ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 140903.December 5, 2001]

SY vs. COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 5 2001.

G.R. No. 140903 (Henry Sy vs. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems and Fenina Mina.)

For resolution is petitioner's "Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration" from our Decision dated September 12, 2001. In our said Decision, we referred, in the light of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the pending dispute to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition, and declared that henceforth all appeals from awards, judgments, final orders and resolutions of the respondent COSLAP are to be filed before the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner seeks clarification insofar as the dispositive portion of our Decision refers the instant petition to the Court of Appeals "under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure." He points out that the subject matter of the special civil action for certiorari was the respondent Commission's Order dated November 3, 1999, which denied petitioner's prayer for the dismissal of private respondent's complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He argues that, in line with jurisprudence, while the order of denial may be interlocutory in character, certiorari would lie "where it clearly appears that the trial judge or court is proceeding in excess or outside of its jurisdiction xxx since it would be useless and a waste of time to go ahead with the proceedings." ¹ Citing Time, Inc. v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 303, 315-316 (1971).

As we explained extensively in our Decision, appeals from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of the respondent COSLAP is properly pursued before the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. This should be understood, however, to be without prejudice to the filing of special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus when it is appropriate to do so, as the Court of Appeals is endowed with jurisdiction to issue these extraordinary writs. Thus, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the correct remedy when a tribunal is alleged to have acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of or without jurisdiction. Care should be taken, however, against the indiscriminate filing of petitions for certiorari. Nevertheless, those who seek redress under Rule 65 are urged to observe the principle of judicial hierarchy before coming to this Court. We stated as much in the ratio decidendi of our Decision in the instant case.

In the case at bar, petitioner filed before the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari raising the issue of alleged lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent COSLAP to take cognizance of the complaint filed by private respondent Mina. Under the premises, this is more fitting to be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as it will necessarily devolve into an inquiry into the lack or presence of jurisdiction on the part of respondent COSLAP, and whether it gravely abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss private respondent's complaint.

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals is hereby directed anew to resolve the instant petition under Rule 65, and not Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as earlier directed.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE