C. Acquired Jurisdiction

HOW JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT IS ACQUIRED

Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either by a valid service of summons upon him or by his voluntary submission to the court’s authority.

It is required only in action in personam.

As a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. (David v. Agbay, G.R .. No. 199113, 2015).

Lack of jurisdiction over the defendant may be raised as a ground in a motion to dismiss.

If a motion has been filed and objection to the lack of jurisdiction over the person which ground was already available  at the time of filing, was not pleaded, it is deemed waived pursuant to the omnibus motion rule.

However, when it happens from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.

If no motion to dismiss has been filed at all, the objection of lack of jurisdiction over the person may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the defendant’s answer.

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED

The person charged with the offense must have been brought to the court’s presence for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court.

GR: Seeking affirmative relief is deemed to be submission to the jurisdiction of the court. It may be effected by filing a motion to quash, appearing for arraignment, participating in the trial or by giving bail. (Santiago v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 99289-90, 1993)

Effect of Non-Payment of Docket Fees

The non-payment of the prescribed filing fees at the time of the filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading fails to vest jurisdiction over the case in the trial court.

Yet, where the plaintiff has paid the amount of filing fees assessed by the clerk of court, and the amount paid turns out to be deficient, the trial court still acquires jurisdiction over the case, subject to the payment by the plaintiff of the deficiency assessment. (Fedman Dev’t Corp v. Agcaoili, G.R. No. 165025, 2011)

Note: Where the action is commenced by registered mail, the date of mailing is considered the date of the commencement of the action.

Jurisdiction over Continuing Crimes

Continuing offenses are consummated in one place yet by the nature of the offense, the violation of the law is deemed continuing (e.g. estafa and libel). As such, the courts of the territories where the ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS of the crime took place have concurrent jurisdiction.

The court which FIRST acquires jurisdiction excludes the other courts (Morillo v. People, 775 Phil. 192 (2015)).

Effect if the Information is Filed by Someone Not Authorized by Law

The court does not acquire jurisdiction. The accused’s failure to assert lack of authority on the part of the prosecutor in filing the information does not constitute a waiver thereof. (People v. Garfin, G.R. No. 153176, 2004. Quisay v. People G.R. No. 216920, 2016).

PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES; EFFECT OF NONPAYMENT

The payment of the docket fee vests the court with jurisdiction over the subject matter.

The court requires that all complaints, petitions, answers, and similar pleadings must specify the amount of damages being prayed for both in the body of the pleading and in the prayer. (Manchester Development Corp v. CA, G.R. No. 75919, 1987)

Any defect in the original pleading resulting in the underpayment of the docket fee cannot be cured by amendment, such as by the reduction of the claim as, for all legal purposes, there is no original complaint over which the court has acquired jurisdiction.

Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its nonpayment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment. (Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Hon. Achilles Melicor, G.R. No. 140954, 2005)