TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Manifestation With Omnibus Motion is hereby DENIED and the instant Petition is DISMISSED . Accordingly, the case [is] deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED. SO ORDERED . [27] Stanley filed a Motion for Reconsideration [28] arguing that contrary to the CA' s conclusion, the appellate court had in fact acquired jurisdiction over the person of Percy.
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Manifestation With Omnibus Motion is hereby DENIED and the instant Petition is DISMISSED . Accordingly, the case [is] deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED. SO ORDERED . [27] Stanley filed a Motion for Reconsideration [28] arguing that contrary to the CA' s conclusion, the appellate court had in fact acquired jurisdiction over the person of Percy. Stanley points to Percy's Comment to Petition [29] dated March 18, 2019 which was filed before the CA. In the said comment, Percy prayed for the outright dismissal of the petition on the ground that only the People, through the OSG, may question an acquittal in a criminal case. The CA denied Stanley's motion in the second assailed Resolution [30] dated September 26, 2019. Hence, the present recourse. Arguments Stanley beseeches the Court to order the CA to give due course to his petition for certiorari . He contends that by interposing a comment to the said petition without expressing any objections, Percy voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the appellate court; and that the case should be decided on the merits and not on technicalities. [31] On the other hand, Percy, in his Comment to Petition, [32] contended that the instant petition be dismissed because it seeks to appeal an acquittal which only the OSG has the authority to do. In his Reply, [33] Stanley asseverated that the Estate of Williams is not precluded from questioning the civil aspect of the case on its own. He contended that because the Estate of Williams never made any reservation on separately pursuing the civil aspect of the case, it maintains an interest on the dismissal of the criminal aspect thereof. [34] Issue The Court is tasked to determine whether the CA erred in dismissing outright the petition filed by Stanley in his capacity as administrator of the Estate of Williams. Ruling of the Court I. Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case. [35] Being a matter of substantive law, [36] it pertains to the right of the court to act in a case. [37] In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. [38] Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. [39] Conferred by the Constitution [40] or given by law and in the manner prescribed by law, [41] jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, including the character of the reliefs prayed for. [42] On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person or the parties, or jurisdiction in personam , refers to the power of the court to render a personal judgment or to subject the parties in a particular action to the judgment and other rulings rendered in the action. [43] It is the power of the court to make decisions that are binding on persons. [44] It is an element o