DOLOT v.

PAJE

ISSUE: assailing the Order September 16, 2011, Resolution October 18, 2011 by the Regional Trial
Court.

Petitioners pertinent allegations iron ore mining operations being conducted by Antones Enterprises,
There is a need to protect, preserve and maintain the geological foundation of the municipality Matnog
is susceptible to flooding and landslides, and confronted with the environmental dangers, they learned
that the mining operators did not have the required permit to operate, Sorsogon Governor Raul Lee and
his predecessor Sally Lee issued to the operators a small-scale mining permit, which they did not have
authority to issue, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), despite knowledge, did
not do anything to protect the interest of the people of Matnog , respondents violated he Philippine
Mining Act.

The case was referred by the Executive Judge to the RTC of Sorsogon, Branch 53 being the designated
environmental court . petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in the Resolution
sustaining the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction, the RTC further ruled that there was no
final court decree, order or decision yet that the public officials allegedly failed to act on, which is a
condition for the issuance of the writ of continuing mandamus, the case was prematurely filed as the
petitioners therein failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and hey also failed to attach judicial
affidavits and furnish a copy of the complaint to the government or appropriate agency, as required by
the rules

The main issue in this case is whether the RTC-Branch 53 has jurisdiction to resolve Civil Case

HELD: Jurisdiction and Venue In dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction, the RTC, in its Order
relied on SC Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 7 defining the territorial areas of the Regional Trial
Courts and Administrative Circular (Admin. Circular) No. 23-2008 designating the environmental
courts "to try and decide violations of environmental laws x x x committed within their respective
territorial jurisdictions." Thus, it ruled that its territorial jurisdiction was limited within the boundaries
of Sorsogon City and the neighboring municipalities of Donsol, Pilar, Castilla, Casiguran and Juban
and that it was "bereft of jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide [the] case, as such authority rests
before another co-equal court.

Such reasoning is plainly erroneous The RTC cannot solely rely on SC A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular
No. 23-2008 and confine itself within its four corners in determining whether it had jurisdiction over
the action filed by the petitioners. None is more well-settled than the rule that jurisdiction, which is the
power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case, is conferred by law. t may either be over
the nature of the action, over the subject matter, over the person of the defendants or over the issues
framed in the pleadings. By virtue of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980, jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is vested in
the RTC

A.O. No. 7 and Admin. Circular No. 23-2008 was issued pursuant to Section 18 of B.P. Blg. 129, which
gave the Court authority to define the territory over which a branch of the RTC shall exercise its
authority. These administrative orders and circulars issued by the Court merely provide for the venue
where an action may be filed.The Court does not have the power to confer jurisdiction on any court or
tribunal as the allocation of jurisdiction is lodged solely in Congress. It also cannot be delegated to
another office or agency of the Government.
The RTC need not be reminded that venue relates only to the place of trial or the geographical location
in which an action or proceeding should be brought and does not equate to the jurisdiction of the court.
It is intended to accord convenience to the parties, as it relates to the place of trial, and does not restrict
their access to the courts

At most, the error committed by the petitioners in filing the case with the RTC of Sorsogon was that of
improper venue the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rules) specifically states that a
special civil action for continuing mandamus shall be filed with the "[RTC] exercising jurisdiction over
the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred. n this case, it appears that the alleged
actionable neglect or omission occurred in the Municipality of Matnog and as such, the petition should
have been filed in the RTC of Irosin But even then, it does not warrant the outright dismissal of the
petition by the RTC as venue may be waived. Moreover, the action filed by the petitioners is not
criminal in nature where venue is an essential element of jurisdiction

The concept of continuing mandamus Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned

Residents of Manila Bay. Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules requires that the petition filed should be
sufficient in form and substance before a court may take further action; otherwise, the court may
dismiss the petition outright. Courts must be cautioned, however, that the determination to give due
course to the petition or dismiss it outright is an exercise of discretion that must be applied in a
reasonable manner in consonance with the spirit of the law and always with the view in mind of seeing
to it that justice is served

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED The Order dated September 16, 2011 and Resolution dated
October 18, 2011 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 53, dismissing Civil Case
No. 2011-8338 are NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE. The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Sorsogon is DIRECTED to transfer the case to the Regional Trial Court of Irosin

TAGLAY v DARAY

ISSUE instant petition arose from a Criminal Complaint for Qualified

Trespass to Dwelling filed by private respondent against herein petitioner June 2, 2001 at about 2:30
o'clock in the afternoon at Tibangao, Malita, Davao del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the aforesaid accused, here willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter into the
dwelling of Loverie Palacay without her consent and against her will and once inside maltreated, boxed
and choked her, to her damage and prejudice. Upon arraignment on June 7, 2002, petitioner pleaded not
guilty , However, on August 15, 2002, the MCTC issued an Order, this case, transferred to Branch 20,
Regional Trial Court, Digos City, for proper disposition.

petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner contended that the
RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case, because the MCTC erroneously transferred the case to
the RTC instead of dismissing it. Petitioner also argued that the RTC's lack of jurisdiction was further
aggravated when she was not arraigned before the RTC.

the RTC issued its assailed Order ruling that it acquired jurisdiction over the case when it received the
records of the case as a consequence of the transfer effected by the MCTC; that the transfer of the case
from the MCTC is authorized no doubt that the offended party is a minor and, thus, the case falls
within the original jurisdiction of Family Courts pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8369 The RTC
also held that even granting that there was defect or irregularity in the procedure because petitioner was
not arraigned before the RTC, such defect was fully cured when petitioner's counsel entered into trial
without objecting that his client had not yet been arraigned

HELD: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the statute in

force at the time of the commencement of the action he Family Courts Act of 1997, which took effect
on November 23, 1997. [19] Section 5 (a) of R.A. 8369 clearly provides that Family Courts have
exclusive original jurisdiction over 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, or where one or more of the victims is a minor
at the time of the commission of the offense. In the present case, there is no dispute that at the time of
the ommission of the alleged offense on June 2, 2001, private respondent, who is also the private
complainant, was a minor. Hence, the case falls under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Family
Courts. Logic dictates that only those cases which were filed prior to the issuance of the
Resolutionshall be included in the inventory and, therefore, shall be subject to transfer by first- level
courts to the appropriate RTCs. The necessary implication then is that all cases filed with first-level
courts after the effectivity of the Resolution on March 1, 1999 should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. In the present case, the Information was filed against petitioner on November 19, 2001.
Thus, the MCTC is already bereft of any authority to transfer the case to the RTC as the same no longer
falls under the coverage of Circular No. 11-99. What the MCTC should have done was to dismiss the
case for lack of
jurisdiction.

More importantly, what justifies the dismissal of the case is that the
Information filed with the MCTC cannot be used as a basis for the valid
indictment of petitioner before the RTC acting as a Family Court, because
there was no allegation therein of private complainant's minority. To proceed
to trial before the RTC on the basis of the Information filed with the MCTC
would be an exercise in futility as there is an infirmity in the Information
constituting a jurisdictional defect which cannot be cured. There is no point in
proceeding under a defective Information that could never be the basis of a
valid conviction.[22] The Information filed with the MCTC must thus first be
amended and thereafter filed with the RTC. Pending the filing of such
Information, the RTC has not yet acquired jurisdiction because while a court
may have jurisdiction over the subject matter, it does not acquire jurisdiction
over the case itself until its jurisdiction is invoked with the filing of a valid
Information

It is true that petitioner was arraigned by the MCTC. However, the MCTC has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the present case. It is settled
that the proceedings before a court or tribunal without jurisdiction, including
its decision, are null and void.[24] Considering that the MCTC has no
jurisdiction, all the proceedings conducted therein, including petitioner's
arraignment, are null and void. Thus, the need for petitioner's arraignment on
the basis of a valid Information filed with the RTC It is also true that petitioner's counsel participated in
the proceedings held
before the RTC without objecting that his client had not yet been arraigned.
However, it is wrong for the RTC to rely on the case of People v.
Cabale,[25] because the accused therein was in fact arraigned, although the
same was made only after the case was submitted for decision
There is no arraignment at all before the RTC. On the other hand, the
arraignment conducted by the MCTC is null and void. Thus, there is nothing
to be cured. Petitioner's counsel also timely raised before the RTC the fact
that her client, herein petitioner, was not arraigned.

Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of implementing the

constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him he purpose of arraignment is, thus, to apprise
the accused of the possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the
nature of the crime imputed to him, or at the very least to inform him of why
the prosecuting arm of the State is mobilized against him As an
indispensable requirement of due process, an arraignment cannot be
regarded lightly or brushed aside peremptorily Otherwise, absence of
arraignment results in the nullity of the proceedings before the trial court

In all criminal cases, the judge should

follow the step-by-step procedure required by the Rules The reason for
this is to assure that the State makes no mistake in taking the life or liberty
except that of the guilty WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Orders of the
Regional Trial Court of Digos City, Branch 18, dated March 9, 2004 and
June 7, 2004, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE