Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the power of a court to hear and decide a case. This is conferred by law.

Exercise of jurisdiction is a matter of procedure governed by the Rules of Court. It refers to the court's act of taking cognizance of a case.

Explaining the concept of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court stated in MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Respondents, G.R. No. 209830 (June 17, 2015):

"Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it 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. Thus, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action."

Exercise of jurisdiction is the topic of the case CONCORDE CONDOMINIUM, INC., by itself and comprising the Unit Owners of Concorde Condominium Building, Petitioner, vs. AUGUSTO H. BACULIO; G.R. No. 203678 (February 17, 2016).

This case involved an application for a writ of injunction raffled to Branch 149 of RTC Makati, designated as a Special Commercial Court. This branch dismissed the application for being an ordinary civil action. It contended that the case should have been raffled among the RTCs not designated as a Special Commercial Court.

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether or not Branch 149 of RTC Makati erred in dismissing the application.

According to the Supreme Court, yes, there was an error. True, the remedy falls within the general jurisdiction of the RTC. However, the Special Commercial Court retained the power to exercise jurisdiction over injunction applications because it continues to have subject matter jurisdiction over all cases under general RTC jurisdiction.