Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CITY OF MANILA v. CARIDAD H. GRECIA-CUERDO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 201614 2016-01-12	SHERYL M. MENDEZ v. SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT MENDOZA, J.
To rule that the ShCC is without jurisdiction to resolve issues on custody after it had decided on the issue of divorce, simply because it appears to contravene Article 143 of P.D. No. 1083, would be antithetical to the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction. "While a court may be expressly granted the incidental powers necessary to effectuate its jurisdiction, a grant of jurisdiction, in the absence of prohibitive legislation, implies the necessary and usual incidental powers essential to effectuate it, and, subject to existing laws and constitutional provisions, every regularly constituted court has power to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its jurisdiction and for the enforcement of its judgments and mandates. Hence, demands, matters or questions ancillary or incidental to, or growing out of, the main action, and coming within the above principles, may be taken cognizance of by the court and determined, since such jurisdiction is in aid of its authority over the principal matter, even though the court may thus be called on to consider and decide matters which, as original causes of action, would not be within its cognizance."[50]
	GR No. 218787 2015-12-08	LEO Y. QUERUBIN v. COMELEC EN BANC VELASCO JR., J.
The power is wielded not by the Court alone, but concurrently with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts, as provided by law. With respect to the Court of Appeals, Section 9 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (BP 129) gives the appellate court original jurisdiction to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. For the RTCs, the power to issue a writ of certiorari, in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, is provided under Section 21 of BP 129.[69] Additionally, the Court has already held that the CTA, by constitutional mandate, is likewise vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari.[70] So too has the Sandiganbayan been vested with certiorari powers in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.[71]
	GR No. 182375 2015-12-02	HADJA RAWIYA SUIB v. EMONG EBBAH PEREZ, J.
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original or independent action based on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and it will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; it cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal.[20] In the case at bar, Suib is not without any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy as the remedy of an appeal is still available. Hence, the present petition for certiorari will not prosper even if the ground is grave abuse of discretion.[21]
	GR Nos. 217126-27 2015-11-10	CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo,[209] which is a case involving "[t]he supervisory power or jurisdiction of the [Court of Tax Appeals] to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction"[210] over "decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction,"[211] the Court ruled that said power "should coexist with, and be a complement to, its appellate jurisdiction to review, by appeal, the final orders and decisions of the RTC, in order to have complete supervision over the acts of the latter:"[212]
	GR No. 193253 2015-09-08	BUREAU OF CUSTOMS v. AGNES VST DEVANADERA PERALTA, J.
Apropos is City of Manila v. Hon. Grecia-Cuerdo[35] where the Court en banc declared that the CTA has appellate jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by the RTC in a local tax case, despite the fact that there is no categorical statement to that effect under R.A. No. 1125, as well as the amendatory R.A. No. 9282. Thus: x x x Section 5 (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution grants power to the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. With respect to the Court of Appeals, Section 9 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (BP 129) gives the appellate court, also in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the power to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. As to Regional Trial Courts, the power to issue a writ of certiorari, in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, is provided under Section 21 of BP 129.
	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
We have also ruled that the Court of Tax Appeals, not the Court of Appeals, has the exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari assailing interlocutory orders issued by Regional Trial Courts in a local tax case. We explained in The City of Manila v. Hon. Grecia-Cuerdo[213] that while the Court of Tax Appeals has no express grant of power to issue writs of certiorari under Republic Act No. 1125,[214] as amended, the tax court's judicial power as defined in the Constitution[215] includes the power to determine "whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the [Regional Trial Court] in issuing an interlocutory order of jurisdiction in cases falling within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the tax court."[216] We further elaborated: Indeed, in order for any appellate court to effectively exercise its appellate jurisdiction, it must have the authority to issue, among others, a writ of certiorari. In transferring exclusive jurisdiction over appealed tax cases to the CTA, it can reasonably be assumed that the law intended to transfer also such power as is deemed necessary, if not indispensable, in aid of such appellate jurisdiction. There is no perceivable reason why the transfer should only be considered as partial, not total.
	GR No. 210987 2014-11-24	PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE VELASCO JR., J.
In the recent case of City of Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo,[25] the Court en banc has ruled that the CTA now has the power of certiorari in cases within its appellate jurisdiction. To elucidate: The prevailing doctrine is that the authority to issue writs of certiorari involves the exercise of original jurisdiction which must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or by law and cannot be implied from the mere existence of appellate jurisdiction. Thus, xxx this Court has ruled against the jurisdiction of courts or tribunals over petitions for certiorari on the ground that there is no law which expressly gives these tribunals such power. It must be observed, however, that xxx these rulings pertain not to regular courts but to tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers. With respect to the Sandiganbayan, Republic Act No. 8249 now provides that the special criminal court has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.