4.

ALFRED PEARSON, petitioner, vs INTERMEDIATE HELD:

APPELLATE COURT, respondent
GR No. 74454, September 3, 1998
FACTS:
Petitioner Pearson, having beneficial interests to the
dissolved Tambis Gold Dredging Co. (Tambis), filed
adverse claims before the Bureau of Mines, over certain
placer claims in the barrio of Bahi, Municipality of Barobo,
Surigao del Sur.
No, it was not proper to file the Petition directly with the
Supreme Court.
It has also been emphasized in a number of cases that
while this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court
of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts (for writs
enforceable within their respective regions), to issue writs
of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, the litigants are
well advised against taking a direct recourse to this Court.

The placer claims were discovered and located by the Instead, they should initially seek the proper relief from
Mining Companies - Rosario Mining and Diamond Mining the lower courts.
but is said to have been under the declarations of location
of Tambis. As a court of last resort, this Court should not be burdened
with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance.
With respect to the adverse claim, the Bureau ruled in
favor of the Mining Companies stating that the placer Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is
claims of Tambis were null and void because their tie concurrently within the competence of the CA or RTC,
points were not in accordant to law and cannot be litigants must observe the principle of hierarchy of courts.
accurately determined.
This Court's original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary
The decision was sustained on its appeal to the Minister of writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary,
Natural Resources and later on to the Office of the or where serious and important reasons therefor exist.
President.
Thus, the petition was dismissed.
As a result, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before
the CFI. A motion to dismiss was filed by the respondents
assailing that the decision of the President shall be final
and executory

. Instead of resolving the motion, the CFI ordered the

creation of an Ad Hoc Ocular Inspection Committee to
determine the correct tie point of petitioner's mining
claim.

The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the

said order, but was denied.

This prompted the respondents to filed a petition for

Certiorari before the IAC.

The latter granted the petition, and ordered the CFI to

resolve the motion to dismiss.

The CFI then dismissed the petition. Hence, the petitioner

filing the instant petition.

Petitioner maintains that the Supreme Court has the

exclusive jurisdiction over all cases where the jurisdiction
of a lower court is in issue, as well as all cases decided by
lower courts involving pure questions of law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not it was proper for the petitioner to file the

Petition for Certiorari directly to the Supreme Court.