Ateneo Reviewer Flashcards
Doctrine of Non-Interference or Judicial Stability
This principle holds that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders.
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Non-Interference or Judicial Stability
Third-party claims
a. execution through a separate action
b. preliminary attachment
c. replevin, through intervention, since the main action is still pending
Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. T or F.
True.
Courts cannot take cognizance of the issue of lack of jurisdiction if not raised by the parties themselves. T or F.
False.
How is jurisdiction over the plaintiff acquired
By his filing of the complaint or petition or other initiatory pleading.
How is jurisdiction over the defendant acquired
a. by a valid service of summons upon him
b. by his voluntary submission to the court’s authority
c. by filing for an affirmative relief
Jurisdiction over the person may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. T or F.
False. It will be deemed waived if not objected to during the filing of the motion.
Omnibus Motion Rule
The Omnibus Motion Rule is a procedural principle which requires that every motion that attacks a pleading, judgment, order or proceeding shall include all grounds then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived (Sec. 9, Rule 15, Rules of Court).
If no motion to dismiss has been filed at all, the objection of lack of jurisdiction over the person may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the defendant’s answer. T or F.
True.
How is jurisdiction over the subject matter conferred and determined
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the law.
XPNS:
a. estoppel by laches
b. estoppel by deed or estoppel in pais
Jurisdiction can be determined by the defenses or by the pieces of evidence presented in trial. T or F.
False. It is determined by the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
Tijam filed a civil case for recovery of P1908 against the Sibonghanoys. Surety intervened and wanted to be relieved of its liability, but eventually, a motion for execution was issued against it, which it opposed. It lost all the way until the CA. But, during the period for filing an MR, it filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. SC held that surety is estopped in raising the jurisdictional issue. the facts of this case show that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party in 1948, it could have raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction but for 15 years, it did not and instead, at several stages of the case, it invoked the jurisdiction of the courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for adjudication on the merits. It was only after an adverse decision was rendered that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. (Estoppel by laches)
