DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS

SAINT MARY CRUSADE TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY OF BRETHREN FOUNDATION, INC., vs. HON.
TEODORO T. RIEL –
G.R. No. 176508, January 12, 2015
Facts:

On October 28, 2004, the petitioner claimed in its petition for reconstitution that the original copy of OCT No. 1609
had been burnt and lost in the fire that gutted the Quezon City Register of Deeds in the late 80’s. Initially, respondent
Judge gave due course to the petition, but after the preliminary hearing, he dismissed the petition for reconstitution
through the first assailed order of September 12, 2006.

On October 11, 2006, the petitioner moved for reconsideration of the dismissal.

On February 5, 2007, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of any cogent or justifiable ground to
reconsider.

Hence, on February 22, 2007, the petitioner came directly to the Court alleging that respondent Judge had “unfairly
abused his discretion and unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which is specifically enjoined upon him as
a duly [sic] under Rule 7, Section 8, of the Revised Rules of Court;” that “in finally dismissing the herein subject
Petition for Reconsideration, respondent Honorable Acting Presiding Judge has acted without and in excess of his
authority and with grave abuse of discretion to the further damage and prejudice of the herein petitioner;” and that it
had no other remedy in the course of law except through the present petition for certiorari and mandamus.

The OSG and the UP argued that by directly coming to the Court by petition for certiorari and mandamus, the
petitioner had availed itself of the wrong remedies to substitute for its lost appeal; that the correct recourse for the
petitioner was an appeal considering that the two assailed orders already finally disposed of the case; that the
petitioner intended its petition for certiorari and mandamus to reverse the final orders; that the petitioner further
failed to observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, despite the Court of Appeals (CA) having concurrent
jurisdiction with the Court over special civil actions under Rule 65;

Issue:

Whether the Non-observance by the petitioner of the hierarchy-of-courts rule is justified.

Held:

No, the filing of the instant special civil action directly to the Supreme 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, extra-ordinary 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.

REY NATHANIEL IFURUNG

VS HON. CONCHITA
CARPIO-MORALES
FACT
REY NATHANIEL IFURUNG VS HON. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

FACTS: Ifurung claiming to be a taxpayer, a concerned Filipino citizen and a member of the Bar, seeks declaration
from the SC that Section 8(3) in relation to Sec 7 of RA 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 11 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. Ifurung 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: Ehether of not the case can be exempted from the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

RULING: YES. The doctrine of hierarchey of courts is not an iron clad rule, 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 (i.e., availing of the remedies of certiorari and prohibition to assail
the constitutionality of actions of both legislative and executive branches of the govt
b. When the issues involved are of transcendental importance
c. Cases of first impression (no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower courts) warrant a direct
resort to this court
d. The constitutional issues raised are better decided by this court
e. The time element
f. The filed petition reviews the act of constitutional organ
g. Petitioners have no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
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.

Ifurung has amplified in his petition these exceptions to justify a relaxation on the adherence to the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts. Hence, the SC has taken cognizance of the case.

ALFREDO NON VS OMBUDSMAN

FACTS: The petitioners are Commisioners of Energy regulation Commission, holding office in Ortigas, Pasig City.
Alyansa para sa Bagong Pilipinas Party filed an administrative complaint against petitioners for allegedly issuing a
resolution moving the date of Resolution 13-2015 which directed all distribution utilities to conduct a competitive
selection process in securing their power supply agreements, which was according to the complainant, a ploy to
accommodate or favor MERALCO and its sister companies. Another complaint was filed in the Office of the
Ombudsman for violation of RA 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Ombudsman, finding probable
cause to the complaint, subsequently filed a criminal information before the RTC of Pasig City. Petitioners filed a
motion to quash citing lack of jurisdiction which was denied by RTC Pasig City. The order of dismissal specified
that RA 10660 which states that “cases falling under the jurisdiction of the RTC under this section shall be tried in a
judicial region other than w[h]ere the official holds office”, the law in effect during the commission of the crime still
lacks the pertinent rules, hence, Section 15a Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure was to be used.
The pertinent provision of the RRCP states that the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the proper court or
municipality, city, or province where the offense was committed by the accused or where any of its essential
elements took place.

ISSUE:
 1. WON certiorari is the appropriate remedy.
2. WON RTC Pasig has jurisdiction on the case at hand.

RULING:

1. Yes. Certiorari is the appropriate remedy in grave abuse of discretion cases, if the petitioner can establish
that the lower court issued the judgment or order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion. In the present case, respondent judge refused to grant the Motion to Quash filed by petitioners
despite the clear wording of R.A. No. 10660 that cases falling under the jurisdiction of the RTC under
Section 4, as amended, shall be tried in a judicial region other than where the official holds office.
2. No. R.A. No. 10660 took effect in 2015. When the Information against petitioners was filed in 2018,
petitioners were still Commissioners of the ERC, holding office in Ortigas, Pasig City. The Information
also did not allege any amount of damage to the government, or any bribery. Applying Section 2 of R.A.
No. 10660, the Information against petitioners should have been filed in a judicial region outside of the
National Capital Judicial Region. Contrary to the interpretation of the respondent judge and the
Ombudsman, the applicability of R.A. No. 10660 is not conditioned upon the promulgation of rules by the
Court. Since jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the
time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction over a subject
matter is conferred by the Constitution or the law, and rules of procedure yield to substantive law.
Otherwise stated, jurisdiction must exist as a matter of law. Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts
and administrative agencies. Therefore, all actions of RTC Pasig City in the case are declared null and void.

DOCTRINE OF ANCILLARY JURISDICTION

UNIVERSITY OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION VS OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DOLE

GR NO. 178085-86, September 15, 2015

FACTS: The consolidated case stem from the labor dispute between UIC and UIC Teaching and Nonteaching
Employees Union – FFW.
- The Union filed a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice wherein
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board called the parties to a conference where they agreed that an
increase be granted to the workers on the amount of 75%-80%-80% for the 1st-2nd-3rd years. UIC demanded
for the exclusion of secretaries, registrars, accounting personnel, and guidance counselors which was
approved. Subsequently, 12 employees were given the option to keep the position or resign from the union
which they elected to keep both. A notice of termination was then given to the affected employees which
was suspended by the labor secretary and was later modified by the same. The modification was payroll
reinstatement instead of physical reinstatement of the terminated employees. UIC the filed a petition for
certiorari on the payroll reinstatement. The petition was deied by the CA. Another notice of strike was filed
on the grounds of issues computing the salary increases previously agreed upon. The Secretary issued an
order directing the parties to comply with the CBA which was challenged by UIC on CA and SC which was
subsequently denied. A CBA (19951995-2000) was agreed upon by the parties. In accordance with the
CBA, the Union moved before the [Secretary] for the creation of a tripartite committee to compute the net
proceeds of the tuition fee increases for the school years 1995-2000. UIC opposed the motion stating that
the computation should be done by the grievance machinery provided for in the CBA about to be signed by
the parties. The Union and the UIC both presented their respective computations wherein an Order was
issued by the Secretary ordering to distribute a certain amount to the affected employees.

ISSUES:
1. WON the Secretary of DOLE has the authority to order the creation of a tripartite committee to determine
the amount of net incremental proceeds of tuition fee increases.
RULING: YES. The Secretary is given wide latitude to adopt appropriate means to finally resolve the labor dispute.
In LMG Chemicals Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, we already settled the extent of the Secretary’s jurisdiction
under Article 263(g):

It is well settled in our jurisprudence that the authority of the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over a labor
dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to national interest includes and
extends to all questions and controversies arising therefrom. The power is plenary and discretionary in nature to
enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the primary dispute.
The authority to create the tripartite committee flows from the jurisdiction conferred by Article 263(g) to the
Secretary. A grant of jurisdiction, in the absence of prohibitive legislation, implies the necessary and usual incidental
powers essential to effectuate it — also referred to as "incidental jurisdiction." Incidental jurisdiction includes the
power and authority of an office or tribunal to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice
within the scope of its jurisdiction, and for the enforcement of its judgment and mandates. Incidental jurisdiction is
presumed to attach upon the conferment of jurisdiction over the main case, unless explicitly withheld by the
legislature.