Pendency before the regional trial court of manila of

pendency before the Regional Trial Court of Manila of two actions or petitions questioning the
subject ordinance and executive order; (3) the petitioner is guilty of forum shopping; and (4) the act
sought to be enjoined is fait accompli.
•The respondents also asseverate that the petitioner cannot claim that it has no other recourse in
addressing its grievance other than this petition for certiorari. As a matter of fact, there are two
cases pending before Branches 33 and 51 of the RTC of Manila (one is for mandamus; the other, for
declaratory relief) and three in the Court of Appeals (one is for prohibition; the two other cases, for
quo warranto), which are all akin to the present petition in the sense that the relief being sought
therein is the declaration of the invalidity of the subject ordinance. Clearly, the petitioner may ask
the RTC or the Court of Appeals the relief being prayed for before this Court. Moreover, the petitioner
failed to prove discernible compelling reasons attending the present petition that would warrant
cognizance of the present petition by this Court.
ISSUE : WON the petitioners disregarded the hierarchy of courts by filing the petition for certiorari
under 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 of
discretion 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 verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
6

annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
Elsewise stated, for a writ of certiorari to issue, the following requisites must concur: (1) it must be
directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the
tribunal, board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion 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 the
declaration by this Court of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the questioned ordinance and
executive order. It, thus, partakes of the nature of a petition for declaratory relief over which this
Court has only appellate, not original, jurisdiction. Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution
provides:
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: