Jurisdiction of Philippine

courts

Court of Appeals

WHAT IS THE CA'S ORIGINAL JURISDICTION?

CA'S Exclusive Jurisdiction

[1] Actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial

Courts  (Sec. 9[2], Batas Blg. 129 [1983]; Rule 47, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure)
[2] Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
involving an act or omission of a quasi-judicial agency,
unless otherwise provided by law (Sec. 4, Rule 65, as
amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC dated December 12,
2007)

CA's Concurrent Jurisdiction with Supreme Court

[1] Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and

mandamus against the Civil Service Commission (Rep.
Act No. 7902 [1995])
[2] Petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
against the National Labor Relations Commission under
the Labor Code (Sec. 9, Batas 129 [1983], as amended by
Rep. Act No. 7902 [1995]) (St. Martin’s Funeral Homes vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 130866,
September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494)

CA's Concurrent with the Supreme Court and the Regional

Trial Courts

[1] Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto

[2] Actions brought to prevent and restrain violations of laws
concerning monopolies and combinations in restraint of
trade (Sec. 17, Rep. Act No. 296 [1948], as amended by Rep.
Act No. 5440 [1968])

CA's Concurrent with Supreme Court, Sandiganbayan, and

Regional Trial Courts
[1] Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus relating
to an act or omission of a municipal trial court, or of a
corporation, a board, an officer, or person
[2] Petitions for issuance of writ of amparo (Sec. 3, A.M. No.
07-9-12-SC or “The Rule on the Writ of Amparo,” effective
October 24, 2007)
[3] Petitions for issuance of writ of habeas data (Sec. 3, A.M.
No. 08-1-16- SC, effective February 2, 2008)

WHAT IS THE CA'S APPELLATE JURISDICTION?

Ordinary Appeal to the CA

[1] Appeals from Regional Trial Courts, except those

appealable to the Supreme Court
[2] Appeals from Regional Trial Courts on constitutional,
tax, jurisdictional questions involving questions of fact
which should be appealed first to the Court of Appeals (Sec.
17, subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Rep. Act No.
296 [1948] as amended, which was not intended to be
excluded by Sec. 9[3], Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 [1983])
[3] Appeals from decisions and final orders of the Family
Courts (Sec. 14, Rep. Act No. 8369 [1997])
[4] Appeals from Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases,
where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, or where a lesser penalty is imposed but for
offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose
out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more
serious offense for which the penalty of reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment is imposed (Sec. 3[c], Rule 122, as
amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective October 15,
2004; People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004,
433 SCRA 640)
[5] Direct Appeal from land registration and cadastral cases
decided by metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts,
and municipal circuit trial courts based on their delegated
jurisdiction
[6] Petition for certiorari against decisions and final
resolutions of the National Labor Relations
Commission (A. M. No. 99-2-01-SC; St. Martin Funeral
Homes vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
13086, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494; Torres, et. al.
vs. Specialized Packaging Development Corp. , et. al. , G.R.
No.149634, July 6, 2004, 433 SCRA 455)
[7] Automatic review in cases where the Regional Trial
Courts impose the death penalty (Secs. 3[d] and 10, Rule
122, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective
October 15, 2004; People vs. Mateo, supra)

Petition for Review with the CA

[1] Appeals from Regional Trial Courts in cases decided by

the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction (Sec. 22,
Batas Blg. 129 [1983]; Rule 42, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure; Sec. 3[b], Rule 122)
[2] Appeals from decisions of the Regional Trial Courts
acting as Special Agrarian Courts in cases involving just
compensation to the landowners concerned (Land Bank of
the Philippines vs. De Leon, G. R. No. 143275, September 10,
2002, 388 SCRA 537)
[3] Appeals from awards, judgments, final orders, or
resolutions of, or authorized by, quasi-judicial agencies in the
exercise of their quasi-judicial functions. Among these are:
CSC, GSIS, NEA, CIAC, SEC, DAR, OP, CBAA, BPTTT, ERC,
LRA, CAB, BOI, PAEC, SSS, IC, ECC, Voluntary Arbitrator  [4]
Appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases (A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC; Fabian vs.
Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA
470)

Court of Tax Appeals

Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction of the CTA

[1] Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in

cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal
revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation
thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal
Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue;
[2] Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in
cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal
revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations
thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal
Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code
provides a specific period of action, in which case the
inaction shall be deemed a denial;
[3] Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial
Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by
them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;
[4] Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases
involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money
charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected,
fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or
other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws
administered by the Bureau of Customs;
[5] Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving
the assessment and taxation of real property originally
decided by the provincial or city board of assessment
appeals;
[6] Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases
elevated to him automatically for review from decisions of
the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the
Government under Sec. 2315 of the Tariff and Customs
Code;
[7] Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the
case of nonagricultural product, commodity or article, and
the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural
product, commodity or article, involving dumping and
countervailing duties under Sec. 301 and 302, respectively,
of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures
under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal
the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.

CTA's Jurisdiction over Cases involving Criminal offenses

[1] Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses

arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code
or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by
the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs:
Provided, however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in
this paragraph where the principal amount of taxes and fees,
exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified
amount claimed shall be tried by the regular courts and the
jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. Any provision of
law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding,
the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the
recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall at all
times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly
determined in the same proceeding by the CTA, the filing of
the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it
the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filling
of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be
recognized.

[2] Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses 1.

Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of
the Regional Trial Courts in tax cases originally decided by
them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction. 2. Over
petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders
of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate
jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective
jurisdiction.3. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases

[3] Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases

involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees,
charges and penalties: Provided, however, That collection
cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees,
exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper
Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional
Trial Court.

[4] Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases: 1.

Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of
the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally
decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction. 2.
Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or
orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the Exercise of their
appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally
decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their respective
jurisdiction. (Sec. 7, RA 1125, amended by RA 9282)

Sandiganbayan

WHAT IS THE SANDIGANBAYAN'S EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION?

Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

[1] Violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 [1960] (Anti-Graft) , Rep.

Act No. RA 1379 [1955] and Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII of
Revised Penal Code; and other offenses committed by public
officials and employees in relation to their office, and private
individuals charged as co-principals, accomplices, and
accessories including those employed in government-owned
or –controlled corporations, where one or more of the
accused are officials occupying the following positions in
government, whether in a permanent, acting, or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

Officials of the Executive Branch xxx classified as salary

grade “27” or higher xxx specifically including: [a] Members
of Congress [b] Members of the Judiciary [c] Members of
Constitutional Commissions [d] All other national and local
officials classified as salary grade “27” and higher

In cases where none of the accused is occupying the above

positions, the original jurisdiction shall be vested in the
proper Regional Trial Court or Metropolitan Trial Court, etc. ,
as the case may be, pursuant to their respective
jurisdictions. (Sec. 2, Rep. Act No. 7975 [1995], as amended
by Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997]

In cases where there is no specific allegation of facts

showing that the offense was committed in relation to the
public office of the accused, the original jurisdiction shall
also be vested in the proper Regional Trial Court or
Metropolitan Trial Court, etc. , as the case may be. (Lacson
vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999,
310 SCRA 298)

[2] Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in

connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A.
(Sec. 2, Rep. Act No. 7975 [1995] as amended by Rep. Act
No. 8249 [1997]).

[3] Violations of Rep. Act No. 9160, or “Anti-Money

Laundering Act of 2001,” as amended by Rep. Act No. 9194,
when committed by public officers and private persons who
are in conspiracy with such public officers.

Sandiganbayan's Concurrent with Supreme Court

Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,

mandamus, habeas corpus, and injunction and other
ancillary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, including
quo warranto arising in cases falling under said Executive
Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A. (Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997])

Sandiganbayan's Concurrent with Supreme Court, Court of

Appeals and Regional Trial Courts

[1] Petitions for writ of amparo and writ of habeas data when
action concerns public data files of government offices (Sec.
3, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or “The Rule on the Writ of Amparo,”
effective October 24, 2007; Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC,
effective February 2, 2008)

[2] Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus,

relating to an act or omission of a Municipal Trial Court,
corporation, board, officer, or person (Sec. 4, Rule 65, as
amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC dated December 12,
2007)

Sandiganbayan's Appellate Jurisdiction

Decisions and final orders of Regional Trial Courts in the
exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction under Pres.
Decree No. 1606 [1979], as amended, shall be appealable to
the Sandiganbayan in the manner provided by Rule 122 of
the Rules of Court. (Sec. 5, Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997])

Regional Trial Courts

WHAT IS THE RTC'S ORIGINAL JURISDICTION?

For civil cases:

RTC's Exclusive

[1] Subject of the action not capable of pecuniary estimation;

Actions not capable of pecuniary estimation [a] Where it is
primarily for the recovery of a SUM OF MONEY, the claim is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation – jurisdiction,
whether in the MTC or RTC, would depend on the AMOUNT
of the claim. [b] Where the basic issue is other than the right
to recover a sum of money, or where the money claim is
purely incidental to, or a consequence of the principal relief
sought, the subject of litigation may not be estimated in
terms of money – jurisdiction exclusively of RTC. Examples:
Expropriation specific performance support foreclosure of
mortgage annulment of judgment actions questioning the
validity of a mortgage annulment of deed of conveyance
rescission [c] While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are
also incapable of pecuniary estimation, the law specifically
mandates that they are cognizable by the MTC, METC, or
MCTC where the assessed value of the real property
involved does not exceed P20,000.00 in Metro Manila, or
P50,000.00, if located elsewhere. (Russel vs. Vestil, G.R. No.
119347, March 17, 1999).

[2] Actions involving title to, or possession of real property or

any interest therein - where assessed value of property
exceeds P20,000.00 (P50,000.00 in Metro Manila) ,
excluding forcible entry and unlawful detainer

[3] Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction – where

demand or claim exceeds P300,000.00 (P400,000.00 in
Metro Manila)

[4] Matters of probate, testate and intestate - where. gross

value of estate exceeds P300,000.00 (P400,000.00 in Metro
Manila)

[5] Cases not within exclusive jurisdiction of any court,

tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions.

[6] All other cases where demand – exclusive of interests,

damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses and cost, or value of property in controversy –
exceeds P300,000.00 (P400,000.00 in Metro Manila)

[7] Additional original jurisdiction transferred under Sec. 5.2.

of the Securities Regulation Code.

[8] Application for issuance of writ of search and seizure in

civil actions for infringement of intellectual property rights
(Sec. 3, A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC, effective February 15, 2002)

[9] Violations of Rep. Act No. 9160 or “Anti-Money

Laundering Act of 2001,” as amended by Rep. Act No. 9194.

RTC's Concurrent Jurisdiction

[1] RTC with Supreme Court in actions affecting

ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls

(Sec. 21[1], Batas Blg. 129 [1983])

[2] RTC with Supreme Court and Court of Appeals in

petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto Appeals

(Sec. 5 [1], Article VIII, 1987 Constitution)

[3] RTC with Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and

Sandiganbayan [a] Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus, if they relate to an act or omission of a municipal
trial court, corporation, board, officer, or person (Sec. 4, Rule
65, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, dated December
12, 2007) [b] Petitions for writ of amparo and writ of habeas
data (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07 9-12-SC or “The Rule on the Writ
of Amparo,” effective October 24, 2007; Sec. 3, A.M. No. 08-
1-16-SC, effective February 2, 2008)

[4] RTC with metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts,

and municipal circuit trial courts. Application for Protection
Order under Sec. 10, Rep. Act No. 9282, unless there is a
Family Court in the residence of petitioner.

[5] RTC with Insurance Commission Claims not exceeding

PhP 100,000.00

(Sec. 416, Insurance Code [1974], Pres. Decree No. 612

[1975]. Applicable if subject of the action is not capable of
pecuniary estimation; otherwise, jurisdiction is concurrent
with Metropolitan Trial Court, etc.)

For criminal Cases:

RTC's Exclusive

Criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any

court, tribunal, or body. (Sec. 20, Batas Blg. 129 [1983]).
These include criminal cases where the penalty provided by
law exceeds six (6) years imprisonment irrespective of the
fine. (Rep. Act No. 7691 [1994]).

These also include criminal cases not falling within the

exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, where
none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding
to salary grade “27” and higher. (Rep. Act No. 7975 [1995]
and Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997]).

But in cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine,

the Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction if the amount of
the fine exceeds PhP 4,000. (Rep. Act No. 7691 [1994] as
clarified by Administrative Circular No. 09-94 dated June 14,
1994).

RTC's Appellate Jurisdiction

All cases decided by lower courts (metropolitan trial courts,

etc.) in their respective territorial jurisdictions. (Sec. 22,
Batas Blg. 129 [1983])

Family Courts

Family Courts' Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction

[1] Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is

below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine
(9) years of age, when one or more of the victims is a minor
at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That
if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate
sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused
may have incurred. The sentence, however, shall be
suspended without need of application pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 1903, otherwise known as “The
Child and Youth Welfare Code;” (RA 8369 [Family Courts Act
of 1997])

[2] Petitions for guardianship, custody of children,

habeas corpus in relation to the latter; (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 03-
04-04-SC, effective May 15, 2003; Sec. 3, A.M. No. 03-02-
05-SC, effective April 15, 2003)

[3] Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation

thereof; (Secs. A.20 and B.28, A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC,
effective August 22, 2002; See also Rep. Act No. 9523 or
“An Act Requiring Certification of the Department of Social
Welfare and Development to Declare A Child ‘Legally
Available for Adoption’ as a Prerequisite for Adoption
Proceedings, Amending for this Purpose Certain Provisions
of Republic Act No. 8552, otherwise known as The Domestic
Adoption Act of 1998, Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise
known as The Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995,
Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as The Child
and Youth Welfare Code, and for Other Purposes,” approved
on March 12, 2009)

[4] Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of

nullity of marriage, and those relating to marital status
and property relations of husband and wife or those living
together under different status and agreements, and
petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;
(Sec. 2, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, effective March 15, 2003)

[5] Petitions for involuntary commitment of a child, for

removal of custody against child-placement or child-caring
agency or individual, and for commitment of disabled child;
(Secs. 4[b], 5[a][ii], 6[b], A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC, effective
April 15, 2002)

[6] Cases against minors cognizable under Rep. Act No.

9165, or “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002;” (See also A.M. No. 07-8-2-SC, effective November 5,
2007)

[7] Violation of Rep. Act No. 7610 [1991], otherwise known

as the “Special Protection of Children Against Child
Abuse, Exploration and Discrimination Act,” as amended
by Rep. Act No. 7658 [1993] and as further amended by
Rep. Act No. 9231 [2003];

[8] (RA 9775 [Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009]

[9] Cases of violence against women and their children

under Rep. Act No. 9262, otherwise known as “Anti-Violence
Against Women and their Children Act of 2004,” including
applications for Protection Order under the same Act;

[10] Criminal cases involving juveniles if no preliminary

investigation is required under Sec. 1, Rule 112 of Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure (Sec. 1, A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC,
effective April 15, 2002)

Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts

MTC's Original Jurisdiction

For civil cases:

What is the MTC's Exclusive Jurisdiction?

[1] Actions involving personal property valued at not more

than PhP 300,000.00 (PhP 400,000.00 in Metro Manila)

[2] Actions demanding sums of money not exceeding PhP

300,000.00 (Php 4000,000.00 in Metro Manila) ; in both
cases, exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses and costs, the amount of which must be
specifically alleged, but the filing fees thereon shall be paid.
These include admiralty and maritime cases;

[3] Actions involving title or possession of real property

where the assessed value does not exceed PhP 20,000.00
(Php 50,000.00 in Metro Manila) ;

[4] Provisional remedies in principal actions within their

jurisdiction, and in proper cases, such as preliminary
attachment, preliminary injunction, appointment or receiver
and delivery of personal property; (Rule 57, 58, 59, and 60)

[5] Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, with jurisdiction to

resolve issue of ownership to determine issue of possession;

[6] Probate proceedings, testate or intestate, where gross

value of estate does not exceed PhP 300,000.00 or in Metro
Manila PhP 400,000.00; (Sec. 33, Batas Blg. 129 [1983] as
amended by Rep. Act No. 7691 [1994])

[7] Inclusion and exclusion of voters. (Sec. 38, Batas Blg.

881, Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines [1985]).
MTC's Delegated Jurisdiction

Cadastral and land registration cases assigned by Supreme

Court where there is no controversy or opposition and in
contested lots valued at more than PhP 100,000. (Sec. 34,
Batas Blg. 129 [1983] as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691
[1994])

MTC's Special Jurisdiction

Petition for habeas corpus in the absence of all Regional Trial

Court judges. (Sec. 35, Batas Blg. 129 [1983])

For criminal cases:

MTC's Original Jurisdiction

[1] All violations of city or municipal ordinances committed

within their respective territorial jurisdictions;

[2] All offenses punishable with imprisonment of not more

than six (6) years irrespective of the fine and regardless of
other imposable accessory or other penalties and the civil
liability arising therefrom; provided, however, that in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal negligence,
they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction. (Sec. 32, Batas
Blg. 129 [1983] as amended by Rep. Act No. 7691 [1994])
[3] All offenses committed not falling within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan where none of the
accused is occupying a position corresponding to salary
grade “27” and higher. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 7975
[1995] and Rep. Act No. 8249 [1997])

[4] In cases where the only penalty provided by law is a fine

not exceeding PhP 4,000, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, etc.
have jurisdiction. (Administrative Circular No. 09-94, dated
June 14, 1994)

MTC's Special Jurisdiction

Applications for bail in the absence of all Regional Trial Court

judges. (Sec. 35, Batas Blg. 129 [1983])

Sharia's Courts

Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1083 created the Shari’a

Courts, which have limited jurisdiction over the
settlement of issues, controversies or disputes pertaining
to the civil relations between and among Muslim Filipinos.

Specifically, these controversies require the interpretation of

laws on Persons, Family Relations, Succession, Contracts,
and similar laws applicable only to Muslims. Despite the
seeming exclusivity of the jurisdiction of the Shari’a Courts
with regard to controversies involving Muslims, the Supreme
Court retains the power of review orders of lower courts
through special writs. (R.A. 6734, Art. IX, Sec.1) This review
extends to decisions made by the Shari’a Courts.