Garcia vs Ferro Chemicals

Antonio Garcia and Ferro entered into a deed of absolute sale and purchase of
shares of stocks in the name of Antonio Garcia. The contract was entered into to
prevent the stocks from being sold at public auction to pay for the outstanding
obligations of Antonio.
A deed of right of repurchase was entered into by the parties in which Antonio can
redeem the properties within 180 days. Before the lapse of such period, Antonio
exercised his right to repurchase but Ferro refused. Garcia filed an action for
specific performance and annulment of transfer of shares.
Ferro then charged Garcia with estafa under Article 318 for allegedly
misrepresenting that the shares were free from lien and encumbrances. RTC
acquitted Garcia and so the case was elevated to the CA and the latter held in
favor of Ferro. When the case reached the Supreme court, Antonio Garcia claims
that both he and Ferro acted in bad faith when they entered into the deed of
absolute sale as a scheme to defraud Garcias creditors, thus they were in pari
delicto and Ferro should not be allowed to recover.
SC found out that there were issues not raised before the courts.
Issue: WN the RTC had jurisdiction over the case
Held:
No, Jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is vested by law. In
criminal cases, the imposable penalty of the crime charged in the information
determines the court that has jurisdiction over the case The information charged
Garcia with the violation of Article 318 of the RVP punishable by arresto mayor or
imprisonment for a period of 1 month and 1 day to six months.
The information was filed on September 3, 1990, the law in force at the time
was BP 129 before it was amended by RA 7691. under said law, the metropolitan
trial court had jurisdiction over the case.
The trial courts lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by the paries silence on
the matter.

People vs Court of Appeals

Rico and Lipao were indicted for and pleaded not guilty to violation of PD 705 as
amended by EO 277. Accused were caught possessing timbers and firewood with
a market value of P3100 without legal documents. They were caught loading the
forest products in the pumpboat rickjoy owned by Rico.
Offense charged is punishable under ARt. 309 (theft) punishable by prision
correccional. During the pendency of the proceedings of the criminal case, RA
7691 took effect. It expanded the jurisdiction of MeTCs, MTCs, MCTC in criminal
cases to cover all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years.
Before RA 7491, BP 129 was in effect and provided that MeTC, MTC, MCTC shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment
not exceeding four years and two months. RTC rendered decision finding the
Lipaos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged.
Lipaos filed na appeal before the CA arguing that they were subjected to an illegal
search and seizure and so evidence cannot be used against them. The CA granted
the appeal of the Lipaos and dismissed the case before it on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction of the RTC.
Issue: WON RTC retained jurisdcition over the case
HELD: Yes. The passage of RA 7691 did not ipso facto relieve the RTC of the
jurisdiction to hear and decide the criminal case against private respondents.
The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to be determined by the
law in force at the time of the institution of the action. When a court has already
obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdcition to
proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by the new
legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal.
Exception to the rile is when the statute expressly provides or is construed to
the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its
enactment.