CARPIO MORALES vs CA

Binay and other public officers of the City of Makati was charged before the OMB of Plunder
and violation of RA 3019.
Before Binay et.al’s filing of counter-affidavits, the OMB issued a preventive suspension for not
more than 6 mos. Binay filed a Rule 65 petition before the CA seeking nullification of the PS
and prayed for the issuance of TRO and or WPI to enjoin its implementation.
The CA issued a resolution granting Binay’s prayer for TRO. The OMB filed a petition before
the SC assailing CA’s reso granting TRO to Binay. The Omg claims that the CA had no
jurisdiction to grant the prayer for TRO citing section 14 of RA 6770 or the OMB act of 1989
which states that “ no injunctive writ could be issued to delay the OMBs investigation unless
there is prima facie evidence that the subject matter thereof is outside the latter’s jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, Binay’s prayer for WPI was granted which further enjoined the implementation of
the suspension.
ISSUE: WON Section 14 of RA 6770 is valid and constitutional in relation to the rule making
power of the SC

RULING: (Section 14. Restrictions. - No writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to

ndelay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is
a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction
of the Office of the Ombudsman.

No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of
the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure question of law.)

The SC rules that 1st par of s 14 of OMB act took away from the courts their power to issue TRO
and or WPI to enjoin an investigation by the OMB, it encroached upon the Court’s constitutional
rule making authority. TRO and WPI are by nature provisional reliefs and auxiliary wrtits
created under the ROC, matters of procedure solely belong to the province of the Court.

As a GR, the 2nd par of s 14 bans the whole range of remedies against issuances of OMB, by
prohibiting (a) an appeal against any decision or finding of the OMB and (b) any application of
remedy against the same. Exception. Rule 45 appeal on pure questions of law to SC.

Here, the SC held that congress cannot interfere with matters of procedure, it cannot alter the
scope of rule 45 appeal so as to apply to interlocutory findings issued by the OMB. A rule 45
appeal can only be taken against finals decisions and orders of lower courts, not “findings”. By
confining the remedy to r45, it takes away the remedy of r65 certiorari grounded on errors of
jurisdiction and GAD.

The 2nd par also increases SC appellate jurisdiction without its consent. This is similar to s27 of
same act which was invalidated in the case of Fabian v Desierto. ( Here, the SC held that appeal
from decision of the OMB in admin case should be to CA by way of r43 not r45 as provided
under s27.)

ABOGADO vs OMB
This is a pet for certiorari under r65 of the ROC assailing the OMB’s denial of the Abogado’s
consolidated motion assailing the OMB’s decision founding petitioner guilty of dishonesty,
grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to best interest of the service.
ANTECEDENTS: A complaint was filed charging some Isabela officials, the charge arose from
irregularities or anomalies in the implementation of the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani Program of
the DA. The OMB rendered the assailed decision founding petitioner herein and other
respondents guilty. Petitioner filed a consolidated motion but likewise denied by the OMB.
Petitioner comes to the SC via Rule 65 petition pursuant to the OMB act s27 RA 6770.
ISSUE: Is the remedy of Rule 65 petition before the SC proper? Is s27 of RA 6770 valid?
RULING: In the 1998 case of Fabian vs Desierto, this court held that s27 of RA 6770 which
provides that all “orders, directives, or decisions in administrative cases of the OMB may be
appealed to the SC by petition for certiorari in accordance with rule 45 of the ROC,”
unconstitutional for it increased SC appellate jurisdiction without its advice and concurrence.
Appeals from decisions of the OMB in admin cases should be by way of rule 43 to the CA. Here,
the petitioner filed a pet for certiorari under r65 which seeks to reverse the OMB decision.
Undeniably, the assailed decision and order of the OMB is not “final and unappealable”
This case should have been filed before the CA via pet for review under rule 43.
Hence, the r65 remedy is not proper. S27 of RA 6770 is unconstitutional for it enlarge the
appellate jurisdiction of the SC without its advice and concurrence.

SALVADOR vs PATRICIA
A case for injunction and quieting of title was filed before the RTC to determine ownership of
the property occupied by plaintiff Mijares. A preliminary injunction was granted. To resolve
questions of boundaries between the city of manila and patricia, the RTC appointed
commissioners.
RTC decided in favor of petitioners and against respondent Patricia permanently enjoining the
latter from doing any act that would evict petitioners and from collecting any rentals. RTC held
that the land belonged to the City of Manila.
The CA reversed the RTC decision, petitioners are without necessary interest, legal or equitable
to maintain a suit for quieting of title. Also, it held that an adjudication of boundary dispute in an
action for quieting of title is highly improper.
Petitioners and the City of Manila maintain that CA erred in dismissing the complaint, arguing
that the parties openly raised and litigated the boundary issue in the RTC, and that they had
amended their complaint to conform to evidence pursuant to S5 Rule10 of ROC.
Respondent counters that the boundary dispute which is the allegations of the complaint was not
proper in quieting of title suit, that s5 rule 10 of ROC do not vest authority to RTC to resolve
boundary dispute.
ISSUE: WON the RTC has jurisdiction in this action to quiet title to land.
RULING: There is none.
Jurisdiction over real actions depends on the assessed value of the property involved as alleged
in the complaint.
Here, the action was for injunction and for quieting of title. The allegations must be properly
stated in the complaint to vest jurisdiction in the trial court.
Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law and is conferred by law. It cannot be conferred by the
agreement of the parties or by court acquiescence, or by the erroneous belief of the court that it
had jurisdiction, or by waiver of objections of by the silence of the parties.
Under BP 129, the law vest jurisdiction to RTC in actions that are incapable of pecuniary
estimation. In real actions, the RTC has jurisdiction where the assessed value of the property
exceeds 20,000 outside Metro Manila and exceeds 50,000 in Metro Manila.
Here, an action to quiet title is a real action for it involves the issue of ownership or possession of
real property. Here, although an action to quiet title is to be brought under Rule 63 on Special
Civil actions and it specifies RTC as the forum, such specification cannot override the statutory
provision on Jurisdiction.
The complaint lacking in the allegation of the assessed value, the trial court could not determine
jurisdiction and proceed with the case and render judgment for lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is
conferred by law and could not be vested by any act or omission of any party.
Notes: Joinder of Injunction and action to quiet title is not allowed. Action to quiet title is a
special civil action.
The SC affirms the CA decision lifting the injunction against Patricia and dismissing the civil
case filed.
NOTES: Boundary dispute cannot be resolve in an action to quiet title. Such is a collateral attack
on torrens title. Any attack on torrens title should only be made in a direct proceeding.