ChanRobles Virtual law Library

G.R. No. 155001
May 5, 2003

G.R. No. 155547
May 5, 2003

G.R. No. 155661
May 5, 2003

VITUG, J.:

This court is bereft of jurisdiction to hear the petitions at bar.  The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction over, among other actual controversies, petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.[1] The cases in question, although denominated to be petitions for prohibition, actually pray for the nullification of the PIATCO contracts and to restrain respondents from implementing said agreements for being illegal and unconstitutional.

Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

"When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are 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 other 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 the judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require."
 chan robles virtual law library
The Rule is explicit.  A petition for prohibition may be filed against a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.  What the petitions seek from respondents do not involve judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.  In prohibition, only legal issues affecting the jurisdiction of the tribunal, board or officer involved may be resolved on the basis of undisputed facts.[2] The parties allege, respectively, contentious evidentiary facts.  It would be difficult, if not anomalous, to decide the jurisdictional issue on the basis of the contradictory factual submissions made by the parties.[3] As the Court has so often exhorted, it is not a trier of facts.chanrobles virtual law library

The petitions, in effect, are in the nature of actions for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.  The Rules provide that any person interested under a contract may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties thereunder.[4] The Supreme Court assumes no jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief which are cognizable by regional trial courts.[5]

As I have so expressed in Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance,[6] reiterated in Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.,[7] the Supreme Court should not be thought of as having been tasked with the awesome responsibility of overseeing the entire bureaucracy.  Pervasive and limitless, such as it may seem to be under the 1987 Constitution, judicial power still succumbs to the paramount doctrine of separation of powers.  The Court may not at good liberty intrude, inn the guise of sovereign imprimatur, into every affair of government.  What significance can still then remain of the time-honored and widely acclaimed principle of separation of powers if, at every turn, the Court allows itself to pass upon at will the disposition of a co-equal, independent and coordinate branch in our system of government.  I dread to think of the so varied uncertainties that such an undue interference can lead to.cralaw:red

Accordingly, I vote for the dismissal of the petition.
 
 

____________________________

Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
 

[1] Article VIII, Section 5(1), 1987 Constitution.chanrobles virtual law library
[2] Matuguina Integrated Products, Inc. vs. CA, 263 SCRA 490; Mafinco Trading Corporation vs. Ople, 70 SCRA 139.
[3] Mafinco Trading Corporation vs. Ople, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[4] Section 1, Rule 63, Rules of Court.chanrobles virtual law library
[5] In re:  Bermudez, 145 SCRA 160.chanrobles virtual law library
[6] 235 SCRA 630, 720.chanrobles virtual law library
[7] 298 SCRA 795.
 chan robles virtual law library