SAINT MARY CRUSADE V HON.

TEODORO RIEL
FACTS: Petitioner Saint Mary Crusade claimed in its petition for reconstitution that the
original copy of OCT 1609 had been burnt and lost in the fire that gutted the Quezon
City Register of Deeds in the late ’80s but the respondent Acting Presiding Judge of
Branch 85 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Quezon City dismissed the petition
considering the following: that petitioner did not present its purported Torrens title to be
reconstituted; that the petitioner’s claim was doubtful given the magnitude of 4,304,623
square meters as the land area involved;12 and that the UP’s ownership of the portion
of land covered by petitioner’s claim had long been settled by the Court in a long line of
cases. Saint Mary moved for reconsideration of the dismissal but it was dismissed for
lack of any cogent or justifiable ground to reconsider. As a result, they sought a direct
resort to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari and mandamus alleging that the
respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion and unlawful neglect of
performance of an act specifically enjoined upon him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
RULING: Yes. The petition for certiorari and mandamus, being devoid of procedural and
substantive merit, is dismissed by the Supreme Court. The filing of the instant special
civil action directly in this Court is in disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Although the Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals in issuing the
writ of certiorari, direct resort is allowed only when there are special, extraordinary or
compelling reasons that justify the same. The Court enforces the observance of the
hierarchy of courts in order to free itself from unnecessary, frivolous, and impertinent
cases and thus afford time for it to deal with the more fundamental and more essential
tasks that the Constitution has assigned to it. There being no special, important, or
compelling reason, the petitioner thereby violated the observance of the hierarchy of
courts, warranting the dismissal of the petition for certiorari. The correct recourse for the
petitioner was to appeal to the Court of Appeals by notice of appeal within 15 days from
notice of the denial of its motion for reconsideration.
REY NATHANIEL IFURUNG VS HON. CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES
FACTS: Petitioner Ifurung, who claims to be a taxpayer, a concerned Filipino citizen,
and a member of the Bar, seeks a declaration from the Supreme Court that Section 8(3)
in relation to Sec. 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6770, also known as the Ombudsman
Act of 1989, is unconstitutional for being an outright transgression of Sec. 11, in relation
to Secs. 8 and 10 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution regarding the determination of
the correct term and tenure of the Ombudsman and his deputies. Asserting that the
present petition involves the resolution of a constitutional issue which affects the very
fabric and integrity of the Office of the Ombudsman, the petitioner pleads for the
exemption from the observance of the rule on the hierarchy of courts in view of the
transcendental importance of this constitutional issue.
ISSUE: Whether or not the case be exempted from the doctrine of hierarchy of Courts.
RULING: Yes. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule like it, in fact,
admits the jurisprudentially established exceptions thereto, viz: (a) a direct resort to this
court is allowed when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be
addressed at the most immediate time. A direct resort to this court includes availing of
the remedies of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of actions of both
legislative and executive branches of the government; (b) when the issues involved are
of transcendental importance; (c) cases of first impression warrant a direct resort to this
court. In cases of first impression, no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower
courts on this matter; (d) the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this
court; (e) the time element; (f) the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ;
(g) petitioners have no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law; and (h) the petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the
advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the
orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as
clearly an inappropriate remedy. Petitioner has amplified in his petition these exceptions
to justify a relaxation on the adherence to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Hence, the
Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the case.
UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPCION V OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF
DOLE
Facts: This case stemmed from the collective bargaining negotiations between
petitioner University of Immaculate Concepcion, Inc. (UNIVERSITY) and respondent
The UIC Teaching and Non-Teaching Personnel and Employees Union. While the case
was before the CA and the Supreme Court, UIC alleges that a certain Alfredo Olvida, a
non-lawyer, has been preparing, signing, and filing pleadings hence, they filed an
omnibus motion to hold him in contempt but the Supreme Court found Olvida guilty of
indirect contempt, instead. However, under the Rules of Court, all charges shall be
commenced by a verified petition with full compliance with the requirements, unless the
charge is directly made by the court against which the contemptuous act is committed.
Despite the fact that the model used by UIC is incorrect, the Supreme Court has
decided on the matter.
Issue: Whether or not the decision of the Supreme Court is correct in deciding a case
filed through an improper remedy.
Ruling: Yes. Under the Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction, the Supreme Court may,
incidental to its power, suspend its own rules whenever the interest of justice requires,
resolve an issue involving indirect contempt when there is (a) no factual controversy to
be resolved or the case falls under the res ipsa loquitur rule (the principle that the
occurrence of an accident implies negligence) and (b) only after granting the respondent
the opportunity to comment. The SC resolve UIC’s pending motion on the basis of this
exception, and only to fully dispose of all pending issues in these consolidated cases.
While the SC do not condone the initiation of indirect contempt proceedings by mere
motion without payment of the proper docket fees, requiring UIC to file a verified petition
for indirect contempt will only serve to prolong the dispute between the parties.
ALONA ROLDAN VS SPS. BARRIOS
Facts: Defendants Sps. Barrios borrowed from the plaintiff Alona Roldan the sum of
Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage in favor
of the spouses upon a parcel of land situated in Aklan with an assessed value of
P13,380.00. Later, Barrios found out that the same lot was also mortgaged to a certain
Rommel D. Matorres. When the Spouses defaulted in payment, Barrios filed an action
for foreclosure of real estate mortgage against respondents’ spouse and respondent
Romel D. Matorres at RTC, Kalibo, Aklan but it was dismissed because the assessed
value of the property mortgaged is only P13,380.00 and the being a real action, the
assessed value of the property determines the jurisdiction. The assessed value of the
property involved being below P20,000.00, it is the first level court that has jurisdiction
over the cases. Petitioner in her Motion argued that foreclosure of real estate mortgage
is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and jurisdiction lies with the Regional
Trial Court.
Issues: Whether or not the case is within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Ruling: No. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and an objection
based on this ground cannot be waived by the parties. Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129
as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7691 pertinently provides for the jurisdiction of
the RTC and the first level courts. It provides that the RTC exercises exclusive original
jurisdiction in civil actions where the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. It also has jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to, or possession of, real
property or any interest in it where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds
P20,000.00, and if it is below P20,000.00, it is the first level court that has jurisdiction.
An action "involving title to real property" means that the plaintiff’s cause of action is
based on a claim that he owns such property or that he has the legal right to have
exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same. As foreclosure of a
mortgage is real action, it is the assessed value of the property that determines the
court's jurisdiction. Considering that the assessed value of the mortgaged property is
only P13,380.00, the RTC correctly found that the action falls within the jurisdiction of
the first level court.
In terms of pecuniary estimation, the law states that where the basic issue is something
other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely
incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered
such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms
of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of the first instance.
ISSUE: Whether or not the case be dismissed for not following the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts.
RULING: YES. The judicial hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. A strict
application of the rule of the hierarchy of courts is not necessary when the cases
brought before the appellate courts do not involve factual but legal questions. Since the
petitioner raises a pure question of law pertaining to the court's jurisdiction on the
complaint about judicial foreclosure of sale, the Supreme Court would allow the
petitioner's direct resort to it.