THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980

ORGANIZATION

1. The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129) took effect upon its approval on August 14, 1981 (Sec. 48). However, the transitory pro• vision (Sec. 44) declared tha t its pr o vi si on s "shall i mm e di a te l y be carrie d out in acc or dan c e wit h an Executive Order to be issued by the Pre si den t . The Court of Appeals, the Courts of Firs t In stan ce , th e Circuit Criminal Courts, the Juvenil e and Domestic Relations Courts, the Courts of Agrarian Relations, the City Courts, the Municipal Courts and the Municipal Circuit Courts shall continue to function as presently constituted and organized until the completion of the reorganization provided in this Act as declared by the President. Upon such declaration, the said courts shall be deemed automatically abolished and the incumbents thereof shall cease to hold office. The cases pending in the old Courts shall be transferred to the appropriate Courts constituted pursuan t to this Act, together with the pertinent functions, records, equipment, property and the necessary personnel." The constitutionality of this Act was upheld by the Suprem e Court en banc, with one dissent, in De la Liana, et al.

vs. Alba, et al. (G.R. No. 57883, Mar. 12, 1982).

2. . Th e Cour t of Ap p eal s wa s re plac e d by th e Intermediate Appellate Court consisting of a Presiding Justice and 49 Associate Appellate Justices, which shall sit in 10 divisions each composed of 5 members, except only for th e pu rp os e of ex erci si n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , ceremonial or other non-adjudicatory functions in which instances it may sit en banc (Secs. 3 and 4).

J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z ATI O N AC T O F 198 0

However, under Executive Order No. 33 (July 28,1986), ame ndi n g B.P. Blg. 129, th e Cour t of Appeal s wa s re -c r ea t e d , -consisting of a Pre si din g Justi-c e an d 50 Associate Ju st ic e s , which shal l exercise its powers , functions and duties through 17 divisions, each composed of 3 members . It may sit en banc for the purpos e of exercising ad m i ni st r a ti ve , ce remo nia l or othe r non-adjudicatory functions (Secs. 3 and 4, as amended).

A majority of the actual members of the Court shall constitute a quorum for its sessions en banc. Three (3) members shall constitute a quorum for the sessions of a division. The unanimous vote of the three members of a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a decision or final resolution, which shall be reached in consultation before the writin g of the opinion by any member of the division. In the event tha t the thre e members do not reach a unanimous vote, the Presiding Justice shall request the Raffle Committee of the Court for the desi gn ati o n of two ad diti on a l Ju stic e s to sit temporarily with them, forming a special division of five member s and th e co nc ur renc e of a majorit y of such division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a decision or final resolution. The designation of such ad diti on a l J u sti c e s shal l be mad e strictl y by raffle (Sec. 11, as amended).

Executive Orde r No. 33 repeale d Sec. 8 of B.P.

Blg. 129 which had provided for grouping of divisions to handle specific classes of cases (Sec. 4). It further provided tha t the ter m "Intermediate Appellate Court, Presiding Ap pellate Ju stic e and Associate Ap pellate Justice(s)" used in B.P. Blg. 129 or in any other law or executive order shall hereafter mean Court of Appeals, Presiding Justice and Associate Justice(s), respectively (Sec. 8).

Additionally, effective February 2, 1997, B.P. Blg. 129 was f u rt h e r a m e n d e d by R.A. 8246 (Appendix G), pursuant to which the Court of Appeals shall consist of

R E ME D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M

a Presiding Justice and 68 Associate Justices, and shall be composed of 23 divisions of 3 members each, with the first 17 divisions stationed in Manila, the 18th to 20th divisions in Cebu City, and the 21st to 23rd divisions in Cagayan de Oro City.

3. The Courts of First Instance, the Circuit Criminal Courts, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts and the Courts of Agrarian Relations have been integrated into the Regional Trial Courts for each of the 13 Judicial Regions which replaced the former 16 Judicial Districts, each Regional Trial Court to consist of the number of branches provided in Section 14 of the Act.

4. The city courts and municipal courts in the National Capital Judicial Region have been merged into a Metropolitan Trial Court of Metro Manila and were converted into branches thereof (Sec. 27). The Supreme Court shall constitute other Metropolitan Trial Courts in such other metropolitan areas as may be established by law and whose territorial jurisdiction shall be co•

extensive with the cities and municipalities comprising such metropolitan area (Sec. 28).

5. The city courts in other cities which do not now or hereafter form par t of a metropolitan area shall be known as Municipal Trial Courts, with the corresponding number of branches (Sec. 29), and the municipal courts, whether of an ordinary municipality or of a capital of a province or sub-province but not comprised within a metropolitan area and a municipal circuit, shall likewise be known as Municipal Trial Courts with th e corre• sponding number of branches (Sec. 30). The municipal circuit courts shall be known as Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and the Supreme Court may further reorganize the same (Sec. 31).

6. Excepted from the coverage of the Act are the Su p r e m e Cour t an d th e S a n d i g a n b a ya n , bu t thes e

J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z ATI O N AC T O F 198 0

courts have been affected by the jurisdictional changes introduced therein. The provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (R.A. 296, as amended), R.A. 5179, as amended, the Rules of Court an d all othe r sta t u te s , lette r s of i n s t r u c t i o n s an d ge n e r a l o r d e r s o r p a r t s thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly.

7. No mention is made of the Court of Tax Appeals since the Act is basically on the matter of jurisdictional changes.

However, appeals from its jud gments or final orders, which used to be governed by R.A. 1125, were later required to be taken to the Court of Appeals pursuan t to Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 of the Supreme Court, which thereafter was adopted as Rule 43 of these revised Rules. See, however, the more recent changes in R.A. 9282 (Appendix CC).

JURISDICT ION

I. Intermediate Appellate Court (now, the Court of Appeals):

"Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. — The Intermediate Appellate Court shall exercise:

(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of man• damus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; an d (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, in st ru ment alitie s, boards, or commissions, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution,

R E ME D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M

the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third para graph and sub pa ra gr ap h (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

The Intermediate Appellate Court shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearin gs, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials and further proceedings.

These provisions shall not apply to decisions and interlocutory orders issued under the Labor Code of th e Philippines and by th e Cen tra l Board of Assessment Appeals."

The second paragraph of Sec. 9 above set forth was subsequentl y amende d by Sec. 5 of Executive Order No. 33 to read as follows:

"The Court of Appeals shall have the power to receive evidence an d perform any an d all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in (a) cases falling within its original jurisdiction, such as actions for annulment of judgments of regional trial courts, as provided in paragraph (2) hereof; and in (b) cases falling within its appellate jurisdiction wherein a motion for new trial based only on the ground of newly discovered evidence is granted by it."

However, effective March 18, 1995, Sec. 9 was further amended by R.A. 7902 (Appendix F) and now provides:

"SEC. 9. Jurisdiction. — The Court of Appeals shall exercise:

"(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of man•

damus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;

J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z ATI O N AC T O F 198 0

"(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts;

and

"(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subpara graph (1) of the third para graph and s u b p a r a gr a p h (4) of the fourth p a r a gr a p h of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

"The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be con•

tin uo u s an d mus t be completed withi n thre e (3) months unless extended by the Chief Justice."

NOTES

1. Unlike the provisions of Sec. 30 of the Judiciary Act, B.P.

Blg. 129 vested the Int erme diat e Appellate Court with original jurisdiction to issue writs of man• damus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and all other auxiliary writs and processes whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and added the special civil action of quo warranto to such original jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Intermediate Appellate Court had exclusive original

R E ME D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M

jurisdiction over actions for the annulment of judgments of the Regional Trial Courts. The latter, however, retain their jurisdiction over actions for th e an n u l me n t of ju d gm e nt s of th e inferior courts (Sec. 19), i.e., th e Metropolitan, Municipal and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (Sec. 25).

2.Amendatory of previous legislation, the appellate jurisdiction of the then Intermediate Appellate Court over quasi-judicial agencies, or the so-called administrative tribunals, was extended to and included the Securities and Exchange Commission and th e different boards which took the place of the quonda m Public Service Commission, i.e., the Boards of Transportation, Commu•

nications, and Power and Waterworks, whose decisions were theretofore appealable to the Supreme Court. Cases involving petitions for naturalization and denaturalization are now exclusively appealable to the Court of Appeals.

3. However, by specific provisions of Sec. 9 of this Act, the Suprem e Court retained exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the two constitutional commissions, i.e., Commission on Elections and Com• mission on Audit (see 1973 Constitution, Art. XII-C and D). Under the 1987 Constitution, this exclusive appellate ju r i sd i ct i o n wa s mad e t o include th e Civil Ser vice Commission (Sec. 7, Art.

IX-A). Also, likewise specifically excluded from the appellate jurisdiction of the Interme• diate Appellate Court were decisions and interlocutory orders under the Labor Code, such as those promulgated by the Sec reta r y of Labor and Empl o yme n t and the National Labor Relations Commission, those of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals, and the 5 types of cases which fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the 1973 Constitution (Sec. 5[2], Art. X) an d r e p r o d u c e d in th e 1987 C o n s t i t u t i o n (Sec. 5[2J, Art.

VIII), as amplified in the provisions of the Judiciary Act specified by said Sec. 9.

J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z ATI O N AC T O F 198 0

Furthermore, in view of the exclusionary provision in said Sec. 9, the Intermediate Appellate Court appeared to have no appellate jurisdiction over the cases in the specified para graphs of Sec. 17 of the Judiciary Act, i.e., those involving c o n st it u t i o na l , ta x or j u r i sd ic t i o na l questions even if the same also involve questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law which were appealable to the Court of Appeals under Sec. 17 of the Judiciary Act, as amended. It is believed tha t despite the present formulation of said Sec. 9(3) of B.P. Blg. 129, the former rule, vesting the Court of Appeals with appellate juris•

diction in the aforestated cases whenever a factual issue is involved, should still apply.

As indicated earlier, with the amendments introduced by R.A. 7902, the dispositions of the Civil Service Com•

mission and the Central Board of Assessment Appeals are now within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.

4. . While th e I n t e r m e d i a t e Appellate Court was authorized to receive evidence on factual issues on appeal, this evidentiary hearing contemplates "incidental facts"

which were not touched upon or fully heard by the trial court, and not an original and full tria l of the main factual issue which properly pertains to the trial court (Lingner & Fisher GMBH vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 63557, Oct. 28, 1983). This power to conduct new trial s or further proceedings is not obligatory on the appellate court and i t may rema n d th e case to the tria l court for tha t purpose (De la Cruz, etc. vs. IAC, et al., G.R.

No. 72981, Jan. 29, 1988).

5. The exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals provided for in Sec. 9(3) of B.P. Blg. 129 over final orders or rulings of quasi-judicial instrumentalities, boards or commissions refers to those which resulted from proceedings wherein the administrati ve body involved exercised quasi-judicial functions. Such quasi-judicial

RE MEDI A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M

action or discretion involves the investigation of facts, holding of hearings, drawing conclusions therefrom as a basis for official action, and exercising discretion of a judicial nature. Quasi-judicial adjudication requires a determination of rights, privileges and duties resulting in a decision or order which applies to a specific situation.

Rules and regulations of general applicability issued by the administrative body to implement its purely adminis•

trative policies and functions, or those which are merely incidents of its inherent administrative functions, are not included in the appealable orders contemplated in said provision, unless otherwise specifically provided by other laws governing the matter. Controversies arising from such order s are withi n th e cogni zance of th e Regional Trial Courts (Lupangco, et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 77372, April 29, 1988).

6. It was formerly held tha t the 30-day period to appea l to the I n t e r m e d i a t e Appellate Cour t from a decision or final order of the Securities and Exchange Commission, p u r su a n t to its rules issued consequent to Sec. 6 , P.D.

902-A, had not been affected by B.P. Blg. 129 which pro vides for a 15-day appea l period from decisions of courts of justice. The Securities and Exchange Commission is not a court; it is an adminis• trative agency. Repeals by implication are not favored (Gimenez Stockbrokerage & Co., Inc. vs. SEC, et al., G.R. No. 68568, Dec. 26, 1984).

7. The aforesaid doctrine was taken into account by the Supreme Court in an appeal from a decision of the Insurance Commission to the then Intermediate Appellate Court since Sec. 416(7) of the Insurance Code (P.D. 612, as amended) provides for a 30-day period for appeal from notice of a final order, ruling, or decision of the Com• mission. The Supreme Court noted that if the provisions of R.A. 5434 were to be applied, pursuan t to Par. 22(c) of the Interim Rules which governs appeals from

quasi-39

J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z ATI O N AC T O F 198 0

judicial bodies, Sec. 2 thereof provides tha t the appeal should be filed within 15 days from notice of the ruling, award, order, decision, or judgment or from the date of its last publication if required by law, or in case a motion for reconsideration is filed within the period for appeal, then within 10 days from notice or such publication of the resolution den ying the motion for reconsideration.

Nevertheless, in line with the ruling in Gimenez, since the Insurance Commission is likewise an administrative body, appeals from its final orders, decisions, resolutions, or awards may not necessarily be deemed modified by Sec. 39 of B.P . Blg. 129 which limit s th e period to appeal to 15 days (Midland Ins. Corp. vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 71905, Aug. 13, 1986; see also Zenith Ins. Corp.

vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No. 73336, Sept. 24, 1986; Malayan Ins. Co., Inc. vs. Arnaldo, et al., G.R. No. 67835, Oct. 12, 1987).

8. The foregoing doctrines, however, are no longer controlling in view of Circular No. 1-91 issued by the Supreme Court on Februar y 27, 1991 which provided that appeals from quasi-judicial agencies shall be taken to the Court of Appeals within 15 days from notice or last publication of th e jud gme n t or final order. This was more recently further amplified by Revised Adminis• trative Circular No. 1-95 which took effect on Jun e 1, 1995, and has now been formulated as Rule 43 of these revised Rules.

9. It will also be recalled that appeals from the decisions, orders or rulings of the three constitutional commissions, i.e., Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit, may be brought to the Suprem e Court on certiorari within 30 days from receipt thereof unless otherwise provided by the Consti• tution or by law (Sec. 7, Art. IX-A, 1987 Constitution). However, as earlier stated, Sec. 9 of B.P. Blg. 129 which originally contained the same jurisdictional rule was subsequently amended by R.A. 7902, effective March 18,

R E ME D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M

1995, to provide tha t appeals from the Civil Service Commission should be taken to the Court of Appeals.

10. In the landmark decision in St. Martin Funeral Home vs.

NLRC, et al. (G.R. No. 130866, Sept. 16, 1998), the Supreme Court clarified that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court were eliminated, the legislative intendment is that the special civil action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. All references in the amended Sec. 9 of B.P. Blg. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and declared to mean and refer to petitions under Rule 65.

Consequently, all such petitions should be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the rule on hierarchy of courts. The concurrent original jurisdiction of the Suprem e Court can be availed of only unde r compelling and exceptional circumstances.

11. . On a different rationale, the Suprem e Court ruled in Fabian vs. Desierto, etc., et al. (G.R. No. 129742, Sept. 16, 1998) tha t appeal s from th e Office of th e Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals via a verified petition for review under Rule 43 . Striking down as unconstitutional Sec. 27, R.A.

6770 (Omb ud sma n Act of 1989) which a u t h o r i z e d suc h app ea l t o th e S u p r e m e Cour t "in acc or dan c e wit h Rule 45," i t wa s pointe d out tha t appeals under Rule 45 apply only to judgments or final orders of the courts enumerated under Sec. 1 thereof, and not to those of quasi-judicial agencies. Furthermore, that provision of R.A. 6770 violates the proscription in Sec. 30, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution against a law which increases the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and consent.

II. Regional Trial Courts:

"SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional

J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z ATI O N AC T O F 198 0

Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the propert y involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20.000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds

In document Book-Civil-Procedure-by-Regalado.docx (Page 31-55)