CONCURRENT JURISDICTION

CASE DIGEST CIV PRO:

G.R. No. 196063
December 14, 2011
ORLANDO A. RAYOS, FE A. RAYOS-DELA PAZ, represented by DR. ANTONIO A. RAYOS,
and ENGR. MANUEL A. RAYOS, Petitioners,
vs.
THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondent.
Statement of the Case: This is a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 and
declaratory relief assailing the denial of the trial court of petitioners motion to
dismiss directly filed before the Supreme Court.
Facts: The City of Manila passed an ordinance expropriating a parcel of land owned
by the defendants. The City of Manila offered to buy the property at 1,000 per sq.
m. While the defendants were willing to sell the said parcel of land, they oppose the
just compensation offered contending that they should be paid the amount of
50,000 per sq. m, the latter representing fair market value of the said property.
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the ordinance was
unconstitutional and the rulings of Lagcao v. Labra and Jesus Is Lord Christian
School Foundation, Inc. v. Municipality of Pasig so applies in this case.
Issue/s: Does the SC have jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari directly filed
before it?
Ruling:
Yes, the SC has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari. The Rules provide that the
SC, the CA and the RTCs exercise concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,
mandamus, prohibition and quo warranto. However, even if the said courts have
jurisdiction to issue the said writs, petitioner should nevertheless follow the
hierarchy of courts in assailing orders of inferior courts. In this case, Petitioners
should have assailed the denial of their motion to dismiss before the CA first before
filing the same to the SC. The SCs original jurisdiction may only be invoked in
special and important issues clearly provided for in the petition. Furthermore,
Petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 45 to assail the denial of a motion
to dismiss. A denial of a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory hence, it cannot
be the subject of an appeal. However, even if the SC treats of the petition as one for
certiorari under rule 65, the petition will likewise be denied for violating the
hierarchy of courts.