March 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > March 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181054 : March 17, 2009] ROLAND A. BAJAO, SARIP S. DIMAPINTO, ABDILLA A. TAGORANAO, ANSARI P. BATUAS, CRISPINO L. ALFEREZ AND ROGER P. ORLIDO V. MAYOR WENCESLAO TRINIDAD, NELFA TRINIDAD, RAMON SANTOS A.K.A. STEVENSON LIM GO TIAN, SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., JOAN REYES A.K.A. SANDRA LIM GO TIAN, JESSICA A.K.A. CHENY LIM GO TIAN, ROGER SANTOS A.K.A. EVERSON LIM GO TIAN, PETTE GUIZANO A.K.A. EMERSON LIM GO TIAN, VANIZON LIM GO TIAN, HON. SANTOS ADIONG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, MARAWI CITY, HON. AMER IBRAHIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PAIRING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, MARAWI CITY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, AS NOMINAL PARTIES :
[G.R. No. 181054 : March 17, 2009]
ROLAND A. BAJAO, SARIP S. DIMAPINTO, ABDILLA A. TAGORANAO, ANSARI P. BATUAS, CRISPINO L. ALFEREZ AND ROGER P. ORLIDO V. MAYOR WENCESLAO TRINIDAD, NELFA TRINIDAD, RAMON SANTOS A.K.A. STEVENSON LIM GO TIAN, SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., JOAN REYES A.K.A. SANDRA LIM GO TIAN, JESSICA A.K.A. CHENY LIM GO TIAN, ROGER SANTOS A.K.A. EVERSON LIM GO TIAN, PETTE GUIZANO A.K.A. EMERSON LIM GO TIAN, VANIZON LIM GO TIAN, HON. SANTOS ADIONG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, MARAWI CITY, HON. AMER IBRAHIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PAIRING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, MARAWI CITY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, AS NOMINAL PARTIES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 17, 2009
G.R. No. 181054 (Roland A. Bajao, Sarip S. Dimapinto, Abdilla A. Tagoranao, Ansari P. Batuas, Crispino L. Alferez and Roger P. Orlido v. Mayor Wenceslao Trinidad, Nelfa Trinidad, Ramon Santos a.k.a. Stevenson Lim Go Tian, Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr., Joan Reyes a.k.a. Sandra Lim Go Tian, Jessica a.k.a. Cheny Lim Go Tian, Roger Santos a.k.a. Everson Lim Go Tian, Pette Guizano a.k.a. Emerson Lim Go Tian, Vanizon Lim Go Tian, Hon. Santos Adiong, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Marawi City, Hon. Amer Ibrahim, in his capacity as Pairing Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Marawi City, Office of the Chief of the Philippine National Police, and Human Rights Commission, as nominal parties). - Before this Court is a Petition for Writ of Amparo with prayer for Protection Order, etc. and Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with application for writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction with prayer for TRO dated 18 January 2008.
Petitioners allege that the private respondents were charged by the Provincial Prosecutor of Lanao del Sur with Syndicated Illegal Recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042,[1] with petitioners themselves being the alleged victims of such illegal recruitment activity. They further allege that after warrants of arrest had been issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marawi City, an agreement[2] was reached whereby private respondents were to pay their principal witness, Joseph Montesclaros, the amount of P2 million in exchange for the filing of four (4) affidavits of desistance of similarly situated cases against private respondents in different jurisdictions in the Philippines, namely: Manila, Bulacan, Pasay City and Marawi City. The affidavits were duly filed before different courts, including the RTC-Marawi City which then dismissed the criminal cases [as to the private respondents named in the affidavits of desistance] though no motion to dismiss was filed and no payment of the required legal fees was made.[3] The RTC-Marawi City ruled, viz:
Petitioners allege that the understanding was that the cases against the accused would not be dismissed until the full payment of the stipulated amount, though they admit that such condition was not reflected in the agreement. In their motion for reconsideration before the RTC-Marawi City,[5] petitioners brought up this circumstance and prayed that the resolution dated 20 July 2007[6] dismissing the case be reconsidered, the affidavit of desistance declared null and void, and the issued warrant of arrest reinstated against all the private respondents named therein considering that their promise to pay P2 million in consideration of the affidavit of desistance is an implied admission of guilt. However, the RTC-Marawi City denied their motion for reconsideration in an order,[7] the pertinent portions of which read, thus:
x x x x
A considerable portion of the petition dwells on the proposition that the RTC-Marawi City had acted incorrectly in dismissing the criminal cases against private respondents. Among the reliefs sought in the petition is the setting aside of the RTC-Marawi City Order dismissing the criminal cases and the issuance of an order directing the Office of the Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP) to arrest the persons mentioned in the subject warrant of arrest.
Relative to the prayer for a writ of amparo, petitioners make additional allegations. They aver that respondent Pasay City Mayor Wenceslao Trinidad and his wife are the "protectors of the private respondents; the "masterminds for the threatened summary execution and kidnapping" of petitioners, their witnesses and their families; and "conspirators and head of the criminal syndicate wherein private respondents herein are members of good standing." In a similar vein, petitioners generally allege that the Trinidads and the private respondents have issued death threats against them through cellular phones, "harassed, tortured, tormented, coerced and molested" them, and "inflicted physical injuries with intention to kill" one Joseph Montesclaros (not a petitioner), allegedly the prime witness of petitioners in their criminal case.[9]
More specifically, petitioners allege that private respondents facilitated "the throwing of a hand grenade to [Montesclaros] and [other persons] at Gil Puyat Ave., near Monica Condominium;" that the Trinidads and private respondents prevented Montesclaros and his family from returning and occupying his family home and stole some personal properties therein; and that on the evening of 14 January 2008, three of the private respondents and two other unidentified persons shot at the petitioners and their friends at Macapagal Street, Pasay City.[10]
Anent their prayer for injunctive relief, petitioners allege that injunction should issue against the implementation of the two assailed orders of the RTC-Marawi City as the same will cause irreparable damage and injury to petitioners as they will be barred and prevented from continuously prosecuting the criminal case against private respondents while the latter are allegedly hunting and chasing to kill them and their witnesses.
On 21 January 2008, petitioners filed a motion for appointment of counsel de oficio and correction of clerical errors in the petition.[11] In a Resolution dated 22 January 2008, this Court resolved to appoint the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) as counsel de oficio for petitioners.[12]
On 4 February 2008, the PAO manifested that against its advise, the petitioners are proceeding with their case. The PAO further manifested that after a thorough evaluation of the case, it discovered that petitioners failed to inform the Court in the instant petition of the status of three (3) other criminal cases likewise filed against the private respondents - whether these are still pending or not. On account of a serious difference of opinion with petitioners regarding the merits of the case, the PAO sought to be relieved as petitioners' counsel de oficio.[13]
Petitioners filed a manifestation dated 1 February 2008 reiterating their prayer for the issuance of a writ of amparo averring that their lives are in actual great and imminent danger as they are always followed, chased and hunted by the Trinidads and the private respondents.[14]
In a Resolution dated 19 February 2008, this Court noted the PAO's manifestation and referred this case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Legal Aid for appropriate action.[15]
Meanwhile, respondent Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. filed with leave of court his opposition to the PAO's motion for relief as counsel de oficio. He essentially argued that the instant petition is but a foul scheme of petitioners, led by Montesclaros, to extort money from the private respondents. Furthermore, averred that the facts as alleged by petitioners refer more to a collection case than ta a threat to life, liberty or security that should entitle them to the issuance of the writ of amparo. Respondent also narrated that after a warrant of arrest had been issued against the private respondents, Montesclaros and his cohorts from the PNP allegedly arrested and illegally detained Emerson Lim Gio Tian and forced him to execute the agreement earlier referred to by petitioners. Upon demand of Montesclaros, Emerson had to pay him an additional P200,000.00 before he could be released as evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt signed by Montesclaros.[16] De Guzman also claimed that it was upon his advice that private respondents had refused to pay the first installment due on the agreement because Emerson agreed to it under duress. He averred that the inclusion of the Trinidads as respondents was obviously a tactic to mislead this Court into issuing the writ because a high-ranking government official is impleaded. Thus, he prayed that the PAO be not relieved as counsel de oficio as this would only delay the resolution of the instant case. Further, he prayed that the petition be given due course, respondents be ordered to file their return and a preliminary conference scheduled during which Montesclaros should be made to appear.
This Court noted without action said opposition with motion for leave in a Resolution dated 11 March 2008.[17]
Interestingly, petitioner Roland A. Bajao filed a motion to withdraw the petition[18] dated 28 March 2008 stating that he was misled into filing the instant petition at the behest of Montesclaros who ordered him to sign the same. He claimed that he was duped into participating as a petitioner due to Montesclaros' persuasion that it would be for the benefit of their organization "Fight Against Illegal Recruitment" (FAIR) when in truth it was for his sole personal interest and motive.
Acting thereon, this Court required the other petitioners to comment on Bajao's motion to withdraw.[19] Petitioners complied by filing their comment20 dated 30 May 2008. They claimed that they understood that Bajao's withdrawal was due to the continuous threat of murder and kidnapping made by Mayor Trinidad and his syndicate. They further averred that Bajao is no longer connected with FAIR and that they have no objection to his being dropped as one of the petitioners in this case but they vehemently object to the withdrawal of the petition as to them. Thus, this Court resolved to grant Bajao's motion to withdraw and to drop him as petitioner in this case.[21]
On 23 October 2008, Atty. Rosario T. Setias-Reyes, National Director for Legal Aid of the IBP, wrote this Court with the following information:
We find the petition bereft of merit.
The writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns.[23] It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.[24] Thus, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo outlines the requisite allegations in support of the petition for its issuance.[25] The writ shall issue if the Court is preliminarily satisfied with the prima facie existence of the ultimate facts determinable from the supporting affidavits that detail the circumstances of how and to what extent a threat to or violation of the rights to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party was or is being committed.
There is cause to be suspicious about the present petition. The fact that the illegal recruitment cases filed by petitioners had been dismissed, and the claim that they had not been paid P2 million as promised by private respondents may supply the motive for the filing of an unfounded and factually baseless application for the writ of amparo. For one, it is difficult to fathom through the petition any factual basis for impleading the Trinidads as private respondents to the writ. Petitioners make vague claims about their being the "masterminds" or "protectors" behind private respondents, yet there is nothing concrete in the petition that would explain the link between the two. Viewed with suspicion, petitioners could very well denominate just anybody as the "masterminds" or "protectors," and the court processes would be abused to exact this measure of petty vengeance, inconvenient as it would be for anybody indiscriminately named as a respondent to the writ to make the necessary appearances before the courts.
Furthermore, the fact that the instant case failed the merit tests of two respected entities - the PAO and the IBP, bolsters the position that the allegations in this petition are highly dubious. In addition, there is the PAO's manifestation that there are three (3) other criminal cases filed by petitioners against private respondents the status of which petitioners failed to disclose to this Court. It is worthy to note that Section 22 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides that "when a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case, x x x"
Moreover, petitioners do not have the legal personality to seek the writ of amparo in behalf of Montesclaros. Under Section 2(d) of the same Rule, it is only if there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party that any private person may file the writ in behalf of the aggrieved.
In view of the allegations in the petition assailing the resolutions of the RTC-Marawi City, there can be no question that the direct filing of the petition before this Court violates the principle of hierarchy of courts and for that reason the petition should be dismissed. Petitioners' remedy lies with the Court of Appeals as prescribed under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended. There is a hierarchy of courts determining the venue of appeals, which should serve as a general determinant of the proper forum for the availment of the extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition, mamdamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. This Court has held, to wit:
We find no cogent reason that exempts this case from this time-honored doctrine.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS the instant petition for lack of merit and for failure to observe the principle of hierarchy of courts.
Chico-Nazario and Brion, JJ., on leave.
G.R. No. 181054 (Roland A. Bajao, Sarip S. Dimapinto, Abdilla A. Tagoranao, Ansari P. Batuas, Crispino L. Alferez and Roger P. Orlido v. Mayor Wenceslao Trinidad, Nelfa Trinidad, Ramon Santos a.k.a. Stevenson Lim Go Tian, Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr., Joan Reyes a.k.a. Sandra Lim Go Tian, Jessica a.k.a. Cheny Lim Go Tian, Roger Santos a.k.a. Everson Lim Go Tian, Pette Guizano a.k.a. Emerson Lim Go Tian, Vanizon Lim Go Tian, Hon. Santos Adiong, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Marawi City, Hon. Amer Ibrahim, in his capacity as Pairing Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Marawi City, Office of the Chief of the Philippine National Police, and Human Rights Commission, as nominal parties). - Before this Court is a Petition for Writ of Amparo with prayer for Protection Order, etc. and Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with application for writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction with prayer for TRO dated 18 January 2008.
Petitioners allege that the private respondents were charged by the Provincial Prosecutor of Lanao del Sur with Syndicated Illegal Recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042,[1] with petitioners themselves being the alleged victims of such illegal recruitment activity. They further allege that after warrants of arrest had been issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marawi City, an agreement[2] was reached whereby private respondents were to pay their principal witness, Joseph Montesclaros, the amount of P2 million in exchange for the filing of four (4) affidavits of desistance of similarly situated cases against private respondents in different jurisdictions in the Philippines, namely: Manila, Bulacan, Pasay City and Marawi City. The affidavits were duly filed before different courts, including the RTC-Marawi City which then dismissed the criminal cases [as to the private respondents named in the affidavits of desistance] though no motion to dismiss was filed and no payment of the required legal fees was made.[3] The RTC-Marawi City ruled, viz:
Considering the affidavit of desistance executed by private complainants xxx which appears to be in order and considering further the lack of preliminary investigation in this case, the case as against EMERSON LIM GO TIAN, STEVENSON LIM TIAN, EVERSON LIM GO TIAN, SANDRA LIM GO TIAN, CHERRY LIM GO TIAN, VANISON LM GO TIAN and ATTY. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR. is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
The warrant of arrest previously issued for said accused is ordered recalled and set aside.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Petitioners allege that the understanding was that the cases against the accused would not be dismissed until the full payment of the stipulated amount, though they admit that such condition was not reflected in the agreement. In their motion for reconsideration before the RTC-Marawi City,[5] petitioners brought up this circumstance and prayed that the resolution dated 20 July 2007[6] dismissing the case be reconsidered, the affidavit of desistance declared null and void, and the issued warrant of arrest reinstated against all the private respondents named therein considering that their promise to pay P2 million in consideration of the affidavit of desistance is an implied admission of guilt. However, the RTC-Marawi City denied their motion for reconsideration in an order,[7] the pertinent portions of which read, thus:
x x x x
The court notes that the motion for reconsideration filed by private complaining witnesses was not with the knowledge and conformity of the prosecutors.
The order sought to be considered having become final and the basis of the motion for reconsideration was only the alleged recalling by the affiants of their affidavit of desistance and without even the conformity of the government prosecutors, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied and the order dated 20 July 2007 dismissing the case remain in full force and effect.
SO ORDERED.[8]
A considerable portion of the petition dwells on the proposition that the RTC-Marawi City had acted incorrectly in dismissing the criminal cases against private respondents. Among the reliefs sought in the petition is the setting aside of the RTC-Marawi City Order dismissing the criminal cases and the issuance of an order directing the Office of the Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP) to arrest the persons mentioned in the subject warrant of arrest.
Relative to the prayer for a writ of amparo, petitioners make additional allegations. They aver that respondent Pasay City Mayor Wenceslao Trinidad and his wife are the "protectors of the private respondents; the "masterminds for the threatened summary execution and kidnapping" of petitioners, their witnesses and their families; and "conspirators and head of the criminal syndicate wherein private respondents herein are members of good standing." In a similar vein, petitioners generally allege that the Trinidads and the private respondents have issued death threats against them through cellular phones, "harassed, tortured, tormented, coerced and molested" them, and "inflicted physical injuries with intention to kill" one Joseph Montesclaros (not a petitioner), allegedly the prime witness of petitioners in their criminal case.[9]
More specifically, petitioners allege that private respondents facilitated "the throwing of a hand grenade to [Montesclaros] and [other persons] at Gil Puyat Ave., near Monica Condominium;" that the Trinidads and private respondents prevented Montesclaros and his family from returning and occupying his family home and stole some personal properties therein; and that on the evening of 14 January 2008, three of the private respondents and two other unidentified persons shot at the petitioners and their friends at Macapagal Street, Pasay City.[10]
Anent their prayer for injunctive relief, petitioners allege that injunction should issue against the implementation of the two assailed orders of the RTC-Marawi City as the same will cause irreparable damage and injury to petitioners as they will be barred and prevented from continuously prosecuting the criminal case against private respondents while the latter are allegedly hunting and chasing to kill them and their witnesses.
On 21 January 2008, petitioners filed a motion for appointment of counsel de oficio and correction of clerical errors in the petition.[11] In a Resolution dated 22 January 2008, this Court resolved to appoint the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) as counsel de oficio for petitioners.[12]
On 4 February 2008, the PAO manifested that against its advise, the petitioners are proceeding with their case. The PAO further manifested that after a thorough evaluation of the case, it discovered that petitioners failed to inform the Court in the instant petition of the status of three (3) other criminal cases likewise filed against the private respondents - whether these are still pending or not. On account of a serious difference of opinion with petitioners regarding the merits of the case, the PAO sought to be relieved as petitioners' counsel de oficio.[13]
Petitioners filed a manifestation dated 1 February 2008 reiterating their prayer for the issuance of a writ of amparo averring that their lives are in actual great and imminent danger as they are always followed, chased and hunted by the Trinidads and the private respondents.[14]
In a Resolution dated 19 February 2008, this Court noted the PAO's manifestation and referred this case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Legal Aid for appropriate action.[15]
Meanwhile, respondent Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. filed with leave of court his opposition to the PAO's motion for relief as counsel de oficio. He essentially argued that the instant petition is but a foul scheme of petitioners, led by Montesclaros, to extort money from the private respondents. Furthermore, averred that the facts as alleged by petitioners refer more to a collection case than ta a threat to life, liberty or security that should entitle them to the issuance of the writ of amparo. Respondent also narrated that after a warrant of arrest had been issued against the private respondents, Montesclaros and his cohorts from the PNP allegedly arrested and illegally detained Emerson Lim Gio Tian and forced him to execute the agreement earlier referred to by petitioners. Upon demand of Montesclaros, Emerson had to pay him an additional P200,000.00 before he could be released as evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt signed by Montesclaros.[16] De Guzman also claimed that it was upon his advice that private respondents had refused to pay the first installment due on the agreement because Emerson agreed to it under duress. He averred that the inclusion of the Trinidads as respondents was obviously a tactic to mislead this Court into issuing the writ because a high-ranking government official is impleaded. Thus, he prayed that the PAO be not relieved as counsel de oficio as this would only delay the resolution of the instant case. Further, he prayed that the petition be given due course, respondents be ordered to file their return and a preliminary conference scheduled during which Montesclaros should be made to appear.
This Court noted without action said opposition with motion for leave in a Resolution dated 11 March 2008.[17]
Interestingly, petitioner Roland A. Bajao filed a motion to withdraw the petition[18] dated 28 March 2008 stating that he was misled into filing the instant petition at the behest of Montesclaros who ordered him to sign the same. He claimed that he was duped into participating as a petitioner due to Montesclaros' persuasion that it would be for the benefit of their organization "Fight Against Illegal Recruitment" (FAIR) when in truth it was for his sole personal interest and motive.
Acting thereon, this Court required the other petitioners to comment on Bajao's motion to withdraw.[19] Petitioners complied by filing their comment20 dated 30 May 2008. They claimed that they understood that Bajao's withdrawal was due to the continuous threat of murder and kidnapping made by Mayor Trinidad and his syndicate. They further averred that Bajao is no longer connected with FAIR and that they have no objection to his being dropped as one of the petitioners in this case but they vehemently object to the withdrawal of the petition as to them. Thus, this Court resolved to grant Bajao's motion to withdraw and to drop him as petitioner in this case.[21]
On 23 October 2008, Atty. Rosario T. Setias-Reyes, National Director for Legal Aid of the IBP, wrote this Court with the following information:
Please be informed that we have invited all the petitioners in the aforementioned petition to a conference at our Office sometime in March 2008 but only petitioner Roland A. Bajao appeared and favored us with his story.
During our interview with Mr. Roland A. Bajao on 27 March 2008, he intimated that the petition he and his co-petitioners filed was a sham petition and was done purely to extort money from respondents. He admitted that he and his co-petitioners were just used by Atty. Joseph L. Montesclaros to harass and demand money from the respondents. Upon hearing his revelation, we required Mr. Bajao to come back to our Office so he would be able to execute an affidavit relative thereto but instead of doing so, he just furnished our Office a copy of his Motion to Withdraw Petition which he filed with the Supreme Court of the Philippines on 31 March 2008.
Meanwhile. Atty. Joseph L. Montesclaros and Ms. Fedelyn Portugal who have been named, constituted and appointed along with petitioner Roland A. Bajao by his co-petitioners x x x to be their true and lawful attomeys-in-fact, did not attend the scheduled conference on 17 March 2008. Although later, Atty. Joseph L. Montesclaros scheduled an appointment with us on 5 June 2008, again he did not show up and just called to inform us that he would just call up our Office on when he would be available. Up to the present time, however, he has favored [sic] us with his call.
Based on the foregoing, our Office casts serious doubts on the veracity of the allegations in the aforementioned petition and has evaluated, based on our existing Legal Aid Guidelines that said petition did not pass the "Merit Test."[22]
We find the petition bereft of merit.
The writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns.[23] It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.[24] Thus, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo outlines the requisite allegations in support of the petition for its issuance.[25] The writ shall issue if the Court is preliminarily satisfied with the prima facie existence of the ultimate facts determinable from the supporting affidavits that detail the circumstances of how and to what extent a threat to or violation of the rights to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party was or is being committed.
There is cause to be suspicious about the present petition. The fact that the illegal recruitment cases filed by petitioners had been dismissed, and the claim that they had not been paid P2 million as promised by private respondents may supply the motive for the filing of an unfounded and factually baseless application for the writ of amparo. For one, it is difficult to fathom through the petition any factual basis for impleading the Trinidads as private respondents to the writ. Petitioners make vague claims about their being the "masterminds" or "protectors" behind private respondents, yet there is nothing concrete in the petition that would explain the link between the two. Viewed with suspicion, petitioners could very well denominate just anybody as the "masterminds" or "protectors," and the court processes would be abused to exact this measure of petty vengeance, inconvenient as it would be for anybody indiscriminately named as a respondent to the writ to make the necessary appearances before the courts.
Furthermore, the fact that the instant case failed the merit tests of two respected entities - the PAO and the IBP, bolsters the position that the allegations in this petition are highly dubious. In addition, there is the PAO's manifestation that there are three (3) other criminal cases filed by petitioners against private respondents the status of which petitioners failed to disclose to this Court. It is worthy to note that Section 22 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides that "when a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case, x x x"
Moreover, petitioners do not have the legal personality to seek the writ of amparo in behalf of Montesclaros. Under Section 2(d) of the same Rule, it is only if there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party that any private person may file the writ in behalf of the aggrieved.
In view of the allegations in the petition assailing the resolutions of the RTC-Marawi City, there can be no question that the direct filing of the petition before this Court violates the principle of hierarchy of courts and for that reason the petition should be dismissed. Petitioners' remedy lies with the Court of Appeals as prescribed under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended. There is a hierarchy of courts determining the venue of appeals, which should serve as a general determinant of the proper forum for the availment of the extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition, mamdamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. This Court has held, to wit:
This Court has consistently enjoined litigants to respect the hierarchy of courts. Although this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give a party unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. The resort to this Court's primary jurisdiction to issue said writs shall be allowed only where the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify such invocation. We held in People v. Cuaresma, that:A becoming regard for judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only where there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court's docket x x x.[27]
We find no cogent reason that exempts this case from this time-honored doctrine.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS the instant petition for lack of merit and for failure to observe the principle of hierarchy of courts.
Chico-Nazario and Brion, JJ., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995."
[2] Rollo,v. 55.
[3] In a Resolution dated 20 July 2007 issued by Hon. Santos B. Adiong, Presiding Judge. RTC-Marawi City, Branch 8; id. at 58.
[4] Id
[5] Id. at 59-61.
[6] Id. at 58.
[7] Id. at 71-72.
[8] Id. at 72; in an Order dated 5 November 2007 issued by Hon. Amer R. Ibrahim, Pairing Judge, RTC-Marawi City, Branch 8.
[9] Id. at 28.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 105-107.
[12] Id. at 108-109.
[13] Id. at 110-115.
[14] Id. at 116-121.
[15] Id. at 115-A-115-B.
[16] Id. at 142.
[17] Id. atl43-A-143-B.
[18] Id. at 174-176.
[19] Id. at 189-190, in a Resolution dated 29 April 2008.
[20] Id. at 192-C-192-E.
[21] Id. at 236-237, in a Resolution dated 1 July 2008.
[22] Id. at 254-255.
[23] Tupaz, et. al. v. Hon. Judge Elmo Del Rosario, G.R. No. 182484, 17 June 2008.
[24] Id.
[25] Supreme Court A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (2007), Sec. 5.
[26] People of the Philippines v. CA, 361 Phil. 492, 497 (1999).
[27] La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Sec. Ramos, 465 Phil. 861, 894-895 (2004)
