Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 95 views

    Digest 1 Jurisdiction v. Venue

    Uploaded by

    Monica Bolado-Asuncion
    The lower court had jurisdiction over the civil case based on the original complaint, even though it was later dismissed without prejudice for improper venue. Jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint, and the original complaint alleged causes of action for damages arising from libel, which falls under the jurisdiction of regional trial courts. The additional facts included in the amended complaint pertained to the question of venue, not jurisdiction. A court's jurisdiction over a case is distinct from the question of proper venue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest 1 Jurisdiction v. Venue

    Uploaded by

    Monica Bolado-Asuncion
    95 views2 pages
    The lower court had jurisdiction over the civil case based on the original complaint, even though it was later dismissed without prejudice for improper venue. Jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint, and the original complaint alleged causes of action for damages arising from libel, which falls under the jurisdiction of regional trial courts. The additional facts included in the amended complaint pertained to the question of venue, not jurisdiction. A court's jurisdiction over a case is distinct from the question of proper venue.

    Original Description:

    civ pro

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The lower court had jurisdiction over the civil case based on the original complaint, even though it was later dismissed without prejudice for improper venue. Jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint, and the original complaint alleged causes of action for damages arising from libel, which falls under the jurisdiction of regional trial courts. The additional facts included in the amended complaint pertained to the question of venue, not jurisdiction. A court's jurisdiction over a case is distinct from the question of proper venue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    95 views2 pages

    Digest 1 Jurisdiction v. Venue

    Uploaded by

    Monica Bolado-Asuncion
    The lower court had jurisdiction over the civil case based on the original complaint, even though it was later dismissed without prejudice for improper venue. Jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint, and the original complaint alleged causes of action for damages arising from libel, which falls under the jurisdiction of regional trial courts. The additional facts included in the amended complaint pertained to the question of venue, not jurisdiction. A court's jurisdiction over a case is distinct from the question of proper venue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    JURISDICTION V.

    VENUE

    CASE DIGEST CIV PRO:


    Statement of the Case: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
    Rules of Civil Procedure. The petitioners are Armand Nocum and The Philippine Daily Inquirer, and
    the respondent is Lucio Tan.
    Facts: Lucio Tan filed a complaint against reporter Armand Nocum, Capt. Florendo Umali, ALPAP
    and Inquirer with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, seeking moral and exemplary damages for the
    alleged malicious and defamatory imputations contained in a news article. It appeared that the
    complaint failed to state the residence of the complainant at the time of the alleged commission of
    the offense and the place where the libelous article was printed and first published. Thus, the
    Regional Trial Court of Makati issued an Order dated February 10, 1999, dismissing the complaint
    without prejudice on the ground of improper venue.
    Lucio Tan filed an amended complaint which cured the defect of the original complaint. The lower
    court, after having the case dismissed for improper venue, admitted the amended complaint and
    deemed set aside the previous order of dismissal.
    Petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals. The CA denied the petition for lack of
    merit.
    Petitioners, in the Supreme Court, assigned the following as errors:
    A. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING (1) THAT THE LOWER COURT HAD
    JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE (ON THE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT)
    NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE LOWER COURT HAD EARLIER DISMISSED THE
    ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR ITS FAILURE TO CONFER JURISDICTION UPON THJE COURT;
    AND (2) THAT THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED OR ADMITTED
    BECAUSE THE LOWER COURT WAS "NEVER DIVESTED" OF JURISDICTION OVER THE
    CASE;

    Issue: Did the lower court acquire jurisdiction over the civil case upon the filing of the original
    complaint for damages?
    Ruling: Yes, the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the civil case. It is settled that jurisdiction is
    conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter comprises a concise
    statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action. In the case at bar, after
    examining the original complaint, the court finds that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case
    when the case was filed before it. From the allegations thereof, respondents cause of action is for
    damages arising from libel, the jurisdiction of which is vested with the RTC. Article 360 of the
    Revised Penal Code provides that it is a Court of First Instance that is specifically designated to try a
    libel case.
    Petitioners are confusing jurisdiction with venue. The Hon. Florenz D. Regalado, differentiated
    jurisdiction and venue as follows: (a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case;
    venue is the place where the case is to be heard or tried; (b) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive
    law; venue, of procedural law; (c) Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the
    subject matter; venue, a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent; and,

    (d) Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by
    the act or agreement of the parties.
    In the case at bar, the additional allegations in the Amended Complaint that the article and the
    caricature were printed and first published in the City of Makati referred only to the question of venue
    and not jurisdiction. These additional allegations would neither confer jurisdiction on the RTC nor
    would respondents failure to include the same in the original complaint divest the lower court of its
    jurisdiction over the case. Respondents failure to allege these allegations gave the lower court the
    power, upon motion by a party, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue was not properly
    laid.

    You might also like