This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The jurisdiction of this court over the subject matter is determined from the allegations in the petition. Subject matter jurisdiction is defined as the authority "to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers."[55] Definitely, the subject matter in this case is different from the cases cited by respondents. | |||||
|
2014-04-23 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Jurisdiction over the subject matter is "the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong."[36] This power is conferred by law,[37] which may either be the Constitution or a statute. Since subject matter jurisdiction is a matter of law, parties cannot choose, consent to, or agree as to what court or tribunal should decide their disputes.[38] If a court hears, tries, and decides an action in which it has no jurisdiction, all its proceedings, including the judgment rendered, are void.[39] | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings before a court belong.[28] It is conferred by law. The allegations in the complaint and the status or relationship of the parties determine which court has jurisdiction over the nature of an action.[29] The same test applies in ascertaining whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy.[30] | |||||
|
2005-08-31 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| However, the PISO Bank failed to file a supplemental complaint[35] in the FIRST CASE to order the petitioner SBC, as defendant therein, to pay to it the amount of P5 million from the Sinking Fund. Neither did the petitioner, as the defendant and third-party plaintiff in the FIRST CASE, file a Supplemental Answer and Supplemental Third-Party Complaint, praying that, in the event that judgment is rendered against it on the complaint, and judgment is rendered in its favor on its Supplemental Third-Party Complaint (declaring that petitioner SBC is entitled to the corresponding amount from the Sinking Fund to the extent of its liability to the PISO Bank under the decision of the court). Hence, the issue of whether or not the petitioner therein had a right to the Sinking Fund was not raised as an issue in the FIRST CASE; as such, the court had no jurisdiction over such issue. The court in the FIRST CASE cannot and will not resolve an issue which the parties did not raise in their pleadings. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over a specific issue is to be determined by an examination of the parties' pleadings.[36] It is conferred by the pleadings of the parties.[37] Hence, even if the trial court would render judgment in the FIRST CASE in favor of the plaintiff PISO Bank and order petitioner SBC, as defendant therein, to pay the plaintiff's claim; and order therein third-party defendant MCFI to pay the amount paid by SBC to the PISO Bank, the court cannot declare that petitioner SBC is entitled to the Sinking Fund or even a portion thereof. | |||||
|
2004-09-30 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause.[8] Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.[9] Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists.[10] Basic is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the cause or causes of action as alleged in the complaint.[11] But where the actual issues are evident from the records of the case, then jurisdiction over the subject matter need not depend upon the literal averments in the complaint, but on the law as applied to established facts.[12] | |||||