Diaz vs CA 238 SCRA 785 1994

Section 30: Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

FACTS:
In this case the petitioner was Antonio Diaz and Kosumo Dabaw against the respondent Court of
Appeals, Energy Regulatory Board and Davao Light and Power Company Inc. (DLPC). On
January 23, 1991, DLPC filed an application of the appraisal of its property in service. The
property and equipment valued it by Asian appraisal company at P1,141,774,000.00 as of March
125 1990. ERB approved the application of DLPC, then on July 6, 1992 review on certiorari was
filed claiming that the ERB decision was lack of jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. September 8, 1992 case was referred for proper disposition to
the Court of Appeals but petition was dismissed for the following ground namely : did not comply
with the provisions of Supreme Court Circular 1-88 and the petition for review with the Supreme
Court was a wrong mode of appeal and On December 18, 1992 they filed for reconsideration that
the resolution on September 1992 was a directive for the Court of Appeals to disregard the above
circular. March 24, 1993 the CA denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
Article VI Section 30 provides that "No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence." This
provision was effective February 2, 1987. On May 8, 1987, it was promulgated by the president
an Executive Order No 172 creating the Energy Regulatory Board to replace the Board of Energy.
Under Sec. 10 thereof, "a party adversely affected by a decision, order or ruling of the Board may
file a petition to be known as petition for review with the Supreme Court." Then on February 27,
1991, Circular No 1-91 promulgated by the supreme court states that paragraph 1 of which
specifically provides that the proper mode of appeal from any quasi-judicial agency, including
ERB, is by way of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals
ISSUE:
Whether or Not the Executive Order No. 172 violate the Article VI Section 30
RULING:
Yes, EO No. 172 violate section n30 article VI of the new constitution and court held that
Petition is dismissed. Under the case of Cf. First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. Court of Appeals with
a GR No. 1 10571 states that the provision promulgated by the president that Energy Regulatory
Board was to replace the Board of Energy has never been effective and it cannot be result of having
amend in the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. The decided cases from the Board of Energy
remains the authority of the Court of Appeals. Under the case of Quesada v. Court of Appeals
with a G.R. No. 93869 states that a wrong procedure of appeal it must be dismiss even if it was
filed at the supreme court or court of appeals. Circular No 2-90 promulgated by the Supreme court
that an appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or
inappropriate mode shall be dismissed and it was dated March 9 1990.It also state that no transfer
of appeals erroneously taken to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals to whichever of
these Tribunals has appropriate appellate jurisdiction will be allowed; continued ignorance or
willful disregard of the law on appeals will not be tolerated." Under the case of Teehankee, Jr. v.
Hon. Madayag with G.R. No. 102717 provides that Circulars Nos. 1-88 and 2-90 were duly
published in newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines so it is expected that lawyers
should be in lined or aware about those decision of the court and those circular and other issues
related to the duties and responsibilities as being officers of the court. Under the case of Gallardo
v. Quintus, A.M. No. RTJ-90-577 provides that Circular No 1-88 was approved for the purpose of
of strict compliance of the Revised Rules of Court and it will not be delayed for unnecessary
reasons.