ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 147130. March 28, 2001]

PABLITO P. MURAO vs. CITY TRUST BANKING CORP.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated MAR 28 2001 .

G.R. No. 147130(Pablito P. Murao vs. City Trust Banking Corp. [now Bank of the Philippine Island].).

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for mandamus on the ground of failure to observe the hierarchy of courts. Upheld in consequence was the order of the municipal trial court denying petitioner's Motion for Bill of Particulars.

The present controversy stemmed from a complaint for sum of money filed by private respondent before the metropolitan trial court alleging that petitioner, despite demands for payment, refused and failed to settle his obligation under his Citytrust Mastercard accounts. The amount involved is roughly only P26,000.00.

In lieu of filing an answer, petitioner filed a Notice of Bill of Particulars which private respondent opposed on the ground that the matters sought were purely evidentiary in nature.

On March 26, 1999, the metropolitan trial court issued an order denying the said motion for bill of particulars. A subsequent motion for reconsideration likewise failed.

Unfazed, petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by way of a Special Civil Action for Mandamus.

The appellate court dismissed.

Thus, the instant petition which must necessarily fail.

Primarily, it is a well-settled principle that mandamus lies to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to compel the performance of a discretionary duty, as in the case at bar (Knecht vs. Desierto, 291 SCRA 292 [1998]). Here, the municipal trial court has no imperative and ministerial duty to grant petitioner's motion. Too, the order denying the motion is merely interlocutory and may later be reconsidered.

Secondarily, the appellate court is correct in its observation that petitioner violated the hierarchy of courts for he was not without recourse in presenting the subject petition to the proper regional trial court. While Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure vests on the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Regional Trial Courts original concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus, this concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitioners 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 (Fortich vs. Corona, 289 SCRA 624 [1998]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE