PEMBERTON VS.

DE LIMA
GR No. 217508, 18 April 2016
(Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts)

Petitioner: Joseph Scott Pemberton

Respondent: Hon. Leila De Lima in her capacity as the Secretary of Justice; Judge Roline Ginez-
Jabalde, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 74 of the RTC of Olongapo City; and
Marilou Laude y Serdoncillo

FACTS:

A complaint for murder was filed by the PNP-Olongapo City and private respondent
Marilou Laude y Serdoncillo against petitioner Joseph Scott Pemberton.
Laude filed an Omnibus Motion on October 21, 2014 praying that petitioner be issued
by the City Prosecutor of Olongapo City subpoenas : a) directing petitioner to be subject to the
lifting of his fingerprint and buccal swabs during the clarificatory hearing and b) the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory through the Chief of Office to assign forensic personnel to
gather fingerprints and buccal swabs from Petitioner and subject him to “forensic examination
and analysis, and DNA testing”.
Pemberton opposed the motion by filing a Manifestation and Omnibus Motion: a) for
clarification; b) declaration of absence of probable cause for murder or any other crime; and c)
in the event that absence of probable cause is not declared, at the very least, the charge be
reduced to homicide considering the lack of circumstances qualifying the offense to murder.
Probable cause for murder against petitioner was found, and the trial court issued a
warrant of arrest.
On December 18, 2014, Pemberton filed his Petition for Review before the DOJ and a
Motion to Defer the Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court which were denied for lack of
merit. Hence, this Petition for Certiorari with application for the ex-parte issuance of a TRO
and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
Petitioner argued that Sec. De Lima a) committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining
a finding of probable cause amounting to excess or absence of jurisdiction based on the
grounds of Sec. De Lima’s taking into account additional evidence which prosecutor allegedly
had no authority to receive and which petitioner had no chance to address and rebut thereby
constituting denial of due process of law; b) that Sec. De Lima found probable cause to indict
petitioner despite the evidence on record not supporting the existence of probable cause to
indict him with homicide or murder; and c) that Sec. De Lima found that the killing was
attended with the qualifying circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and
cruelty despite prevailing jurisprudence dictating that elements of such circumstances be
established by direct evidence.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the petitioner violated the principle of hierarchy of courts by filing his
Petition before the Supreme Court instead of the Court of Appeals.
HELD:

Yes. It is not clear why any action of the Court of Appeals which has concurrent jurisdiction for
certiorari under Rule 65, cannot be considered as sufficient review of petitioner’s case. A direct
invocation of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to issue writs should be allowed only when there
are special and important reasons clearly and specifically set out in the petition, and in this
case, the possibility of the case against petitioner is not a reason that it is special and important
enough to successfully invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform
the functions assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. It cannot and
should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance. Its original
jurisdiction to issue the so called extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely
necessary or where serious and important reasons exist therefore. Where the issuance of an
extraordinary writ is also within the competence of the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial
Court, it is in either of these courts that the specific action for the writ’s procurement must be
presented. This is and should always be the policy in this regard, a policy that courts and
lawyers must strictly observe.

RULING:

The Petition for Certiorari was DISMISSED.