ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 48348 November 1, 1941 - AQUINO DEL ROSARIO v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 48524 November 1, 1941 - MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANILA HOTEL COMPANY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 48662 November 6, 1941 - JESUS B. LAVA v. JOSE LOPEZ VITO, ET AL.

    073 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. 48306 November 7, 1941 - PEDRO L. GALANG v. P. M. ENDENCIA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. 48415 November 7, 1941 - INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 48458 November 7, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL FORTUNO

    073 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 48683 November 8, 1941 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FAR EASTERN BROADCASTING

    073 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 48183 November 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER, ET AL.

    073 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 48456 November 12, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. NGO CHAY

    073 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 47813 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SIMEON ANTONIO

    073 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 48320 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JUAN CACHERO

    073 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 48459 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FIDEL FORTUNO

    073 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 47805 November 19, 1941 - CONCEPCION PIÑON v. CONSUELO ZAFRA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 48101 November 22, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE NABORA

    073 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 48123 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANACLETO VINEDA

    073 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 48395 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ALEJANDRO ENCARNACION

    073 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 48554 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BILAANS S. SUNI

    073 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 47688 November 24, 1941 - BASILIA CABRERA v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC.

    073 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 47988 November 24, 1941 - H. S. FENWICK v. JOAQUlN PARDO DE TAVERA

    073 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 48641 November 24, 1941 - PEDRO GALLEGO v. VICENTE VERRA

    073 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 47887 November 25, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CARMEN DE UMALI

    073 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 48125 November 25, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FELIX CABADDU

    073 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. 47357 November 26, 1941 - SALVADOR E. IMPERIAL v. CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 47775 November 26, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO FIGUEROA

    073 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 47976 November 26, 1941 - A. P. SEVA Y OTROS v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    073 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 48215 November 26, 1941 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 48754 November 26, 1941 - EMILIO V. REYES v. APOLONIO R. DIAZ

    073 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 47804 November 27, 1941 - JUAN CASTILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    073 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 48147 November 27, 1941 - CLARO CASTRO, ET AL. v. ROSENDO REYES

    073 Phil 492

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 48754   November 26, 1941 - EMILIO V. REYES v. APOLONIO R. DIAZ<br /><br />073 Phil 484

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 48754. November 26, 1941.]

    EMILIO V. REYES, Protestant-Appellant, v. APOLONIO R. DIAZ, Protestee-Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; SUPREME COURT’S APPELLATE POWERS. — The issue of jurisdiction which confers appellate powers upon the Supreme Court in a given case is not such question as is dependent exclusively upon minor matters of fact or upon a mere instruction of the pleadings, but that which has reference to the more important question of jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter as determined by law.

    2. ID.; ID.; OVER SUBJECT MATTER HOW DETERMINED. — The question of whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, calls for interpretation and application of the law of jurisdiction which distributes the judicial power among the different courts in the Philippines, and since the ruling on the matter is of far-reaching consequences, affecting, as it may, the very life and structure of our judicial system, the law has deemed it wise to place the power and authority to act thereon in the highest court of the land.

    3. ID.; ID.; QUESTION OF FILING CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY; CASE AT BAR. — In the instant case, there is no question of jurisdiction. Both parties agree that if the due filing of the protestant’s certificate of candidacy is proven, the trial court has jurisdiction, but that if such fact is not proven the trial court has no jurisdiction except to dismiss the case. There is, therefore, no question between the parties as to what the jurisdiction of the trial court is according to law in either case. The real question between them is one of fact - whether or not the protestant’s certificate of candidacy has been duly filed. And not until this fact is proved can the question of jurisdiction be determined.

    4. ID.; ID.; VALIDITY OF BALLOTS NOT QUESTION OF JURISDICTION. — Whether certain ballots are or are not pertinent to the issue raised in the pleadings, is merely a question of relevancy of evidence, and may only involve jurisdiction over the issue.

    5. ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER AND ISSUE DISTINGUISHED. — Jurisdiction over the issue should be distinguished from jurisdiction over the subject matter, the latter being conferred by law and the former by the pleadings. Jurisdiction over the issue, unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter, may be conferred by consent either express or implied of the parties. Although an issue is not duly pleaded it may validly be tried and decided if no timely objection is made thereto by the parties. This cannot be done when jurisdiction over the subject matter is involved. In truth, jurisdiction over the issue is an expression of a principle that is involved in jurisdiction over the persons of the parties.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, J.:


    This case is certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals upon the ground that the jurisdiction of the trial court is in issue. The supposed questions of jurisdiction are, first, whether or not there is sufficient evidence to show that the protestant has duly filed his certificate of candidacy, and second, whether the trial court has or has no authority to pass upon the validity of the ballots adjudicated to the protestant which have not been challenged by the protestee in his counter-protest.

    Article VIII, section 2, No. 3, of the Constitution confers upon the Supreme Court jurisdiction over "all cases in which the jurisdiction of any trial court is in issue." Section 138, No. 3, of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Commonwealth Acts Nos. 3 and 259, provides that the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction over "all cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior court is in issue." It has been held that the word "jurisdiction" as used in the constitutions and in the statutes "means jurisdiction as to the subject-matter only, unless an exception arises by reason of its employment in a broader sense." (15 C. J. 735; Johnson v. Wells, 91 Fed. 1; U. S. v. Lee, 84 Fed. 626; Vinal v. Continental Constr., etc. Co., 34 Fed. 228; Starnes v. Mutual Loan etc., Co., 102 Ga. 597; 29 SE 452.) There is in our Constitution or in the law aforecited nothing which may lend the word "jurisdiction" therein used a broader meaning than jurisdiction over the subject-matter. On the contrary, having due regard to the manifest purpose of the law, which is to confine the appellate jurisdiction of this Court to cases of vital importance involving questions of fundamental character, such, for instance, as the question of validity of statute, treaty or ordinance, or the legality of any tax, import or assessment which may affect the very existence of the government, or criminal cases wherein life imprisonment or death penalty is imposed, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the issue of jurisdiction which confers appellate powers upon this Court in a given case is not such question as is dependent exclusively upon minor matters of fact or upon a mere construction of the pleadings, but that which has reference to the more important question of jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject-matter as determined by law.

    Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong (C. J. S., p. 36) and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers (Banco Español Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921; Perkins v. Dizon, 40 Off. Gaz. No. 7, 3d Sup. p. 216; Ng Si Chok v. Vera, G. R. No. 45674). The question, therefore, of whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter, calls for interpretation and application gf the law of jurisdiction which distributes the judicial power among the different courts in the Philippines, and since the ruling on the matter is of far-reaching consequences, affecting, as it may, the very life and structure of our judicial system, the law has deemed it wise to place the power and authority to act thereon in the highest court of the land.

    In the instant case, there is no such question of jurisdiction as above described. Both parties agree that if the due filing of the protestant’s certificate of candidacy is proven, the trial court has jurisdiction, but that if such fact is not proven the trial court has no jurisdiction except to dismiss the case. There is, therefore, no question between the parties as to what the jurisdiction of the trial court is according to law in either case. The real question between them is one of fact — whether or not the protestant’s certificate of candidacy has been duly filed. And not until this fact is proved can the question of jurisdiction be determined.

    Neither is the second question one of jurisdiction within the purview of the legal provisions above quoted. Whether certain ballots are or are not pertinent to the issue raised in the pleadings, is merely a question of relevancy of evidence. It may be true that the court by an erroneous ruling on such question may encroach upon issues completely foreign to those defined in the pleadings, but in such case the question of jurisdiction that may arise would not be one of jurisdiction over the subject-matter but of jurisdiction over the issue. In order that a court may validly try and decide a case, it must have jurisdiction over the subject-matter and jurisdiction over the persons of the parties. (Banco Español Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921; Perkins v. Dizon, 40 Off. Gaz. No. 7, 3d Sup. p. 216.) But in some instances it is said that the court should also have jurisdiction over the issue (15 C. J. 734; Hutts v. Martin, 134 Ind. 587, 33 N.E. 676), meaning thereby that the issue being tried and decided by the court be within the issues raised in the pleadings. But this kind of jurisdiction should be distinguished from jurisdiction over the subject-matter, the latter being conferred by law and the former by the pleadings. Jurisdiction over the issue, unlike jurisdiction over the subject-matter, may be conferred by consent either express or implied of the parties. (Rule 17, sec. 4, Rules of Court.) Although an issue is not duly pleaded it may validly be tried and decided if no timely objection is made thereto by the parties. This cannot be done when jurisdiction over the subject-matter is involved. In truth, jurisdiction over the issue is an expression of a principle that is involved in jurisdiction over the persons of the parties. Where, for instance, an issue is not duly pleaded in the complaint, the defendant cannot be said to have been served with process as to that issue. (Cf. Atkins etc. Co. v. Domingo, 44 Phil. 680). At any rate, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over a specific issue is a question that requires nothing except an examination of the pleadings, and this function is without such importance as to call for the intervention of this Court.

    Furthermore, this question of jurisdiction is unsubstantial. It is a well-settled rule that the institution of suffrage is of public, not private, interest, and the court may examine all the ballots after the ballot boxes are opened in order to determine which are legal and which are illegal, even though neither of the parties raised any question as to their illegality. (Yalung v. Atienza, 52 Phil. 781; Cecilio v. Tomacruz, 62 Phil. 689; Cosculluela v. Gaston, 63 Phil. 41).

    Wherefore, this case is hereby remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

    Avanceña, C.J., Abad Santos, Diaz, Horrilleno and Ozaeta, JJ., concur.

    Laurel, J., concurs in the result.

    G.R. No. 48754   November 26, 1941 - EMILIO V. REYES v. APOLONIO R. DIAZ<br /><br />073 Phil 484


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED