DOCTRINE adduced :

HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA, petitioner, vs.

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, enumerates the crimes or offenses over
which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. 8 It has no jurisdiction over the crime of estafa.9 It only
has jurisdiction over crimes covered by Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2 (Crimes Committed by Public
Officers), Book II of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Estafa falling under Title X, Chapter VI (Crimes
Against Property), Book II of the RPC is not within the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction

Section 4(b) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606 clearly contains the catch -all phrase "in relation
to office," thus, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the charges against petitioner

Section 4(b) of R.A. 8249 provides that the Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other offenses
committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office.

sub-section (g), irrespective of their salary grades, because the primordial consideration in the
inclusion of these officials is the nature of their responsibilities and functions.

As a member of the BOR, she had the general powers of administration and exercised the corporate
powers of UP. Based on Mechems definition of a public office, Compensation is not an essential part
of public office, Parenthetically, compensation has been interpreted to include allowances

Well-established is the rule that when a motion to quash in a criminal case is denied, the remedy is
not a petition for certiorari, but for petitioners to go to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the
special defenses invoked in their motion to quash. Remedial measures as regards interlocutory
orders, such as a motion to quash, are frowned upon and often dismissed. The evident reason for
this rule is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action.

As a general rule, an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and cannot be
subject of appeal until final judgment or order is rendered. (Sec. 2 of Rule 41).
petitioners stance that she was not compensated, hence, not a public officer, is erroneous...

Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases
involving:
A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, other known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of
the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade "27" and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act
of 989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
" In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public
officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations,
they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.

THE CITY OF MANILA, Petitioners, vs. HON. CARIDAD H. GRECIA-CUERDO

The CTA has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by
the RTC in a local tax case. In order for any appellate court to effectively exercise its appellate jurisdiction,
it must have the authority to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari. In transferring exclusive jurisdiction
over appealed tax cases to the CTA, it can reasonably be assumed that the law intended to transfer also
such power as is deemed necessary, if not indispensable, in aid of such appellate jurisdiction. There is no
perceivable reason why the transfer should only be considered as partial, not total.
a court may issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction if said court has jurisdiction to
review, by appeal or writ of error, the final orders or decisions of the lower court.

PAT-OG VS CSC [ON ESTOPPEL]

On November 5, 2007, the CSC denied his motion for reconsideration. 7 It ruled that Pat-og was estopped
from challenging its jurisdiction considering that he actively participated in the administrative proceedings
against him, raising the issue of jurisdiction only after his appeal was dismissed by the CSC.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its assailed April 6, 2011 Decision, 8 the CA affirmed the resolutions of the CSC. It agreed that Pat-og was
estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the CSC as the records clearly showed that he actively
participated in the proceedings. It was of the view that Pat-og was not denied due process when he failed
to cross-examine Bang-on and his witnesses because he was given the opportunity to be heard and
present his evidence before the CSC-CAR and the CSC.
Under Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, the CSC is the body charged with the establishment and
administration of a career civil service which embraces all branches and agencies of the government. 11
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292 (the Administrative Code of 1987) 12 and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 807
(the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines) 13 expressly provide that the CSC has the power to hear and
decide administrative disciplinary cases instituted with it or brought to it on appeal. Thus, the CSC, as the
central personnel agency of the government, has the inherent power to supervise and discipline all
members of the civil service, including public school teachers.
When the law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific
matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that another body is
likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the
matter.16
Where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the body that first takes cognizance of the
complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. In this case, it was CSC which
first acquired jurisdiction over the case because the complaint was filed before it. Thus, it had the authority
to proceed and decide the case to the exclusion of the DepEd and the Board of Professional Teachers. 17
MERCADO VS CA [ON DOCKET FEES]
Petitioners subsequently filed this petition asserting that the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision
in toto. The said decision (insofar as it ordered Mercado to pay SMC P7,468,153.75) was void. SMCs
counterclaim was permissive in nature. Inasmuch as SMC did not pay docket fees, the RTC never acquired
jurisdiction over the counterclaim.
XXXX the payment of docket fees was not necessary for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over the
subject matter.
A counterclaim (or a claim which a defending party may have against any party) may be compulsory or
permissive. A counterclaim that (1) arises out of (or is necessarily connected with) the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing partys claim; (2) falls within the jurisdiction of the
court and (3) does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction, is compulsory. Otherwise, a counterclaim is merely permissive.
AQUINO VS MUN. OF MALAY

respondents contended that the FLAgT does not excuse the company from complying with the Ordinance and
Presidential Decree No. 1096 (PD 1096), otherwise known as the National Building Code of the Philippines.
Respondents also argued that the demolition needed no court order because the municipal mayor has the express
power under the Local Government Code (LGC) to order the removal of illegally constructed buildings.
XXX..the CA dismissed the petition solely on procedural ground, i.e., the special writ of certiorari can only
be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions and since the
issuance of EO 10 was done in the exercise of executive functions, and not of judicial or quasi-judicial
functions, certiorari will not lie. Instead, the proper remedy for the petitioner, according to the CA, is to file a
petition for declaratory relief with the Regional Trial Court.
x x x x.We find merit in petitioners contention that the special writ of certiorari , and not declaratory relief,
is the proper remedy for assailing EO 10. As provided under Sec. 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court:
SECTION 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance or any other
governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional
Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or
duties, thereunder. x x x

x x x An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach of the instruments
involved or of the rights arising thereunder.
Since the purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and
obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, or contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or
compliance therewith,
. and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach thereof,
.. it may be entertained before the breach or violation of the statute, deed or contract to which it refers.
. A petition for declaratory relief gives a practical remedy for ending controversies that have not reached the
state where another relief is immediately available;
. and supplies the need for a form of action that will set controversies at rest before they lead to a repudiation
of obligations, an invasion of rights, and a commission of wrongs.
On the propriety of filing a petition for certiorari , Sec. 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Section 1. Petition for certiorari . When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the
facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. x x x
To summarize
For certiorari to prosper, the petitioner must establish the concurrence of the following requisites, namely:
1. The writ is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
2. Such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
C

3. There is no appeal or any plain speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.5

. Property valuation, after all, is not the litmus test for such a determination. More controlling is the
propertys nature and conditions, which should be evaluated to see if it qualifies as a nuisance as defined under
the law.