ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 174138. September 6, 2006]

JESUS C. GARCIA v. THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON, etc., et al.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 6, 2006

G.R. No. 174138 (Jesus C. Garcia v. The Honorable Ray Alan T. Drilon, etc., et al.)

For resolution of the Court are the Omnibus Petitions for Certiorari and for the Suspension of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order ^[1] cralaw filed by petitioner Jesus C. Garcia.

As can be gleaned from the records, a verified petition for a protection order under Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, was filed by respondent Rosalie Garcia, wife of petitioner, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 41.

On March 24, 2006, a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) ^[2] cralaw was then issued by respondent judge of the trial court, effective for thirty (30) days. On motion ^[3] cralaw of respondent Rosalie, an Amended TPO, ^[4] cralaw effective for thirty (30) days, was issued by the RTC on April 24, 2006.

Meanwhile, petitioner Jesus filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari with injunction and temporary restraining order questioning the constitutionality of Rep. Act No. 9262. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 01698. An amended petition ^[5] cralaw was later filed by petitioner Jesus before the CA on May 9, 2006.

On May 24, 2006, respondent Rosalie filed with the RTC a Motion to Renew and Modify the TPO, ^[6] cralaw which the court granted on the same date.

In the meantime, the CA, in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 01698, issued, on May 26, 2006, a temporary restraining order ^[7] cralaw valid for 60 days, enjoining the respondents from enforcing the TPO and other orders pursuant thereto. The CA, however, allowed the continuation of trial and other proceedings before the RTC. ^[8] cralaw

After the TPO expired, respondent Rosalie, on August 8, 2006, moved and applied for the issuance of a TPO ex parte . ^[9] cralaw Thus, on August 23, 2006, the RTC issued another TPO. ^[10] cralaw

Petitioner Jesus now comes before the Court, assailing the August 23, 2006 TPO issued by the RTC for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. Petitioner likewise seeks the suspension of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC.

The petition is dismissed.

Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution provides that "judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such other courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of bench or instrumentality of the government." ^[11] cralaw While the Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, ^[12] cralaw this Court's original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary, or where serious and important reasons therefor exist. ^[13] cralaw Considering that no absolute necessity obtains herein, and there are neither serious nor important reasons for the invocation of the Court's jurisdiction, petitioner Jesus C. Garcia should have observed the principle of hierarchy of courts.

Observably, the issues brought for consideration in the instant case could have very well been ventilated in the Court of Appeals, where petitioner previously filed a certiorari case questioning the constitutionality of Rep. Act No. 9262.

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant Omnibus Petitions for Certiorari and for the Suspension of Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Records, pp. 4-22.

^[2] cralaw Id. at 23-26.

^[3] cralaw Id. at 27-29.

^[4] cralaw Id. at 32-35.

^[5] cralaw Id. at 36-69.

^[6] cralaw Id. at 70-76.

^[7] cralaw Id. at 80-81.

^[8] cralaw Id. at 81.

^[9] cralaw Id. at 83-95.

^[10] cralaw Id. at 112-126.

^[11] cralaw Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165910, April 10, 2006, 487 SCRA 78, 95.

^[12] cralaw Article VIII, Section 5, 1987 Constitution.

^[13] cralaw Torres, Jr. v. Esteves , G.R. No. 155403, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 349, 364.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011