ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 161649.� November 17, 2004]
OPI�A vs. NHA
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 17 2004 .
G.R. NO. 161649 (GENEROSO B. OPINA, resident of Brgy. Pulo, Cabuyao, Laguna vs. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY and NEW SAN JOSE BUILDERS, INC., represented by CESAR SANQUIN, JR.)
In our Resolution of 11 February 2004, [1] cralaw we dismissed for being violative of the rule on "hierarchy of courts", this petition for prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order which was earlier directly filed with this Court. Presently, petitioner is again with us, this time thru the instant Motion for Reconsideration, [2] cralaw to which respondents National Housing Authority and San Jose Builders, Inc., filed their respective comments/opposition. [3] cralaw
We resolve to DENY, as we hereby DENY with finality the subject Motion for Reconsideration, failing as it does to raise any new substantial argument or cogent reason to warrant the reconsideration sought.
Unquestionably, the power to issue injunctive writs against the implementation of any government infrastructure project is exclusively lodged with this Court, pursuant to Section 3 of Rep. Act No. 8975. But while lower courts are proscribed thereunder from issuing restraining orders and/or writs of preliminary injunction to stop such projects, the proscription does not mean that such courts are likewise bereft of authority to take cognizance of the issue/issues raised in the principal action, as long as such action and the relief sought are within their jurisdiction.
Here, while concededly a petition for prohibition is within the original jurisdiction of this Court, such jurisdiction is not exclusive but is concurrent with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts.
Even then, this concurrence of jurisdiction does not give a party seeking any of the extraordinary writs the absolute freedom to file his petition in any court of his choice. For, the rule on hierarchy of courts in areas of concurrent jurisdiction precisely determines the appropriate forum for these petitions.
Our policy respecting the hierarchy of courts and consequently prohibiting the filing of a petition in this Court in view of our concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and the RTC has been consistently adhered and followed in the absence of any compelling reason or consideration, as here, to warrant a departure from such established norm. This is a policy laid down and observed to prevent inordinate demands upon this Court's time and attention, which are better devoted to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further overcrowding of this Court's docket. [4] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED with finality.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 32, et seq.
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 38, et seq.
[3] cralaw Rollo, pp. 51 and 81.
[4] cralaw CIR vs. Josefina Leal, [392 SCRA 9, 14].
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
