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;

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

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.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: