pendency before the Regional Trial Court of Manila of two actions or petitions questioning thesubject ordinance and executive order; (3) the petitioner is guilty of forum shopping; and (4) the actsought to be enjoined is fait accompli.•The respondents also asseverate that the petitioner cannot claim that it has no other recourse inaddressing its grievance other than this petition for certiorari. As a matter of fact, there are twocases pending before Branches 33 and 51 of the RTC of Manila (one is for mandamus; the other, fordeclaratory relief) and three in the Court of Appeals (one is for prohibition; the two other cases, forquo warranto), which are all akin to the present petition in the sense that the relief being soughttherein is the declaration of the invalidity of the subject ordinance. Clearly, the petitioner may askthe RTC or the Court of Appeals the relief being prayed for before this Court. Moreover, the petitionerfailed to prove discernible compelling reasons attending the present petition that would warrantcognizance of the present petition by this Court.ISSUE: WON the petitioners disregarded the hierarchy of courts by filing the petition for certiorariunder Rule 65 before the Honorable Supreme Court. HELD:•After due deliberation on the pleadings filed, we resolve to dismiss this petition for certiorari.Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy,and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verifiedpetition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered6
annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting suchincidental reliefs as law and justice may require.Elsewise stated, for a writ of certiorari to issue, the following requisites must concur: (1) it must bedirected against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) thetribunal, board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy,and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.•Second, although the instant petition is styled as a petition for certiorari, in essence, it seeks thedeclaration by this Court of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the questioned ordinance andexecutive order. It, thus, partakes of the nature of a petition for declaratory relief over which thisCourt has only appellate, not original, jurisdiction. Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitutionprovides:Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 16 pages?
Supreme Court of the United States, Trial court, original jurisdiction