisdiction extends only to decisions of the
Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. Thus,
appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman
in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the
Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. It bears stressing that when we declared Section
27 of Republic Act No. 6770 as unconstitutional, the SC
categorically stated that said provision is involved only
whenever an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is taken
from a decision in an administrative disciplinary action. It
cannot be taken into account where an original action
for certiorari under Rule 65 is resorted to as a remedy for
judicial review, such as from an incident in a criminal action.
Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, as
amended by Administrative Order No. 17, reads:
SEC. 7. Finality and execution of decision. - Where the
respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of
conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or
reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine
equivalent to one-month salary, the decision shall be final,
executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision
may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified
petition for review under the requirements and conditions
set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15)
days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or
Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
Note: Per SC: The contention that the phrase "in
all other cases" has removed the distinction
between administrative and criminal cases of the
Ombudsman is ludicrous.
#64 GUY vs. IGNACIO
GUY vs. IGNACIO
Legal Doctrine:
Time-honored doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The
court cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a
question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative
tribunal prior to resolving the same, where the question
demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion
requiring special knowledge, experience and services in
determining technical and intricate matters of fact. In cases
where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly
applicable, the court cannot arrogate unto itself the authority
to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is
initially lodged with an administrative body of special
competence.
#65 TOMAWIS VS. BALINDONG
TOMAWIS VS. BALINDONG
G.R. No. 182434. March 5, 2010
Legal Doctrine:
Sharia's Courts; Jurisdiction; Appeals. —Decades
after the enactment in 1989 of the law creating the Shari'a
Appellate Court and after the Court (per Resolution of June
8, 1999) authorized its creation, the Shari'a Appellate Court
has yet to be organized with the appointment of a Presiding
Justice and two Associate Justices. Until such time that the
Sharia's Appellate Court shall have been organized,
appeals or petitions from final orders/decisions of the Shari'a
District Court (SDC) filed with CA shall be referred to a
Special Division to be organized in any of the CA stations
preferably composed of Muslim Court of Appeals Justices.
For cases where only errors/questions of law are raised, the
appeal shall be to the Court by a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of ROC.

Prior to effectivity date of BP 129, the SDC had, by

virtue of PD 1083, original jurisdiction, concurrently with the
RTC and MTC over all personal and real actions outside the
purview of Art. 143(1)(d) of PD 1083, in which the parties
involved were Muslims, except those for ejectment.

The civil case, judging from the averments in the

complaint, is a suit for recovery of possession and eventual
reconveyance of real property, which, under BP 129 as
amended, falls within the original jurisdiction of either RTC
or MTC. In an action for reconveyance, all that must be
alleged in the complaint are two facts that would entitle the
plaintiff to recover title to disputed land: (1) that plaintiff is
the owner of the land or has possessed the land in the
concept of owner; and (2) that defendant has illegally
dispossessed the plaintiff of the land.

Even if Sharia's courts are considered regular

courts, these are courts of limited jurisdiction. The Code of
Muslim Personal Laws creating said courts was
promulgated to fulfill the aspiration of the Filipino Muslims to
have their system of laws enforced in their communities.

Sharia's courts were not included in the

reorganization of courts that were formerly organized under
RA 296.

The jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to

depend upon defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to
dismiss, or in a motion for reconsideration, but only upon the
allegations of the complaint. Jurisdiction over the subject
matter of a case is determined from the allegations of the
complaint and character of the relief sought. In this case,
private respondents' petition in the civil case sufficiently
alleged the concurrent original jurisdiction of SDC.

The SDC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all

actions arising from contracts customary to Muslims to the
exclusion of RTC, as the exception under PD 1083, while
both courts have concurrent original jurisdiction over all
other personal actions.