[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’ABOVE THE LAW ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY AYIN DREAM D. APLASCA
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=”]
WHEN I was in law school, our law professor would let us memorize court jurisdiction. This is very important so that we know which cases to file or to hear in a particular court.
When we say jurisdiction, this is the authority given by law to a court to try cases and to rule on legal matters within a particular area or over certain types of cases. It describes any authority over a certain area or certain person.
The different types of jurisdiction are: exclusive jurisdiction, concurrent jurisdiction, original jurisdiction, and appellate jurisdiction.
Why am I discussing this? Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines ruled that Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) acting as Special Agrarian Courts (SAC) have original and exclusive jurisdiction on the determination of just compensation and are not merely appellate tribunals.
When we say original jurisdiction, the court has the power to hear a case for the first time. On the other hand, exclusive jurisdiction exists when one court has the power to adjudicate a case to the exclusion of all other courts.
Regarding the SC decision, it means that even if the 15-day period provided by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) had lapsed, the landowner could still bring the case to the SAC.
In the recent case, the bank questioned the RTC and the Court of Appeals (CA) decisions granting the landowner’s claim in just compensation. The bank intensified the issue to the SC saying that the landowner had brought his case to the SAC past the 15-day deadline provided by Section 11, Rule XIII of the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure.
However, the SC ruled that the DARAB deadline effectively made the SAC an appellate court, which goes against the legislative intent of Section 57 of Republic Act 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
The SC ruling is consistent with the legislative intent to vest the original and exclusive jurisdiction in the determination of just compensation with the SAC.
By law or by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, courts are vested with jurisdiction to hear and try specific cases. If a case is filed with the wrong court, it will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The recent case is entitled Landbank of the Philippines vs. Eugenio Dalauta. It’s a good read to enlighten us more regarding court jurisdiction.
(Atty. Ayin Dream D. Aplasca practices her profession in Iloilo City. She may be reached thru ayindream.aplasca@gmail.com/PN)
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
