Hermanas (H) v Heirs of Cenon Ignacio (CH) (Hierarchy of Courts) Facts: Facts: Cenon Cenon buys buys a 1000 1000 sqm lot lot from from Herma Hermanas nas inc. Cen Cenon on takes takes po of of the the land land and fenced the the land. Sometime in 1996, Cenon dies. dies. As of the the date of of his death, death, the title title to the land had not yet been delivered delivered to Cenon by by Hermanas. Cenon's Heirs (CH) (CH) ask for delivery of the title. Hermanas say's it can't can't because the same lot lot had already been sold sold to a 3rd party (Rowena Coleman). Coleman). A case is filed by Cenon's heirs with with the RTC for the recovery of the lot. lot. Hermanas counters that RTC has no jurisdiction since the matter should be brought to the HLURB. RTC says Hermanas is wrong. Hermanas petitions to the SC for certiorari certiorari under under rule 65 of RTC decision. Issue: Can H go directly to SC for a rule rule 65 against CH? (SC after after all has original jurisdiction jurisdiction to issue certiorari against RTC) Held: No. At the outset, outset, the the instant instant petition petition for certio certiorari rari should should have have been filed filed with with the Court of Appeals and not with this Court pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Disregard of this rule warrants the outright dismissal of the petition. While the Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, we emphasized in Liga ng mga Barangay National v. Atienza, Jr.,8 that such concurrence does not allow an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. forum. A direct invocatio invocation n of the Supreme Supreme Court’s Court’s original jurisdicti jurisdiction on to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specific specifically ally set out in the petition. petition. Although Although the invocatio invocation n of this Court’s Court’s jurisdictio jurisdiction n is available to petitioner on the ground that this case raises a pure question of law, specifically, the issue of jurisdiction, the proper recourse is not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 but an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which should have been filed within 15 days from notice of the denial of its motion for reconsideration12 on October 22, 2004. Even if we treat the instant petition as an appeal under Rule 45, the same will not prosper having been filed only on November 30, 2004, way beyond the 15 day reglementary period. H's case is dismissed outright for violating Hierarchy of Courts.
Heirs of Hinog (HH) v Melicor (M) (Hierarchy of Courts) Facts: Facts: The Balane Balaness own a 1399 1399 sq mtr mtr parcel parcel of land. land. They lease lease the the same to to Hinog Hinog at a nomin nominal al rate of 100 per an annu num m for for 10 years. years. After After the 10 year year lease had expired expired,, the the Balanes wanted wanted their land land back. Hinog refuses refuses to return the land to them, them, alleging that he had become the owner of the said land by virtue of purchase of the land from a certain Pahac, with the the knowledge and and conformity of the Balanes. Balanes. Hinog dies prior to the resolution of the case. case. HH takes over (without (without being formally formally substituted in Hinog's Hinog's stead) and appoint appoint a new counsel, counsel, Atty. Petalcor Petalcorin. in. Atty. P approache approachess the case from a novel perspective perspective,, seeking to expunge the entire case from the record as the RTC, according to Atty. P had not acquired jurisdiction over the case, since the B's failed to pay the docket fees and that the same failure is jurisdictional. jurisdictional. Judge Melicor takes takes note of this, but allows the B's to reinstate reinstate the case case after after filing the the appropriat appropriate e docket docket fees. Atty. P files files an MR that that is denied denied by the RTC. Atty. P files a rule 65 against Judge M with the SC. Issue: Was Atty. P's act of filing filing a rule 65 proper? Held: No. First, it was violative of the doctrine of judicial Hierarchy. Secondly, certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop. It offers only a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction. It can be invoked only for an error of jurisdiction, that is, one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, not to be used for any other purpose, such as to cure errors in proceedings or to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact. A contrary rule would lead to confusion, and seriously hamper the administration of justice. Petitioners utterly failed to show that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the assailed resolutions. On the contrary, it acted prudently, in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
Baviera v Paglinawan (DOJ State Prosecutor) and StanChart (Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction) Facts: Facts: Standar Standard d Chartere Chartered d Bank Bank is a multination multinational al bank doing business business in the Philippine Philippines. s. SCB is licensed licensed to engage in fiduciary fiduciary and trust and banking banking activities. activities. It is not however, however, licensed licensed by the SEC to deal in securities securities.. Despite Despite this, SCB solicits solicits investmen investments ts from local investors to invest in GTMPF. Baviera invests invests with SCB. Subsequently, Baviera's investments investments tank tank and lose more than 60% of their initial initial value. value. Baviera Baviera files a case for estafa estafa against against SCB. Also, B files a case case for violation violation of the 8.1 of of the SEC SEC code against against SCB. DOJ dismisses the latter case for not not having been filed with the SEC first. Petitioner moves moves for an MR which is also denied, hence the recourse to a rule 65 with the SC. Issue: Was the DOJ correct correct in dismissing the case for for violation of the the SEC code outright for for not having been filed with the SEC first? Held: Yes. A criminal criminal charge charge for violation of the Securities Regulation Code is a specialized specialized dispute. Hence, it must first be referred to an administrative agency of special competence, i.e., the SEC. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts will not determine a contr controve oversy rsy involv involving ing a quest question ion within within the ju juris risdic dictio tion n of the admini administr strati ative ve tribun tribunal, al, wh where ere the quest question ion demand demands s the exerci exercise se of sound sound admin administ istra rativ tive e discr iscret etiion requ equirin iring g the the speci pecial aliized knowled wledg ge an and d exper xperti tis se of said aid administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. fact . The Securities Regulation Code is a special law. Its enforcement is particularly vested in the SEC. Hence, all complaints for any violation of the Code and its implementing rules and regulations should be filed with the SEC. Where the complaint is criminal in nature, the SEC shall indorse the complaint to the DOJ for preliminary investigation and prosecution as provided in SEC code. We thus agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner committed a fatal procedural lapse when he filed his criminal complaint directly with the DOJ. Verily, no grave g rave abuse of discretion can be ascribed to the DOJ in dismissing petitioner’s complaint.
Dacanay v Yrastorza (Doctrine of Finality of Judgment) (Hierarchy of Courts) Facts: Dacanay (D – an administrator of the estate of Tereso Fernandez) files a case for recovery of real real property against respondents respondents Samaco. D amends his complaint complaint several times over the course of the matter to implead other people including Mercader and the Kersaws. On Dec 12, 1995, the RTC dismisses dismisses D's complaint for lack lack of merit. D appeals to CA but the said said appea appeall is denied. denied. D files files a motion motion to exten extend d time with with the SC. SC. The moti motion on is also also denied. denied. The case against against D became became final as both CA and SC entered entered judgment judgment over D's motion. motion. The judgmen judgmentt against against D becomes becomes final. final. D is ordered ordered to pay pay 70k to pvt. pvt. Rsp's for for atty. Fees and damages. damages. Pvt respondents file a motion motion to have the the judgment executed executed with the RTC. RTC. The RTC RTC grants grants the motion motion.. D files files a case for for certior certiorari ari with with the SC agains againstt the RTC to stay the execution, alleging that what should be executed upon should be the estate and not him. Issue: Was the filing with the SC proper? proper? Held: At the outset, we note that petitione petitionerr filed his petition for certior certiorari ari directly directly in this Court. This is a violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. He should have filed his petition in the CA before before seeking relief from from this Court. Thus, this petition can be dismissed dismissed outright for being procedurally procedurally infirm. Moreover, the petition petition lacks merit. The RTC decision sought sought to be executed has long attained finality. Once a judgment judgment attains finality, it becomes becomes immutable immutable and unalterable. unalterable. A final and and executory judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is mean me antt to corr correc ectt what what is pe perc rcei eive ved d to be an erro errone neou ouss conc conclu lusi sion on of fact fact or law law an and d regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. This is the doctrine of finality of judgment. It is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by law.
Ernesto Morales v CA (Exclusive Appellate JD of SC vs Orig Actions) Facts: Facts: Morales Morales has been been charged charged before before the RTC acting acting as a DDC with with a violation violation of the dangerous drug drug act for possessing drugs. drugs. The amount of drugs drugs Morales possessed possessed however, however, warrant warrantss a max penalty penalty not exceeding exceeding six years. Morales Morales questions questions the jurisdictio jurisdiction n of the RTC to act upon the matter matter on account account of this fact. fact. The RTC says that that it has jurisdiction jurisdiction.. Morales thus thus files a rule 65 with with the CA. Meanwhile, the OSG agrees with with Morales that that the RTC has no jurisdiction but questions the jurisdiction of CA to entertain the rule 65, as according to the OSG, it is the SC alone that may issue special civil actions for certiorari involving the jurisdiction jurisdiction of an inferior court. court. CA agrees with OSG and dismisses dismisses Morales case for certiorari. Issue: Issue: Is the OSG and the CA correct correct in their opinion opinion that that only the SC may rule 65 lower lower courts? Held: No. The Court Court of Appeals Appeals erred erred in holding holding that it had no jurisdiction jurisdiction over over petitioner's petitioner's special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 9(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, the Court of Appeals has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution and Section 17(1) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, and with the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 21(7) of B.P. Blg. 129 to issue writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus, and quo warranto. These are original actions, not modes of appeals. Since what the petitioner filed in CA-G.R. SP No. 40670 was a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals thereon is beyond doubt. This error of the Court of Appeals was due to its misapplication of Section 5(2)(c) of Article VIII of the Constitution and of that portion of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 vesting upon the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on certiorari as the law or rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in all cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior court is in issue. It forgot that this constitutional and statutory provisions provisions pertain to the appe appell llat ate e — not not orig origin inal al — ju juri risd sdic icti tion on of the the Supr Suprem eme e Cour Court, t, as corr correc ectl tly y maintained by the petitioner. petitioner. An appellate jurisdiction refers to a process which is but a continuation of the original suit, not a commencement of a new action, such as that of a special civil action for certiorari. The general rule is that a denial of a motion to dismiss or to quash in criminal cases is interlocutory and cannot be the subject of an appeal or of a special civil civil action action for for certio certiora rari. ri. Never Neverthe theles less, s, this this Court Court has allow allowed ed a specia speciall civil civil action action for for certiorari where a lower court has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying a motion to dismiss or to quash. The petitioner believed that the RTC below did so; hence, the special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals appeared to be the proper remedy.
St. Martin Funeral Home vs NLRC (Concurrent (Concurrent OJ of SC and CA for rule 65 against lower courts and quasicourts q uasicourts)) Facts: Bienvenido Aricayos (BA) files a case for illegal illegal dismissal against SMFH. SMFH on the other hand, claims that it was justified in dismissing BA because BA 1.) Misappropriated 38k from the co. 2.) 2.) Is not an employee employee of SMFH but rather rather a mere volunteer. volunteer. The Lab Arb finds merit in SMFH allegations. allegations. BA appeals with the the NLRC who subsequently subsequently reverses the decision decision of Lab Arb. SMFH files a petition petition for certiorari certiorari under rule 65 with the SC. Issue: Where should should rule 65 against against the NLRC be first addressed addressed to? Held: With the CA CA according according to the the SC. In this case, case, the SC remands remands the case case to the CA for certiorar certiorari. i. Under Under the present state state of the law, there is no provision provision for appeals appeals from the decisi decision on of the the NLRC. NLRC. The SC SC argue arguess thus.. thus.... “RA 7902 7902 Sec Sectio tion n 9 (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction jurisdiction over all final judgments, 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 subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.” What this law merely merely does according according to the SC is to prevent the CA from having appellate appellate jurisdiction jurisdiction over Labor Cases falling falling under the EAJ of the SC. But since the NLRC, a creature creature of the labor code...has no provisions for appeal, there can thus be said no appellate jurisdiction within the SC. What the SC may do is merely to conduct judicial review under rule 65. 65. There no rule restricting the CA from also conducting a rule 65 on the NLRC, the SC finds it fitting that the CA may now conduct rule 65's on NLRC decisions. Special civil action of certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of Appeals
Cubero vs Laguna West Facts: Cubero along with some other folks enter into a JVA with Belle Corp to develop several hectares of CARP land land owned by Cubero and folks in Tanuan Tanuan Batangas. Upon learning of this deal, Laguna West files 9 ex parte motions to have adverse claims attached on the subject lots, claiming that LW had a prior JVA with the predecessors in interest of Cubero and folks and that these same JVA's were registered as adverse claims over the previous titles of the subjects subjects lots. Belle for for its part alleges alleges that the JVA between between LW and the predeces predecessors sors in interest are void ab initio since they were executed within the 10 year prohibitory period under under RA 6657 (CAR law of '88). RTC dismisses dismisses the case, case, holding that that the matter must be brought before the DARAB first since it involves a question over which DARAB has primary jurisdiction. The MR is rejected rejected hence the present present petition for review review on certiorari. certiorari. Issue: Does DARAB DARAB have original original jurisdiction over over this matter? Held: Yes. Held: Yes. In the recen recentt case of Islande Islanders rs CARP-Fa CARP-Farm rmers ers Benef Benefici iciari aries es MultiMulti-Pur Purpos pose e Cooperative Development, Development, Inc. v. Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corp.,23 this Court elucidated on the scope of an agrarian dispute, viz: The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters, with exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department Department of Environment Environment and Natural Resources. The The De Depa part rtme ment nt of Agra Agrari rian an Refo Reform rm Adju Adjudi dica cati tion on Boar Board d (DAR (DARAB AB)) ha hass juri jurisd sdic icti tion on to dete de term rmin ine e an and d ad adju judi dica cate te all all ag agra rari rian an disp disput utes es invo involv lvin ing g the the impl implem emen enta tati tion on of the the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Included in the definition of agrarian disputes are those arising from other tenurial arrangements beyond the traditional landowner-tenant or lessor-lessee relationship. Expressly, these arrangements are recognized by Republic Act No. No. 6657 6657 as essent essential ial parts parts of agrari agrarian an ref reform orm.. Thus, Thus, the DA DARAB RAB ha hass jur jurisd isdict iction ion over over disputes arising from the instant Joint Production Agreement entered into by the present parties. In cases where allegations of violation or circumvention of land reform laws have been raised, this Court has declined to address them, it stating that petitioners must first plead their case with the DARAB. There is no reason why this Court should now hold otherwise. Bonus Reading: (Distinction between original and exclusive jurisdiction: Original jurisdiction means jurisdiction to take cognizance of a cause at its inception, try it and pass judgment upon the law and facts, while exclusive jurisdiction precludes the idea of co-existence and refers to jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion of others.)
DAR vs Cuenca Facts: Cuenca owns owns roughly roughly 81 hectares hectares of land land in Lac Carlota City. City. The MARO of of DAR, Noe Noe Fortunado notices this and subjects the large landholding to CARP by issuing a Notice of Coverage to Cuenca Cuenca on September 21 1999. 1999. Cuenca files a complaint complaint with the RTC to have the notice annulled on the ground that EO 405 (which amended CARL) was unconstitutional since since it was issued at a time when Cory Aquino Aquino no longer had law making making powers. powers. MARO files a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the the matter matter.. The RTC RTC issues issues the the TRO agains againstt MARO. MARO. MARO MARO files files an MR but the the same same is denied. DAR thereafter thereafter files a rule 65 against against the RTC with the the CA, alleging GADLEJ on on the part of RTC. CA dismisses dismisses the matter matter holding that that since the msin point point of this case was a question of constitutionality of EO 405 and not an agri dispute, the same fellw within the jurisdiction of of the RTC. Hence the present petition. petition. Issue: Does the RTC RTC really have jurisdiction jurisdiction over this this matter? Held: No. All controversies controversies on the the implementation implementation of the the Comprehensive Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it special and original authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters. According to the DAR, the issue involves the implementation of agrarian reform, a matter over which the DAR has original and exclusive jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 50 of the Comprehe Comprehensiv nsive e Agrarian Agrarian Reform Reform Law (RA 6657). On the other hand, private private respondent respondent maintains that his Complaint assails mainly the constitutionality of EO 405. He contends that since the Complaint raises a purely legal issue, it thus falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC. We do not agree. Two basic rules have guided this Court in determining jurisdiction in these cases. First, jurisdiction is conferred by law. And second, the nature of the action and the issue of jurisdiction are shaped by the material averments of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. The defenses resorted to in the answer or motion to dismiss are disregarded; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend entirely upon the whim of the defendant. A careful perusal of respondent’s Complaint shows that the principal averments and reliefs prayed for refer -- not to the "pure question of law law" spawned by the alleged unconstitutionality unconstitutionality of EO 405 -- but to the annulment of the DAR’s Notice of Coverage. The DAR can not be ousted from its authority by the simple expediency of appending an allegedly constitutional constitutional or legal dimension to an issue that is clearly agrarian.
