Civpro Case Digests Set 2

8/3/2019 Civpro Case Digests Set 2

1/8

Hermanas (H) v Heirs of Cenon Ignacio (CH)(Hierarchy of Courts)Facts: Cenon buys a 1000 sqm lot from Hermanas inc. Cenon takes po of the land andfenced the land. Sometime in 1996, Cenon dies. As of the date of his death, the title to theland had not yet been delivered to Cenon by Hermanas. Cenon's Heirs (CH) ask for deliveryof the title. Hermanas say's it can't because the same lot had already been sold to a 3rd party(Rowena Coleman). A case is filed by Cenon's heirs with the RTC for the recovery of the lot.

Hermanas counters that RTC has no jurisdiction since the matter should be brought to theHLURB. RTC says Hermanas is wrong. Hermanas petitions to the SC for certiorari under rule65 of RTC decision.

Issue: Can H go directly to SC for a rule 65 against CH? (SC after all has original jurisdictionto issue certiorari against RTC)

Held: No. At the outset, the instant petition for certiorari should have been filed with theCourt of Appeals and not with this Court pursuant to the doctrine of hierarchy of courtsDisregard of this rule warrants the outright dismissal of the petition. While the Courts originajurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the Regional Trial Courts and theCourt 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 courtforum. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writsshould be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly andspecifically set out in the petition. Although the invocation of this Courts jurisdiction isavailable 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 butan 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 thedenial of its motion for reconsideration12 on October 22, 2004. Even if we treat the instantpetition as an appeal under Rule 45, the same will not prosper having been filed only onNovember 30, 2004, way beyond the 15 day reglementary period.

H's case is dismissed outright for violating Hierarchy of Courts.


2/8

Heirs of Hinog (HH) v Melicor (M)(Hierarchy of Courts)Facts: The Balanes own a 1399 sq mtr parcel of land. They lease the same to Hinog at anominal rate of 100 per annum for 10 years. After the 10 year lease had expired, theBalanes wanted their land back. Hinog refuses to return the land to them, alleging that hehad become the owner of the said land by virtue of purchase of the land from a certainPahac, with the knowledge and conformity of the Balanes. Hinog dies prior to the resolution

of the case. HH takes over (without being formally substituted in Hinog's stead) and appointa new counsel, Atty. Petalcorin. Atty. P approaches the case from a novel perspective,seeking to expunge the entire case from the record as the RTC, according to Atty. P had notacquired jurisdiction over the case, since the B's failed to pay the docket fees and that thesame failure is jurisdictional. Judge Melicor takes note of this, but allows the B's to reinstatethe case after filing the appropriate docket fees. Atty. P files an MR that is denied by theRTC. Atty. P files a rule 65 against Judge M with the SC.

Issue: Was Atty. P's act of filing a rule 65 proper?

Held: No. First, it was violative of the doctrine of judicial Hierarchy. Secondly, certiorarunder Rule 65 is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character. It is not a generautility tool in the legal workshop. It offers only a limited form of review. Its principal functionis to keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction. It can be invoked only for an error ofjurisdiction, that is, one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or aquasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretionwhich is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, not to be used for any other purposesuch as to cure errors in proceedings or to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact. Acontrary 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 issuingthe assailed resolutions. On the contrary, it acted prudently, in accordance with law andjurisprudence.


3/8

Baviera v Paglinawan (DOJ State Prosecutor) and StanChart(Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction)Facts: Standard Chartered Bank is a multinational bank doing business in the PhilippinesSCB is licensed to engage in fiduciary and trust and banking activities. It is not however,licensed by the SEC to deal in securities. Despite this, SCB solicits investments from locainvestors to invest in GTMPF. Baviera invests with SCB. Subsequently, Baviera's investmentstank and lose more than 60% of their initial value. Baviera files a case for estafa against

SCB. Also, B files a case for violation of the 8.1 of the SEC code against SCB. DOJ dismissesthe latter case for not having been filed with the SEC first. Petitioner moves for an MR whichis also denied, hence the recourse to a rule 65 with the SC.

Issue: Was the DOJ correct in dismissing the case for violation of the SEC code outright fornot having been filed with the SEC first?

Held: Yes. A criminal charge for violation of the Securities Regulation Code is a specializeddispute. 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 acontroversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of the administrativetribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrativediscretion requiring the specialized knowledge and expertise of saidadministrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. TheSecurities 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 regulationsshould be filed with the SEC. Where the complaint is criminal in nature, the SEC shall indorsethe complaint to the DOJ for preliminary investigation and prosecution as provided in SECcode.

We thus agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner committed a fatal procedural lapsewhen he filed his criminal complaint directly with the DOJ. Verily, no grave abuse of discretioncan be ascribed to the DOJ in dismissing petitioners complaint.


4/8

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 forrecovery of real property against respondents Samaco. D amends his complaint several timesover the course of the matter to implead other people including Mercader and the Kersaws.On Dec 12, 1995, the RTC dismisses D's complaint for lack of merit. D appeals to CA but thesaid appeal is denied. D files a motion to extend time with the SC. The motion is also

denied. The case against D became final as both CA and SC entered judgment over D'smotion. The judgment against D becomes final. D is ordered to pay 70k to pvt. Rsp's foratty. Fees and damages. Pvt respondents file a motion to have the judgment executed withthe RTC. The RTC grants the motion. D files a case for certiorari with the SC against theRTC to stay the execution, alleging that what should be executed upon should be the estateand not him.

Issue: Was the filing with the SC proper?

Held: At the outset, we note that petitioner filed his petition for certiorari directly in thisCourt. This is a violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. He should have filed hispetition in the CA before seeking relief from this Court. Thus, this petition can be dismissedoutright for being procedurally infirm.

Moreover, the petition lacks merit. The RTC decision sought to be executed has long attainedfinality. Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. A final andexecutory judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification ismeant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law andregardless 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 onfundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasionaerrors, the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed bylaw.


5/8

Ernesto Morales v CA(Exclusive Appellate JD of SC vs Orig Actions)Facts: Morales has been charged before the RTC acting as a DDC with a violation of thedangerous drug act for possessing drugs. The amount of drugs Morales possessed however,warrants a max penalty not exceeding six years. Morales questions the jurisdiction of theRTC to act upon the matter on account of this fact. The RTC says that it has jurisdiction.Morales thus files a rule 65 with the CA. Meanwhile, the OSG agrees with Morales that the

RTC has no jurisdiction but questions the jurisdiction of CA to entertain the rule 65, asaccording to the OSG, it is the SC alone that may issue special civil actions for certiorarinvolving the jurisdiction of an inferior court. CA agrees with OSG and dismisses Morales casefor certiorari.

Issue: Is the OSG and the CA correct in their opinion that only the SC may rule 65 lowercourts?

Held: No. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction over petitioner'sspecial 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 jurisdictionwith the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution andSection 17(1) of the Judiciary Act of 1948, and with the Regional Trial Court pursuant toSection 21(7) of B.P. Blg. 129 to issue writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeascorpus, 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 certiorarunder 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 ArticleVIII of the Constitution and of that portion of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 vestingupon the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, oraffirm on certiorari as the law or rules of court may provide, final judgments anddecrees of inferior courts in all cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior courtis in issue. It forgot that this constitutional and statutory provisions pertain to theappellate not original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as correctlymaintained by the petitioner. An appellate jurisdiction refers to a process which is but acontinuation 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 toquash in criminal cases is interlocutory and cannot be the subject of an appeal or of a speciacivil action for certiorari. Nevertheless, this Court has allowed a special civil action forcertiorari where a lower court has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with graveabuse of discretion in denying a motion to dismiss or to quash. The petitioner believed thatthe RTC below did so; hence, the special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appealsappeared to be the proper remedy.


6/8

St. Martin Funeral Home vs NLRC(Concurrent OJ of SC and CA for rule 65 against lower courts and quasicourts)Facts: Bienvenido Aricayos (BA) files a case for illegal dismissal against SMFH. SMFH on theother hand, claims that it was justified in dismissing BA because BA 1.) Misappropriated 38kfrom the co. 2.) Is not an employee of SMFH but rather a mere volunteer. The Lab Arb findsmerit in SMFH allegations. BA appeals with the NLRC who subsequently reverses the decisionof Lab Arb. SMFH files a petition for certiorari under rule 65 with the SC.

Issue: Where should rule 65 against the NLRC be first addressed to?

Held: With the CA according to the SC. In this case, the SC remands the case to the CA forcertiorari. Under the present state of the law, there is no provision for appeals from thedecision of the NLRC. The SC argues thus... RA 7902 Section 9 (3) Exclusive appellate

jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courtsand quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities andExchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commissionand 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 underPresidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of thethird paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of1948. What this law merely does according to the SC is to prevent the CA from having appellate

jurisdiction over Labor Cases falling under the EAJ of the SC. But since the NLRC, a creature of thelabor code...has no provisions for appeal, there can thus be said no appellate jurisdiction within theSC. What the SC may do is merely to conduct judicial review under rule 65. There no rule restrictingthe CA from also conducting a rule 65 on the NLRC, the SC finds it fitting that the CA may nowconduct rule 65's on NLRC decisions. Special civil action of certiorari is within the concurrentoriginal jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of Appeals


7/8

Cubero vs Laguna West

Facts: Cubero along with some other folks enter into a JVA with Belle Corp to develop severahectares of CARP land owned by Cubero and folks in Tanuan Batangas. Upon learning of thisdeal, Laguna West files 9 ex parte motions to have adverse claims attached on the subjectlots, claiming that LW had a prior JVA with the predecessors in interest of Cubero and folksand that these same JVA's were registered as adverse claims over the previous titles of the

subjects lots. Belle for its part alleges that the JVA between LW and the predecessors ininterest are void ab initio since they were executed within the 10 year prohibitory periodunder RA 6657 (CAR law of '88). RTC dismisses the case, holding that the matter must bebrought before the DARAB first since it involves a question over which DARAB has primaryjurisdiction. The MR is rejected hence the present petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: Does DARAB have original jurisdiction over this matter?

Held: Yes. In the recent case of Islanders CARP-Farmers Beneficiaries Multi-PurposeCooperative Development, Inc. v. Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corp.,23 this Courtelucidated on the scope of an agrarian dispute, viz:

The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is vested with primary jurisdiction to determineand adjudicate agrarian reform matters, with exclusive original jurisdiction over all mattersinvolving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusivejurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and NaturaResources.

The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has jurisdiction to

determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Included in the definition of agrarian disputesare those arising from other tenurial arrangements beyond the traditional landowner-tenantor lessor-lessee relationship. Expressly, these arrangements are recognized by Republic ActNo. 6657 as essential parts of agrarian reform. Thus, the DARAB has jurisdiction overdisputes arising from the instant Joint Production Agreement entered into by the presentparties.

In cases where allegations of violation or circumvention of land reform laws have beenraised, 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 jurisdictionmeans jurisdiction to take cognizance of a cause at its inception, try it and pass judgmentupon the law and facts, while exclusive jurisdiction precludes the idea of co-existence andrefers to jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion of others.)


8/8

DAR vs Cuenca

Facts: Cuenca owns roughly 81 hectares of land in Lac Carlota City. The MARO of DAR, NoeFortunado notices this and subjects the large landholding to CARP by issuing a Notice ofCoverage to Cuenca on September 21 1999. Cuenca files a complaint with the RTC to havethe notice annulled on the ground that EO 405 (which amended CARL) was unconstitutionasince it was issued at a time when Cory Aquino no longer had law making powers. MARO

files a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction overthe matter. The RTC issues the TRO against MARO. MARO files an MR but the same isdenied. DAR thereafter files a rule 65 against the RTC with the CA, alleging GADLEJ on thepart of RTC. CA dismisses the matter holding that since the msin point of this case was aquestion of constitutionality of EO 405 and not an agri dispute, the same fellw within thejurisdiction of the RTC. Hence the present petition.

Issue: Does the RTC really have jurisdiction over this matter?

Held: No. All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian ReformProgram (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), eventhough they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts shouldbe resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it special and original authority tohear and adjudicate agrarian matters.

According to the DAR, the issue involves the implementation of agrarian reform, a matterover which the DAR has original and exclusive jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 50 of theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657). On the other hand, private respondentmaintains 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 ojurisdiction are shaped by the material averments of the complaint and the character of therelief sought. The defenses resorted to in the answer or motion to dismiss aredisregarded; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend entirely uponthe whim of the defendant.

A careful perusal of respondents Complaint shows that the principal averments and reliefsprayed for refer -- not to the "pure question of law" spawned by the allegedunconstitutionality of EO 405 -- but to the annulment of the DARs Notice of Coverage.

The DAR can not be ousted from its authority by the simple expediency of appending anallegedly constitutional or legal dimension to an issue that is clearly agrarian.

Documents

Civpro Case Digests Set 2